home

The Media's "Clinton Rules"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 08:05:46 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Pierce with a tour de force:

It appears that the "exclusive" ratfking arrangement entered into by The New York Times and Washington Post has brought us all back to the Mena Airport again, and that it has done so by strict application of the Clinton Rules, first devised in the mid-1990's, as the nation's elite political press turned laundering oppo research into a smoothly running machine. The very first Clinton Rule, established by most of the original reporting into the Whitewater non-scandal, is that if you can blow enough smoke, you can say there's fire.

More . . .

Wealthy interests might use their wealth to "build friendly relations" with politicians? In 2015? Has anyone told Anthony Kennedy? He might plotz.

(This, by the way, is Clinton Rule No. 2 -- what is business as usual for every politician since Cato is a work of dark magic when practiced by either Clinton.)

So it has always been with the Media regarding the Clintons.

< Thursday Open Thread | David Petraeus Sentenced to Probation for Misdemeanor >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Media's "Clinton Rules" | 102 comments (102 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I can't wait for the forthcoming (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 09:41:15 AM EST
    exposé on how Clinton ate more than her fair share of S'mores when she was on a camping trip with her Girl Sciut trip at the age of 12.

    Now there's a scandal... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 09:44:57 AM EST
    The problem isn't the media being too hard on the poor downtrodden Clintons, the problem is they aren't as equally hard on everybody else running the country/world.  I don't know what you'd call it, selective quasi-journalism?

    If the media was as hard on every pol like they're hard on Bill & Hillary, we might be getting somewhere. It would also be nice if they hit hard on issues of more importance...but the soap opera sh*t sells the soap I guess, and the corporate overlords of the media don't want us peeking too far under the curtain.  

    There's no reason to dig through anybody's garbage looking for a scandal...business as usual is the f*ckin' scandal.  Having the world's largest prison population is a scandal, rampant inequality under the law is a scandal, the police/surveillance state is a scandal, the income gap is a scandal.  And more relevant to this topic, the corrupting influence of big money in government is a scandal.

    If we must have a two-year marathon presidential race, maybe the media could focus on every horses role in all that mess.

    Thankyou (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:20:13 AM EST
    That is my point.

    Parent
    And a good one... (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:28:01 AM EST
    that gets lost in the pro-wrestlingification of politics and the cults of personality.

    Parent
    Call me crazy (none / 0) (#12)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:36:49 AM EST
      but I don't see the issue with the presumptive nominee of one party, and the current favorite for election to the Presidency of the United States of America facing greater scrutiny in volume and intensity than other pols.

      In fact, I would consider it derelict if that person did not receive greater scrutiny.

      Once it becomes a one on one race between nominees, then perhaps, valid claims of unequal treatment would not be pretty damn lame and transparent BS.

      I am sure when we reach that stage  both sides will claim bias against them and for the other side.

    Parent

    Uh (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:39:31 AM EST
    You're crazy.

    Yo're arguing for a lower standard for GOP Presidential candidates.

    That's just embarrassing.

    Parent

    I deliberately (none / 0) (#16)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:44:05 AM EST
     invited that response because I knew someone with no substantive retort would likely make it.

      Huge surprise it's you.

     

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:46:36 AM EST
    Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word substantive.

    Parent
    Of course that's the problem (none / 0) (#19)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:50:40 AM EST
      It' isn't that you write sheer nonsense misstating what I said and labeling it embarrassing as if that allows you to evade what I wrote.

      I forgot the rules of your posts, and fine rules they are.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 11:09:00 AM EST
    You're ignorance about what about the word substantive is the problem.

    Next question

    Parent

    Subtance (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:48:39 AM EST
    "You're arguing for a lower standard for GOP Presidential candidates."You are EXPRESSLY arguing for it.

    Parent
    I don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sj on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:19:19 PM EST
    You are EXPRESSLY arguing for it.
    I think the approach is passive/aggressive rather than expressly stated.

    Parent
    No, it's not. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:54:06 AM EST
      It's not even close. Were there a presumptive favorite for the GOP nomination (let alone one without any current opposition and that person was also leading in early GE polling, I would equally approve of that person receiving greater scrutiny than all other pols, including those in crowded and very preliminary stages of the race for the Democratic nomination.

      I wrote nothing that could be interpreted otherwise.

     Try harder-- something other than your usual silliness might help.

    Parent

    C&L explains (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:59:13 AM EST
    Bloomberg Politics says that Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash, is targeting Jeb Bush next. I'm not sure I believe it, but here's the story:

    Schweizer is working on a similar investigation of Jeb Bush's finances that he expects to publish this summer.
    -----
    Schweizer says he and a team of researchers have been poring over Bush's financial life for about four months. Among other things, they're scrutinizing various Florida land deals, an airport deal while Bush was governor that involved state funds, and Chinese investors in Bush's private equity funds....

    As he did with the Clinton book, Schweizer is hoping to partner with media organizations interested in reporting on and advancing his examination of Bush's finances....

    Assuming he's telling the truth about this, rather than merely claiming to have an anti-Bush project in the works in order to maintain a posture of objectivity -- which media organizations do you think will partner with him?

    Do you think one of them will be Fox?

    Here's the way the so-called liberal media works: You dig up anti-Clinton dirt of this kind and The New York Times is as eager to run it as Fox is. But the conservative media has never worked that way, at least not in my experience. Sure, during the primary season a not-excessively-wingnutty Republican might get less-than-worshipful coverage on Fox -- Mitt Romney certainly did in late 2011 and early 2012 -- but Fox knows that the wagons must eventually be circled.

    Even if no one at Fox is thrilled at the prospect of a Jeb candidacy, he could very well be the right's guy in 2016. So I think there's no way in hell Fox will work with Schweizer on this. And if it there really is Jeb dirt and Fox gives it a miss, that tells you all you need to know about the difference between the conservative media and the non-conservative media.



    Parent
    Since the GOP candidates are lacking in (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 11:04:21 AM EST
    name recognition/etc (polling anyone?), don't you think they should get more attention from the press? The only thing many know is, they are attacking HRC. Maybe the press should give them some deep love, ala Clinton style . . .

    Sadly, if that happened, all we would get would be "But . . , but . . ., but  . . . Clinton!"

    Parent

    So UNLESS (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 11:07:55 AM EST
    thre is a "presumptive" favorite (I thought Clinton was the one acting "entitled") Republicans can act in the same way as Clinton with no problem

    As I said, you're crazy.

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#26)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 11:21:59 AM EST
     unable to respond with anything but silliness, you misstate what I said. I said any one with a clue would understand why she gets greater scrutiny NOW without resorting to  media conspiracy claims that encompass not just partisan activists and obviously GOP media organs, but NTY, WaPo, LAT, VV, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN........................................

      to the extent there is any bias it's about publishing about the person people are currently most interested in and they are most interested in her because....slooooooowly.... she is the presumptive and unopposed  nominee and current favorite in the GE while the GOP has a crowded field.

       Even beyond that obviously, it takes less resources to focus on 1 person than it does to place as strong a focus on a half dozen or more.

      I'm going to lunch. If so inclined, take the time to see if you can think of something that's not stupid.

      You've occasionally shown glimpses of the ability

    Parent

    I quoted your words (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 11:25:52 AM EST
    Now you "adjust" your argument to:

    she gets greater scrutiny NOW [because] she is the presumptive and unopposed  nominee and current favorite in the GE while the GOP has a crowded field.

    You could try and sell that to someone who is unfamiliar with the Media's behavior towards the Clinton for 25 years.

    Unfortunately for you, that's no one at this blog.

    But certainly continue to expose yourself.

    Parent

    Look, (none / 0) (#33)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:17:20 PM EST
     if you choose to sell the meme that the "the Media" took a meeting in 1990 and elected to unfairly malign the Clintons and that they have been passive victims despite their desire to remain private and their total avoidance of any dubious conduct, you've certainly chosen the right forum in which to peddle it.

      That, even  here, there a few who suggest it's a silly claim is probably just something you should learn to accept.

      I'd add that, from a tactical perspective, a person who thinks like a grown-up, might see the advantage of Clinton facing up to it now. It may well prove a benefit to get all the laundry on the line 18 months before the election because by  September 2016, many voters might be so inured to it that it has less impact than the fresh controversies the GOP candidate might have to confront.

       You seem far more interested in basking in reinforcement from a relatively tiny number of people who lap  up any defense of the Clintons with gleeful slurps than saying anything that would possibly do more than pander to already made up minds.
       

    Parent

    Dude (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:22:05 PM EST
    I guess I have not been clear. I think you're an idiot.

    So hold the lectures.

    Parent

    "Forget it, Jake -- it's Chinatown." (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:26:09 PM EST
    This clown's been clogging your blog posts with his nonsense for several days now, BTD. And that likely won't change until you invoke your own previously stated rule.

    As you said, life's too short.

    Parent

    He was on topic (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:33:22 PM EST
    Idotic, but on topic.

    Parent
    Clinton, Clinton, Clinton... (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:41:27 PM EST
    No one's of the opinion that someone running for office shouldn't be subject to any scrutiny or accountability; what they are objecting to is that it's being reserved for one person, and whomever else is in the wake of any ripples that might be generated by it.

    Each and every last little thing is going under the microscope, in spite of many of these things already having undergone prior examination and investigation; it begins to feel as if it's not being done for any other reason than to find some dirty little morsel - no matter how teeny-tiny -  that has so far eluded the crack investigative skills the media brings to bear.

    What I don't understand is why, if, for example, there's something unseemly or questionable lurking in Marco Rubio's background, does that only matter if he wants to be president?  Shouldn't it also matter that he's a sitting US Senator?  Shouldn't it also be information the people should be educated about?

    I am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton - but I am a big fan of fairness, and I'm not seeing much of that in the media's approach to her.  Either apply the same level of scrutiny to all the presidential-wannabes - whether it's a Clinton-level DefCon 1, or Marco Rubio-level isn't-he-handsome - or don't, but don't pretend that what's happening now is fair, or right, or understandable.  It is none of those things.

    Parent

    All WHAT "laundry""?? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    Your specious claims aren't "laundry" of any kind, let alone something that needs to be aired.   For the 1,000th + time, where is your evidence?

    Parent
    Why don't you take the rest of the day off, ... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:55:08 PM EST
    Recon: "I'm going to lunch. If so inclined, take the time to see if you can think of something that's not stupid. You've occasionally shown glimpses of the ability."

    ... and make it a long weekend? Given your current behavior as a condescending prick, I'm sure that your co-workers would undoubtedly appreciate even a brief respite from your insufferably arrogant presence, as would many of us here.

    You could start that long weekend off right by making an appointment to see a proctologist, to see if that person can't somehow cure your apparently stubborn case of recto-cranial inversion.

    What a glorious piece of work you've turned into.

     

    Parent

    This, DFH, is your masterpiece, your Michelangelo. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:54:21 PM EST
    Over the years, of all the unintentionally hilarious personal harangues you have leveled at other TL commenters - and even various public figures via TL - even as each and every one highlighted how woefully ignorant you are that you are literally TL's poster boy for exactly those things of which you hold so much vitriolic disdain for in others, this is your personal zenith.

    Or maybe not, the day is young!

    Parent

    "Don't condescend me, man... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:48:08 PM EST
    I f*ckin' kill ya, man".

    - Floyd

    Parent

    Cuz you're part eggplant. (laughter) (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 03:23:25 PM EST
    You're part cantaloupe!

    (Bang)

    So many great scenes in that movie.

    Parent

    not being a big movie guy (none / 0) (#62)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 03:40:22 PM EST
    I had to google the references.

    True Romance

      I might have to see if that is netflixor somewhere after reading those lines.

      BTW, I think you actually succeeded in shaming Donald into piping down. I'm hugely impressed.

    Parent

    What happened ... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:29:32 PM EST
    BTW, I think you actually succeeded in shaming Donald into piping down. I'm hugely impressed.

    ... to your desire for evidence to support inferences.

    That was short lived.

    People also have jobs and other things to do, sooooo ...

    Parent

    Sadly, I do not share your optimism. (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:19:57 PM EST


    Parent
    I didn't mean permanently, (none / 0) (#71)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:38:04 PM EST
      but even causing a temporary  respite is an accomplishment.

      My skillz seem limited to provoking people to say incredibly foolish things. It does expose blatant hypocrisy because the people who say foolish things such as my candidate cannot be questioned with anything short of irrefutable direct evidence of criminal wrongdoing and that even suggesting that conflicts of interest,  appearances of impropriety, and relationships with people of sketchy pedigree  deserve scrutiny is "idiotic" or proof of stealth Republicanism and a whole host of bad bad things.

       I just wonder if they will equally appalled if candidates they oppose are ever questioned when irrefutable direct evidence of criminal wrongdoing is lacking.

       I'm inclined not only to doubt that but go waaaay out on a limb and suggest some of the will gleefully engage in it.

      Ain't politics grand.

       

    Parent

    Your (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:54:48 PM EST
    skillz include retreating into your strawman forest when you cannot make arguments in the open field of logic. When you get cornered in your little slice of quasi-reality you start serving up word salads made of moss and moose droppings...straight out of Palins "Road Kill Recepies".

    Parent
    See what i mean, Sarc? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:03:01 PM EST
      nt

    Parent
    Playing (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:27:22 PM EST
    the victim card, oh so predictable.

    Parent
    today more manipulator (none / 0) (#83)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:44:33 PM EST
    Of the weak minded than victim. A trait fair game for valid criticism, but one I share with Btd. The difference is I don't like basking in the praise of weak minded by pandering to their prejudices. I prefer making them show their absudity.

    Dinner time now , have fun

    I agree you at least prrsrnt foolishness with a colorful flourish.

    Parent

    Heh - good luck (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:50:47 PM EST
    The difference is I don't like basking in the praise of weak minded by pandering to their prejudices. I prefer making them show their absudity.

    Let us know when you're actually able to accomplish that, rather than simply demonstrating your own absurdity.

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 06:01:33 PM EST
    can't argue with intellectually lazy people who can't ascertain what is going on and plays the just asking questions game.

    I would suggest putting him on ignore from now on.

    Parent

    He's the Fox News of CDSers (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 06:04:23 PM EST
    My favorite is Jon Stewart's take on "The Question Mark".

    Just plug in Reconstructionist's name ...

    It's "just a question ..."

    Parent

    Bon (none / 0) (#84)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:47:17 PM EST
    Appetite

    Parent
    Yups. I admit that I did like this bit though (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:30:32 PM EST
    word salads made of moss and moose droppings

    very creative and well-placed alongside the Palin reference.

    I think overall the media is in the business of getting eyeballs, and the Clintons have proven to be a literal gold-mine in that arena.

    Pretty much any public person is potential media fodder, and the more famous you are the more potential you have. I'd imagine the Clintons are at least in the top 10 on the planet's famosity meter.

    Wacha gonna do?

    Gotta have a thick skin when you soar in that rarefied air, of course they've benefited quite handsomely as well...


    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#82)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:43:47 PM EST
    we can all agree that the press constantly drops the ball by always gravitating to style over substance to the extent of virtually ignoring the real issues.

    Parent
    Close (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:33:48 PM EST
      My skillz seem limited to provoking people to say incredibly foolish things.

    Your skill is actually limited to saying incredibly foolish things.

      I just wonder if they will equally appalled if candidates they oppose are ever questioned when irrefutable direct evidence of criminal wrongdoing is lacking.

    Maybe you should start with posting any evidence of any wrongdoing (illegal, unethical, immoral or even fattening) before you start worrying about "irrefutable direct evidence of criminal wrongdoing".  It would be a refreshing change-of-pace for you.

    Baby steps.

    Parent

    I left because ... (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 03:31:33 AM EST
    Recon: "My skillz seem limited to provoking people to say incredibly foolish things."

    ... I live in a time zone that's six hours behind yours, and while you are at lunch, it's not even 7:00 a.m. out here. I have a job and other responsibilities in my life during the day. Besides, responding to your steady stream of nonsense does tend to get old and tedious, and is thus hardly a priority.

    Further, and over the course of several threads during the last few days, I've pretty much exhausted everything there is to say to a bozo like you.  

    Finally, any damn fool can traffic in innuendo and slander -- and who am I, really, to continue arguing with one?

    As BTD said, life's too short.

    Parent

    Oh brother (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by sj on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    ::eyeroll::
    That's one of the more deluded statements I have ever seen you make. And you make a lot of them.
    My skillz seem limited to provoking people to say incredibly foolish things.
    Your "skillz" seem to be aimed directly at yourself.

    Parent
    Please. Stick to the (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:20:01 PM EST
    designated topic.

    Parent
    Yes ma'am. (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:34:39 PM EST


    Parent
    NYT recently published (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    a lengthy examination of Jeb Bush's history re education. Including the closure of the charter school he helped found. The educational materials he has advocated for and which are a financial boon to some of his close associates.

    Parent
    Why does there have to be a (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 11:53:07 AM EST
    presumptive Republican nominee before substantive examination can be undertaken?  Aren't those people also auditioning for the position of Leader of the Free World?  And so when does the scrutiny actually start?  When one of them starts to pull away from the others, or when the nomination is official?  

    By your logic, Clinton should be encouraging as much competition for herself in order to receive the same pass you've accorded the large GOP field, right?  If O'Malley gets in, and Jim Webb gets in and Bernie Sanders decides to get in as a Democrat, well, then, shouldn't that end all the Clinton-scrutiny?

    Or will you then take the position that no one in that field but Clinton stands a chance, so she will remain "presumptive," and the media can, with your wholehearted support, continue with its regular shoddy, sh!tty programming?

    And, tell me - let's say Clinton not only gets the nomination, but polling shows she is far and away the favorite: does that mean there's no point in the media looking at the GOP nominee, since Clinton's the presumptive winner?

    I mean, how far are you willing to take this?  And at what point can or will you admit that these special rules aren't really serving anyone well? [And, it's kind of making you look like an apologist for a media that doesn't need any more enabling than it's already getting.]

    Parent

    "Response (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:02:31 PM EST
    "Nonsubstantive" - Reconstructionist.

    Parent
    Meanwhile (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:06:53 PM EST
    back at the GOP Ranch. it's business as usual
    Since entering the Senate in 2011, Rubio has met privately with the mogul on a half-dozen occasions. In recent months, he`s been calling Adelson about once every two weeks, providing him with meticulous updates on his nascent campaign. During a recent trip to New York City, Rubio took time out of his busy schedule to speak by phone with the megadonor.
    (h/t Digby). No scrutiny needed of course.

    Parent
    The reason why, like it or not, ... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by unitron on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 06:50:53 AM EST
    ...and I'm not saying that I do, is that the media are just not going to devote the same amount of resources to each and every one of the passengers in that very crowded GOP clown car as they are to the currently presumptive Democratic nominee.

    That doesn't make it right, but it makes it the way things are.

    The same celebrity and "star power" that make Clinton the presumptive nominee (at this time) make her the most likely target for "scrutiny" and "in-depth reporting".

    Parent

    Sh*t... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:01:22 PM EST
    the media is a big part of the reason why she is the presumptive nominee in the first place...prop 'em up to tear 'em down.

    The other reason(s) she is the presumptive nominee is she has/will have the most money and Wall St. absolutely adores her.

    Facets all of the fraud we call democracy.

    Parent

    I didn't say that (none / 0) (#38)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:29:30 PM EST
      I said it is just logical that the side with ONE person on it is going to see that one person receive greater scrutiny than anyone else. That's not saying the Repubs shouldn't all face scrutiny just that is silly to expect each and everyone to receive the same level of scrutiny 9 months before the first actual contest (by which time several will likely already be gone) as the only target on this side.

      Ascribing to that a global conspiracy of the MSM just makes you sound paranoid and silly.

      One might also bear in mind that Jeb Bush is the only announced candidate   most people likely even knew existed at the time Clinton was President. Unless you count Trump and Santorum  as  serious candidates (I don't) I think Huckabee is the only potential one who was active in politics then.

       It follows that one who has been around much longer will have more from the past discussed. That's a plus and a negative, but if you want to tout your long experience and engagement as a a positive factor you fairly invite scrutiny of those past activities.

    Parent

    Of COURSE you would (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:29:37 PM EST
    Were there a presumptive favorite for the GOP nomination (let alone one without any current opposition and that person was also leading in early GE polling, I would equally approve of that person receiving greater scrutiny.
    .

    ... s long as their name was Clinton.

    Parent

    Call me crazy (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 11:11:44 AM EST
    for expecting this "greater scrutiny" to take the form of actual journalism rather then a puke funnel of rumors and innuendo.

    Parent
    Actually expecting that... (none / 0) (#90)
    by unitron on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 06:53:30 AM EST
    ...doesn't make you crazy, just very likely to be severely disappointed in what will actually happen.

    Parent
    Believe (none / 0) (#91)
    by FlJoe on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 07:14:20 AM EST
    me I have no illusions about sanity breaking out any time soon in modern mainstream journalism, much less from modern conservatism.

    Parent
    YOU don't see a problem? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:21:58 PM EST
    Shocker.

    Parent
    You are correct (none / 0) (#13)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    on many levels, but the press acting out their CDS is a problem. The press are always shocked, shocked I tell you when the Clinton's behave as all powerful pols have always behaved. The press has spent huge amounts of bandwidth over decades chasing the seemingly endless, manufactured "scandals" surrounding the Clintons which all pan out to be nothing burgers.

    Maybe if the media had spent half the energy reporting on the true scandals that you listed then they do chasing shadows, innuendos and rumors we would have a chance to fight our way out of this death spiral that this country and the world is in.

    Parent

    More accurately, you can ask if there's fire (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 08:20:22 AM EST
    - Betteridges Law of Headlines.

    I think they may have (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 08:35:10 AM EST
    blown their wad a bit early with this book thing.  Seems inartful timing perhaps.

    CNN (none / 0) (#3)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 09:09:01 AM EST
    has been flogging the CGI story over the last couple of cycles, insisting that HRC must answer the "questions" surrounding the CGI without actually asking any questions themselves. Sure they mentioned the rather old story about the mining deal which has been already been debunked by an actual act of journalism.

    Journalism in America, at least as practiced by the MSM, has become about as reliable as the rumor mill at an average Jr. high school. This is your forth estate America, cherish it.

    Well (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 09:10:31 AM EST
    exactly how acting like this is going to restore any faith in them? What are they going to do if Hillary wins in a landslide? Aren't they going to be shown to pretty much not relevant to the majority of the country?

    NY Times Editorial on Clinton and the Foundation (none / 0) (#5)
    by Green26 on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 09:38:31 AM EST
    Link.

    "Hillary Rodham Clinton's determination to reconnect with voters in localized, informative settings is commendable, but is in danger of being overshadowed by questions about the interplay of politics and wealthy foreign donors who support the Clinton Foundation."

    "The only plausible answer is full and complete disclosure of all sources of money going to the foundation. And the foundation needs to reinstate the ban on donations from foreign governments for the rest of her campaign -- the same prohibition that was in place when she was in the Obama administration."

    This is what I like to call (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:04:22 AM EST
    Ancient Aliens reasoning.  I love this show.  It's on in the background right now.


    "Hillary Rodham Clinton's determination to reconnect with voters in localized, informative settings is commendable, but is in danger of being overshadowed by questions about the interplay of politics and extraterrestrial donors who support the Clinton Foundation."

    In other words, since we don't know everything about every donor it's only logical that extraterrestrials were involved.

    Parent

    The NYT "news article" (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 11:32:32 AM EST
    by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, on the front page and two full pages inside, state that their examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities.  ..."some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book 'Clinton Cash.'

    The authors say that they scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.   However, they do not say what their own scrutiny unearthed, or differed from their farmed-out Schweizer research.  The NYT editorial also "builds" upon the news article, but does, at least, note that "nothing illegal has been alleged about the foundation."  

    It seems as if the Clinton Foundation is serving as a proxy for a Democratic primary on which to referee a good horse race.  While Mrs. Clinton and her campaign will need to answer questions,  if any are formulated beyond "perceptions,"  there is really not much that can be said to counter those who do not want to listen.  All this,  despite the glaring parallels inherent to the ongoing Adelson-Koch Brothers Republican auditioning process.

    Even history will be to no avail, such as a reminder of that $1million paid by the Japanese for a speech by former President Reagan, in 1989,  with a total of $2 million collected over his and Mrs. Reagan's 8-day stay.  And, so little has been said about those 20 friends of Reagan who purchased a $2.5 million retirement house in Bel Air for the Reagans while Reagan was still in office.  

    The Clinton Foundation matter is intended to confine Mrs. Clinton to the defensive, the Republican contenders to attack Mrs. Cllinton rather than differentiate themselves from their pack/or come up with an idea or two of their own.   And, for supporters to expend efforts in defense rather than to examine candidates such as Yesteryear's Man, Marco Rubio, or the anti-gay Ted Cruz, who attended a celebration at the NYC penthouse of his rich gay friends.

    Parent

    Perhaps they should've talked to Frank Giustra. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:12:32 PM EST
    Because he's now talking, and he doesn't sound at all happy with the Paper of Record's so-called "scoop":

    "A book that has not yet been published has caused the New York Times to publish a wildly speculative, innuendo-laced article about the Clinton Foundation and my role in contributing money to it. There is not one shred of evidence to back up the Times' conclusions. This is not about me, but rather an attempt to tear down Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign. If this is what passes for investigative journalism in the United States, it is very sad. The facts do not comport with the story in the New York Times. The reporter, Jo Becker, wrote a similar piece in 2008, which was eventually debunked by Forbes."

    With the New York Times having chosen to sleep with mangy dogs, it sounds like the resultant flea infestation is causing its editors to double down on stupid.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You know, it would be great (none / 0) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:28:44 PM EST
    if the Media, and the voting public, made a consensus of, let's say, 8 topics that all the candidates would have to be prepared to explain their position on, and be prepared to be drilled by the media on those topics in a meaningful and in-depth way. This way we would know where each stood on jobs, equality, the economy, foreign affairs, and so on. They wouldn't be able to hide behind talking points, nor deflect tough questions like they're so skilled at doing.

    It would be great, but it ain't gonna happen. Not only doesn't the media (and the candidates) want to do any real digging, and study up on these big and important subjects, but, unfortunately, the public doesn't want serious debates on serious subjects either.

    Like I've often said, these people aren't stupid. They have highly educated, experienced people on their staffs, and they do all kinds of market research about what the public wants. I get a kick out of many post here at TL talking about "clown cars," and them being jerks, idiots, and, you get the picture. But, they keep winning elections, and they win because they've done their research, and tested their issues in focus groups, and know what their constituents want. And, they give it to them.

    Look, I call them names too; you can't help it, they are clowns. But, if the public wanted scholars then scholars would gravitate to politics and become candidates. It's the public that wants clowns And, the first rule in salesmanship is, "give'm what they want."

       

    Parent

    chicken or egg? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:51:25 PM EST
      does the public want shallow pandering candidates because a majority of it thinks that is best?

      Or, have most simply concluded that since by the time they actually get to vote for anyone their choices will be limited by those with money and power to "clowns" who happen to be really good at fundraising and lining up powerbrokers they don't have much of a choice. Accepting that isn't the same as wanting it (nor is it an unreasonable perspective). With that belief, why not  pick the "clown" with the best tricks.

       When the "in crowd" controls the money and simultaneous  has the power to diminish those without it, it's hard to place the blame on the public.

        Maybe, someday, someone who is smart, principled, unbeholden, EXTREMELY charismatic and appeals by communicating good ideas and persuades g people they are the better than status quo will prevail despite not selling out to the money at the get go. I don't see that happening until at least a couple of cycles of candidates with most of those qualities running and losing but incrementally building support for an eventual possible success.

       Right now, we seem, on both sides to be getting further and further from that not closer.

     

    Parent

    You can't see it (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:12:17 PM EST
    ... but I'm playing a very tiny violin to accompany your silly accusations which are, s always, offered without the slightest bit of evidence.  You would think an ivy league college would've taught a graduate how to form an argument that consists of something more than unsupported opinion and accusations in the form of"questions".

    Guess not.

    Parent

    On what basis do you infer (none / 0) (#55)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:05:14 PM EST
     I have a degree from an Ivy League school? I have never once mentioned any particulars of my education. Even the inference that I have a law degree from any school is based on no hard evidence, despite my having confessed being a lawyer. There are still some states where one can be admitted to the Bar without law school.

       

    Parent

    Probablyu got you mixed up with some ... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:22:25 PM EST
    ... other poster with logic/evidence issues.

    But your sudden appreciation for evidence is duly noted.  If only you could figure out how to apply it to someone besides yourself.

    Parent

    I got no problem... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    blaming the public...if it's safe to assume (and it may not be) that the counting of the votes is legitimate, every presidential ballot I've ever seen, and most congressional ballots, had more than two names on it.  

    The fact that less than 5% of the public chooses a name that doesn't have the backing of big money and one of the two major parties lies squarely on the public's shoulders.  Granted, the media framing of elections and big money's ever-pervasive influence are huge factors, but as long as we have the right to vote, and the votes are tallied accurately, it's all on us baby.  Never let it be said we don't get the government we deserve.

    We get straight-up clown shows and corporate clowns posing as public servants because that's what we vote for...it's that simple.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#49)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:18:26 PM EST
      I cast "protest votes" with some considerable frequency (I also just leave blanks when there is no "protest" candidate on the ballot) but I fully understand the hesitance to do so.

       In blunt terms voting for someone you know can't win is a mere symbolic gesture and some call it "throwing a vote away."  Personally, I believe there is some benefit (not huge) in the symbolism of letting pols know  everyone who disapproves of you does not support your challenger.

      But, in many  cases, where I anticipate a close race, I will vote for the "lesser evil" just because I think I am appalled by the prospect of the greater evil winning.

       I've even gone so far as to say I would hold my nose, and run to the bathroom to vomit afterwards, and vote for Clinton, if I believed both the race in my state and the EC count will be very close.

    Parent

    Well now you have me hoping ... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:24:08 PM EST
    I've even gone so far as to say I would hold my nose, and run to the bathroom to vomit afterwards, and vote for Clinton, if I believed both the race in my state and the EC count will be very close.

    ... for a really close election.

    Parent

    Jim Gilmore sez (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:36:48 AM EST
    Hillary should withdraw from the race.

    Did I mention he is considering entering the race.

    Who? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:42:01 AM EST
    :)

    Parent
    Who (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:52:40 PM EST
    is Jim Gilmore?

    And apparently that is the stated goal of the GOP: to get her to drop out.

    Apparently Karl Rove has admitted that none of their candidates can beat her so the only way for them to win is to get her out of the race.

    If they think Hillary is a quitter they are even more clueless that I ever imagined.

    Parent

    Did they not see how she responded (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:13:31 PM EST
    to that request in 2008? Only made her stronger . . .  OOPS! And it certainly did not sit well with her supporters, especially women.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:24:40 PM EST
    that generally is how it works. The more they scream the stronger she gets and the more fans she gains with voters.

    Honestly though at this point if she shows up to a presidential debate not flying in a broom she automatically wins because the GOP has set the bar so low for her.

    Parent

    Jim Gilmore (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    James Stuart "Jim" Gilmore III (born October 6, 1949) is an American politician who was the 68th Governor of Virginia from 1998 to 2002. He is a member of the Republican Party.

    A native Virginian, Gilmore received a Bachelor's of Arts and a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia, and then served in the U.S. Army as a counterintelligence agent. He later was elected to public office as a county prosecutor, as the Attorney General of Virginia, and as Governor of Virginia.



    Parent
    Alright! (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:41:24 PM EST
    We're not even two weeks of annoucing a campaign and the GOP has already started WWTBQ.

    Parent
    You left out the "S" - (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 03:25:47 PM EST
    I think its "WWTSBQ"

    Parent
    Yup! (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 03:56:41 PM EST
    I couldn't figure out what it was until the S was added :P

    Ah, yes, we're in for a lovely time . . .

    Parent

    On the upside (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:00:15 PM EST
    no one could possibly be more "ready" than Hillary.

    Parent
    On the downside (none / 0) (#70)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:37:57 PM EST
    it plays right into the republican strategy, suffer the children 18 months of CDS and hope enough people vote for them just to make it stop.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:22:05 PM EST
    of course. The GOP message is if you don't let us have the presidency we are going to have tantrum after tantrum. Pay no attention to our disastrous policies that will cause another economic collapse of the country.

    Parent
    I really (none / 0) (#80)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:32:47 PM EST
    wish we were talking comedy.......

    Parent
    Okay. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:19:31 PM EST
    Well now you have to let me know what the S stands for.

    Parent
    Stupid (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:22:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Sounds good to me... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:25:11 PM EST
    Would that mean Bernie Sanders assumes presumptive nominee status?

    Then the media can question what some Russian uranium company was really buying when they handed Bernie a check to his favorite charity.  Never mind, Bernie don't play that!

    Parent

    "first media scandal" (none / 0) (#92)
    by thomas rogan on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:37:39 PM EST
    Was Whitewater really first?  I thought the first media scandal was Gennifer Flowers and all that "Stand by your man" stuff.  
    Wikipedia:
    Gennifer Flowers came forward during Bill Clinton's 1992 Presidential election campaign, stating that she had had a 12-year relationship with him.[2] Flowers at first denied that she had an affair with Clinton, but later changed her story.[3]
    After Bill Clinton denied having a relationship with Flowers on 60 Minutes, she held a press conference in which she played tape recordings she had secretly made of phone calls with Clinton.[3] Clinton subsequently apologized publicly to Mario Cuomo for remarks he made about the then-Governor of New York on the tapes. During the press conference, Flowers was famously asked several questions by "Stuttering John" Melendez of the Howard Stern Show if she was planning to sleep with any other candidates before the election, along with if Clinton used a condom and if there ever was a threesome. She responded by laughing at Stuttering John's prank whereas her advisor wanted to ignore him by trying to answer other questions. However, news reports at the time speculated that the taped phone conversations between Flowers and Clinton could have been doctored;[3][4] Flowers had sold the original tapes to Star magazine and they were never lab-tested.[5] Clinton aides James Carville and George Stephanopoulos backed this claim as well.[6] Stephanopoulos later claimed in a 2000 interview with journalist Tim Russert that "Oh, it was absolutely his voice, but they were selectively edited in a way to - to create some - some impression."[7]
    In December 1996, Gennifer Flowers talked about her sexual relationship with Bill Clinton on The Richard Bey Show. The show was canceled the following day. Richard Bey later attributed a direct connection between the two consecutive events.[8]
    In his presidential deposition in January 1998, while denying Kathleen Willey's sexual accusations against him, Bill Clinton admitted that he had a sexual encounter with Flowers.[1

    I believe one of the first (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:45:27 PM EST
    was the Hamilton/Lewis sex scandal of the 1790s.

    You were talking about this country?  Otherwise we could probably find older ones.

    Parent

    Rogan: So ... what is your point? (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by christinep on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 06:35:24 PM EST
    In your opinion, is the central matter in a Presidential race the particulars and allegations about a/the candidate's spouse in terms of sex?  It does seem unrelated to anything--your seeming obsession with sexual proclivities in politics of 20+ years ago.  But, I thought that clarification of your focus on sexual allegations in a Presidential race is somehow front & center?
    (If so: Have you checked into the sexual activities of potential Republican presidential candidates and that of their wives?  We are all waiting with bated breath for your report. <sn>

    Parent
    Alice Faye (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 11:55:33 AM EST
    1934

    Parent
    Great, howdy. Thanks (none / 0) (#97)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:41:08 PM EST
    When my sister & I were little, we used to watch the old 30s & 40s movies on a local TV station which aired multiple "oldies" on Saturdays.  We saw (and tried to dance through) so many, that I'm surprised that this one wasn't one of them.

    Alice Faye.  My Dad used to say that he really liked her when he, as a teenager, saw her in King Kong and more.  But, I'm thinking that she had a lot more going for her than I thought as a kid :) (My Dad had good taste.)

    Love the clip.  It says it all ... or close to it.

    Parent

    I thik it (none / 0) (#98)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 02:11:09 PM EST
     was Fay Wray in King Kong

    Parent
    Yes, it was (none / 0) (#100)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 05:25:11 PM EST
    One was in the arms of Kong; one was the dancer.  Both were quite good in what they did.  (And, apologies to Dad ... because he did fancy both actresses.)

    Parent
    I still watch them (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 03:53:01 PM EST
    that was pre code.  Pretty racy compared to what came later.
    Mr Knowitall ✌is right.  King Kong was Fay Wray.  Although I'm not sure I could tell them apart if you placed them side by side.  Alice Faye was not your typical celebrity -

    Alice Faye (May 5, 1915 - May 9, 1998)[1] was an American actress and singer, called by The New York Times "one of the few movie stars to walk away from stardom at the peak of her career".[

    ---

    Faye finally accepted the lead role in Fallen Angel, whose title became only too telling, as circumstances turned out. Designed ostensibly as Faye's vehicle, the film all but became her celluloid epitaph when Zanuck, trying to build his new protege Linda Darnell, ordered many Faye scenes cut and Darnell emphasized. When Faye saw a screening of the final product, she wrote a note to Zanuck, went straight to her car, gave her dressing room keys to the studio gate guard, and drove home, vowing never to return to Fox. Faye was still so immensely popular that thousands of letters were sent to Faye's home and the Fox studios from around the world, begging her to return for another picture. In 1987 she told an interviewer, "When I stopped making pictures, it didn't bother me because there were so many things I hadn't done. I had never learned to run a house. I didn't know how to cook. I didn't know how to shop. So all these things filled all those gaps."[5]



    Parent
    Thanks again, Howdy (none / 0) (#101)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 05:27:39 PM EST
    Since I'm mixing up names ... I may be mixing up the censorship date as well.  For some reason, I thought it was 1933; or was there a transition/overlap period?

    Parent
    Without googling (DfromH?) (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 05:49:15 PM EST
    I believe the code was created a bit earlier but started being strictly inforced right around '34.
    I just remember that was precede because (Heh) I remember a dog on dog scene that would never have been permitted later.

    Parent
    The Media's "Clinton Rules" | 102 comments (102 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment