Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, October 27, 2016

In a sane world, the 2016 presidential election campaign would begin about this time next year. However, the political infotainment wing of our esteemed national news media seems intent upon starting the contest ever earlier — whether voters like it or not. TV ratings and enhanced career opportunities depend upon it.

Unfortunately, Dan Merica, a CNN producer who followed Hillary Clinton to South Carolina, appears to have mislaid the script. Instead of shouting rude questions, Merica sought out an ordinary voter Clinton had chatted up in a bake shop. What had they talked about?

As it happened, they had discussed Corinthians 13: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.”

A Baptist minister, Rev. Frederick Donnie Hunt had been sitting in a Columbia, South Carolina bakery reading his Bible when Clinton stopped by. “I was impressed and glad that she knew the Scripture that I was reading and studying…,” Hunt said. “It impressed me that someone running for president has that background. It is important to me that we have a president that has some belief.”

Rev. Hunt, who voted for Obama in 2008, now plans to support Clinton. “God bless you,” he told the candidate as she got up to leave.

Make of it what you will. But if you’re like me, you learned something interesting from the CNN story. Too many like it, however, and Merica’s career in Washington could be endangered.

According to a recent “political memo” by Jason Horowitz in The New York Times, Clinton’s Democratic rivals have no realistic chance. “That leaves the news media,” he opines, “as her only real opponent so far on the way to the Democratic presidential nomination.”

Well, it does have the virtue of honesty.

To be fair, Horowitz’s point is that the press clique has grown so hostile that “it makes all the political sense in the world for Mrs. Clinton to ignore them.”

He describes scenes in which reporters, bored and angered by Clinton’s strategy of traveling around and talking with nobodies like Rev. Hunt, have treated her rare press availabilities as virtual bear-baiting exercises, shouting questions of the when-did-you-stop-looting-your-foundation? kind, questions she “obfuscated…with ease,” according to Horowitz.

He provides no examples though. Readers have to take his word for it. In this carnival-like atmosphere, he adds, “it is not clear what Mrs. Clinton gains politically from playing the freak.”


Prompted by reader outrage, Times public editor Margaret Sullivan expressed chagrin at her newspaper’s “sometimes-fawning, sometimes-derisive tone in stories about Mrs. Clinton,” particularly that last “startling line.”

Times editors were characteristically dismissive, arguing readers had misunderstood the author’s meaning — as if it were a T.S. Eliot poem rather than a newspaper story. Believe me, I’ve been there. No matter how dead to rights you’ve got them, they’re The New York Times, and you’re not. It’s like arguing with a bishop.

A reader comment by Paul Goode of Richmond put everything in perspective: “It’s never a good strategy to patronize readers. And don’t make it worse by peddling self-interest as a profile in courage. The Horowitz piece was not only invidious; it was a not-so-veiled threat about what Ms. Clinton can expect if she doesn’t get in line.”

“Can expect”? How Clinton handles the never-ending barrage of gossip and contumely directed against her and Bill Clinton by the Washington media clique could decide the 2016 election. The Times itself, Bob Somerby notes, has all but openly declared war, and The Washington Post isn’t far behind.

Last Sunday the Times printed a 2,200-word opus by Deborah Sontag about Bill Clinton’s appearance at a fundraiser for Czech model Petra Němcová’s Happy Hearts Fund; the piece must have set a world record for fact-free insinuation.

A one-time Sports Illustrated cover girl, Němcová started her charity, which supports Third World kindergartens, after a near-death experience in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Clinton spoke at Němcová’s event in exchange for a $500,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation, which was to be spent on a joint project building schools in Haiti.

Since Němcová doubtless looks a lot better in a bathing suit than anybody in the Times’ Washington bureau, you can probably guess what the insinuations were. Sontag even found a Columbia professor who pronounced the event “distasteful,” without saying why.

Forgetting about Ronald Reagan’s $2 million speaking fees, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus (a Hillary Clinton fan, she claims) nevertheless uses the Yiddish word chazer to describe her. “It means ‘pig,’” she explains, “but has a specific connotation of piggishness and gluttony. This is a chronic affliction of the Clintons.”

This is what Clinton is up against. Her opponents could call for abolishing Social Security and appointing Jim Bob Duggar to the Supreme Court, and the character assassination would never end. Everybody knows the script: “Hillary’s what my sainted mother would have called a false article, insincere, untrustworthy, out for herself and nobody else. She thinks she’s better than you.”

Anyway, people always say they hate this stuff, but then they pass it on.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The National Memo
  • charleo1

    There are several excellent reasons Hillary is not giving the press, and her Republican opponents everything they want. And none of them need have a thing to do with hiding anything. First, very important: She’s already famous. Her opponents, not so much, if at all. Their number one reason, some of them, the only reason they are pretending to run for President, is to get famous. Or, sell a book, increase their speaking fees, or enhance their political prospects in a later election. Second, if one were just listening to her competition, or the frantic press, one might think the election were being held next week, not a year and a half from now. Thirdly, the press wants a contest already! They want her, and a Republican firebrand running neck, and neck. Preferably both with potentially career ending scandals chasing them. And an enthralled public clambering for the next article news program, or opinion piece. And yes, they the press would turn the process by which Americans choose the person for the highest office into The Jerry Springer Show. With appropriate apologies to Jerry, and his guests, of course.

  • Theodora30

    To be fair, Reagan got $2 million for two speeches and he did not use that money to help the world’s riffraff.

    • Dominick Vila

      No, he didn’t. He pocketed the proceeds, which is the GOP way of doing business. I am not sure I would characterize the victims of a devastating hurricane in Haiti, people suffering from famine, lack of potable water, no access to education, and those suffering from debilitating diseases without the financial or medical means to fight them and survive, as riffraff.
      Hopefully your comment was an attempt at sarcasm which, considering the circumstances, would be appropriate.

      • Theodora30

        They are riffraff in the eyes of right wingers – part of the “takers” to use Romney’s words.

        • Dominick Vila

          I should have guessed, from previous posts, that your comment was a sarcastic reference to Republican “values”.

  • Dominick Vila

    What comes to mind when I read articles like this, or when I listen to the news, is the emphasis on sensationalism to get the ratings needed to survive in the cut throat world of journalism, especially TV. We never hear about mainstream people working, paying taxes, raising their kids, and doing yard work, like most Americans do. The focus is on gun violence, sex, dire predictions of Armageddon, and the use of negativism to keep their audience engaged and entertained.
    Some politicians understand the strategy used by the so-called liberal media – which is anything but liberal – and try to use it to their advantage by feeding them the garbage they want to hear. An exchange between Hillary Clinton and Rev. Hunt at a Bagel place is the last thing the media wants to hear. Not so much because it highlights the fact that Hillary is a religious person with a sense of morality that contrasts with the unsubstantiated claims we hear every single day, but because situations like that do not sell, only elicit a yawn, and impact the goal of high TV ratings.
    What is being discussed is not whether or not Hillary should respond to every accusation directed at her by those who have nothing to offer but scandalous – libelous – claims, but the state of what passes for journalism in America.

    • The lucky one

      Agree with you except for “Hillary is a religious person with a sense of morality”. I see no evidence of moral behavior from Clinton and attending a church or even familiarity with the Christian bible is not evidence of a morally courageous religious person.

  • FT66

    I don’t understand the role of journalists nowadays? Is it about going after the candidates, dig out all the past dirties and inform the people. What does that help any normal voter? Is that what voters asked them to do or want to know? The way I see it, it is better not having any journalist around candidates. Let candidates explain themselves during rallies & debates and voters can take it from there. Digging for dirties and NOT digging for good work and intentions of candidates, doesn’t make any good reporting. With sorrows I have to write: journalists nowadays are good for NOTHING.

    • Dominick Vila

      IMHO, journalists should focus on the truth, report information based on verifiable facts, and contribute to a forum conducive to relevant dialogue on issues important to mainstream Americans.

      • whodatbob

        Excellent thought! Seems the type journalist you, as I and most seniors, prefer are not entertainers. Radio and TV news is now entertainment! Such a wast.

    • Camille Mitchell

      I agree totally with FT66 comments. I had the same thoughts; however, I could not have said it better. FT66, thank you!

    • The lucky one

      True of most journalists, no doubt, though there are exceptions like Greg Palast. A big reason is the control of the major media outlets by right wingers but the appetite of the American public for personality and soap opera is possibly an even bigger reason. Most will not spend the time and effort it takes to gather info, think about it and discuss it in an open manner, not only with those of similar outlook but also with those who perceive differently.

    • rog363

      I have to agree with you, up to a point. I believe every candidate, who wants to be MY leader or the leader of my country, should have no secrets. You want to be my leader then your life should be an open book and both your good points and you bad points should be aired to the public, and then I will make a decision as to whether you are good enough or sincere enough to be MY leader. To damned many Americans just vote the party line regardless of who the candidate may be and, as far as I’m concerned, this is entirely the wrong way to pick and choose a leader. We have no one but ourselves to blame if a candidate we elected turns out to be bad for OUR and OUR countries good. The American voter has to begin, not so much believing what a candidate is saying, when addressing the populace, they must begin learning all they can about a candidate before the election comes to pass. In my seventy plus years of living, I have yet to hear one candidate speak the absolute truth when giving a speech, even though it is a recorded event they will some how either deny saying it or use the terminology “That is not what I meant, your misinterpreting what I said”. My advise to any one voting is to ask yourself, is this who I want as my leader, do I really know all I need to know about this person to give them my vote of confidence? We begin doing this and we may once again become the country most of the countries of the world respected and revered.

      • FT66

        Good to know that you are more than 70 years, therefore you are aware that it is not the first time Hillary in jumping onto this presidential bid. In 2008, it seems it wasn’t an issue for Hillary to be an open book. This time is the big issue for you. I don’t know which Party you belong, BUT I do sense if you are a republican, it is all about pulling Hillary down as she shows to be a big threat to GOP. Clinton Foundation was already in place in 2008 and no one brought this issue up. E-mails are about recording. If there were no proper recording in past admin and everyone accepted it, why is it important now if not only going after Hillary. I can assure you, the more Hillary is attacked on these issues, the more you make her supporters stick tightly together. She is going to win because of some like you who don’t have any know-how of handling her.

        • rog363

          I am, for one, glad you feel that way because as an American it is about choice but you must choose those that are there to support all, not just the few. Yes, this time it is a big issue with me, as it should be for any true patriot, and as to your statement about it not being a big issue when she was running before , your right, it wasn’t, because anyone with half a brain would have realized she didn’t have a chance, the Democrats wanted Obama to be the candidate, the first black man to be elected, that worked out really good for America, didn’t it? Racial tensions seem to have reverted back to what they were in the sixties because of this man in office, and we are now being laughed at be those who at one time respected us. Were you around in the sixties, I kind of doubt it, because if you were you would understand more about what I am talking about. I would not vote for Obama when he was the Democrats choice because I, like all voters should, studied the candidate, who he was, who his mentors were, what his beliefs were and what he truly believed for America. If the people had done as they were supposed to do, learn everything they can abut a candidate before making him or her their leader, I believe things may have worked out a bit differently, but no, to many die hard Democrats and low information voters elected to believe what he was saying, not who he really was. I will say to you what I have said many times in the past, “We have no one but ourselves to blame, if things do not go as we would like to see them go” Think about it and try to vote with your head, not your heart because we are supposed to elect people we know everything about, electing a person to be OUR leader is a tremendous responsibility and to vote for anyone, be they Republican or Democrat, because of what they are saying in their speeches, is exactly what the candidates want. They want to be in charge of us and will say whatever it takes to get the power they want. It is up to us to choose correctly.

          • FT66

            Sorry, my time is so limited I have to deal with other pressing issues. I have read only the first two sentences and the last one of your comment. Anyone with an ounce of brain, will understand vividly what is your intentions on Hillary. All the best, if at all you will be able to succeed.

          • rog363

            I understand where you’re coming from, before I retired my time was also limited but I’ve been retired for over ten years now and I have the time to study not only the candidates but also the issues. I wish I had the time over the years when I was working to spend studying the candidates and the issues more thoroughly, I may have then voted differently a few times.

          • Sand_Cat

            The “racial tensions” you mention were the creation of the GOP, not Obama. You have one HELL of a nerve and an incredible shortage of facts to claim otherwise.

          • rog363

            It is because of people like you, low information voters, that America is in the condition it’s now in. You have a HELL of a lot of nerve telling me I have an incredible shortage of facts when the facts show that the Republican party or the GOP as you call them wanted slavery abolished but the then Democratic party wanted slavery, therefore we had the Civil War. Tell me in your ultimate wisdom where the GOP is creating Racial tensions, name me one incident since Obama took office where those that were rioting and destroying their neighbors property and businesses had a legal right to do what they were doing, better yet, tell me how the GOP caused it. Look up a few facts yourself, Sand Cat, and just maybe, I seriously doubt it but maybe you will see that more blacks are killed by other blacks in Chicago, in the course of one year, then all the blacks killed by the police in the whole country during the same time period. When the facts point toward the Democrats wanting the American citizen to become wholly dependent on the government, a government run by the Democrats. That as far as I and any other patriotic American understand is just one more form of slavery. America offers one the opportunity to be dependent on themselves. We were never to be a nation where the people were dependent on the government. One more thing, I watched, as I’m sure most Americans did, the riots that were taking place in the city of Baltimore, a city under Democratic rule for many, many, years now and the only thing positive I took away from it was the mother who showed up and on national TV showed the whole world how a situation such as that should be handled, by physically making her son quit acting like a THUG. My question to you is where in the hell were the rest of those children’s parents?

          • Sand_Cat

            Another lying sack of dung pointing out that over 100 years ago the Democratic party supported slavery, as if this had any relevance. I’m tired of arguing with idiots; go stick your head back up your rectum and argue with that.

          • rog363

            Your really showing your stupidity now Sand Cat. You can not come up with an answer to any questions so you of course revert back to what you seem to do best, skirt the issue with utter nonsense. I really love that you call all who present you with indisputable, facts lying sacks of dung, it shows everyone who follow these posts, the type of person you are.

          • dpaano

            Talk about low-information voters….you’re one yourself! Please don’t generalize that those of us who voted for President Obama are low-information voters… me, I’m sure many, many, many of us are not. I think that we made the right vote and for the right candidate! But, apparently, despite all your so-called research, you still haven’t figured out that President Obama has done more for this country than the last couple of presidents (GWHB, GWB, and Ronnie)! Talk about being a low-information voter….might want to look in as mirror! You, my friend, have a HELL of a nerve!

          • dpaano

            I think our president has done a spectacular job despite having the GOP against him from Day 1! They weren’t even about to give him a chance…..they vowed to make him a one-term president immediately! How fair is that? Even with their blockages, he’s managed to do a great job and a lot of people agree. By the way, I voted for President Obama, and I’m NOT a low-information voter. I do a lot of research into the candidates that I vote for, and I think a lot of others do the same, so for you to call us “low information” voters is BS! As for voting for our leader, there isn’t a GOP candidate that I would even consider voting for!!!

        • mike

          Get the facts straight,

          The Clinton’s ignored the agreement with Obama.

          2008 and 2009 new regulations were put into place to control the recording of emails, Hillary ignored them and used her own server and personal emails.
          Then she had a press conference and lied.
          She won’t answer the questions, she is her own worst enemy on this subject. Americans see her for what she is, a liar.

      • charleo1

        It seems to me, if we want the best and brightest to offer to lead the Country. The last thing we should demand is that they open up, and lay themselves bare to a prurient public to every single thing about their private, and personal, lives. In fact, this is probably one of the reasons we get the caliber of candidates we sometimes do. What are we electing, a President, or a Pope? It becomes a question, what successful person in their right mind would subject themselves, and their families to the kind of nuttiness that running for, or being in political office has become? For a job that pays comparatively almost nothing. And, if you’re particularly successful, you get to become the punching bag for not only the political opposition, and the lobby you just pi$$ed off, but the press, and their tabloid cousins, that will be constantly peeking over your backyard fence, talking to ex lovers, ex business partners, former school mates, and, or, just making sh*t up. But who among us is without sin? The Sister or Monk who’s spent the last 30 years secluded away in a Swiss Monastery somewhere? Perhaps. But what could they be expected to know about us, our concerns, or our lives?

        • rog363

          Sorry Charleo, I stand by what I said “You want to be my leader then your life should be an open book and both your good points and you bad points should be aired to the public, and then I will make a decision as to whether you are good enough or sincere enough to be MY leader. I consider my self intelligent enough to select a candidate to be my leader after I learn all I must about them. you also said something Charleo, that I believe you should try answering yourself and that is “It becomes a question, what successful person in their right mind would subject themselves, and their families to the kind of nuttiness that running for, or being in political office has become? When you answer that question maybe you will then understand about those that seek a career in the political field.

          • Mostly for money. perks, lifetime coddling and if their really lucky, inside speculative information that will make them wealthy.. THAT’S what the ‘ruling’ politicians are today and nothing more and for those who wish to make change and progress, well their placed in quiet closets and padded rooms.. given nonsensical duties that will assuredly make them a one term mistake. People have been convinced that Sanders will never become president much less be nominated but who is saying this? The same ones who think THEY are entitled to be president, the ones that half the nation spits on.. yeah, them.. they’re the ones who are convincing the lunkheaded voter that socialism is a dirty word and the capitalist way is the AMERICAN way! Look what it’s done for us recently.. The rich get richer and the rest keep contributing toward their wealth and THAT’S the true capitalist way. People knew Truman would lose his bid for president over a mediocre Coolidge, even the press declared him a loser yet the people refused to listen to the rumors and blew off the press and in it’s wake, Truman came out the victor over the manipulative odds.. In politics anything is possible if left solely up to the voter.

      • But it ISN’T the responsibility of the voter to make sure a candidate is worthy to lead, it’s the candidates responsibility to prove himself.. Look at the way things are going right now, someon(s) [and we know basically who] is manipulating industry so that more people can not become workers.. Making skeleton crews work 10 – 12 – 14 hours a day to get the products out that three 8 hour shifts could do is a perfect example. Work the ones who are lucky enough to have a job so many hours that they can’t take the time to investigate any candidates record (their too damned tired and leisure time is no longer a reality when you must sleep off a 14 hour day). In the mean time the candidates sate the well to do with more promises of entitlements and for the rest, concentrate on how bad the other guy is instead of showing their dirty laundry making it what it has been since saint Raygun, “The lesser of two evils”. All these rodeo clowns have to do is present their credentials, their record of past failures and successes then declare a platform that hinges on reality, not hope.. Not ‘what YOU want to hear’ and stick with it whether they succeed through the bickering and self-interest money bags and bought politicians or not, stick with the promises.. Period! Leave the dirt and mud for the media to discover then make THEM prove their accusations with facts instead of hiring talking heads who don’t give squat whether it’s true or not. That’s all that’s needed.. Why put the burden of discovering a candidate’s character and past deals on citizens shoulders when they should concentrate on and sell themselves to the voter with proof rather than trying to make their opposing challenger seem more corrupt than them? We didn’t find out what Ricky boy was doing behind our backs from an opposing politician, we found out from advocates who discovered proof and the media who rode it like a bar room bull (what else could they do? they have to edge truth in sometimes). People (the commoners like all of us) blame one woman for the Benghazi tragedy instead of looking into the other 5000+ empty suites who are supposedly our leaders and who have just as much to do with the responsibility of blame as well but because a few gave the impression that it was ‘THAT WOMAN’ who murdered four patriots, well the fringes fell for it like fried ice cream and the extremists wanted perfection from what they call an imperfect g’ment in all other situations.

      • dpaano

        Unfortunately, Rog, most people only read the newspapers and believe everything that’s said….they don’t have the energy to dig into the real truth about a candidate or research the candidate. It’s sad! In the past, I’ve voted both Republican and Democrat…but it has always depended on the candidate and NOT on the party. Lately, however, I haven’t seen a GOP candidate that I would nominate for trash collector (not meaning anything bad about trash collectors).

    • dpaano

      I don’t think they understand their roles either? What ever happened to the honest journalists or people Cronkite, etc. THOSE were real journalists! They did their due diligence before publishing anything or putting anything out on the air that may be incorrect. Nowadays, journalists don’t even bother to research their information….they just throw it into the paper and hope it sticks with someone! Generally, that “someone” is the uinformed, unread, sometimes reader, of the newspaper, etc. To these so-called journalists, any lie is a good one if you get someone to believe it!
      I’d like to see REAL journalists do their jobs….research each candidate, give us the pros and cons, and then let us make our decision. They spend more time trying to dig up “dirt” than they do with trying to actually educate people about each individual candidate!

  • FT66

    No one should declare a person is untrustworthy/not honest until and unless there is a pattern of that particular person, for quite a period of time, has involved in wrong-doing. It has to be more than three times or more of wrong-doing. I don’t get it when I read some polls, pollesters asking people if they trust the candidate. On what ground????

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    The real WAR going on at the moment? Gender supremacy. There are some men in this country who would don armor and chain metal, arm themselves to the teeth rather than see any woman become President of the US.

    The truth about these male supremacists is that for so many centuries now they have had major domo domain over all life on planet earth and now are threatened by women who have too much independence emotionally, financially and educationally.

    Rather than rationalize through the prism of personhood, they cling like vines to masculinity as their badge of validity for their existence in a dual gendered world.

    It should surprise no one that the NY Times would be sucking up to their billionaire media moguls rather than buck their dominating natures. Cowards do that.

    That a single 5 foot four inch woman with decades of experience in and around the political arena should be such a morbid threat to these domineering old coots is a laugh.

    What really is their fear? That women will refuse to be “gamers” like men who have been playing to an all male audience for generations? Or is the fear more of losing their so-called “MANhood” should women become equal in business, government and life in general? So much for the men who mouth the words of agreement in womens’ equality in one breath and play their back room games in the next.

    Women are acutely aware of just why these bulls hate Hillary. She dares to stand toe to toe with them and refuses to back down when they try to play their Mr. MAN games. She has only to watch them stew in their own juices and laugh up her sleeve at their silly little boy games.

    • marriea

      Me thinks you are correct!!!!.

    • 788eddie

      Well said, Eleanor!

      Thank you!

    • Louis Allen

      Crazy as ever, I see.
      HilLIARy does not deserve to be President, Ellie.
      But you would vote for her only because she is a woman.

      • Sand_Cat

        Why does she not “deserve” it? Let’s have SPECIFIC FACTS, not a lot of made-up GOP lies and media sensationalizing. Are your reasons for your opinion any better than those you attribute to Ms Whitaker? Do you think George Bush (either one) “deserved” to be president?
        I am not a fan of political dynasties, plus – despite all the right-wing hysteria – I believe Ms Clinton is a LOT closer to the way Republicans used to be before they all went crazy than she is to the real reformer we need, but when compared to the idiots, lunatics, and villains put forward by the GOP, she looks like a leader anointed by the gods. I like Bernie Sanders better – much better – but all I can see is his spending 4-8 miserable years in the White house getting even less support and cooperation from either side of the aisle in Congress than Obama, assuming the very unlikely prospect of his winning.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    Americans today must face the fact that journalists are not journalists but scandal mongers paid to do the bidding of their media publishing owners. And who are the top 5 media billionaires? ALL MEN…Murdoch, Charles and David Kock, Zuckerberg, Turner and more recently Adelson. These old coot control freaks are long past their sell by date and just can’t abide the idea they are has beens who are out of touch with today’s younger generations.

    Only a fool pays any attention to the prattle these old coots demand be published. It’s tantamount to a subtle kind of indoctrination and all they had to do was take major domain over the biggest media outlets in the country.

    Power boys…power boys…power boys. Having played every skanky game in the book, these power boys earned their billions through lies, deceptions and exploitation in the form of scandal mongering. Money wasn’t enough…now, they want our brains too.

  • browninghipower

    Great column from Gene. But I worry that the major flow in Hillary’s rope-a-dope strategy is that she is allowing both the savages in the DC press and the scum in the top to define her. And there will come a point at which she may not be able to effectively return fire. I don’t know. I do know that I do not trust the American voter.

    • etherbunny

      Our ‘media’ isn’t all that great, either.

  • richdoll

    i don’t care If the candidate republican or democrat female are things going on in Hillaryworld that she refuses to answer. the left sites call it attacks & sugarcoat it stating there no there. want to know I don’t what to hear that, explain it we don’t know. AA are angry w her for nasty treatment of Obama during the 08 campaign. the disrespect of her followers declaring ready for hillary2016 prior to Obama being sworn in after his second win didn’t sit well. so now she want to be coroneted mimicking warrens words w/o a real platform of her own, scripted phony entitled to be the nominee by the democratic party you don’t have a choice so why bother voting they have already selected many people feel this way

    • jmprint

      Now that’s a wrong attitude.

      • drdroad

        And pretty much unreadable.

  • Darsan54

    I can remember a time when the press had creditability and when they said something was suspicious, people actually looked into it. But with the advent of Drudge and FOX, news media are only chasing audiences, trying to build creditability thru quantity. Bill O’Reilly frequently claims his creditability comes from the number of viewers he enjoys. But pornography has much higher numbers than him, so we should adopt the philosophies we find there?

    I feel sorry for Hilary because when she declared, we knew there was a s**t-storm coming. Undeserved and unwarranted, the journalists have become honorless and lemmings*. *an insult to actual lemmings which have a purpose in the universe.

  • pattreid

    Is this any worse (or better) than the dismissing of Bernie Sanders as “not a serious candidate”, or “unable to win” at every mention of his name? They don’t do that to the REAL losers on the right (Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Donald Trump???), so why do it with Bernie? I’m sick and tired of media telling us who to vote for, who can win. I’m an intelligent and well-read person, I think I’m capable of making an informed decision. Leave the programming of the voter to Fox, leave the thinking people alone. Just give us facts and unbiased information. It seems there is no “news” or “reporting” anymore, just opinion pieces. I’m really fed up with it.

    • The_real_teabagger_jesus

      bernie has no chance to win.. he’s a declared socialist.. pretend yo have a brain..

      • pattreid

        Says the Faux News aficionado. Sanders is a Social Democrat running as a Dem. You have no need to pretend you have a brain. Your lack thereof is obvious.
        Learn about that which you hate. If would serve you well. At least it would help you appear less ignorant.

        • dpaano

          A little socialism in this country is a GOOD thing!

      • charleo1

        Let’s have a brain shall we? And not let someone else demonize a good man with a word. Bernie is a Democratic Socialist. We should remind ourselves that both Winston Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher were great leaders, and Democratic Socialists. And also remember, it has been the same Darwinian Right Wingers, and their wealth worshiping, politician corrupting heroes flying the flag of unfettered, deregulated, Capitalism that have demonized the word. That have also managed by their incompetence, or greed, to impoverish millions by running the World economy in the ditch twice now. And we should take note, it took a visionary, “Socialist leaning,” FDR, to save their bacon. And the policies, and programs he put into place almost 80 years ago, that kept the last great recession, from turning into 1929 all over again. And Jesus was no Tea Bagger, my friend, if that was your intent to imply. Jesus was a giver, not a taker. Not a hater, fear monger, a war maker, bottom liner, or an enabler of any such. Not a advocate for the survival of the fittest, but a Prophet proclaiming that the meek, not the strong, not the militarist, and certainly not the rich, shall inherit the Earth.

    • Lordwhorfin

      It’s only worse in the sense that The Times has been doing this to Hilary Clinton since 1991. They are pathological on this point, and cannot admit it. From Gerth to Marcus, it’s amazingly sleazy and specific. It’s really more about terrible journalistic ethics than it is about anything else.

    • dpaano

      I kinda agree…I get so mad at my local papers. Just before an election, they post a list of the candidates and THEIR choices of who to vote for. People who aren’t as well-read as we are often just take the newspaper to the polls with them and vote as they’re told. Unfortunately, most newspapers are owned by conservatives…so who do you think they’ll “push” for nominations?? I get really tired of it, and I let my paper know that I think it’s as bad as my pastor pushing a particular candidate (stopped going to one great church just for that reason alone)! Newspapers, like church, are supposed to be (or should be) non-partisan!

  • The_real_teabagger_jesus

    Great article.. thank you.. now spread it around and post it a thousand times everywhere.. I ‘m sick of the media lynching Hillary with slippery wording and carefully chosen innuendo so not to draw a lawsuit for their intent.

    stupid voters.. and there’s lots of stupid people out there.. easily fall for the innuendo and don’t get how they are being duped.

    • dpaano

      As I’ve said many times before, the GOP use lies and scare tactics to keep their base in line…..the more lies they can make up about Hillary, the happier they are. It doesn’t matter if the lies are lies and can be proven as such….their followers will only believe what they read in their conservative rags!

  • The_real_teabagger_jesus

    Hillary is the most.. MOST qualified person to be president out of any of them.. kasich may give her a run for the money but no one else.. she knows her way around the politics of washington.. she has many yrs exp dealing with national and international politicians.. she’s an intellect.. she’s strong and smart .. people don’t get it.. this is not a fluff job..

    • dpaano

      And, she’s also got a good soundboard with her husband….he was one of the good ones as far as presidents go!!! I’m sure his advice would be there if she needed it.

  • KarenSez

    What can be done about the New York Times/Washington Post cartel? Seriously, what?

    • dpaano

      Shoot the owners?? Just thinking……

  • etherbunny

    Wish the good Reverend had asked her about TPP, or nuclear arms.

  • Justin Napolitano

    The easiest way to stop the Times is don’t buy their shi*.
    Newspapers are disappearing so the times should hurry up and disappear.

  • Molly Ivins said it best WRT the Villagers’ attitude towards the Clintons:

    — Watching some dipstick the other day on Fox News carry on with great
    certainty about Hillary Clinton and her evil motives — and I don’t
    think this guy actually spends a lot of time tete a tete with Mrs.
    Clinton while she reveals her deepest thoughts to him — I wondered,
    “Lord, when are these people going to get over it?”

    — I think the answer is never, because most people have a very hard time forgiving those whom they have deeply wronged.

    — I know that’s sort of counterintuitive, but think about some of the bad
    divorces you have known. When we have done something terrible to
    someone, we often need to twist it around so it’s their fault, not ours.

  • dpaano

    IF they spent as much time maligning the Republican “clown” candidates as they do Hillary, they’d find LOTS to write about, but as long as our media owned by conservatives, you won’t hear anything bad about THEIR candidates, but they’ll find lie after lie to make up about Hillary!! She’s still got them beat by a mile!