• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Clear the air, take a deep…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Clear the air, take a deep…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Clear the air, take a deep…
    William on Clear the air, take a deep…
    William on The Uvalde shooter claims anot…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on I’m now a single issue voter:…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on I’m now a single issue voter:…
    William on I’m now a single issue voter:…
    William on I’m now a single issue voter:…
    darthvelma on I’m now a single issue voter:…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on I’m now a single issue voter:…
    jmac on I’m now a single issue voter:…
    riverdaughter on I’m now a single issue voter:…
    riverdaughter on I’m now a single issue voter:…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on I’m now a single issue voter:…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    October 2019
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread
      Use the comments to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts. Facebook Twitter WhatsApp LinkedIn
  • Top Posts

Brief observations, Hillary Clinton edition.

Hillary says Tulsi is a Russian asset who is being groomed to be a spoiler third party candidate.

Tulsi protests too much, methinks.

But oddly enough, there are a LOT of people who are siding with…

…wait for it…


The argument is that she’s been right about everything else and maybe she knows something we don’t.


Then yesterday, the State Department cleared her again on the email server thingy that will not die. Yep, it went through zillions of emails. No national security secrets were compromised.

Maggie Haberman announced that by twitter referencing the WaPo post. Then the NYTimes did it’s own post this morning.

In general, we’re seeing a lot fewer “Sit down and STFU, Hillary!” BS from the insidery punditry and stupid young journalists.

It’s almost like her reputation is being rehabilitated. That’s not a given. No one has to do this for her. So why now, three years into Trump’s term?

Maybe the powers that be have decided that they’ve gotten a whole lot out of the Republican Party and Trump and the country will struggle mightily to overcome the entrenched plutocracy going forward?

Maybe the sense is that the political vacuum that resulted in disrespecting Clinton and her 65000000 voters is counterproductive in times such as these?

Maybe the threat Trump poses to national security is alarming enough for journalists and other power brokers to finally break the glass and get Hillary on the rescue squad in some capacity?


Except that for Trump, it sure must feel like “the end is near”. Dogs and cats are actually living together.


Saw something earlier this morning about why a Mulvaney may still be working as acting chief of staff: he knows about all of the other stuff.

48 Responses

  1. She is powerful and aware of her power. She calculated this perfectly. She spoke this on a podcast and it became instantly amplified. Although she named Stein (good!) she did not mention Gabbard by name. The bots have been out in droves, which proves her point. And, now, we get to fully observe the various Democratic candidates. They are in for reckoning in how they respond, since Hillary commands the tremendous support and respect of millions and millions of Democratic voters.

  2. Gratifying but very depressing; the emails were the biggest red herring in our political history. And it could not have happened without the gleeful acquiescence of most of the media. The Republicans have pulled this before: Boston Harbor, Willie Horton, “I invented the internet,” fundraising at a Japanese temple, Kerry was a coward who deliberately shot himself in the foot, birtherism. But no one learned, or no one cared. They had no chance to beat Hillary unless they had a scandal. Benghazi didn’t work, so they made this one up. Instead of being dismissed, the media eagerly jumped on it. I would not watch, but apparently Andrea Mitchell talked about “Hillary’s emails” every day during the campaign. Trump is running, he knows nothing, his comments are inane; but, gee, Hillary’s emails. And now, why, it was all nothing! What a big surprise! I don’t know how anyone can get over this; it was so palpably contrived, so happily eaten up by 90% of the broadcast media and the New York Times. Eff you, Maggie Haberman (“Looky here, we have our advance copy of ‘Clinton Cash'”), and everyone else whose journalistic credibility is zero; who put their own weird personal hatred of Hillary Clinton above everything else, including the safety of the American nation.

  3. To continue, they’re doing this now because Hillary is not running, so is not a threat to whatever strange set of values they hold, those values apparently being headed by keeping her out of ever being President. They got everything they needed from it.

    We’re stuck with whichever candidate we get, one who very well could lose, thus insuring the demise of the country; one who is not close to as gifted and knowledgeable as Hillary.

    Of course Gabbard is a Russian asset. The media could have figured this out, if they cared to. I got into an argument with some Gabbard supporter three years ago when I told him what she was. Yang may not be a Russian asset, but he is a fool who somehow has this partnership with Gabbard. How is it that Yang keeps getting in the debates?

    And we know that if (she won’t) Hillary decided to run, the media would instantly revert to, “Why doesn’t she go away, she is going to lose ten straight elections for the Democrats, no one wants her; we want the plodding Biden or the fanciful Warren or someone else! We are the media! Actually, we want the re-rise of Romney, what a great story that would be!”

  4. William , did you listen to the podcast with Plouffe? I posted it below. She is fearless now, she doesn’t give a shit if the truth offends or angers.She said trump was illegitimate, she warned about the third party ploy, she called Stein a Russian asset, she warned about the money deficit the Dems are facing, reminded us that she was handed a bankrupt org when she finally won the nomination after Sanders dragged his feet. Shock and awe, she is on a mission. Please listen to it when you have the time.

    • Cats, I usually stay away from the Obama Boys, who act as if Obama’s elections made them geniuses. (And the media are indeed grateful to them for obtaining the result the media wanted, which was for Hillary to lose and Obama to win. The media recounts the story of 2008 daily, getting all the key facts wrong). I have a hard time telling them apart; I think that Plouffe is better than Favreau, and I do not like Axelrod. But if you recommend, I will give it a listen.

  5. Gabbard is a senior officer (O-4 and up) in the US military and therefore holds a security clearance. She’s a sitting member of the Armed Services Committee and therefore holds a security clearance. If Clinton actually has some evidence that Gabbard is a “Russian asset” she should take it to the appropriate military and civilian law enforcement authorities rather than slagging her on a freaking podcast.

    • She did not name Gabbard, but Gabbard took the bait.

    • As I saw someone pointing out on Twitter, an asset doesn’t have to be aware that he/she is being used. An agent does.

      Somebody’s fluffing her ego. She can’t win the election. All she can do is pull votes away from one of the other parties’ candidates. She seems fixated on the Democrats denying her right to run. How does that help Democrats?

      So, her motives are suspect. Could be she’s just another narcissist. You can be an unwitting pawn, malicious and a narcissist and still have a security clearance.

      • Of course she can’t win the election. She’s running for (at most) VP or (more likely) a cabinet post or just getting her name out there for (hopefully) 2028. I say “hopefully”, because I sincerely wish that 2024 will be a Democratic incumbent’s re-election campaign.

        I don’t think her motives are any more suspect than Beto’s, Booker’s, Harris’s, Mayor Pete’s, or any of the other 2nd-tier candidates (none of whom stands much chance of being elected this time around). I think everyone who is running (or has ever run, for that matter) has more than a trace of narcissism in his/her personality. I don’t think anyone who didn’t would be able to put him/herself through the whole campaign process.

        Yes, she’s made accusations about the DNC, accusations that are nothing new to readers of this very blog from 2008:

        [I]t compromised all that it claimed it believed. It set up a system that favored one outcome, allowed states to pay for sham primaries, duped voters into thinking their votes counted, reapportioned delegates to suit its needs, intimidated and harassed delegates. And all in the name of UNITY, which it most certainly did not get.

        – Riverdaughter, August 31, 2008

        And frankly, the DNC’s own attorney pretty much admitted to those accusations in open court in 2017:

        Here, you have something far more inchoate, your Honor, which is this purported — this claim that the party acted without evenhandedness and impartiality. That — even to define what constitutes evenhandedness and impartiality really would already drag the Court well into a political question and a question of how the party runs its own affairs.The party could have favored a candidate. I’ll put it that way. Maybe that’s a better way of answering your Honor’s original question. Even if it were true, that’s the business of the party, and it’s not justiciable…

        …[I]f you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I’m gonna take this money and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course that’s different. But here, where you have a party that’s saying, We’re gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we’re gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions.

        – DNC attorney Bruce Spiva, opening arguments, Wilding v. DNC Services Corporation, April 25, 2017

        She’s calling out the DNC for having its thumb on the scale. She’s in good company there (including your own). Just because you don’t like her as a candidate doesn’t mean that she doesn’t have a point.

        As for the issue of clearances, for the purpose of holding a clearance the distinction between being an “asset” or an “agent” is immaterial. Nobody has a *right* to a security clearance – they get suspended or yanked all the time for all kinds of reasons (excessive credit card balances, socializing with foreign nationals, etc.). If Clinton has evidence that Gabbard is being “groomed” by anybody she should report it to the DCSA so appropriate action can be taken.

        • Does one need a security clearance to be an asset, witting or unwitting? Seems like there were a lot of trump campaign players being wooed by Russians, some of whom got security clearances they probably should not have gotten once in the WH simply because trump said “do it.” Are you saying there is no way Russia could be fluffing Tulsi, supporting her as a potential third party candidate to further disrupt the vote in favor of trump? Do you believe that Stein and Sanders had no adverse impact on Hillary’s nomination and “loss” in 2016? Do you believe neither Stein nor Sanders received assistance from Russia to damage Hillary whether they knew it or not?

          Re the DNC tipping the scales, i read a long while back the DNC and presumably the RNC, have the authority to pick the party nominee regardless of the primary results. That was never clearer than in 2008, when they bent over backwards for Obama. They couldn’t have one candidate (Hillary) get more votes than their chosen one (Obama) so they fiddled with the results every way they could.

        • Yes, the DNC represents a private entity that can play by its own rules. Yes. It definitely DID put its finger on the scales for Obama in 2008. We saw it play out on live television. It was disgusting.
          Did it do that in 2016? I saw no evidence of that. Bernie lost the primary by millions of votes. It wasn’t the squeaker it was in 2008.
          Hillary inherited a bankrupt DNC in 2016. One wonders why Obama and his appointee let that happen but I digress. She rebuilt the infrastructure with her own money. And when it comes right down to it, Bernie never joined the party. You ought to dance with the one whut brung ya’. Bernie didn’t.
          Then he and his followers got all pissy about it.
          But in no way was 2016 a repeat of 2008. He LOST fair and square.
          Now comes Tulsi. She’s not anywhere near anyone’s favorite. She’s just another body on an overcrowded stage. Some of her opinions are way outside the Democrats mainstream.
          Hickenlooper quit to run for Senate, wisely. Inslee quit when he realized he wasn’t getting traction. So did Swalwell and Kristin Gillibrand. And if anyone has a right to be mad, it would have to be Gillibrand who could have been a contender if she personally wasn’t held responsible for Al Franken’s resignation. But she looked at her support and money and chances and decided to quit. Wisely.
          Tulsi? What’s her beef anyway? That she doesn’t meet the threshhold of support to stay in the debates? What about Michael Bennett? He could complain more legitimately. All he lacks is more attention. But Tulsi?
          Not everyone is going to win. Some people are not going to win. That doesn’t mean the party is being mean to them. Tulsi is not Hillary Clinton in 2008.
          Tulsi is Ralph Nader in 2000. She’s Jill Stein in 2016.
          How does a candidate with almost no support get the money to flood South Carolina and New Hampshire with hundreds of billboard ads?
          Is she a Democrat? Or is she some kind of self serving Iago who will ultimately accept help from anyone?
          The fact that she served in the military is a credit to her. But she’s not Hillary or Warren or Klobuchar or Biden. She’s just not in that category. And with limited amounts of money available, the DNC has a right to tell her to stop being a whiner and go back to her little grass shack.

          • Gabbard Gabbard Hey’s military service means nothing to me.

            A veteran can become a traitor, as did the archetypal traitor of our nation, Benedict Arnold.

            One of my senators, Tom Cotton, emphasized his military service in his 2014 campaign–but as a member of the Treason Party (fka GOP), he is a servant of Benedict DONALD, and therefore of Vladimir Satanovich Putin. Cotton is either a traitor, or else he is a dupe of the traitors.

    • How do you know she hasn’t? Seems to me Gabbard was doing quite a lot of “slagging”‘ of her own.

    • She is a Russian asset! It’s that plain and simple! Listen to the woman talk! She puts down everyone in her own party and sounds like a Trump supporter.

    • Nobody said she was a Russian asset but that she was being groomed. The fact that she is in the military and has security clearance should mean nothing regarding Russia or it should be a warning to all of us. Remember General Flynn? He was a general that was turned by Russia. Hillary was right about Trump. We should listen to what she has to say regarding all this. And Tulsi basically raised her hand and said it was me and then did a video defending herself that really did make her look like a Russian asset. You can be such a thing as a useful idiot.

  6. Why is Gabbard a Democrat and why is she running for the Democratic nomination? Why would I vote for anyone who says my Party is full of rot? Why would I vote for someone who says Trey Gowdy is her friend, and that the big, bad Democrats were after Trump from day one and should forget all the Impeachment nonsense? Perez should have cut her mic off halfway through the debate.

    • Sue, your questions one and two apply to Sanders as well. He, like Stein, has an affinity for Russia. I know very little about Tulsi other than she appears to have anger issues. Wonder how her fellow vets view her. Why is she getting so much bot/troll support?

    • Her major issue has long been, “The U.S. should stop trying for regime change in Syria.” She supports Assad, as does Russia. She talks about “endless wars,” just like Trump and Stein have done. “Warmonger” is the “Russian Left’s” favorite term when it comes to Hillary.

      Perez is responsible for some of this. His “rules” about eligibility for debates favor fringe candidates, even those supported by, um, other countries, over other long-term elected officials who do not yet have enough name or issue recognition. Wait until the convention, where it is very possible that no one will have a majority of delegates, there are not all those superdelegates to make a reasonable decision; Sanders is bargaining, trying to form a coalition, like in those multiparty countries; delegates are gong to the media claiming that they were strongarmed; to get the nomination, someone is going to have to adopt some parts of a platform that they don’t favor, to get the majority. There has not been a second ballot at a convention since 1952, but there is quite a good chance that they will be this time, as long as Sanders stays in. This potential debacle is Sanders’ fault at the outset, Perez’ fault for being intimidated by him and his cult.

    • Well, Gabbard is a nominal Democrat because she comes from Hawai’i, where Republicans are rather less popular than hemorrhoids. 😛

    • Trey Gaudi – oops!- Gowdy…her friend?…

      With his Tim Burton movies look?…Yuck!

  7. As Tina Fey said, “Bitches get shit done.” :mrgreen:

  8. RD:
    I’m so happy that after all you’ve been through, your brains and insights on issues, are in top form.
    Welcome back to -your own- best blog of Hillary supporters…
    Thank you!

    • bellecat, we are all so fortunate that RD has provided us this shelter in the storm and I echo all you’ve said.
      Oh, and our gal, Hillary, knew perfectly well she would endure the slings and arrows of many, to shine this light. I am grateful to her for putting the “Russian asset?” tag on Gabbard. And, shame on Beto, for one, who denounced Hillary’s statement. The first female major party POTUS nominee, who served as a Senator, with many legislative accomplishments and as probably the best Secretary of State we’ve ever had, being trashed by one term Congress folks. Hats off to Castro, who simply said, “I respect Sec’y Clinton”. And let’s see how others respond. Be careful, candidates. Many million of us support her.

      • Buttigieg also said he was “uncomfortable” with Hillary’s statement. There are not many adults in the primary field, and virtually no one with any background in international matters, including Russian strategies. Apparently none of them are aware that Gabbard’s “policies” are basically, “stop criticizing Trump; stop trying to get rid of Assad; stop talking about Russian interference in our elections.” Yet, various candidates, such as the bot supported Yang and Williamson and now Beto and Pete, apparently think that standing up for Gabbard is a noble thing.

        Gabbard was never going to get the nomination, but she was and maybe still is going to run as a third party candidate. This worked last time for the Russians and the far right, so of course they’ll try it again. Hillary cares more about the fate of the country than the majority of Democratic candidates who seem to mostly be on an ego trip. The Russians and people like Brad Parscale know that the easiest way to get Trump reelected is to split the Democrats, run someone as a third party candidate, send the bots to attack the few legitimate candidates, and rely on the media to help do their work. One realizes that this is the biggest threat, their ability to elect Trump despite his terrible policies, stupidity and ignorance.

        • Buttigieg is a prick. No one cares what makes him uncomfortable. Him and his phony veneer need to go back to Indiana.

        • I would have tremendous satisfaction, if Gabbard is at the next debate, with Sen. Harris getting a chance to ask her a couple of questions. Metaphorical sucker punch or metaphorical shiv, Gabbard went after Kamala Harris with a vicious lie on the debate stage. Tulsi is despicable and has been exposed. Thank You Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton!

  9. So far this AM on MSNBC, i have heard Hillary’s comment was shameful, Hillary stirs vitriol in both parties, Dems are bristling because she is dipping her toe in the 2020 election. Again her comments were taken out of context. She was warning us that the third party ploy used by the Russians in 2016 was going to be used again against the party.

    Herstory, i’m one Hillary fan who is watching….

    • I see quite a different reaction among the people I follow on Twitter, who tend to be center left and liberal. They are all saying they believe her. They’ve come around because she’s been right about everything.
      Even journalists, some of the ones we love to hate due to their outrageous flogging of the emails thing are starting to come out of their fog. 3 years too late but maybe they are learning.

      • Thanks for that, RD. I don’t want unwarranted bias, i just want these opinion heads to be fair in their criticism and, at a minimum, to view anyone’s comments in context. I also heard an ex military guy say that Hillary’s comments were another example of Dems eating their own. Yeah, Gabbard is a true Dem with vast experience and a long list of accomplishments on behalf of the party.

    • If Hillary has kept Gabbard from running on a third party ticket, she has done a great service. I never watch the Sunday talk shows now, but I have read that Joy Reid and Chuck Todd were all over Hillary this morning, no surprise, and that no one is talking about her complete vindication after years of another stupid investigation of her.

      I see a number of Russian-backed instigators in the race, including Gabbard, Yang, Williamson, Sanders. This does not mean that they all are actively trying to help Russia, but they are being supported by Russia. No one on broadcast media dares, or perhaps even cares, to bring any of it up. Instead of asking, “Why would Hillary Clinton make such a statement, what does she know?,” they act as if she just said this off the cuff, for no particular reason. When Trump jumps up to tweet his support of Jill Stein as “a strong environmentalist,” and says that the Green Party has better environmental policies than the Democrats, anyone with a brain or a soul should realize what is going on. But you will never hear it from an on-air person, as most of them just enjoy a new chance to mock Hillary, while the country risks the absolute horror of a second Trump term, enabled by the same people as in 2016.

      • Capeheart was on for Gura yesterday and he did mention the State Dept findings and said that it confirmed what people like him were saying all along. I saw Amin ??? In for Joy this morning before i shut the TV off… for the third time in less than one hour. It will be interesting to see what Gabbard does when she fails to get the nom and what Stein does this time around.I suspect she will be grifting again and now she can use Hillary’s comments to make more campaign dollars.

  10. Tulsi’s behavior is totally bizarre and disrespectful and anyone siding with a two bit congresswoman who cozies up to Assad and once chained herself to a door to protest gay marriage over the most qualified and accomplished democratic nominee of our lifetime is even more bizarre.

    Beto is dead to me – what an ego maniac! He lost his senate bid and thinks we should vote for him cuz Texas could turn blue, maybe. But they didn’t turn blue for him. 🤔🤔

  11. I would love to see Sen. Harris ask Tulsi a couple of questions at the next debate (assuming Gabbard qualifies for the next debate). Call it a metaphorical shiv or a metaphorical sucker punch, but Gabbard lied blatantly about Harris’s record on the debate stage. Gabbard’s credibility is shot, and Sen. Harris should return the favor.

  12. In case anyone’s wondering why I call Natasha Gabbard “Gabbard Gabbard Hey”: 😛

  13. I have been thinking about all of this and come to the realization that Putin has been watching what has been happening since 2000. He saw what Ralph Nader did in 2000 and used it in 2016 to divide the left. Putin used the lies that George W. Bush told to give ammunition to people like Gabbard to constantly scream about “regime change”. Russian active measures were pushing the rigged primary line because of what happened in 2008 during the primary. Now do I think Putin told Bernie and Tulsi to utter his propaganda? Probably not. However I do think they have been useful idiots that Putin and Russian Active measures have picked up and pushed through social media.

    • The “Left” in this country has held a hatred of Democrats since LBJ and the Vietnam War. Some of them hated JFK, too. Sanders was angry at him for not “recognizing the great things that Castro was doing,” he wrote words to that effect.

      The only Democratic general election candidate that the Left liked was McGovern. Maybe Dukakis, but the Left never really comes out for a Democrat. They wanted Jesse Jackson; they wanted Tsongas, who was essentially a Republican. They wanted Dean, more conservative than Kerry, but it’s just about anti-establishment to them.. They loved Nader. They hated Clinton and Gore and of course Hillary. They liked Stein They adore Sanders.. Now they like Gabbard. There is no actual coherence to any of it. Anyone who uses the words”warmongers,” or “Democratic rot,” or “break up corporations” gives them tingles. They have no real idea of about governing, they are about anger and contempt and a pleasure in hoping that it all burns down.

      Russia understands such things. Radicals in Europe have often been useful to dictators. Russia has a contemptuous opinion about the American voter’s capacity to understand anything. Run Facebook ads, get people angry about something, keep them from voting, or get them to vote third party, these are their techniques. It is virtually impossible to tell the difference between the Russian trolls and the idiotic Sanders and Gabbard supporters on Twitter, because their statements are comparable. What they all really want is for enough people to be outraged enough that they refuse to vote, or like those fools in Washington state last time, cast electoral votes for people not on the ballot. Then Trump wins again. The Russians will never relent, and the Far Left will never figure out that things are getting worse for them each time they elect a Bush or Trump. But then there are those like Susan Sarandon, who do just fine, and delight being comfortably radical. There were people like that in fascist Europe, too. One almost would think that they were actually fascists in the guise of radicals.

      • The thing is I don’t think things get worse for the Bernie or Tulsi supporters under people like Trump. These are the types that always seems to come out of the glorious revolution unscathed or at least with minimal harm while the people who actually show up to vote like women and POC are the ones that do suffer the damage of a president like Trump. This is why I don’t consider voters who would consider Tulsi and ally. Have you ever noticed while there’s some things that go on between other candidates and their supporters it’s only the Bernie Tulsi supporters who literally have meltdowns and demand that you vote for their candidate all the while declaring themselves too pure to vote for yours?

      • That. Damned. War.

        The domestic political repercussions of the Vietnam War–the only serious mistake that the ’60s Establishment Democrats made–may yet end up erasing all the good they did.

        • Yes, very possibly. It has been said by some that the Democrats, after a decade of the Red-baiting by Nixon and others; terms like “The Dean Acheson School of Cowardly Communist Containment,” were simply unable to withstand the push among the military and the various hawks to fight the Communists in Southeast Asia, per the infamous “Domino Theory.” It is possible that after the debacle of the Bay of Pigs, JFK might have distrusted his generals enough to start pulling out of Vietnam, but LBJ was not capable of that, and thought that any reduction of troops would make him and the country look bad, plus of course call down the wrath of the hawkish voters. Pete Seeger wrote the song “Knee Deep in the Big Muddy,” to highlight this; kept going into the deeper water and then couldn’t turn around and get out. Tore the country apart, ruined the Great Society dreams, got Nixon in. Of course the South was turning Republican as in ’64, and the Civil Rights Act also cost elections, as worthy as it was.

  14. I see that Jeffrey Toobin notes the buried on page 16 of the NYT story that the email story was actually about nothing, and he says that he regrets his part in stoking it. Oh, goody.

    I guess he means well, he was fairly decent until he jumped into the carnival of Hillary bashing, like all of his fellow “journalists.” It’s too late, of course. We saw what they were doing, and we agonized over it, and declaimed about it, and it did not good, because they kept doing it. On and on. Anyone who ever watched ten minutes of Andrea Mitchell would think that Hillary’s name was “Hillary Clinton, whose email problems continue to grow,” or “Hillary, who has a trust issue.” It was as if in their reveling in the ratings bonanza they were getting from Trump, they were required to give some coverage to Hillary, so they made it all about “her emails,” not her policy positions or warnings. That was their election coverage.

    I am still waiting for the bestselling book which chronicles, day by day, how this happened. How Dean Bacquet is in the pocket of the Far Right, and thus so is the New York Times. How Jeff Zucker of CNN, who has a framed tweet from Donald Trump praising Zucker, on his wall, controls the CNN talking points. How 90% or so of the American media is now owned by five companies, all of which are Far Religious Right. There of course is nothing to stop it from happening again. It happened to Dukakis and Gore and Kerry, it just got exponentially worse with Hillary. There is nothing that can be done by Toobin or any of the very few media people with any conscience, to make up for what happened. I will never forget seeing an after-the-election roundtable on Ted Koppel’s “Nightline in 1988,” in which media people discussed how perhaps they were unfair to Dukakis, and covered the campaign in a way unfavorable to him. (Koppel is of course the person who said directly to Dukakis, “You just don’t get it, do you Governor?” You see, if you are a successful “Conservative” TV person, you have droit de seigneur to talk this way to Democrats). The pundits said that they must do better next time, but of course they didn’t. It would just be interesting to read a very well researched and compelling book about the roots and antecedents of this massive media bias against Democrats, and specifically against Hillary Clinton.

    As I turn on the TV for two minutes this morning, they are showing another Trump news conference, which he now has every day, and which they cover from beginning to end, allowing him to spew his hateful and idiotic propaganda to the American people. “The Kurds are doing well,” he says. “if they hadn’t had to go through hell for two days, they would never have made this agreement.” Then we can get back to “Hillary said that Gabbard was a Russian agent.”

    • Occam’s Razor, folks.

      The owners of the media corporations–“mainstream” as well as wingnut–and their higher-ranking employees are rich Americans.

      The Treason Party (fka GOP) continuously promises–and delivers–absurdly low taxes to affluent and richer Americans.

      This provides a de facto bribe to the media barons and their wealthier employees to favor the GOP.

      IF we ever get this country back from Russia, we must use the anti-trust laws to break up the media conglomerates, and restore the Fairness Doctrine, and expand it to the “new media”.

      I was going to say “the Malefactors of Great Wealth” instead of “Russia”, but I suspect Putin has managed to dethrone even the
      “Masters of the Universe”.

      Though of course, Putin is ultimately a fool, because even if he succeeds in knocking the USA off its position as the world’s leading nation, Putin’s Russia will not take our place, but rather, Xi’s China.

  15. Well, well, well. Rachel led off her first half hour with the State Dept’s final report on Hillary’s emails. She addressed false equivalency by the media, their “gullibility,” how the Russians used disinformation on both the right and the left (Sanders/Stein) to hurt Hillary and help trump, and how the same things are happening now for 2020 only it is far worse because of the Justice Dept’s involvement in supporting trump to malign his political opponents. Sorry for the run on but i am tuned up.I wonder when they will get around to the conclusion that trump is illegitimate thanks to a slew of bad actors, including the mainstream media and the Justice Dept.

    • Cats, I saw that. And for all the criticism I have made of Maddow, this was a gratifying moment, very well done.

      I must add, though, that Maddow wasn’t all that forceful about this during the campaign, though she did certainly want Hillary to win. I think she wanted Sanders to get the nomination. The rest of them on the station did not do Hillary any favors at all. If only some host had sat down and gone over the entire email thing and explained how Powell had the same kind of system; how Hillary’s server was never hacked. But that was not the narrative. The insidious narrative has been that Hillary is crooked, somehow, that she is doing nefarious things; so this just fit into it. Why would she, a highly respected Senator, go to the State Department and then do something wrong regarding emails? Of course she would not. This was always obvious. She wasn’t hiding anything, she wasn’t doing the kind of things Trump is doing every day, giving away state secrets, concocting illegal deals, selling out or allies. Which is of course why they had to accuse Hillary of it, in vague language. And the media, which should have been the guardrail, did exactly what the Far Right wanted them to do. There is no way that they can ever make up for it.

      A generation’s worth of newspeople were stupid enough or spiteful enough to ignore what should have been intuitively obvious The only people I can recall who saw right through the email fakery were Tom Watson, Eric Boehlert, Melissa McEwan, Peter Daou (who somehow got screwed up after all of that), a few others. No one on TV that I can think of ,and I never watched CNN, which apparently was awful. Zucker just hired another Republican ex-Congressman for the station.

      What Rachel said was right: the media, out of some distorted sense of balance, felt that it had to find scandals to go with Hillary, to balance those of Trump. What she didn’t say was how right-wing media , plus the New York Times, if they are not now the same thing, created this Hillary hatred for their own uses, and now it is ingrained in many people. As to this campaign, we have to win. Still, I don’t have all that much sympathy for any of them; not Biden, who did a few appearances for her in PA, and always started off with, “Now, I know that many of you do not like Hillary Clinton very much, but…” Or Warren, who said, “Of course the primary was rigged.” Or Buttigieg, who keeps talking about what was done wrongly in the last campaign, as if he is some kind of multilingual expert on everything. That was the time to stand up for right, to attest to how admirable Hillary has been, in and out of politics. I didn’t see virtually any of that. The only one who praised her in that way? William Weld.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: