Hillary thru the Looking Glass

    2 items I saw today re: how the media prism will focus on Hillary actions in different ways.

    In #1, Ted Lipien notes that the blind Chinese dissident had distinctly commended Hillary while expressing disappointment with the Obama Administration - the former part left out of the Politico version as Voice of America sat on the translation.

    In #2, Digby notes Russian hackers got to White House and State non-classified email last year, likely picking up quite a few classified tidbits along with. Almost certainly there won't be the same hair-pulling-freakout that ensued from Hillary having her own email server and all the accusations of her endangering American security et al. And of course the obvious question of "why can't the government of the country that created the internet & much of the world's eCommerce handle internet security?"  (2 months before 9/11, there were hack attacks on US military web servers, and the rather feeble response was just to pull them all offline - not an encouraging example for those private organizations that don't have budgets in the $500-600 billion range)

    As with other recent examples, the media and our highy paid "news analysts" aren't going to help us cut through the spin this cycle, and likely will just make it worse. I'm sure there will be a lot of places I disagree with Clinton, such as her bashing Eric Snowden & likely approaches with drones et al, her willingness to kowtow to Israel's military/political perspectives, and how she splits the baby on Wall Street corporations that fund all campaigns & election results while causing much of our pollitical malfeasance (e.g. the balance of electibility vs. actually reforming anything) - but it would be nice to know that they're accurately areas I disagree with her, and not just some mushy misleading spin.


    The New York Times used the pre-publication book of a former Hoover Institute fellow to imply that Bill Clinton got Hillary Clinton to get a uranium deal with Russia approved. This is nonsense when you consider that multiple alphabet soup agencies would have had to approve the deal independently of what the State a Department said on the matter. The news outlet that gave us Judith Miller, now gives us a gossip item on Hillary Clinton.

    This is just the beginning of the nonsense. During her first run for President, the WaPo delved into Hillary Clinton's cleavage

    That Times piece was so bad.  They claimed it was a conflict for Bill to take a paid speaking gig from an investment bank promoting Uranium One stock.  Driving up the stock price of a target company works against trying to grease the wheels of a merger.  The acquirer is not looking to pay more!

    I'm sure there will be a lot of places I disagree with Clinton, such as her bashing Eric Snowden & likely approaches with drones et al, her willingness to kowtow to Israel's military/political perspectives, and how she splits the baby on Wall Street corporations that fund all campaigns & election results while causing much of our pollitical malfeasance (e.g. the balance of electibility vs. actually reforming anything)

    That is a very condensed list of negatives, IMO. I recognize the lesser-evil concept and expect it to be powerfully in play, but what are the positives that counter-balance those complaints enough to justify wanting her to become our next President.

    As with other recent examples, the media and our highy paid "news analysts" aren't going to help us cut through the spin this cycle, and likely will just make it worse.

    As Dylan said in Brownsville Girl, "If there's an original thought out there, I'd like to hear it right now".  The following may not have anything original but it seems to be forgotten enough to deserve mention.









    I hate defending Hillary over the endless bs heaped on her. Yeah all the money flowing around is disgusting. As the rich accumulate more and more money throwing around a few million here and there is just pocket change for them. The whole system needs a major overhaul.

    $500,000 for a speech is outrageous. But that's the system. It's a fraction of what Reagan got for a speech in Japan. A couple of million in his pocket and another million "donation" to his presidential library.

    The system sucks, but the idea that when the Clintons take part in it they're scoundrels and when Saint Ronald Reagan and others take part it's blessed by god doesn't work for me.

    Who knows why the NYT published this hit piece. As advertisers have moved away from those who provide content to those who simply search for it all the content providers are struggling. Perhaps they figured that as long as someone was going to make money off this click bait bs it might as well be them.

    Gah, kill me now. I'm not sure if I can stand another 20 months of "the media failed to repot HRC accurately." Come on, PP. Seriously? I mean, newsflash, but... 


    And when I see HRC, all I see is a political candidate that - in any Cabinet system - would be instantly recognizable as one of those aging ex-Ministers who's dragged their ass through decades of "service," at each step of the way proving their complete willingness to bend the knee to the powers that be. 

    She's shown she can do war, and is thus no risk great risk to the privateers and suppliers of the war machine... she's shown she can do media, and won't touch a hair on their shiny heads... she's shown she loves big retail, big offshore, big banks, big you name it... look, I can't even go on. 

    In the name of God, what kind of objective look at the problems in the world, and the problems in America, would see her name rising anywhere in the Top 1000 list of "People who might not have utterly sold their souls, and have shown some interest in salvaging this shit-show?" 

    She. Is. The. Definition. Of. A. Hack.

    And yes, sometimes having a few hacks around to fill Cabinet seats is an ok thing.

    Yes, the Republicans are criminally insane. Yes, they have to be stopped. But the U.S., to repeat something we can all see and smell and taste and hear, is on a none-too-slow decline that sometimes resembles shit just straight on falling to pieces. I mean, remember New Orleans? Detroit? These were once real,powerful, vibrant cities, and as Chrissie Hynde once sang, we just woke up and they were gone.

    We need something better. Way better. Or we're gonna wake up in 8 years missing Los Angeles, Miami and Boston.


    Hillary will be about the same as Obama. It's true we need something better. We needed something better than Obama. I don't think anyone has any illusions this time. 20,000 people are not going to go to a Hillary speech and weep enough tears to make a desert bloom. People aren't going to be shouting, "I love you" before they faint at her feet.

    Of course we need something better. And of course democrats are going to defend her because she's the best we can get this time. I'm not trying to stop the shit from hitting the fan. I'm just hoping to slow the fan down so that when the shit hits it it's slow enough we have some hope of  cleaning up the mess.

    But I'm willing to take instruction. I'll do exactly what you did in 2011 to get a Prime Minister with bold and serious policy solutions to confront the problems we face.


    Well... we're still 20 months out from the election. Lots of time. And just because we got conned last time doesn't mean we will again, right? Right? Ummmm riiiiiiiiiiiight?

    And actually, I do have instructions! Oh how useful, I hear you say! Oh my, what a valuable gift! Why, yes, Oceankat. And here it is.

    Go read up a bit on the 2011 Canadian Federal Election. Because, it was actually one for the ages. My guys, the traditional 3rd party, went from 36 seats to 103. It was a genuinely amazing campaign, run by a genuinely amazing man, and a bit of an old friend of mine, Jack Layton. He and his Chinese-Canadian wife had both fought and beaten cancer, he ran an amazing campaign (not all that dissimilar to what one might expect from an Elizabeth Warren), he exploded in the polls and almost won what would have been a shocking, and completely unforeseen victory for those who want real change. I won't comment too much on the degree of electoral corruption there was in Canada, other than to say it was certainly unprecedented in recent decades, and surprisingly involved enormous entries into ethnic and immigrant communities which the Tories had, until recently, always despised and ignored.

    Anyway, Layton campaigned while secretly fighting cancer, which took his life just over 3 months later. He has become a beloved National figure since, and went out with the following words, which were very.... Jack. Not perfect, just Jack: 

    "My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world."

    This was how people memorialized him at Toronto City Hall, his home for many years. With chalked notes.... everywhere. A temporary thing, but the kindof thing he would like.

    I donno what the right answer is Oceankat. I just suspect it's one that doesn't begin with, "Of course we need something better."

    Dammit, Q seems less cynical than I. How did that happen?

    He invested in a chalk factory. He's trying to suck us in.

    Yowza, I never expected to see so many dagbloggers disparage the media for trying to follow the money. Hillary Clinton is the best-funded political candidate on the trail. If the Clintons are not suitable targets for an expose about money and politics, who is? And if the negative coverage prompts Hillary to compensate by championing campaign finance reform, I call it a win for democracy.

    Or we can just shrug our shoulders and write a thousand times on the blackboard: THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!!!!!


    Oh come on - they don't follow the money. They don't follow shit. The write the easiest stories possible and gossip the best they can. Expose? Trillions disappeared in the bailout. In Iraq, billions in cash disappeared on pallets. We as a population don't even give a fuck about this. We can't be bothered. But we'll bitch about Hillary making too much money or something. I simply dont care - we're an irrational people. But how will we better rule or affect the world?

    Oh I'm not lauding the NYT for journalistic courage. They covered the story bc Hillary Clinton sells copy. But the fact that they've missed other stories does not mean that they should not have covered this one.

    And yes, I do want people to bitch about politicians who make money from influence buyers.

    I'm all for the story being covered but how do you think it should be covered? It seems like the NYT and others are covering it this way.

    Right wing investigator makes unsubstantiated claim. Here's the details of that unsubstantiated claim. Somewhere inside in paragraph 19 some articles might mention that their reporter's investigation of the claim could turn up no evidence. In fact all evidence collected tended to exonerate Hillary.

    If there is some there there tell us. But right now the story should be: Investigations show that Right wing claims about Clinton foundation donations influencing Hillary's actions as Secretary of State have no substance, most likely false.

    So if the NYT cannot prove that a politician took action on behalf of a donor, they should report that the politician was mostly likely not influenced? Nothing to see here, move along people.

    Really? Would you say the same thing if the politician was Scott Walker and the donor was a Koch? What if the politician was a West Virginia judge, and the donor was a coal company with a pending case. Or a state attorney general who receives donations from a company under investigation.

    Obviously, there's no smoking gun here. If there were, we'd be dealing with an indictment, not a news story. Still, there is a clear, if circumstantial, attempt to buy influence.

    Maybe Hillary was not successfully bought. I hope not. But regardless, I don't think the Clinton Foundation should have accepted money in the first place from people who were attempting to buy influence, and I think it's a good thing that the media is not giving them a pass.

    Now you can take issue with the reporting if you like, but I think the only reason anyone here cares enough to criticize the New York Times for criticizing a politician is because that politician happens to Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic presidential nominee. So who has the double standard here. The New York Times, or dagblog.com?

    You're making inept comparisons. If some liberal author looked at an oil field purchase by Koch approved by Walker and discovered a Koch donation to his campaign and claimed it was a pay off it should be looked at, investigated, and the results reported. If the investigation turned up information that since it was close to Lake Ontario an interstate agency of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, the states the border the lake, had to approve it as well that should be reported too. And since Canada also borders Lake Ontario they also had to approve. And the EPA had to approve. If it turned out that 9 separate government agencies 8 of which Walker had no influence over approved this deal that should be reported. And further investigation showed the Walker wasn't even involved in Wisconsin's approval of the deal, it was handled by a mid level bureaucrat who went on the record saying Walker never contacted him to discuss the deal.

    Well yeah, I think the story clearly is Dumb Ass Liberal makes unsubstantiated accusation against Walker. Accusation turns out to be untrue. And that's the argument I'd make here if someone asked me. But you're right, because Walker is a republican if no one asked me I might just keep my mouth shut.

    Have you been following the story? It looks clear to me the story is Right wing nut job makes unsubstantiated accusation against Hillary. Accusation turns out to be untrue.

    I think you meant "inapt" (less of a fighting word) but could be wrong.

    I actually fuss over these little comments more than I think is necessary. My spelling is atrocious and I go to Dictionary.com several times in every comment to get it right. I check the thesaurus often to get just the right word to convey the nuance I want. I often wonder why I'm spending the time when no one notices or cares much about these comments. I was unhappy with "inept" and I pondered it for a minute before I decided not to look for a clearer word. Close enough for jazz I told myself. So of course someone did notice and pointed it out. dammit I mean thanks for the correction, you're right.

    The criticism presented by the NYT article, as I understand it, is that the Clintons inappropriately accepted money from people trying to influence the State Department. That criticism strikes me as newsworthy, credible...and apt. ;)

    I understand that the book goes further in its insinuations, if not outright accusations, and I do think the Times article should have been more critical of that.

    Since there is no smoking gun and the source came out of the GOP, it does make the NYT appear gullible. I mentioned Judith Miler. The NYT also inaccurately reported that ACORN offices in several cities facilitated prostitution. Congress shut off funding to ACORN and the organization folded. TheTimes operates as dupes. They should make clear from the outset that there is no evidence of wrong doing.


    In a contrary sense, it's more helpful to Hillary's campaign to air an issue like this now rather than later.

    What I find interesting, if one can entertain any argument about what NYT should print, is the op-ed by the kook governor of Louisiana. Perhaps the NYT has a policy of "it's so bad, it's good".

    Latest Comments