Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Wednesday, September 14, 2016

1988...1994...2000...2004...2008 (the primary)...

It's happening again. God, I cannot STAND this. It's happening again!

You can always tell when the media has decided on who will win and who will lose. Hillary Clinton is now in a position where she literally cannot sneeze without sending journalists and the pubic into a frenzy.

Colin Powell's emails castigate Hillary for "hubris." Hubris? Her only act of hubris is thinking that a woman can run the country better than a man.

Yet here we are. We live in a country that considers Donald Fucking Trump, the ultimate egomaniac, to be freer of hubris than is a public servant like Hillary Clinton.

We live in a country that considers Hillary Clinton a conspiratorial fiend willing to lie and cheat her way into high office, even though Donald Trump's best friend is Roger Stone -- Roy Cohn's student, Watergate alum, smear merchant, fear-monger, the man who gave you the Dubya presidency, the acknowledged master of conspiracy and dirty tricks.

We live in a country where the public mistrusts Hillary's basic honesty, even though Trump lies incessantly. Trump is still spreading the lie that the Clinton Foundation spends only ten percent of its income on charitable works -- a fib that began with Carly Fiorina, a fib which was exposed as a gross falsehood ages ago. Yet he keeps repeating it. And nobody calls him on it. Nobody cares.

Now imagine how the press would react if Hillary said anything about Trump that could not be proven with courtroom-quality evidence.

I don't see how she can win. Whenever a campaign enters the "walking on eggshells" phase, that campaign is doomed. CNN is already hinting that their upcoming special on presidential losers is really a kind of premature Hillary post-mortum.

All liberals will blame her. It won't be her fault -- not at all. But she will be blamed.
Comments:
Joseph,

I am extremely upset by how Clinton is portrayed in the media and I've been panicking about it since this health issue came up on 9/11. I've been waiting for Eichenwald's Washington Post article to be commented on in the NY Tines to no avail. The Washngton Post had an article on Corey Lewandowski's reaction to that article, but no direct reporting on the article itself and Eichenwald's research. In general, the media is reporting Colin Powell's emails and there is some reporting on the Trump Foundation story. So I've been looking at what it would mean if Clinton loses with the help of the media, and the only conclusion I've come to is not pretty--that we've already lost our country to those who control the money that runs the media and politics and it may be too late to change that. That is such a depressing view that I don't believe that yet, but I am considering it. I still believe she will win, but if she does not and Trump gets to be Trump, we are headed into a very bad time.
 
you are correct that Trump will win. However she has obfuscated some-i think you have blinders on that.

Your going to be secretary of state. How can you assume you will NEVER have to send or receive a classified email. I know she's not stupid so only one assumption left
by putting ALL emails on private server she zapped herself.

And then she kept lying about it,changing the story,and lying again. Swing voters look askance at that.
 
The Democratic establishment deserves the lion's share of the blame.

This could have been a pivotal election for progressives, but the DNC was singularly focused on electing America's first woman president.
 
Dark days. The race is a toss-up, and the momentum has shifted to Trump. He's done everything a politician shouldn't do, to the point of self-parody, and nothing matters. Total nihilism. I think to Nietzsche's Last Man. The question we have to answer now is what happens when he wins. Is it a lame-duck presidency like Bush's before 9/11? Or is it something epochal and evil?

-Pe
 
Michael, the DNC...? Are you out of your mind?

SHE WAS ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR POLITICIANS IN AMERICA. Before the beginning of election season, she had a 65 percent approval rating.

She did nothing wrong. She is, in many ways, a superb candidate -- qualified, intelligent, experienced, nuanced, honest and transparent.

She and her husband have been the victims of the worst smear job in American history. The media and what I call the asshole wing of progressivism were the willing collaborators of GOP operatives, exactly as was the case in 2000. THAT is the sum total of what happened.

For chrissakes -- they actually made people think that Hillary and Bill were scoundrels for running perhaps the finest charity in the world! THAT is a SMEAR. Anyone who can't understand that basic point, anyone who somehow contrives to blame Hillary, is a total idiot.
 
Joseph, could you just do us all a favour and block the anti-Hillary idiots who come like flies to shit? There's enough of them all around. I'm not saying you should turn this into a "safe space," but I /kinda/ am.

-Pe
 
Everybody is in denial but it is SEXISM that is driving the hate.

She will win, make no mistake about it, but the sexism is VILE.
 
The sexism is indeed vile, susan. You're right about it. But I think you're ignoring the larger issue. Think of the massive political change this country underwent in 1994: Was sexism to blame? Think of the smears against Al Gore in 2000: Sexism?

I honestly believe that if a male named Clinton were running again, things would be ALMOST as bad.

An even greater problem is what I call "conspiracy culture." If any publication defends Hillary against the smears, millions presume that publication to be part of the Great Clinton Conspiracy that supposedly runs the world.
 
I'm an "anti-Hillary idiot". In the primaries, I preferred Sanders. I didn't appreciate being called a "bro'" but I toughened up and chose not to take offense. This website among many strongly suggested that Sanders as a socialist couldn't win because America would never vote for a socialist. I'm not American and I am a European socialist so I defer to the judgement of those who know better than me. But I never understood how the Dems could not find better candidates than those who stood. Whether it is sexism, or past propaganda or media bias, HRC was always going to be a weak candidate with independents, and she would always help republican turnout. It was definitely predictable. That Trump is the opposition should be guaranteeing a Dem win. So why did the party choose her? Was there really no one else? Was she the best candidate? Or does she and her support just have so much influence at the top of the party that no one with stature was prepared to run against?

I know everyone here will argue that she was the best candidate. But was there really no one other than Malloy and Sanders to stand against? What does that say about the Dems?

I think it obvious that the Dems have not been targeting left leaning independent voters. I think that was a mistake. And I think you needed a candidate who was not perceived as part of the status quo. Trump does have that going for him so all the anger votes are going to him.

Finally one can exaggerate the swing against HRC. To maximize media revenue you need a close race. Now that the gap had narrowed let the media spending frenzy commence! They will even up their coverage in the last few weeks to favor Hillary again, mark my words.

Of course this is all in my humble opinion. Feel free to tell me I'm am idiot but try and avoid telling me I'm in the pay off the Russians. I only wish I was in someone's pay.

Harry
 
Of course we will blame her. And, even more, the establishment that made sure she got nominated, because WOMAN! And the Hillbot bloggers who are still pissed that she wuz ROBBED of the nomination in 2008. By that slick black guy. And we'll blame the pundits who claimed that after 25 years she was battle-hardened and INVINCIBLE and anyway the RW can't find any more dirt on her. And the incumbant who said she was the smartest, most qualified candidate even though she keeps doing bull-headed, stupid things and having to apologize for them.

When she loses, we'll be plenty pissed and there will be of plenty blame to go around. If she should happen to win, we will breathe a sigh of relief but there won't be any joy in it because we know that she's NOT a liberal and there won't be any great change coming. She's a centrist and an incrementalist. She has platitudes, not vision. She doesn't take a breath without triangulating and poll-testing it with those swing voters who are also centrist and fearful of change. And she's a control freak who knows better than we what's good for us - and her friends on Wall Street.

God help us either way.

 
It's funny, no one trusts the media, yet they are more than happy to swallow all the bashing of Hillary, while still oddly using terms like "Clinton News Network". The vast majority of the MSM is obviously doing all it can to help Trump, and it seems to be working better than anyone could have imagined. I was firmly against Clinton going into the primaries, and even after they were over, but now I'm seeing what Joseph pointed out previously......the "establishment" is making every effort to see that she looses. It seems to be working. I still don't think she's a great candidate and still have issues with her, but I don't feel as bad about having to vote for her to keep the angry orange out of the White House. The media is all Trump, all the time, and he obviously can do no wrong with his supporters either.

"gerry" above is a great example. He seems completely unaware that Hillary, did, in fact use State Department official email for classified information. Three lousy emails, improperly marked with classification symbols in the body, but not the header, that even the FBI (who was obviously out to get her) admitted any reasonable person familiar with classification protocols (like Clinton) could honestly assume that those classifications were in error. Which, in fact, they were. Yet people still think she lied, or obfuscated, or whatever despite the firmly Republican head of the FBI flat out saying she told the truth about all of it.

This is why I don't watch MSM "news" anymore, or read their crap online (unless Joe, another blogger I trust, or a friend directs me to specific articles).
 
Trump's performance when he got his medical papers out for Mehmet Oz looked heavily influenced by wrestling. Crowds love this stuff.

Has Clinton reappeared yet?
 

The sexism is what's fueling Trump's army of the deplorable, along with a perceived loss of white male privilege and job insecurities. There have been a lot of examples of sexism in the media's coverage of Hillary, but it is definitely their hatred of both Clintons fueling them.

She will win and by a large margin IMO. We aren't that far gone, yet. But it is extremely disturbing Trump got this far.
 
"It's funny, no one trusts the media, yet they are more than happy to swallow all the bashing of Hillary, while still oddly using terms like "Clinton News Network"."

Precisely. That's the paradox which drives our national discussions of...everything.

"But I never understood how the Dems could not find better candidates than those who stood. Whether it is sexism, or past propaganda or media bias, HRC was always going to be a weak candidate with independents, and she would always help republican turnout."

Don't you understand? ANY candidate which poses is true threat is going to be hated the way the Clintons are hated. Therefore, the propaganda (and the special propaganda aimed at progressive purists) along with the increased Republican turnout are baked into the cake. Those things are the signifiers of a GOOD candidate; if they are not present, the candidate is just another empty suit.
 
The Stein and ultra Sanders supporters are eating up any bad news about Hillary Clinton. This would be landslide victory for Hillary Clinton if they didn't hold out delusional hopes about their candidate suddenly becoming the only alternative to Trump.
I think Hillary can win them back if she looks more athletic and in shape because a large portion of the Stein and Sanders supporters don't relate to Hillary's lack of physical fitness.
 
And Trump is so fit?
Come on. No one cares how fit a candidate is as long as they are not sickly.
Hillary has a lot of negatives but not being a skinny bitch is not one of them.
She could learn not to shout when giving a speech, she could learn to be a little more jovial, she could be more witty, or learn not to sound like a school teacher or parent telling you what's good for you. She could turn the tables on Trump by punching back every time he utters a lie or some incoherent policy.
But she doesn't need to be my "get fit guru".
M
 
Harry -
I agree with everything you say, and would add the following:

The Democratic Party establishment, i.e. the DNC, had decided that, after a black president, the next one must be a woman -- and Hillary was available. It wasn't a question of who was most qualified, or the most electable. The prime directive: "We elected a black president and that wasn't so hard. Now, put a woman in the job. It's time."

Some went even further. They felt Hillary was OWED the job, because the nomination was stolen from her in 2008 by way of Obama's dirty tricks.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?


























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind