SATURDAY, JULY 30, 2016
Perhaps a bit less than accurate: Reluctantly, we wanted to show you something Rachel Maddow said on last night's Rachel Maddow Show.
We're going to have to wait! MSNBC hasn't posted a transcript yet, not even on Nexis. Having already burned our time transcribing remarks from Thursday evening's convention coverage, we'll be danged if we're going to burn more time transcribing last night's program.
We could do it. But it would be wrong.
MSNBC has a remarkably slacker corporate culture. At this, its official site, the channel has posted transcripts for exactly four Maddow shows in the whole month of July. According to the official site, the program aired on July 1, 5, 6 and 11, and on no other occasion.
Reluctantly, we wanted to show you something that was said on the program last night. That said, we're going to wait for a transcript to appear at Nexis. Then, with real reluctance, we'll compare what was said last night with an actual transcript of some actual remarks from the actual night before.
There's no "point" to any of this, of course. That said, we still think it's instructive, the way our culture works-wise.
That said:
On Monday morning, we expect to start with this semi-humorous essay from today's hard-copy Washington Post. Our question for the week will be this:
Is current criticism of Candidate Clinton primarily sexist and misogynist? Or is it primarily part of a longer, three-part story, a three-part story your "journalists" are sworn not to tell?
We'll ponder those questions next week. We can already tell you this:
Whatever the current situation may be, the misogyny was much more overt in 2007 and 2008. But since it was coming from big press corps stars, the rest of the guild largely agreed that they mustn't notice or tell.
In search of Hardball script: The slacker channel is doing better with Hardball. At this, its official site for that, it has posted Hardball transcripts all the way through Wednesday, July 13!
BREAKING: Concerning that Kevin Drum link!
FRIDAY, JULY 29, 2016
We'll have to link you right here: In our previous post, we failed to include a link to Kevin Drum's summary of the Cubs-Yankees matter.
We've got your link right here. Blogger has been misbehaving, so we don't want to add it to the original post.
While we're at it:
We first described the original profiles which mentioned this matter back in June 2000. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/13/00.
Also, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/14/00.
As we all know, facts, information and apparent facts no longer play a role in our discourse. Nothing like this makes any difference, or did even at that time.
It's narrative all the way down! The children select a preferred group tale. Then, they all start reciting.
(Comey the God is one such recent group tale. In spite of his recent shaky behavior, all pundits know they must defer to the mandated tale about his obvious honesty.)
We'll have to link you right here: In our previous post, we failed to include a link to Kevin Drum's summary of the Cubs-Yankees matter.
We've got your link right here. Blogger has been misbehaving, so we don't want to add it to the original post.
While we're at it:
We first described the original profiles which mentioned this matter back in June 2000. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/13/00.
Also, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/14/00.
As we all know, facts, information and apparent facts no longer play a role in our discourse. Nothing like this makes any difference, or did even at that time.
It's narrative all the way down! The children select a preferred group tale. Then, they all start reciting.
(Comey the God is one such recent group tale. In spite of his recent shaky behavior, all pundits know they must defer to the mandated tale about his obvious honesty.)
HOW WE GOT HERE: Pundits fight back against Cubs-Yankees lie!
FRIDAY, JULY 29, 2016
Part 5—Where the hatred comes from: How did we get to the perilous place where Trump might reach the White House?
To raise a more specific question, why do so many voters seem to hate Hillary Clinton?
Last Sunday, Michelle Goldberg raised that important question. As is the norm within her guild, she explored every possible answer—every possible answer but one.
This morning, the New York Times editorial board played the same old game. James Bennet is now the head of the board. The very familiar evasion which follows ought to make him ashamed:
Bennet implies that those "skeptical voters" have played those games about Clinton's clothing due to their sexism. Back in the day, Candidate Gore was crazily examined with regard to every aspect of his clothing—and major figures at the Times were happily playing this game.
Bennet plays a familiar game in that formulation. As we've noted down through the years, figures like Bennet will constantly blame "Republicans" or "the voters" for the types of conduct in which the mainstream press corps itself has very widely engaged.
As with Goldberg, so with Bennet; the press corps' behavior must disappear. But with regard to the Clintons and Gore, the press corps has played this destructive game for at least twenty years. It's one of the ways we got to this dangerous place.
No, James. "Skeptical voters" didn't start the long, dishonest war which has brought us to this dangerous place. Mainstream journalists have played a much more significant role in the succession of pseudo-scandals and deceptions which sent Candidate Bush to the White House, and now threaten to perform the same service for the astonishing Candidate Trump.
In this week's reports, we've been examining one little episode in this long war, a war comprised of many such episodes. We've examined the claim that Hillary Clinton fiendishly lied about the Cubs and the Yankees.
Last Sunday, the Times' Gail Collins did it again! In the featured piece on the front page of the Sunday Review, she journeyed back a full seventeen years to revive this gruesome old groaner. She rolled her eyes as she plainly implied that Clinton lied about the Cubs and the Yanks.
Did Hillary Clinton really lie about the Cubs and the Yankees? The evidence says and suggests that the answer is no. For a brief summary by Kevin Drum, click here.
Even in 1999, the evidence said and suggested that Hillary Clinton really did root for the Cubs and the Yankees when she was a girl. But back in June 1999, the mainstream press corps was on a jihad, inventing lies by Candidate Gore.
Rather plainly, this was payback for the fact that President Clinton had survived his impeachment trial four months before. In their obvious pique, the boys and girls of the mainstream press were also eager to invent lies by Hillary Clinton.
Today, we'll give you an overview of the way the "skeptical voters" of the mainstream press reacted to Clinton's accurate statement. The punishment went on for years.
Even today, Goldberg and Bennet refuse to discuss the press corps' role in building the Hillary hatred. They hold you in complete contempt. In her astonishing dumbness, Collins may be even worse.
The evidence says and suggests that Clinton made an accurate statement, about a trivial topic. What follows is a brief overview of the way the "skeptical voters" of the mainstream press punished the vile first lady for making that accurate statement.
Real time—June 1999:
It started in the New York Times with a jibe by Katharine "Kit" Seelye.
Seelye would become one of the principal dissemblers about Candidate Gore. Six months later, she would accidentally misreport something Gore had said about Love Canal, doing so completely by accident in an honest and completely accidental honest mistake.
This obvious accidental mistake would trigger a deeply destructive firestorm. The GORE LIAR narrative locked into place; George Bush ended up in the White House.
Let's return to the Cubs and the Yankees:
Clinton had said that, as a girl, she rooted for both teams! By the rules of the post-impeachment jihad, this couldn't be allowed to stand. The pushback began with Seelye:
Two days later, on This Week, two other "skeptical voters" opined about what Clinton had said. Cokie Roberts laid a fat one over the plate. George Will hit it out of the park:
Sam Donaldson exhibited a bit of skepticism about the importance of the Clintonian lie. “Talk about building a mountain out of a molehill," he said, interrupting Will—though he himself plainly implied that what Clinton had said was a stretcher. Moments later, Roberts explained who she pitied most:
As with Candidate Gore, so too with potential candidate Clinton! "They can't tell the truth," Will said, railing about the first lady's accurate statement. Cokie closed the segment with a snide remark about Clinton's choice of husbands.
The gasbag gang was just getting started. The next morning, in the Washington Post, Jonathan Yardley said the Clintons had already won that year's Vulgarity Cup:
The life forms all seemed to know what the vile first lady had done. The next night, Doris Kearns Goodwin was called in from the bullpen to play come Hardball.
In the future, try to pretend that you never encountered this swill:
Helping us see the real "interest" here, Goodwin started and ended with her nose in the Clintonian underwear drawer. Along the way, she explained how crazy that statement about the Cubs and the Yankees was.
Goodwin knew how crazy it was from her own past confessions! That statement just couldn't be right!
Don’t worry, there was more, although the fun would soon be interrupted by the need to trash Candidate Gore’s formal announcement on June 16. In the Washington Post, our old pal Tony Kornheiser devoted his widely-read Sunday column to the sheer absurdity of what Clinton had said.
Two weeks later, Richard Cohen was still upset:
Years earlier, profiles in that same Washington Post had said and suggested that Clinton actually had rooted for both teams. None of these "skeptical voters" ever mentioned that fact. As we've told you for the past eighteen years, our press corps works solely from script.
One year later—June 2000:
Almost exactly one year later, some of the life forms started up again.
By now, the highly Clintonian Hillary Clinton was a Senate candidate from the state of New York. And uh-oh!
Candidate Clinton had recently done a humorous slide show at a dinner. In every picture, she was shown wearing a photoshopped Yankees cap.
To judge from the tape, it got a good laugh. But as usual, insider pundits knew much better.
Steve Roberts took the tag team slap from his wife, Cokie Roberts. On CNN's Late Edition, he explained to Wolf:
That same day, on This Week, our old pal Derek McGinty sounded off for Cokie and Sam:
At this point, an emailer alerted us to the profiles in the Washington Post from 1993 and 1994. We did a pair of posts quoting what those profiles had said.
There may have been more of this silly piddle during the 2000 campaign. In interests of time, let's jump ahead to the Obama-Clinton fight for the 2008 Democratic nomination.
Revival time—September/October 2007:
As early as March 2007, major pundits were returning to the Cubs and the Yankees. On March 7, Juan Williams staged a revival of the old play on Hannity & Colmes. One day later, Ana Marie Cox tickled the same keys for Imus.
By the fall, the Cubs and the Yankees were back on the pundits' playlist. Needless to say, it was Tim Russert who staged the biggest production.
At a Democratic presidential debate, Russert asked Clinton who she would root for if the Cubs and the Yankees met in that year's World Series. Clinton gave a joking response. But that Sunday, a bunch of "skeptical voters" on Meet the Press took the whole thing in earnest.
Russert played the videotape from the debate, then invited the pundits to strike. Eight years later, the jackals were still eager to play the familiar old Cubs-Yankees card:
But so what? Gregory, playing it totally straight, said her answer “reeked of calculation." Eschewing tired "Clintonian" claims, Buchanan moved to “Nixonian.”
Moments later, Tavis Smiley played along, earning his spot in The Brotherhood. Clinton's response about the Cubs and the Yankees "sounded like Romney is what it sounded like," the skeptical voter said.
(At the time, liberals and Dems were trashing Romney for taking all sides on all issues. To Smiley, that's what Clinton had done with respect to the Cubs and the Yanks!)
Russert's pundits didn't get to Clinton's new gaffe first. By the time Meet the Press aired, major pundits had already sounded off about this latest Cubs-Yankees groaner.
In the New York Times, the ludicrous Collins went first. She didn't seem to realize that Clinton's statements at the debate had been joking in nature:
The next day, David Broder, the pundit dean, sounded off in the Post:
For what it's worth, another member of the Jack Welch team revived this topic before King Russert. On the September 23 Chris Matthews Show, Matthews played the original tape from 1999, then led the droogs take their turnsreciting:
We haven't tried to present a full history of this gruesome press corps behavior. We're just reproducing parts of earlier posts from this site.
Nor are we saying that this has been one of the most significant episodes in the press corps' long jihad against Candidate Clinton. We've reviewed this particular matter because Gail Coliins actually showcased this nonsense again in last Sunday's New York Times.
In fact, this is one just episode out of many in the press corps' long-standing jihad against this Clintonian/Nixonian childhood fan of two baseball teams. Many other episodes have been more egregious. In 1999 and 2000, these same "voters" were inventing one episode after another in their war against Candidate Gore.
Why do we bother with this at all? Thanks for asking!
Last Sunday, Michelle Goldberg asked a very good question. She wanted to know why Clinton is hated so much.
She considered every answer but one. As is the custom, she refused to consider the criminal conduct in which her own guild has engaged.
That press corps has been a long-standing disgrace. Like everyone else in the guild, Goldberg would jump off the Golden Gate Bridge before she would discuss that.
Rachel won't discuss it either. Neither will Steve or Chris or anyone else at MSNBC.
Chait and Drum and Josh and Ezra won't discuss this either. This never-ending code of silence has allowed this astonishing conduct to roll on and on and on.
In Campaign 2000, it gave us Bush. This fall, their twenty-four years of Hillary hatred may end up giving us Trump.
Here's the horrible part:
By now, the "skeptical voters" of the press don't want that frightening outcome! But they've been creating the nation's Hillary hatred for a very long time now. It's too late for these horrible people to call their angry dogs back.
That said, they will never discuss this matter. They will never be willing to say what their insider guild has done.
They receive their cash from the guild. Readers, their lips are sealed.
Part 5—Where the hatred comes from: How did we get to the perilous place where Trump might reach the White House?
To raise a more specific question, why do so many voters seem to hate Hillary Clinton?
Last Sunday, Michelle Goldberg raised that important question. As is the norm within her guild, she explored every possible answer—every possible answer but one.
This morning, the New York Times editorial board played the same old game. James Bennet is now the head of the board. The very familiar evasion which follows ought to make him ashamed:
NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (7/29/16): When Barack Obama was inaugurated as the nation’s first African-American president, historians wondered what combination of qualifications, experience and personality made him, of all black leaders, the one to break through that barrier. Such questions are, if anything, even sharper for Mrs. Clinton. Is she the nominee because she has more relevant experience than just about any candidate for the presidency, or because she is the wife of a former president? Skeptical voters have scrutinized her age, voice, tone, even clothing as qualifiers for the White House. Small wonder women make up less than one-fifth of Congress, and only six are governors.According to bennet, "skeptical voters" have scrutinized Clinton's age, voice and tone—even her clothing! Alas! The New York Times has endlessly played such games, and other games which are worse.
Bennet implies that those "skeptical voters" have played those games about Clinton's clothing due to their sexism. Back in the day, Candidate Gore was crazily examined with regard to every aspect of his clothing—and major figures at the Times were happily playing this game.
Bennet plays a familiar game in that formulation. As we've noted down through the years, figures like Bennet will constantly blame "Republicans" or "the voters" for the types of conduct in which the mainstream press corps itself has very widely engaged.
As with Goldberg, so with Bennet; the press corps' behavior must disappear. But with regard to the Clintons and Gore, the press corps has played this destructive game for at least twenty years. It's one of the ways we got to this dangerous place.
No, James. "Skeptical voters" didn't start the long, dishonest war which has brought us to this dangerous place. Mainstream journalists have played a much more significant role in the succession of pseudo-scandals and deceptions which sent Candidate Bush to the White House, and now threaten to perform the same service for the astonishing Candidate Trump.
In this week's reports, we've been examining one little episode in this long war, a war comprised of many such episodes. We've examined the claim that Hillary Clinton fiendishly lied about the Cubs and the Yankees.
Last Sunday, the Times' Gail Collins did it again! In the featured piece on the front page of the Sunday Review, she journeyed back a full seventeen years to revive this gruesome old groaner. She rolled her eyes as she plainly implied that Clinton lied about the Cubs and the Yanks.
Did Hillary Clinton really lie about the Cubs and the Yankees? The evidence says and suggests that the answer is no. For a brief summary by Kevin Drum, click here.
Even in 1999, the evidence said and suggested that Hillary Clinton really did root for the Cubs and the Yankees when she was a girl. But back in June 1999, the mainstream press corps was on a jihad, inventing lies by Candidate Gore.
Rather plainly, this was payback for the fact that President Clinton had survived his impeachment trial four months before. In their obvious pique, the boys and girls of the mainstream press were also eager to invent lies by Hillary Clinton.
Today, we'll give you an overview of the way the "skeptical voters" of the mainstream press reacted to Clinton's accurate statement. The punishment went on for years.
Even today, Goldberg and Bennet refuse to discuss the press corps' role in building the Hillary hatred. They hold you in complete contempt. In her astonishing dumbness, Collins may be even worse.
The evidence says and suggests that Clinton made an accurate statement, about a trivial topic. What follows is a brief overview of the way the "skeptical voters" of the mainstream press punished the vile first lady for making that accurate statement.
Real time—June 1999:
It started in the New York Times with a jibe by Katharine "Kit" Seelye.
Seelye would become one of the principal dissemblers about Candidate Gore. Six months later, she would accidentally misreport something Gore had said about Love Canal, doing so completely by accident in an honest and completely accidental honest mistake.
This obvious accidental mistake would trigger a deeply destructive firestorm. The GORE LIAR narrative locked into place; George Bush ended up in the White House.
Let's return to the Cubs and the Yankees:
Clinton had said that, as a girl, she rooted for both teams! By the rules of the post-impeachment jihad, this couldn't be allowed to stand. The pushback began with Seelye:
SEELYE (6/11/99): “The fact is, I've always been a Yankees fan,” the First Lady, who was born and bred in Chicago, asserted this morning to Katie Couric on NBC's "Today Show" in anticipation of the championship team's visit to the White House this evening. When the puzzled Ms. Couric said she thought Mrs. Clinton was a lifelong Chicago Cubs fan, the First Lady, in a classic Clintonian gesture, quickly claimed loyalty to the Cubs, too.It was a classic Clintonian gesture, the ace reporter said.
Two days later, on This Week, two other "skeptical voters" opined about what Clinton had said. Cokie Roberts laid a fat one over the plate. George Will hit it out of the park:
ROBERTS (6/13/99) We can't end this program without talking about the fact that Hillary Clinton seems to have changed teams. That the White House this past week, there was a celebration for the New York Yankees, the New York Yankees, the victory in last year's World Series. And Mrs. Clinton said, “Well, now the fact is, I've always been a Yankees fan.” We thought she was a Cubs fan, like you.Just like that, the Clintonian gesture had become a Clintonian lie!
WILL: Well, the Cubs will cheerfully trade her to the Yankees. The fact is, that's a wonderful statement because—and it is germane to this election, because it's not just a lie, it is a Clintonian lie, which is say, an optional lie and an embroidered lie. She did it because she was a Cub fan and she said she couldn't root for the White Sox because it's just not done, and therefore she rooted for the Yankees. What rubbish. This is what New Yorkers have to decide. Do they want to import into their state the mendacity that—
Sam Donaldson exhibited a bit of skepticism about the importance of the Clintonian lie. “Talk about building a mountain out of a molehill," he said, interrupting Will—though he himself plainly implied that what Clinton had said was a stretcher. Moments later, Roberts explained who she pitied most:
ROBERTS: I must say the part that made me sad was Joe Torre standing there [at the White House]. I'm a great admirer of Joe Torre and for him to be used in this way, it was a little—Unwilling to challenge what had been said, Stephanopoulos tried to change the subject. Will stated the heart and soul of the era's script:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I think you'll see her sitting at court side between Spike Lee and Matt Dillon in the Knicks playoffs coming up. But her much bigger problem is the news in the, the New York Times, this morning, whether or not Ken Starr is going to be issuing some sort of a scathing report. I think—
WILL: I'm sorry, that's part of the same thing. This is not a mountain out of a molehill. They can't tell the truth!
As with Candidate Gore, so too with potential candidate Clinton! "They can't tell the truth," Will said, railing about the first lady's accurate statement. Cokie closed the segment with a snide remark about Clinton's choice of husbands.
The gasbag gang was just getting started. The next morning, in the Washington Post, Jonathan Yardley said the Clintons had already won that year's Vulgarity Cup:
YARDLEY (6/14/99): The winners, you certainly will not be surprised to learn, are Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who are to vulgarity what the 1998 New York Yankees were to baseball or what Cole Porter was to the Broadway musical: the top. Indeed, speaking of the 1998 New York Yankees, a magnificent example of Clintonian vulgarity was on display last week when the players went to the White House to receive the requisite presidential blessing. They got that and more: La Rodham Clinton in their midst, a Yankee cap atop her head, proclaiming for all to hear, “I've always been a Yankees fan.” Never mind that she grew up in Chicago...Now it was Clintonian vulgarity. That same day, Fred Barnes sounded off on the CBS Morning Show:
BARNES (6/14/99): I mean, look—I mean, Hillary's already showing how Clintonian she is. She—I mean, what she said last week, “I've always been a Yankees fan.” Bob [Bechel], did you believe that? Since she was a little girl, she was a Yankees fan? Start the campaign with a whopper. That seems to be her idea.Now it was a Clintonian whopper. At this point, the program's host changed the subject. Beckel didn't disagree with Barnes.
The life forms all seemed to know what the vile first lady had done. The next night, Doris Kearns Goodwin was called in from the bullpen to play come Hardball.
In the future, try to pretend that you never encountered this swill:
GOODWIN (6/15/99): What's in their marriage? What really goes on? The only way I think she can really win in New York, much less win the presidency, is to establish a crusade where she gets people excited about her and her ambitions and her intellect. That's why I think she would have been so much better off waiting two years, doing it from Illinois, not having the carpetbagger, not having to suddenly come out and be for the New York Yankees. I mean, that was the craziest thing. I mean, I know what it's like to be a fan. You cannot love one team, and then when you're asked, “Who are you for, the Yankees or the Mets,” and you say you're a Yankee lifelong fan, and you say, “I'm for both of them.” I mean, as a fan who wakes up in the morning happy when the Red Sox win, sad when they lose, who used to confess in confession that I wished various New York Yankee players, you know, would get injuries so that we could win the World Series—Just for the record, be sure to note this ridiculous person's ridiculous political judgement. Clinton could never never win in New York! She should have moved back to Illinois!
MATTHEWS: Right.
GOODWIN: That is not a fan, and that shows a tin ear. So I worry that somehow she should have taken some time to think through her own career, and it's going to be strangle-holded by this relationship and by our interest in it.
Helping us see the real "interest" here, Goodwin started and ended with her nose in the Clintonian underwear drawer. Along the way, she explained how crazy that statement about the Cubs and the Yankees was.
Goodwin knew how crazy it was from her own past confessions! That statement just couldn't be right!
Don’t worry, there was more, although the fun would soon be interrupted by the need to trash Candidate Gore’s formal announcement on June 16. In the Washington Post, our old pal Tony Kornheiser devoted his widely-read Sunday column to the sheer absurdity of what Clinton had said.
Two weeks later, Richard Cohen was still upset:
COHEN (6/29/99): It's not known whether Hillary Clinton has polled as to where she should vacation or live. It is known, though, that she strains credulity in attempting to portray herself as, well, sort of a New Yorker. She always was a Yankee fan, she asserted recently. That's odd. She grew up in Chicago, once confessed to being a Cubs fan. Now she says that she always felt an obligation to root for an American League team as well. Sure.Cohen misstated what Clinton had said, then let us know that what she had said was wrong. In real time, the press corps' many "skeptical voters" landed on Clinton like a ton of bricks.
Years earlier, profiles in that same Washington Post had said and suggested that Clinton actually had rooted for both teams. None of these "skeptical voters" ever mentioned that fact. As we've told you for the past eighteen years, our press corps works solely from script.
One year later—June 2000:
Almost exactly one year later, some of the life forms started up again.
By now, the highly Clintonian Hillary Clinton was a Senate candidate from the state of New York. And uh-oh!
Candidate Clinton had recently done a humorous slide show at a dinner. In every picture, she was shown wearing a photoshopped Yankees cap.
To judge from the tape, it got a good laugh. But as usual, insider pundits knew much better.
Steve Roberts took the tag team slap from his wife, Cokie Roberts. On CNN's Late Edition, he explained to Wolf:
ROBERTS (6/11/00): Look, I agree that she's smart to be self-deprecating because she is not naturally a particularly warm person, I mean she comes across a pretty frosty character on the campaign trail, whereas Lazio's kind of this puppy dog lapping at everybody but she has had a problem with the carpetbagger issue. I'm a real Yankee fan, Wolf. I spent the last two days in Yankee Stadium with my Yankee hat, but I've been wearing one for 50 years. I think a lot of New Yorkers have resented the fact that she is coming in and tried to portray herself so she's probably smart to kid about it because it was a problem. She is not a New Yorker, she's a Chicago Cubs fan.She hadn't just misused Joe Torre. The first lady had dishonored people's real Yankees caps!
That same day, on This Week, our old pal Derek McGinty sounded off for Cokie and Sam:
McGINTY (6/11/00): That gets back to what we were just saying. I think that baseball cap thing was an effort to sort of poke fun at what was one of the dumbest political moves I've ever seen, and couldn't believe it when it happened, when she tried to say, you know, "I'm a lifetime New York Yankee fan." Nobody believed it, nobody even understood it. But it's interesting that she is trying to do this. She's been stuck at 44 percent since the beginning of this campaign. She hasn't budged a bit. And unfortunately, those who say she can't get to 50 percent may be right.We love Derek McGinty. Say it isn't so!
At this point, an emailer alerted us to the profiles in the Washington Post from 1993 and 1994. We did a pair of posts quoting what those profiles had said.
There may have been more of this silly piddle during the 2000 campaign. In interests of time, let's jump ahead to the Obama-Clinton fight for the 2008 Democratic nomination.
Revival time—September/October 2007:
As early as March 2007, major pundits were returning to the Cubs and the Yankees. On March 7, Juan Williams staged a revival of the old play on Hannity & Colmes. One day later, Ana Marie Cox tickled the same keys for Imus.
By the fall, the Cubs and the Yankees were back on the pundits' playlist. Needless to say, it was Tim Russert who staged the biggest production.
At a Democratic presidential debate, Russert asked Clinton who she would root for if the Cubs and the Yankees met in that year's World Series. Clinton gave a joking response. But that Sunday, a bunch of "skeptical voters" on Meet the Press took the whole thing in earnest.
Russert played the videotape from the debate, then invited the pundits to strike. Eight years later, the jackals were still eager to play the familiar old Cubs-Yankees card:
RUSSERT (10/1/07): I tried to get these candidates to take positions on Iraq, on Social Security, on the big issues. We talked about baseball, And I found this exchange particularly interesting. Let's watch:Russert had played the actual tape, so his pundits could see that Clinton was joking. (The term [LAUGHTER] after Clinton’s remark appears in the Nexis transcript.)
(Start of videotape)
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, what about a World Series, Yankees and Cubs?
CLINTON: Well, you know, I've worried about that because I think, given the Cubs' record, which—of course I, I hope it happens, but it could very well be a sign of the coming apocalypse were that to ever occur. It would be so out of history that you'd have the Cubs vs. the Yankees. Then I'd be really in trouble. But I—
RUSSERT: But who would you be for?
CLINTON: Well, I would probably have to alternate sides.
(LAUGHTER)
(End of videotape)
RUSSERT: Well, the Cubs are in the playoffs, David.
DAVID GREGORY: Yeah.
RUSSERT: Cubs, Yankees. You going to seat—sit behind each dugout?
GREGORY: You can't have it all. In the sports world, you can't have it all. That reeks of calculation, which is a potential downside for her.
PAT BUCHANAN: The term "Nixonian" comes to mind on that response.
But so what? Gregory, playing it totally straight, said her answer “reeked of calculation." Eschewing tired "Clintonian" claims, Buchanan moved to “Nixonian.”
Moments later, Tavis Smiley played along, earning his spot in The Brotherhood. Clinton's response about the Cubs and the Yankees "sounded like Romney is what it sounded like," the skeptical voter said.
(At the time, liberals and Dems were trashing Romney for taking all sides on all issues. To Smiley, that's what Clinton had done with respect to the Cubs and the Yanks!)
Russert's pundits didn't get to Clinton's new gaffe first. By the time Meet the Press aired, major pundits had already sounded off about this latest Cubs-Yankees groaner.
In the New York Times, the ludicrous Collins went first. She didn't seem to realize that Clinton's statements at the debate had been joking in nature:
COLLINS (9/29/07): It's one thing to refuse to answer a hypothetical question about whether there is any circumstance under which you might ever use nuclear weapons against Iran. It's another to refuse to commit on who you'd root for if the Yankees played the Cubs in the World Series. No young person is going to fall in love with politics because of a candidate who says: ''I would probably have to alternate sides.”Presumably, Clinton's statement about taking alternate sides was a reference to the tradition in which the president would change sides at halftime of the Army-Navy game. In her typical clueless state, Collins seemed to think the whole exchange had been serious.
The next day, David Broder, the pundit dean, sounded off in the Post:
BRODER (9/30/07): It went on like that...until a final question about baseball fandom. Clinton identified herself as a Yankees fan, saying she knew it would not help her with the Red Sox Nation supporters in New Hampshire. But what if it is the Cubs vs. the Yankees, Russert asked. "I guess I would have to alternate," she said, triangulating once again.It was clear that Clinton was joking throughout her pointless exchange with Russert. But to Broder, she'd been “triangulating again!” It was a mark of her “dodginess,” the Hillary hater said.
This dodginess got her through the two hours. Whether it can get her through the next three months is a different question.
For what it's worth, another member of the Jack Welch team revived this topic before King Russert. On the September 23 Chris Matthews Show, Matthews played the original tape from 1999, then led the droogs take their turnsreciting:
MATTHEWS (9/23/07): When Hillary ran for the Senate, she tried hard to prove she was a New Yorker.Everyone knew what to say, or at least how to dodge.
[Start of videotape]
COURIC: Are you a Yankee fan, too?
CLINTON: Well, now, the fact is, I've always been a Yankee fan.
COURIC: I thought you were a Cubs fan.
CLINTON: I am. I am a Cubs fan, but I needed an American League team. Because when you're from Chicago, you cannot root for both the Cubs and the Sox. I mean, you know, that's–there's a dividing line that you can't cross there. So as a young girl, I became very interested and enamored of the Yankees.
[End of videotape]
NORAH O'DONNELL: Oh boy.
MATTHEWS: I just love the way Katie went at her there. “Come on, how many hats you wearing, babe?” I just think that was great.
KATHLEEN PARKER: Oh boy.
ANDREW SULLIVAN: She's a Midwesterner, she's a New Yorker, she's from Arkansas, she has California, she's anything she needs to be.
JOHN HEILEMANN: She can feed the multitudes.
We haven't tried to present a full history of this gruesome press corps behavior. We're just reproducing parts of earlier posts from this site.
Nor are we saying that this has been one of the most significant episodes in the press corps' long jihad against Candidate Clinton. We've reviewed this particular matter because Gail Coliins actually showcased this nonsense again in last Sunday's New York Times.
In fact, this is one just episode out of many in the press corps' long-standing jihad against this Clintonian/Nixonian childhood fan of two baseball teams. Many other episodes have been more egregious. In 1999 and 2000, these same "voters" were inventing one episode after another in their war against Candidate Gore.
Why do we bother with this at all? Thanks for asking!
Last Sunday, Michelle Goldberg asked a very good question. She wanted to know why Clinton is hated so much.
She considered every answer but one. As is the custom, she refused to consider the criminal conduct in which her own guild has engaged.
That press corps has been a long-standing disgrace. Like everyone else in the guild, Goldberg would jump off the Golden Gate Bridge before she would discuss that.
Rachel won't discuss it either. Neither will Steve or Chris or anyone else at MSNBC.
Chait and Drum and Josh and Ezra won't discuss this either. This never-ending code of silence has allowed this astonishing conduct to roll on and on and on.
In Campaign 2000, it gave us Bush. This fall, their twenty-four years of Hillary hatred may end up giving us Trump.
Here's the horrible part:
By now, the "skeptical voters" of the press don't want that frightening outcome! But they've been creating the nation's Hillary hatred for a very long time now. It's too late for these horrible people to call their angry dogs back.
That said, they will never discuss this matter. They will never be willing to say what their insider guild has done.
They receive their cash from the guild. Readers, their lips are sealed.
Comic relief: Vice President Biden's superlative speech!
THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2016
The analysts' fears subside: For our money, there have been three very good speeches at this week's convention.
Personally, we've liked Joe Biden's speech best. We recommend the following chunk, not for what Biden says about Hillary Clinton, but instead for what this chunk of his speech says about Biden himself.
Biden discussed the loss of his son, the late Beau Biden. Then, he offered this. To watch the whole speech, click here:
He has access to amazing emotional memory, and he isn't afraid or ashamed to speak about "ordinary people like us."
As we watched him, he couldn't help thinking about our tribe's unwise inclination to name-call those "ordinary people like us." But just watch that part of Biden's speech. He has vast depths of memory.
Now for a moment of snark:
The analysts breathed a sigh of relief when Biden spoke so well of Candidate Clinton. The youngsters had been tied up in knots ever since they saw Rachel Maddow make these remarks, back at the end of June:
We tried to tell the analysts that was just the usual crap, but they were now frankly scared. Later, that Scranton event was canceled because of a terrorist event, and the fear settled into their bones.
In fairness, there was more than simple fear back on June 30. At first, the analysts were frightened when Maddow offered that analysis. Soon, though, several youngsters emitted a familiar cry:
"There she goes again!" Or so the analysts said.
Biden and Clinton were both born in Scranton? These analysts swore that it just wasn't so! The youngsters began to tear their hair over this latest "trivia fail." And sure enough! Before the program was done that night, Maddow offered one of the comical, overwrought self-corrections which have been flooding her air.
The biggest problem with Maddow's program in the past year has been her manifest refusal to fight the power. She never made the slightest attempt to clarify or explain the whole email mess. And when Comey the God seemed to peddle a scam a few weeks back, the world's biggest fame-and-lucre hound didn't so much as say boo.
Rachel defers to the power, whether we notice or not.
The second problem with Maddow's show has been the tons of silly, propagandistic trivia with which her viewers are now assailed. The new, improved Rachel Maddow loves to dumb us liberals down with silly, trivial presentations about how dumb and pathetic The Others are. Sadly, this pandering seems to make us love her more.
This silly corporate "cable news" show has become a corporate mess. That said, intermittent comic relief comes from the program's frequent errors, and from the overwrought self-corrections with which some of these errors are met.
We do get to chuckle at those self-corrections. Tomorrow, we'll start with Maddow's overwrought apology about the Scranton bungle/fail. We'll struggle onward from there.
For the record, "ordinary people like us" live in Scranton. It's best not to call people names.
The analysts' fears subside: For our money, there have been three very good speeches at this week's convention.
Personally, we've liked Joe Biden's speech best. We recommend the following chunk, not for what Biden says about Hillary Clinton, but instead for what this chunk of his speech says about Biden himself.
Biden discussed the loss of his son, the late Beau Biden. Then, he offered this. To watch the whole speech, click here:
BIDEN (7/27/16): His wife Hallie and his two kids are here tonight. But as Ernest Hemingway once wrote, the world breaks everyone, and afterwards, many are strong at the broken places.We hope that's true about Hillary Clinton. But nobody knows how to talk about "ordinary people like us," as he later put it, in quite the way Joe Biden does.
I've been made strong at the broken places by my love, Jill; by my heart, my son Hunter; and the love of my life, my Ashley. And by all of you, and I mean this sincerely, those who have been through this, you know I mean what I say. By all of you, your love, your prayers, your support.
But you know what? We talk about, we think about the countless thousands of other people who suffered so much more than we have, with so much less support, so much less reason to go on. But they get up every morning, every day. They put one foot in front of the other. They keep going. That's the unbreakable spirit of the people of America. That's who we are.
That's who we are. Don't forget it. Like the people in the neighborhood that Jill and I grew up in, she in Willow Grove and me down in Wilmington and Claymont. The kid in Claymont with the most courage, who always jumped in when you were double teamed or your back was against the wall, who became a cop because he always wanted to help people. The middle daughter of three daughters who always made her mother smile, who was a hero to her sisters, now a major in the United States Marine Corps because, "Mr. Vice President, I wanted to serve my country."
The teachers who Jill knows and so many of you know who take money out of their own pockets to buy pencils and notebooks for their students who can't afford them. Why? Why? Because being a teacher is not what they do. It's who they are.
You know what I know. For real, these are the people who are the heart and soul of this country. It's the America that I know, the America that Hillary knows and Tim Kaine knows.
You know, I've known Hillary for well over 30 years. Before she was first lady of the United States. When she became first lady. We served together in the United States Senate. And during her years as secretary of state, once a week, we had breakfast in my home, the vice president's residence.
Everybody knows she's smart. Everybody knows she's tough. But I know what she's passionate about. I know Hillary.
Hillary understands. Hillary gets it. Hillary understands that the college loan is about a lot more than getting a qualified student education. It's about saving the mom and the dad from the indignity of having to look at their talented child and saying, "Sonny, honey, I'm so sorry. The bank wouldn't lend me the money. I can't help you to get to school."
I know that about Hillary. Hillary understood that, for years, millions of people went to bed staring at the ceiling, thinking, "Oh, my God, what if I get breast cancer or he has a heart attack? I will lose everything. What will we do then?" I know about Hillary Clinton.
He has access to amazing emotional memory, and he isn't afraid or ashamed to speak about "ordinary people like us."
As we watched him, he couldn't help thinking about our tribe's unwise inclination to name-call those "ordinary people like us." But just watch that part of Biden's speech. He has vast depths of memory.
Now for a moment of snark:
The analysts breathed a sigh of relief when Biden spoke so well of Candidate Clinton. The youngsters had been tied up in knots ever since they saw Rachel Maddow make these remarks, back at the end of June:
MADDOW (6/30/16): Well, President Obama and Hillary Clinton have now rescheduled their first joint campaign appearance, it's going to be next week in North Carolina. And today we learned that, in addition to Hillary Clinton appearing with President Obama on Tuesday in North Carolina, later in the week, on Friday, she's also going to do a joint campaign appearance with Vice President Joe Biden.Say what? There had been "a lot of Washington whispers about whether or not Vice President Biden would really, truly deeply, enthusiastically campaign for Candidate Clinton?"
And that is interesting for a couple of different reasons. Now, the first reason is that ever since Vice President Biden went through his long, public, to-ing and fro-ing over whether or not he himself was going to run for president this year, ever since then, there have been a lot of Washington whispers about whether or not Vice President Biden really, truly, deeply supports Hillary Clinton for president and whether he would really, truly deeply, enthusiastically campaign for her in this election.
Well, we know he's going to campaign for her in this election, and we'll see what that looks like a week from tomorrow when they campaign together just outside the place that oddly is both of their hometowns. Both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and they will be together in Scranton next week.
We tried to tell the analysts that was just the usual crap, but they were now frankly scared. Later, that Scranton event was canceled because of a terrorist event, and the fear settled into their bones.
In fairness, there was more than simple fear back on June 30. At first, the analysts were frightened when Maddow offered that analysis. Soon, though, several youngsters emitted a familiar cry:
"There she goes again!" Or so the analysts said.
Biden and Clinton were both born in Scranton? These analysts swore that it just wasn't so! The youngsters began to tear their hair over this latest "trivia fail." And sure enough! Before the program was done that night, Maddow offered one of the comical, overwrought self-corrections which have been flooding her air.
The biggest problem with Maddow's program in the past year has been her manifest refusal to fight the power. She never made the slightest attempt to clarify or explain the whole email mess. And when Comey the God seemed to peddle a scam a few weeks back, the world's biggest fame-and-lucre hound didn't so much as say boo.
Rachel defers to the power, whether we notice or not.
The second problem with Maddow's show has been the tons of silly, propagandistic trivia with which her viewers are now assailed. The new, improved Rachel Maddow loves to dumb us liberals down with silly, trivial presentations about how dumb and pathetic The Others are. Sadly, this pandering seems to make us love her more.
This silly corporate "cable news" show has become a corporate mess. That said, intermittent comic relief comes from the program's frequent errors, and from the overwrought self-corrections with which some of these errors are met.
We do get to chuckle at those self-corrections. Tomorrow, we'll start with Maddow's overwrought apology about the Scranton bungle/fail. We'll struggle onward from there.
For the record, "ordinary people like us" live in Scranton. It's best not to call people names.
HOW WE GOT HERE: Fury concerning the Yankees and Cubs!
THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2016
Part 4—Hillary-hatred and novels: Why do so many people seem to hate Hillary Clinton?
For obvious reasons, it's an important question. When Michelle Goldberg asked the question this week, she considered every possible answer—every possible answer but one.
What's the source of the Hillary hatred? To consider the answer Goldberg skipped, let's recall something which happened way back in June 1999.
Way back in June 1999, the New York Yankees decided to visit the White House. The Yankees were reigning World Series champs. As such, they made their ceremonial visit to The House Ruth Didn't Build.
This prompted a comment by the first lady. Her comment helped us see that she, like Candidate Gore, was clearly The World's Biggest Liar.
What did the first lady blurt? In the Washington Post, on the front page of Style, a reporter named Frank Ahrens helped the nation confront a new, deeply troubling problem.
The nation seemed to require no prompting. According to Ahrens, the nation had "collectively hurled" in reaction to what Clinton said:
At this time, the first lady was exploring the possibility of running for the Senate from the state of New York. For this reasons, all the savants—all the life forms like Ahrens—knew that Clinton was telling a lie, looking for a way to gain favor with Empire State voters.
Please understand—at this time, the savants were busy creating an ugly, destructive novel about Candidate Gore. They were busy inventing the "lies" which established the fact that Gore, Bill Clinton's chosen successor, was The World's Biggest Liar, just like Bill Clinton before him.
At the time Ahren's piece appeared, Gore was about to make his formal announcement. The "press corps" was about to land on him like a ton of bricks.
(No one was more active in this lynching than the Washington Post's Style section—Eugene Robinson, editor.)
On June 16, Gore made his announcement; the mockery was ubiquitous. On June 18, the headline appeared in the New York Post which defined the novel the "press corps" was writing:
AL GORE, LIAR, the headline said.
The corps kept typing that tale about Clinton's successor for the next sixteen months. They invented Gore's "lies" as they went. Their conduct sent Bush to the White House.
To this day, you're not allowed to see or hear this conduct discussed—and along the way, the Clinton-hating insider "press corps" was eager to type the same pleasing novel about Bill Clinton's rank wife.
(Bill Clinton had survived impeachment four months earlier. Rather plainly, this conduct was furious payback.)
At any rate, there you see a bit of the background to the Cubs/Yankees remark. Life forms like Ahrens knew what to do in reaction.
(To give you a hint of his own moral greatness, Ahrens serves today as an executive for a Washington PR firm. "Innovative communications executive who delivered results at a global Fortune 100 firm in Asia and builds business at a top-line agency in the U.S.," the giant's self-description says. "Crafts and executes communication strategies across multiple platforms, sharpened for maximum impact and clarity of message.")
Back in June 1999, Ahrens went to work. He employed the colorful language which would call the rest of the life forms to action.
The nation had "collectively hurled" when the first lady made her claim, he said. Appallingly, the first lady had said that she had been a fan of the Cubs and the Yankees.
Triggered by Ahrens, the various life forms of the press did in fact swing into action. Tomorrow, we'll show you some of the things they said about the first lady at that time.
We'll also recall the way the life forms returned to the first lady's obvious lie when she sought her party's nomination for president in 2007 and 2008. Once the life forms get a script they like, the script will never die.
The first lady was called every name in the book by the various life forms and jackals. Michelle Goldberg will never tell you, but this is one of the obvious answers to the question she raised in her long piece for Slate.
Why do so many people hate Clinton? Tomorrow, we'll recall the reams of derision which landed on her head for her obvious lie, not just in 1999 but also eight years later.
For today, let's note a small minor problem with Ahrens' magnificent conduct. Let's note two profiles of Clinton which had run in his own Washington Post years before the nation collectively hurled.
When Hillary Clinton was a girl, did she root for the Cubs and the Yankees? This Sunday, in a high profile piece in the New York Times, the appalling Gail Collins reminded the world of how crazy this silly claim was.
In fairness to the horrific Collins, she was simply repeating a claim her coven has peddled for seventeen years. Today, let's recall the profiles of Clinton which disappeared when Ahrens triggered the maelstrom.
Uh-oh! Back in 1994, the White House had thrown a picnic on the South Lawn to celebrate Ken Burns' "long-awaited" documentary film, "Baseball." At the Washington Post, Donnie Radcliffe reported on the event.
Radcliffe's piece appeared on the front page of Style, as Ahren's piece would do years later. But the Big Liar jihad hadn't started, so no storm emerged when Radcliffe report the first lady's fiendish lie:
Or might her claim have been true? The first lady had quoted Satchel Paige correctly. Is it possible that she really was a baseball fan—a baseball fan who, as a child, had supported the Cubs and the Yankees?
Is it possible that her statement was true? Readers, of course it is! Indeed, shortly before she became first lady, another profile in the Washington Post had painted a similar picture.
Martha Sherrill penned that profile of Clinton. At various points, she described the type of upbringing Clinton received from her father.
Below, we learn where Clinton's swing came from—the swing Ken Burns would later admire. We also encounter an early variant of that fiendish lie:
As a child, did Hillary Clinton root for the Cubs and the Yankees? In 1993 and 1994, the Washington Post ran profiles which said and suggested that she actually did.
By 1999, though, an ugly jihad was on. Life forms like Ahrens were reinventing Candidate Gore as The World's Biggest Liar, Just Like Bill Clinton. When the first lady repeated her claim about the Yanks, they threw her into the briar patch too.
Tomorrow, we'll show you the mountains of ugly derision which were dumped on Clinton's head. It happened in 1999 and again in 2007, because of the fact that she had uttered this obvious fiendish lie.
Those earlier profiles disappeared. The life forms love to do this.
Trigger warning:
Tomorrow, we'll show you ugly behavior on the part of the "mainstream press." To state what is blindingly obvious, this ugly behavior helps explain why so many people seem to hate Hillary Clinton.
That behavior was ugly, but then again, so is Goldberg's behavior today. In accord with the laws of her guild, she is refusing to tell you the truth about the question she asked.
Nothing will make them tell you the truth about the ways their colleagues behave. In the wings, Candidate Trump is crazily waiting to serve.
Tomorrow: After that, the deluge
Part 4—Hillary-hatred and novels: Why do so many people seem to hate Hillary Clinton?
For obvious reasons, it's an important question. When Michelle Goldberg asked the question this week, she considered every possible answer—every possible answer but one.
What's the source of the Hillary hatred? To consider the answer Goldberg skipped, let's recall something which happened way back in June 1999.
Way back in June 1999, the New York Yankees decided to visit the White House. The Yankees were reigning World Series champs. As such, they made their ceremonial visit to The House Ruth Didn't Build.
This prompted a comment by the first lady. Her comment helped us see that she, like Candidate Gore, was clearly The World's Biggest Liar.
What did the first lady blurt? In the Washington Post, on the front page of Style, a reporter named Frank Ahrens helped the nation confront a new, deeply troubling problem.
The nation seemed to require no prompting. According to Ahrens, the nation had "collectively hurled" in reaction to what Clinton said:
AHRENS (6/11/99): On yesterday's "Today" show, the first lady played her familiar wink-and-a-nod, maybe-I'm-running-maybe-I'm-not shtick with host Katie Couric, who asked Clinton first about the New York Knicks—currently battling in the NBA playoffs—and then about the Yankees.Why had the nation "collectively hurled?" It was the obvious lying! Let's establish a bit of background to Ahren's remarkable statement:
"Are you a big Knicks fan?" Couric asked.
"I'm becoming a big Knicks fan," the first lady responded, laughing.
"More and more every day, huh?" Couric parried.
And then a sleepy-eyed nation collectively hurled.
Later, Clinton asserted that she'd "always been a Yankees fan." Couric correctly challenged her, saying she thought the first lady, a native of Illinois, was a Chicago Cubs fan.
"I am a Cubs fan," Clinton said. "But I needed an American League team...so as a young girl, I became very interested and enamored of the Yankees."
At this time, the first lady was exploring the possibility of running for the Senate from the state of New York. For this reasons, all the savants—all the life forms like Ahrens—knew that Clinton was telling a lie, looking for a way to gain favor with Empire State voters.
Please understand—at this time, the savants were busy creating an ugly, destructive novel about Candidate Gore. They were busy inventing the "lies" which established the fact that Gore, Bill Clinton's chosen successor, was The World's Biggest Liar, just like Bill Clinton before him.
At the time Ahren's piece appeared, Gore was about to make his formal announcement. The "press corps" was about to land on him like a ton of bricks.
(No one was more active in this lynching than the Washington Post's Style section—Eugene Robinson, editor.)
On June 16, Gore made his announcement; the mockery was ubiquitous. On June 18, the headline appeared in the New York Post which defined the novel the "press corps" was writing:
AL GORE, LIAR, the headline said.
The corps kept typing that tale about Clinton's successor for the next sixteen months. They invented Gore's "lies" as they went. Their conduct sent Bush to the White House.
To this day, you're not allowed to see or hear this conduct discussed—and along the way, the Clinton-hating insider "press corps" was eager to type the same pleasing novel about Bill Clinton's rank wife.
(Bill Clinton had survived impeachment four months earlier. Rather plainly, this conduct was furious payback.)
At any rate, there you see a bit of the background to the Cubs/Yankees remark. Life forms like Ahrens knew what to do in reaction.
(To give you a hint of his own moral greatness, Ahrens serves today as an executive for a Washington PR firm. "Innovative communications executive who delivered results at a global Fortune 100 firm in Asia and builds business at a top-line agency in the U.S.," the giant's self-description says. "Crafts and executes communication strategies across multiple platforms, sharpened for maximum impact and clarity of message.")
Back in June 1999, Ahrens went to work. He employed the colorful language which would call the rest of the life forms to action.
The nation had "collectively hurled" when the first lady made her claim, he said. Appallingly, the first lady had said that she had been a fan of the Cubs and the Yankees.
Triggered by Ahrens, the various life forms of the press did in fact swing into action. Tomorrow, we'll show you some of the things they said about the first lady at that time.
We'll also recall the way the life forms returned to the first lady's obvious lie when she sought her party's nomination for president in 2007 and 2008. Once the life forms get a script they like, the script will never die.
The first lady was called every name in the book by the various life forms and jackals. Michelle Goldberg will never tell you, but this is one of the obvious answers to the question she raised in her long piece for Slate.
Why do so many people hate Clinton? Tomorrow, we'll recall the reams of derision which landed on her head for her obvious lie, not just in 1999 but also eight years later.
For today, let's note a small minor problem with Ahrens' magnificent conduct. Let's note two profiles of Clinton which had run in his own Washington Post years before the nation collectively hurled.
When Hillary Clinton was a girl, did she root for the Cubs and the Yankees? This Sunday, in a high profile piece in the New York Times, the appalling Gail Collins reminded the world of how crazy this silly claim was.
In fairness to the horrific Collins, she was simply repeating a claim her coven has peddled for seventeen years. Today, let's recall the profiles of Clinton which disappeared when Ahrens triggered the maelstrom.
Uh-oh! Back in 1994, the White House had thrown a picnic on the South Lawn to celebrate Ken Burns' "long-awaited" documentary film, "Baseball." At the Washington Post, Donnie Radcliffe reported on the event.
Radcliffe's piece appeared on the front page of Style, as Ahren's piece would do years later. But the Big Liar jihad hadn't started, so no storm emerged when Radcliffe report the first lady's fiendish lie:
RADCLIFFE (9/12/94): Among the picnic's other attractions, which included a be-your-own-trading-card photo booth and standard ballpark fare of popcorn and hotdogs (plus more elaborate cuisine), was Hillary Clinton, who hit a couple of balls in the batting cage.Fiendishly, the first lady told her lie.
"That was a great swing," Burns told her. "Did you get some batting practice before the screening, just to warm up?"
Mrs. Clinton, who as a kid was a "big-time" fan of the Chicago Cubs and New York Yankees and "understudied" Ernie Banks and Mickey Mantle, smiled. Another favorite was Satchel Paige and his advice on how to stay healthy.
"I always loved 'Don't look back, somebody might be gaining on you.' " she said.
Or might her claim have been true? The first lady had quoted Satchel Paige correctly. Is it possible that she really was a baseball fan—a baseball fan who, as a child, had supported the Cubs and the Yankees?
Is it possible that her statement was true? Readers, of course it is! Indeed, shortly before she became first lady, another profile in the Washington Post had painted a similar picture.
Martha Sherrill penned that profile of Clinton. At various points, she described the type of upbringing Clinton received from her father.
Below, we learn where Clinton's swing came from—the swing Ken Burns would later admire. We also encounter an early variant of that fiendish lie:
SHERRILL (1/11/93): One spring, the entire Rodham family went every day to Hinckley Park and watched Hugh Rodham pitch and pitch and pitch until his daughter Hillary learned to belt a curveball. In sixth grade, she started taking piano lessons from Margaret-Lucy Lessard, who had a big dark house down the street, with her dead stuffed pets, Pomeranians, in a glass case in the living room. And in eighth grade, she learned to square-dance—but didn't date or anything. Everybody went out in groups. She was a mimic, a Ping-Pong player and a wading-pool lifeguard.As you probably know, Maris and Mantle were, at that time, the fabulous stars of the Yankees. Ricketts, Clinton's childhood pal, remembered her rattling their stats.
[...]
Whatever goal lingered in her mind—she has said she wanted to be an astronaut, her friends remember her talking about becoming a doctor—her focus was far away, years away, another place. "She had absolutely no vanity," remembers Jeannie Snodgrass Almo, a high school classmate who now runs Kids First, a day-care center in D.C. "She was totally unconcerned about how she appeared to people—and she was loved for that."
While her girlfriends had crushes, stared at boys, padded their bras, Hillary talked about politics, Sputnik and sports. "We used to sit on the front porch and solve the world's problems," said Rick Ricketts, her neighbor and friend since they were 8. "She also knew all the players and stats, batting averages—Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle—everything about baseball."
As a child, did Hillary Clinton root for the Cubs and the Yankees? In 1993 and 1994, the Washington Post ran profiles which said and suggested that she actually did.
By 1999, though, an ugly jihad was on. Life forms like Ahrens were reinventing Candidate Gore as The World's Biggest Liar, Just Like Bill Clinton. When the first lady repeated her claim about the Yanks, they threw her into the briar patch too.
Tomorrow, we'll show you the mountains of ugly derision which were dumped on Clinton's head. It happened in 1999 and again in 2007, because of the fact that she had uttered this obvious fiendish lie.
Those earlier profiles disappeared. The life forms love to do this.
Trigger warning:
Tomorrow, we'll show you ugly behavior on the part of the "mainstream press." To state what is blindingly obvious, this ugly behavior helps explain why so many people seem to hate Hillary Clinton.
That behavior was ugly, but then again, so is Goldberg's behavior today. In accord with the laws of her guild, she is refusing to tell you the truth about the question she asked.
Nothing will make them tell you the truth about the ways their colleagues behave. In the wings, Candidate Trump is crazily waiting to serve.
Tomorrow: After that, the deluge
HOW WE GOT HERE: Every possible answer but one!
WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2016
Part 3—The guild must be disappeared: Why do so many people hate Hillary Clinton so much?
Under the circumstances, it's a very important question. Because so many people hate Clinton, the craziest candidate in American history, by far, may end up in the White House.
Why do people hate Clinton so much? A full-blooded answer to that question would help us know how in the world we got here.
As such, the question is very important. In her recent piece for Slate, Michelle Goldberg examined every possible answer to that question—every possible answer but one.
As we noted yesterday, Goldberg interviewed an array of Hillary haters seeking the reason for the hate. One hated Hillary Clinton because of all the "suspicious deaths." Another hated her for an offhand comment she made in March 1992.
Why do people hate Clinton so much? Partly, we humans just love to hate, a fact which is increasingly clear within our own liberal tents.
That said, Hillary Clinton is hated a lot. What explains all the Hillary hatred? Goldberg pondered some possible answers.
In some ways, she tried to be fair. She cited Clinton's lack of charisma, though lack of charisma could hardly explain all that hate.
She also cites some normal political factors. Some people don't like Clinton's political positions, including some which have changed down through the year.
Again, though, a problem arises. This might explain political opposition, but it hardly explains all that hate.
In the end, Goldberg mainly considers the role of sexism and misogyny. Almost surely, such attitudes are one part of the problem.
Without any question, misogyny has played a role in the hatred of Hillary Clinton. Just consider all the times Chris Matthews derided her as "Evita Peron" or "Nurse Ratched" during his decade of Hillary hatred, a decade of lunatic public behavior which ended after 2008.
Goldberg won't mention those comments, of course. Within the guild, it's not done! But Matthews was hardly the only offender within the guild as the Hillary hatred grew.
During the Obama-Clinton nomination race in 2007 and 2008, such comments were also common from media stars like Mike Barnacle and Keith Olbermann, MSNBC luminaries both. And in June 2008, the New York Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, savaged star columnist Maureen Dowd for her incessant gander-based trashing of Candidate Clinton.
In a remarkable column, Hoyt savaged Dowd from stem to stern for what he called her misogyny. You will never learn such things from the work of a figure like Goldberg.
Briefly, let's be fair! Right at the start of her piece, Goldberg names two major journalists who have criticized Clinton. One is a former Republican speechwriter. The other is no longer alive and was hugely never well known:
Noonan is a famous figure from the conservative press—and "a former Republican speechwriter."
Kelly and Noonan are named by Goldberg right at the start of her piece. That said, it's the last time Goldberg names any major journalist who was ever critical of Hillary Clinton.
Where did all the hatred come from? At one point, Goldberg mentions "conspiracy websites." Those websites are part of the answer.
That said, who does she never name? She never names the mainstream press! In this passage, you see the classic, guild-approved, mandated shifting of blame:
The Hillary haters believe the charges Republicans have hurled. They've swallowed the guff about Whitewater, a set of charges which led to endless Republican investigations.
They've swallowed the claims in Schweizer's book, even though most of his charges have been disproven or shown to be unsubstantiated. As for Schweizer himself, he was last seen—where else?—speaking at the Republican convention!
Let's state the obvious. Republicans have played a key role in building the Hillary hatred.
The party did run crazy Whitewater probes. Republicans have hurled a bunch of crazy claims, including claims about Vince Foster and other "suspicious deaths."
Peter Schweizer did appear at the Republican convention. Without any question, that's all part of the problem.
Republicans have played a key role in building the Hillary hatred. But who did Goldberg forget to cite in her lengthy piece? She forgot the mainstream press!
Citizens, can we talk? The bungled claims about Whitewater began in the New York Times.
When Schweizer wrote his discredited book, he signed a deal with the New York Times to publish his bungled work.
Last August, that resulted in the most embarrassing "news report" of the current campaign. We refer to the New York Times' embarrassing 4400-word report about the scary uranium deal—a piece of work which should have gotten all participants fired.
When that giant piece appeared complete with its nine count-em nine photographs, we spent a week outlining its ludicrous, shoddy work. But within the mainstream guild, the boys and girls don't challenge the might of the hapless but powerful Times.
Instead, Goldberg appeared on the Chris Hayes program, where the embarrassing, bungled piece was excitedly described as a "bombshell report." One year later, Goldberg says the book has been discredited, but as she does, she forgets to note the role played by the ludicrous Times in its propagation.
By now, everyone knows a basic fact about the journalism of the past twenty-four years. But within the upper-end guild, the careerist boys and girls also know they mustn't mention the fact.
What fact did Goldberg choose to withhold about all the Hillary hatred? Everybody knows this fact:
The Hillary hatred has largely been spread by Clinton-, Gore- and Hillary-haters within the upper end press corps! Among a million other names, by figures like Matthews and Dowd!
Everybody knows this fact; Goldberg also seems to know that she mustn't state it. For today, we'll leave our discussion right there.
This afternoon, we'll post a few links. Tomorrow, more to come.
Tomorrow: Shedding tears for alas poor Romney!
Still coming: The Yanks and the Cubs
Part 3—The guild must be disappeared: Why do so many people hate Hillary Clinton so much?
Under the circumstances, it's a very important question. Because so many people hate Clinton, the craziest candidate in American history, by far, may end up in the White House.
Why do people hate Clinton so much? A full-blooded answer to that question would help us know how in the world we got here.
As such, the question is very important. In her recent piece for Slate, Michelle Goldberg examined every possible answer to that question—every possible answer but one.
As we noted yesterday, Goldberg interviewed an array of Hillary haters seeking the reason for the hate. One hated Hillary Clinton because of all the "suspicious deaths." Another hated her for an offhand comment she made in March 1992.
Why do people hate Clinton so much? Partly, we humans just love to hate, a fact which is increasingly clear within our own liberal tents.
That said, Hillary Clinton is hated a lot. What explains all the Hillary hatred? Goldberg pondered some possible answers.
In some ways, she tried to be fair. She cited Clinton's lack of charisma, though lack of charisma could hardly explain all that hate.
She also cites some normal political factors. Some people don't like Clinton's political positions, including some which have changed down through the year.
Again, though, a problem arises. This might explain political opposition, but it hardly explains all that hate.
In the end, Goldberg mainly considers the role of sexism and misogyny. Almost surely, such attitudes are one part of the problem.
Without any question, misogyny has played a role in the hatred of Hillary Clinton. Just consider all the times Chris Matthews derided her as "Evita Peron" or "Nurse Ratched" during his decade of Hillary hatred, a decade of lunatic public behavior which ended after 2008.
Goldberg won't mention those comments, of course. Within the guild, it's not done! But Matthews was hardly the only offender within the guild as the Hillary hatred grew.
During the Obama-Clinton nomination race in 2007 and 2008, such comments were also common from media stars like Mike Barnacle and Keith Olbermann, MSNBC luminaries both. And in June 2008, the New York Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, savaged star columnist Maureen Dowd for her incessant gander-based trashing of Candidate Clinton.
In a remarkable column, Hoyt savaged Dowd from stem to stern for what he called her misogyny. You will never learn such things from the work of a figure like Goldberg.
Briefly, let's be fair! Right at the start of her piece, Goldberg names two major journalists who have criticized Clinton. One is a former Republican speechwriter. The other is no longer alive and was hugely never well known:
GOLDBERG (7/24/16): It might seem as though nothing much has changed in 20 years. Many people disliked Hillary Clinton when she first emerged onto the political scene, and many people dislike her now. She is on track to become the least popular Democratic nominee in modern history, although voters like Donald Trump even less.Michael Kelly died in Iraq in 2003. He was a virulent Hillary hater, and a childhood friend of Dowd's.
But over the last two decades, the something that pisses people off has changed. Speaking to [Professor] Gates, former Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan described “an air of apple-cheeked certitude” in Clinton that is “political in its nature and grating in its effects.” Noonan saw in Clinton “an implicit insistence throughout her career that hers were the politics of moral decency and therefore those who opposed her politics were obviously of a lower moral order.”
Noonan’s view was a common one. Take, for example, Michael Kelly’s 1993 New York Times Magazine profile, mockingly titled “Saint Hillary.” “Since she discovered, at the age of 14, that for people less fortunate than herself the world could be very cruel, Hillary Rodham Clinton has harbored an ambition so large that it can scarcely be grasped,” Kelly wrote. “She would like to make things right. She is 45 now and she knows that the earnest idealisms of a child of the 1960s may strike some people as naive or trite or grandiose. But she holds to them without any apparent sense of irony or inadequacy.” Kelly’s piece painted Clinton as a moralist, a meddler, a prig.
Noonan is a famous figure from the conservative press—and "a former Republican speechwriter."
Kelly and Noonan are named by Goldberg right at the start of her piece. That said, it's the last time Goldberg names any major journalist who was ever critical of Hillary Clinton.
Where did all the hatred come from? At one point, Goldberg mentions "conspiracy websites." Those websites are part of the answer.
That said, who does she never name? She never names the mainstream press! In this passage, you see the classic, guild-approved, mandated shifting of blame:
GOLDBERG: Some who loathe Clinton see her as the living embodiment of avarice and deception. These Clinton haters take at face value every charge Republicans have ever hurled at her, as well as dark accusations that circulate online. They have the most invidious possible explanation for Whitewater, the dubious real estate deal that served as a pretext for endless Republican investigations of the Clintons in the 1990s. (Clinton was never found guilty of any wrongdoing, though one of her business partners, James McDougal, went to prison for fraud in a related case.) Sometimes they believe that Clinton murdered her former law partner, Vince Foster, who committed suicide in 1993. They hold her responsible for the deadly attack on the American outpost in Benghazi, Libya. Peter Schweizer’s new book Clinton Cash has convinced them that there was a corrupt nexus between Clinton’s State Department, various foreign governments, and the Clinton family’s foundation. Most of Schweizer’s allegations have either been disproven or shown to be unsubstantiated, but that hasn’t stopped Trump from invoking them repeatedly. In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, he accused Clinton of raking in “millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers.”Who is responsible for all the hate? That passage gives us our clearest answer.
The Hillary haters believe the charges Republicans have hurled. They've swallowed the guff about Whitewater, a set of charges which led to endless Republican investigations.
They've swallowed the claims in Schweizer's book, even though most of his charges have been disproven or shown to be unsubstantiated. As for Schweizer himself, he was last seen—where else?—speaking at the Republican convention!
Let's state the obvious. Republicans have played a key role in building the Hillary hatred.
The party did run crazy Whitewater probes. Republicans have hurled a bunch of crazy claims, including claims about Vince Foster and other "suspicious deaths."
Peter Schweizer did appear at the Republican convention. Without any question, that's all part of the problem.
Republicans have played a key role in building the Hillary hatred. But who did Goldberg forget to cite in her lengthy piece? She forgot the mainstream press!
Citizens, can we talk? The bungled claims about Whitewater began in the New York Times.
When Schweizer wrote his discredited book, he signed a deal with the New York Times to publish his bungled work.
Last August, that resulted in the most embarrassing "news report" of the current campaign. We refer to the New York Times' embarrassing 4400-word report about the scary uranium deal—a piece of work which should have gotten all participants fired.
When that giant piece appeared complete with its nine count-em nine photographs, we spent a week outlining its ludicrous, shoddy work. But within the mainstream guild, the boys and girls don't challenge the might of the hapless but powerful Times.
Instead, Goldberg appeared on the Chris Hayes program, where the embarrassing, bungled piece was excitedly described as a "bombshell report." One year later, Goldberg says the book has been discredited, but as she does, she forgets to note the role played by the ludicrous Times in its propagation.
By now, everyone knows a basic fact about the journalism of the past twenty-four years. But within the upper-end guild, the careerist boys and girls also know they mustn't mention the fact.
What fact did Goldberg choose to withhold about all the Hillary hatred? Everybody knows this fact:
The Hillary hatred has largely been spread by Clinton-, Gore- and Hillary-haters within the upper end press corps! Among a million other names, by figures like Matthews and Dowd!
Everybody knows this fact; Goldberg also seems to know that she mustn't state it. For today, we'll leave our discussion right there.
This afternoon, we'll post a few links. Tomorrow, more to come.
Tomorrow: Shedding tears for alas poor Romney!
Still coming: The Yanks and the Cubs
Glory watch: Michelle Obama's story-telling!
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2016
Reminiscent of glorious Homer: Michelle Obama's convention address was widely praised last night.
For ourselves, we'd prefer to see first spouses, male or female, speak in non-partisan settings. That's especially true in the case of someone like Obama, who has such remarkable depth of vision to share.
That said, one part of Michelle Obama's speech is being widely quoted—and we're not sure that her presentation is being fully captured. We refer to the passage at the end of her speech when she described her thoughts as she watched her happy, beautiful daughters play on the White House lawn.
Obama started and ended her speech with the needs of her daughters, and of the rest of the nation's children. Our view? Politics should always be about the interests and needs of the babies born today. What kinds of lives do we want them to live?
Michelle Obama built her speech around the needs of the country's children. This is the way she started:
The press corps should be ashamed of itself for the way it has avoided challenging Trump's past conduct as a birther. That said:
At the end of her speech, Obama returned to the lives of her daughters. She offered a beautiful two-part construction in which she describes her thoughts as she watches her daughters playing with their dog.
This construction is so lovely that it seems to come out of Homer. It seems to us that one part of this two-part construction is being widely lost:
In that glorious statement, Obama compares the happy lives of her daughters to the lives of the glorious ancestors who built the house in which they now live. As she watches her daughters at play, she thinks of the lives those honored ancestors lived.
It's going to be a long, long time before you hear a deeper passage from a speech. We thought of glorious Homer as Obama watched her girls at play and found her thoughts turning to those who had come before. That's some of the greatest story-telling you'll ever meet in a speech.
From there, Obama went on to ask what we can do for all the other kids, for the babies being born today. What kinds of lives do we want them to lead? She was asking a very good question.
That was a very unusual moment. As a general matter, we'd prefer to see this invaluable person sharing her insights in a setting where everyone, from all the tribes, might be inclined to listen.
Also, glorious Sandburg: You'll rarely encounter better story-telling than Obama gave you last night. We thought of Sandburg's account of Lincoln's last act before leaving Springfield to become the nation's sixteenth president.
Late in Volume II of The Prairie Years, Sandburg describes Lincoln’s trip to visit the woman who had raised him—his stepmother, Sally Bush Lincoln. The trip occurred in January 1861—after Lincoln’s election, before his inauguration.
The president-elect journeyed in ways which are hard to imagine today. “Lincoln rode to Mattoon, missed connections with a passenger train, and took the caboose of a freight train to Charleston,” Sandburg wrote. “Friends met him and took him to the house, where he was to stay overnight; the next morning he would go out to say good-bye and have his last hours with his stepmother, Sally Bush Lincoln.”
After an evening of story-telling, Sandburg imagines this:
The girls played on the lawn with their dog. Lincoln lived in that same house.
Reminiscent of glorious Homer: Michelle Obama's convention address was widely praised last night.
For ourselves, we'd prefer to see first spouses, male or female, speak in non-partisan settings. That's especially true in the case of someone like Obama, who has such remarkable depth of vision to share.
That said, one part of Michelle Obama's speech is being widely quoted—and we're not sure that her presentation is being fully captured. We refer to the passage at the end of her speech when she described her thoughts as she watched her happy, beautiful daughters play on the White House lawn.
Obama started and ended her speech with the needs of her daughters, and of the rest of the nation's children. Our view? Politics should always be about the interests and needs of the babies born today. What kinds of lives do we want them to live?
Michelle Obama built her speech around the needs of the country's children. This is the way she started:
OBAMA (7/25/16): You know, it’s hard to believe that it has been eight years since I first came to this convention to talk with you about why I thought my husband should be president.As she continued, Obama described the feelings of a parent raising two kids in the White House. Along the way, she gave us a glimpse of two parents' reaction to the conduct of a deranged public man:
Remember how I told you about his character and convictions, his decency and his grace, the traits that we’ve seen every day that he’s served our country in the White House?
I also told you about our daughters, how they are the heart of our hearts, the center of our world. And during our time in the White House, we’ve had the joy of watching them grow from bubbly little girls into poised young women, a journey that started soon after we arrived in Washington.
OBAMA: I realized that our time in the White House would form the foundation for who they would become, and how well we managed this experience could truly make or break them. That is what Barack and I think about every day as we try to guide and protect our girls through the challenges of this unusual life in the spotlight, how we urge them to ignore those who question their father’s citizenship or faith.When Donald Trump created himself as King of the Birthers, he was, among other things, taking aim at the children in the White House. The press corps has almost wholly disappeared his appalling conduct. Meanwhile, did you hear that Hillary lied about the Cubs and the Yankees?
The press corps should be ashamed of itself for the way it has avoided challenging Trump's past conduct as a birther. That said:
At the end of her speech, Obama returned to the lives of her daughters. She offered a beautiful two-part construction in which she describes her thoughts as she watches her daughters playing with their dog.
This construction is so lovely that it seems to come out of Homer. It seems to us that one part of this two-part construction is being widely lost:
OBAMA: That is the story of this country, the story that has brought me to this stage tonight, the story of generations of people who felt the lash of bondage, the shame of servitude, the sting of segregation, but who kept on striving and hoping and doing what needed to be done so that today I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves.Obama seemed to choke up as she recalled this moment. We can't say we blame her.
And I watch my daughters, two beautiful, intelligent, black young women playing with their dogs on the White House lawn.
In that glorious statement, Obama compares the happy lives of her daughters to the lives of the glorious ancestors who built the house in which they now live. As she watches her daughters at play, she thinks of the lives those honored ancestors lived.
It's going to be a long, long time before you hear a deeper passage from a speech. We thought of glorious Homer as Obama watched her girls at play and found her thoughts turning to those who had come before. That's some of the greatest story-telling you'll ever meet in a speech.
From there, Obama went on to ask what we can do for all the other kids, for the babies being born today. What kinds of lives do we want them to lead? She was asking a very good question.
That was a very unusual moment. As a general matter, we'd prefer to see this invaluable person sharing her insights in a setting where everyone, from all the tribes, might be inclined to listen.
Also, glorious Sandburg: You'll rarely encounter better story-telling than Obama gave you last night. We thought of Sandburg's account of Lincoln's last act before leaving Springfield to become the nation's sixteenth president.
Late in Volume II of The Prairie Years, Sandburg describes Lincoln’s trip to visit the woman who had raised him—his stepmother, Sally Bush Lincoln. The trip occurred in January 1861—after Lincoln’s election, before his inauguration.
The president-elect journeyed in ways which are hard to imagine today. “Lincoln rode to Mattoon, missed connections with a passenger train, and took the caboose of a freight train to Charleston,” Sandburg wrote. “Friends met him and took him to the house, where he was to stay overnight; the next morning he would go out to say good-bye and have his last hours with his stepmother, Sally Bush Lincoln.”
After an evening of story-telling, Sandburg imagines this:
SANDBURG: The next day Lincoln drove eight miles out to the old farm along the road over which he had hauled wood with an ox team. He came to the old log house had cut logs for and helped smooth the chinks; from its little square windows he had seen late winter and early birds.There too, another great portrait. Lincoln, looking on cheering thousands, would be thinking of the woman who had come before.
Sally Bush and he put their arms around each other and listened to each other’s heartbeats. They held hands and talked; they talked without holding hands. Each looked into eyes thrust back in deep sockets. She was all of a mother to him.
He was her boy more than any born to her. He gave her a photograph of her boy, a hungry picture of him standing and wanting, wanting. He stroked her face a last time, kissed good-by, and went away.
She knew his heart would go roaming back often, that even when he rode in an open carriage in New York or Washington with soldiers, flags or cheering thousands along the streets, he might just as like be thinking of her in the old log farmhouse out in Coles County, Illinois.
The sunshine of the prairie summer and fall months would come sifting down with healing and strength; between harvest and corn-plowing there would be rains beating and blizzards howling; and then there would be silence after snowstorms with white drifts piled against the fences, barns, and trees.
The girls played on the lawn with their dog. Lincoln lived in that same house.
Comic relief continued: Governor Kaine inaugural lore!
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2016
Virginia is for bunglers: By the end of last Thursday's convention coverage, the analysts were shaken.
"We just can't take it," one youngster cried. "Don't make us watch her any more!"
The youngsters were reacting to Maddow's latest gaffe. She'd said that Trump was the oldest nominee in the history of either party.
That statement was true, of course. But only if you forget about McCain and Dole, and even Reagan before them! For a full report, click here.
At any rate, after Maddow's Thursday night bungle, the analysts were telling us that they'd finally suffered enough.
In recent weeks, the errors have come thick and fast on the Maddow Show. That said, by Friday evening, we'd "talked the analysts down."
We'd convinced them to give Maddow and her orange-shoed program one more maddening chance. And then, just like that, the cable star struck again!
Adopting her practiced tone of world-class political expert, the cable star played videotape from Governor Tim Kaine's inauguration in 2006. After that, she offered the highlighted groaner:
To state the obvious, Richmond is the capital of Virginia. It's where the state's capitol building is found.
Frankly, we had no idea how Williamsburg got into the mix. But Maddow had bungled again, and the analysts were in tears.
While the youngsters rent their garments, we skillfully checked the facts. As it turned out, Maddow's error-prone staff had gotten their basics reversed:
In 2006, when Kaine was sworn in, the capitol building was under renovation in Richmond, right where it's usually found. For that reason, the ceremony was held in Williamburg, which had served as Virginia's capital until 1780.
Nothing turned on this mistake, of course. But do these errors ever stop?
Ever since MSNBC went all pseudo-politics all the time, Maddow has fashioned herself as a savant about political history and trivia. In the past few months, this has produced an escalating series of errors, punctuated by some comical self-corrections.
Maddow's staff seems preternaturally skilled at bungling their basics. The partisan porridge Maddow serves represents a bigger problem, of course, along with her ridiculous political analyses.
By the way, Maddow's obsession with Governor Ultrasound's gifts has already helped create a problem for VP nominee Kaine. We'll get to that by the end of the week. Fun with Ferraris ahead!
Tomorrow: Alas, poor Kornacki! Also, some humorous self-corrections
Virginia is for bunglers: By the end of last Thursday's convention coverage, the analysts were shaken.
"We just can't take it," one youngster cried. "Don't make us watch her any more!"
The youngsters were reacting to Maddow's latest gaffe. She'd said that Trump was the oldest nominee in the history of either party.
That statement was true, of course. But only if you forget about McCain and Dole, and even Reagan before them! For a full report, click here.
At any rate, after Maddow's Thursday night bungle, the analysts were telling us that they'd finally suffered enough.
In recent weeks, the errors have come thick and fast on the Maddow Show. That said, by Friday evening, we'd "talked the analysts down."
We'd convinced them to give Maddow and her orange-shoed program one more maddening chance. And then, just like that, the cable star struck again!
Adopting her practiced tone of world-class political expert, the cable star played videotape from Governor Tim Kaine's inauguration in 2006. After that, she offered the highlighted groaner:
KAINE (videotape): This is a glorious day! The weather is to remind us not to take ourselves too seriously.Schapiro acted like nothing had happened. The analysts were in tears.
MADDOW (7/22/16): When Tim Kaine got sworn in as Virginia's governor in 2006, the state capitol was under renovation. They had to swear him in in Richmond instead of Williamsburg. It was really cold, rainy and miserable.
And Tim Kaine laughed at that. And maybe that is a good sign in a running mate for a sign of what is to be an absolutely brutal presidential election.
Joining us is Jeff Schapiro. He's a political reporter for the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
To state the obvious, Richmond is the capital of Virginia. It's where the state's capitol building is found.
Frankly, we had no idea how Williamsburg got into the mix. But Maddow had bungled again, and the analysts were in tears.
While the youngsters rent their garments, we skillfully checked the facts. As it turned out, Maddow's error-prone staff had gotten their basics reversed:
In 2006, when Kaine was sworn in, the capitol building was under renovation in Richmond, right where it's usually found. For that reason, the ceremony was held in Williamburg, which had served as Virginia's capital until 1780.
Nothing turned on this mistake, of course. But do these errors ever stop?
Ever since MSNBC went all pseudo-politics all the time, Maddow has fashioned herself as a savant about political history and trivia. In the past few months, this has produced an escalating series of errors, punctuated by some comical self-corrections.
Maddow's staff seems preternaturally skilled at bungling their basics. The partisan porridge Maddow serves represents a bigger problem, of course, along with her ridiculous political analyses.
By the way, Maddow's obsession with Governor Ultrasound's gifts has already helped create a problem for VP nominee Kaine. We'll get to that by the end of the week. Fun with Ferraris ahead!
Tomorrow: Alas, poor Kornacki! Also, some humorous self-corrections
HOW WE GOT HERE: Why do people hate Clinton so much!
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2016
Part 2—Skipping one obvious answer: In this morning's Washington Post, Richard Cohen asks a very good question:
Why do people hate Hillary Clinton so much? Cohen offers several possible answers, steering away from one.
Why do people hate Clinton so much? Over at Slate, Michelle Goldberg decided to ask the same question. Her piece appears beneath these headlines:
In the course of her undescribed search, Goldberg turned up some of the usual suspects. She spoke with a 49-year-old Iowan who supported McCain in 2008 but now is in love with Sanders. She spoke with a 22-year-old medical student who rattled a list of "suspicious deaths" around the fiendish Clinton, who he sees as a sociopath.
(The "febrile" young man cited 47 suspicious deaths. In future years, he may not be the medical figure you want on your death panel.)
Goldberg's undescribed search took her far and wide. She even turned up a 78-year old Los Angeles songwriter "[whose] work has been recorded by Julie London, Mama Cass, and Harry Belafonte, among others."
Goldberg describes this fascinating case in some detail:
As Goldberg notes, Hillary hatred can also evade "precise ideological trajectory." When it comes to more literal politics, this particular Hillary hater cites Clinton's vote for the war resolution along with her original stance against same-sex marriage. At the same time, she'd be happy to vote for Vice President Biden, who also supported the war resolution and who also "didn’t support same-sex marriage until it became a popular issue."
Despite Biden's retrogade views, this hater likes his humanity! She hates Clinton, but likes the guy whose Senate voting record was actually somewhat less liberal.
Where does all this Hillary hatred come from? Obviously, Goldberg's search is highly anecdotal. There's no way to know how representative her Hillary haters are.
That said, Goldberg tries every theory of the case—every theory save one. Like Cohen in today's column, she is partial to the idea that sexism and misogyny are involved in the hate—and almost surely, they are.
Goldberg is also willing to entertain theories which revolve around Clinton's shortcomings. In this passage, Goldberg makes a very good point, though it doesn't really succeed as an explanation of hatred:
Actually, no, she probably wouldn't have passed. Her performance skills are quite limited, and she's a bit of gaffe machine. This dates back to the tone deaf "baking cookies" comment in March 1992, and to her tone deaf statement two months earlier, in which Clinton seemed to diss Tammy Wynette in her first appearance on the national stage.
We remember watching that 60 Minutes program and wondering how a Southern first lady could make such an obvious gaffe. Like many people before us, we'll suggest the obvious answer:
Bill Clinton was a highly skilled natural pol. His wife pretty much was not.
Hillary Clinton is a bit of "legacy" pol. Based on the evidence of her skills, there's no reason to think that she'd be where she is if she had been required to get there "on her own," without the initial giant boost from Bill Clinton's position.
To state the obvious, that doesn't make Hillary Clinton a bad person—and it doesn't explain the hate. So what explains the depth of the hatred? And why is she hated at all?
This is now a profoundly important question. In November, Clinton will be running against the craziest major party candidate in American history.
Her opponent is virtually allergic to truth, yet Clinton is seen as The World's Biggest Liar! For that reason, she may end up losing to this craziest candidate—for that reason, and because of all the hate.
Why is Clinton hated so much? Goldberg pretends to wonder. She considers every possible answer—every answer save one.
Tomorrow, we'll return to the obvious possible answer which Goldberg and Cohen both skipped. Why is Clinton hated so much? As it has long been decreed in the guild, Goldberg and Cohen both chose to skip one obvious part of the answer.
Tomorrow, we'll read through Goldberg's essay again, noting the possible answer she very deliberately skipped. When we do, you'll be able to see, once again, how guild members like Goldberg and Cohen may yet send Candidate Trump to the White House, helped along by the mandated silence of their many enablers and friends.
Tomorrow: The road not taken
Still coming: She lied about the Cubs and the Yanks! Also, she even lied about her own freaking name!
Part 2—Skipping one obvious answer: In this morning's Washington Post, Richard Cohen asks a very good question:
Why do people hate Hillary Clinton so much? Cohen offers several possible answers, steering away from one.
Why do people hate Clinton so much? Over at Slate, Michelle Goldberg decided to ask the same question. Her piece appears beneath these headlines:
The Hillary HatersWhy do people hate Clinton so much? Goldberg decided to go Cohen one better. She went out and asked an undisclosed number people why they hate Clinton so much.
Few figures in American political life have inspired such deep and decades-long contempt. But why?
In the course of her undescribed search, Goldberg turned up some of the usual suspects. She spoke with a 49-year-old Iowan who supported McCain in 2008 but now is in love with Sanders. She spoke with a 22-year-old medical student who rattled a list of "suspicious deaths" around the fiendish Clinton, who he sees as a sociopath.
(The "febrile" young man cited 47 suspicious deaths. In future years, he may not be the medical figure you want on your death panel.)
Goldberg's undescribed search took her far and wide. She even turned up a 78-year old Los Angeles songwriter "[whose] work has been recorded by Julie London, Mama Cass, and Harry Belafonte, among others."
Goldberg describes this fascinating case in some detail:
GOLDBERG (7/24/16): Like many of the people I spoke to, Rosner’s antipathy doesn’t follow a precise ideological trajectory. Now 78, she says her negative feelings about Clinton first arose during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. Rosner says she was especially irritated when, in response to criticism of her work at the Rose Law Firm, Hillary said, “You know, I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession.”Hillary-hatred can last a long time! This hater is still citing Clinton's "baking cookies" remark from March 1992. She still burns with tears of rage!
“That bugged me,” says Rosner. “She was putting down regular women, people who stay home and take care of kids and bake cookies.” It’s not that Rosner was offended on behalf of housewives; she herself has always had a career. “I just thought it was a stupid comment,” she says. “I don’t think she’s as smart as most people think she is, or seem to think she is.”
Rosner also makes a fairly standard progressive case against Clinton. “I don’t like her support for the Iraq war,” she says. “She didn’t support same-sex marriage until it became a popular issue. Her email stuff—she is the only one that would not testify, and I think that’s bullshit. I don’t like her friendship with Netanyahu. I think they’ve destroyed the Middle East with Iraq. I don’t like that she takes money from big banks. She doesn’t support universal health care. For all those reasons. I think she’s more a Republican than a Democrat, and I refuse to vote for Republicans, ever.”
All the same, Rosner says she would happily vote for Joe Biden, who also voted for the Iraq war. In the Senate, Biden was known for his deep ties to the credit card industry, and as a presidential candidate, he didn’t support universal health insurance. “Yeah, Biden does not have all the positions I would like, but he has a certain kind of humanity that touches me,” she says.
As Goldberg notes, Hillary hatred can also evade "precise ideological trajectory." When it comes to more literal politics, this particular Hillary hater cites Clinton's vote for the war resolution along with her original stance against same-sex marriage. At the same time, she'd be happy to vote for Vice President Biden, who also supported the war resolution and who also "didn’t support same-sex marriage until it became a popular issue."
Despite Biden's retrogade views, this hater likes his humanity! She hates Clinton, but likes the guy whose Senate voting record was actually somewhat less liberal.
Where does all this Hillary hatred come from? Obviously, Goldberg's search is highly anecdotal. There's no way to know how representative her Hillary haters are.
That said, Goldberg tries every theory of the case—every theory save one. Like Cohen in today's column, she is partial to the idea that sexism and misogyny are involved in the hate—and almost surely, they are.
Goldberg is also willing to entertain theories which revolve around Clinton's shortcomings. In this passage, Goldberg makes a very good point, though it doesn't really succeed as an explanation of hatred:
GOLDBERG: Most Americans, however, are not frothing partisans. For many of them, something in addition to sexism is at work in Clinton’s unpopularity—some mystery of mass media connection. There’s a reason actors do screen tests: Not everyone’s charm translates to film and video. For as long as Hillary Clinton has been in public life, people who’ve met in her person have marveled at how much more likable she is in the flesh than she is on television.Goldberg asks an excellent question. Would Hillary Clinton have passed a "screen test" to be a major politician?
Actually, no, she probably wouldn't have passed. Her performance skills are quite limited, and she's a bit of gaffe machine. This dates back to the tone deaf "baking cookies" comment in March 1992, and to her tone deaf statement two months earlier, in which Clinton seemed to diss Tammy Wynette in her first appearance on the national stage.
We remember watching that 60 Minutes program and wondering how a Southern first lady could make such an obvious gaffe. Like many people before us, we'll suggest the obvious answer:
Bill Clinton was a highly skilled natural pol. His wife pretty much was not.
Hillary Clinton is a bit of "legacy" pol. Based on the evidence of her skills, there's no reason to think that she'd be where she is if she had been required to get there "on her own," without the initial giant boost from Bill Clinton's position.
To state the obvious, that doesn't make Hillary Clinton a bad person—and it doesn't explain the hate. So what explains the depth of the hatred? And why is she hated at all?
This is now a profoundly important question. In November, Clinton will be running against the craziest major party candidate in American history.
Her opponent is virtually allergic to truth, yet Clinton is seen as The World's Biggest Liar! For that reason, she may end up losing to this craziest candidate—for that reason, and because of all the hate.
Why is Clinton hated so much? Goldberg pretends to wonder. She considers every possible answer—every answer save one.
Tomorrow, we'll return to the obvious possible answer which Goldberg and Cohen both skipped. Why is Clinton hated so much? As it has long been decreed in the guild, Goldberg and Cohen both chose to skip one obvious part of the answer.
Tomorrow, we'll read through Goldberg's essay again, noting the possible answer she very deliberately skipped. When we do, you'll be able to see, once again, how guild members like Goldberg and Cohen may yet send Candidate Trump to the White House, helped along by the mandated silence of their many enablers and friends.
Tomorrow: The road not taken
Still coming: She lied about the Cubs and the Yanks! Also, she even lied about her own freaking name!
Payday watch: Tony Schwartz wrote The Art of the Deal!
MONDAY, JULY 25, 2016
Journalist went for the gold: Long ago and far away, former journalist Tony Schwartz wrote The Art of the Deal.
On the cover of the book, Schwartz is cited as Donald J. Trump's co-author. Schwartz says he actually wrote the whole thing—that he even came up with the title, and thus with the book's basic framework.
We know of no reason to doubt those claims. Recently, Schwartz spoke with The New Yorker's Jane Mayer about his experiences writing the book.
Schwartz's conversations with Mayer has produced a fascinating profile of Trump, a man Schwartz regards as a sociopath. We strongly recommend Mayer's piece for its possible insights into Trump—but she has also produced a fascinating portrait of Schwartz, the journalist who agreed to reinvent Trump as a swashbuckling hero.
What does Schwartz think about Trump today? What did he think about Trump at the time? Mayer's essay is full of fascinating anecdotes from Schwartz, who recorded his actual thoughts about Trump even as he was writing Trump's famous book.
In her fascinating piece, Mayer quotes from Schwartz's real-time journal from the 1980s. This is the way the former journalist thinks of Trump today:
As you read the Mayer piece, you should think about Candidate Trump—but you might want to consider Schwartz's conduct as well. You see, he did the book for giant money against his own better judgment.
Quite explicitly, Schwartz says he did the book for the very large money. Below, you see Mayer's nugget passage about Schwartz's decision to put that lipstick on that particular pig:
On that basis, he decided to take the deal. We'll suggest that many of your favorite journalists do and say the things they say and do as a result of similar considerations.
Especially in "TV news," tremendous amounts of money are sloshing, destined for a handful of lucky-ducky recipients. Very few people will walk away from such lucrative payouts.
In the late 1990s, conservative CEO Jack Welch made Chris Matthews very rich. Bizarre journalistic behavior followed, and George Bush went to the White House.
Today, cable stars may be confronted with similar types of deals.
A few years back, we showed you some of the fancy homes found in Journalist County. Before the week is done, we'll remind you of one of the ways Rachel Maddow has spent her mountains of corporate cash.
Today, she serves us low-IQ tribal porridge; she persistently fails to fight the power. Ignore the glare off her big orange shoes! Are you sure she hasn't succumbed to the art of the deal?
Journalist went for the gold: Long ago and far away, former journalist Tony Schwartz wrote The Art of the Deal.
On the cover of the book, Schwartz is cited as Donald J. Trump's co-author. Schwartz says he actually wrote the whole thing—that he even came up with the title, and thus with the book's basic framework.
We know of no reason to doubt those claims. Recently, Schwartz spoke with The New Yorker's Jane Mayer about his experiences writing the book.
Schwartz's conversations with Mayer has produced a fascinating profile of Trump, a man Schwartz regards as a sociopath. We strongly recommend Mayer's piece for its possible insights into Trump—but she has also produced a fascinating portrait of Schwartz, the journalist who agreed to reinvent Trump as a swashbuckling hero.
What does Schwartz think about Trump today? What did he think about Trump at the time? Mayer's essay is full of fascinating anecdotes from Schwartz, who recorded his actual thoughts about Trump even as he was writing Trump's famous book.
In her fascinating piece, Mayer quotes from Schwartz's real-time journal from the 1980s. This is the way the former journalist thinks of Trump today:
MAYER (7/18/16): Schwartz thought about publishing an article describing his reservations about Trump, but he hesitated, knowing that, since he’d cashed in on the flattering “Art of the Deal,” his credibility and his motives would be seen as suspect. Yet watching the campaign was excruciating. Schwartz decided that if he kept mum and Trump was elected he’d never forgive himself. In June, he agreed to break his silence and give his first candid interview about the Trump he got to know while acting as his Boswell.Schwartz thinks very bad things about Trump, and did so in real time. That said, what should we the people possibly think about Schwartz?
“I put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”
If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”
As you read the Mayer piece, you should think about Candidate Trump—but you might want to consider Schwartz's conduct as well. You see, he did the book for giant money against his own better judgment.
Quite explicitly, Schwartz says he did the book for the very large money. Below, you see Mayer's nugget passage about Schwartz's decision to put that lipstick on that particular pig:
MAYER: “If I were you,” Schwartz recalls telling him, “I’d write a book called ‘The Art of the Deal.’ That’s something people would be interested in.”Schwartz had attended elite private schools, but unlike many of his classmates, he didn't have a trust fund! Beyond that, he was afraid that he wouldn't be able to afford the type of Manhattan apartment to which he'd become accustomed.
“You’re right,” Trump agreed. “Do you want to write it?”
Schwartz thought it over for several weeks. He knew that he would be making a Faustian bargain. A lifelong liberal, he was hardly an admirer of Trump’s ruthless and single-minded pursuit of profit. “It was one of a number of times in my life when I was divided between the Devil and the higher side,” he told me. He had grown up in a bourgeois, intellectual family in Manhattan, and had attended élite private schools, but he was not as wealthy as some of his classmates—and, unlike many of them, he had no trust fund. “I grew up privileged,” he said. “But my parents made it clear: ‘You’re on your own.’ ” Around the time Trump made his offer, Schwartz’s wife, Deborah Pines, became pregnant with their second daughter, and he worried that the family wouldn’t fit into their Manhattan apartment, whose mortgage was already too high. “I was overly worried about money,” Schwartz said. “I thought money would keep me safe and secure—or that was my rationalization.” At the same time, he knew that if he took Trump’s money and adopted Trump’s voice his journalism career would be badly damaged. His heroes were such literary nonfiction writers as Tom Wolfe, John McPhee, and David Halberstam. Being a ghostwriter was hackwork. In the end, though, Schwartz had his price. He told Trump that if he would give him half the advance and half the book’s royalties he’d take the job.
Such terms are unusually generous for a ghostwriter. Trump, despite having a reputation as a tough negotiator, agreed on the spot. “It was a huge windfall,” Schwartz recalls. “But I knew I was selling out. Literally, the term was invented to describe what I did.” Soon Spy was calling him “former journalist Tony Schwartz.”
On that basis, he decided to take the deal. We'll suggest that many of your favorite journalists do and say the things they say and do as a result of similar considerations.
Especially in "TV news," tremendous amounts of money are sloshing, destined for a handful of lucky-ducky recipients. Very few people will walk away from such lucrative payouts.
In the late 1990s, conservative CEO Jack Welch made Chris Matthews very rich. Bizarre journalistic behavior followed, and George Bush went to the White House.
Today, cable stars may be confronted with similar types of deals.
A few years back, we showed you some of the fancy homes found in Journalist County. Before the week is done, we'll remind you of one of the ways Rachel Maddow has spent her mountains of corporate cash.
Today, she serves us low-IQ tribal porridge; she persistently fails to fight the power. Ignore the glare off her big orange shoes! Are you sure she hasn't succumbed to the art of the deal?
Comic relief: The (many) errors of Maddow County!
MONDAY, JULY 25, 2016
No country for old men: Last Thursday night, Donald J. Trump had finally finished his deathless convention speech.
If balloon drop delayed is balloon drop denied, the hopeful was being denied. Eventually, Rachel Maddow stepped into the breach. This was her first remark:
Does anybody bungle trivia the way this poser does? We've told the analysts to laugh it off. Increasingly, though, they can't do so, and we're not sure they should.
Sorry, Charley! Donald J. Trump is not the oldest man ever nominated for president in this country. If we go back far enough in our history, we can find older such men.
Donald J. Trump was 70 years old as he graced that balloon-free stage. All the way back in 2008, John McCain had been 72 when he was nominated. Long before that, in 1996, Bob Dole had been 73!
Moments later, Maddow tried again. Producers had whispered in her ear. She therefore proceeded to tell us rubes what she had meant to say:
As a general matter, this sort of thing doesn't exactly matter. On the whole, Rachel and Them were just killing time with trivia in the wake of Trump's speech.
Plus, this trivia was off the cuff. Presumably, she hadn't been working from prompter.
That said, Maddow's regular nightly program has become more and more trivia-driven as the months have passed. And as she wastes her viewers' time this way, Maddow has more and more adopted a pose as a political/election lore expert.
Maddow isn't a political/election lore expert. Beyond that, her hapless staff seems remarkably error-prone of late. In her regular weeknight outings, this has produced a string of comical errors Sometimes, Maddow has made these errors. Sometimes, these errors have been made by her poor abused substitute hosts.
Increasingly, Maddow's errors have provided bits of comic relief. We'll review a few in the next few days, after which we'll proceed to something more important:
Maddow's errors are comical, but her constant use of propagandistic trivia is making her viewers dumb and dumber. Beyond that lies her abject refusal to fight the powers that be.
Maddow is paid millions of dollars per year. Increasingly, it shows.
Tomorrow: The very next night!
No country for old men: Last Thursday night, Donald J. Trump had finally finished his deathless convention speech.
If balloon drop delayed is balloon drop denied, the hopeful was being denied. Eventually, Rachel Maddow stepped into the breach. This was her first remark:
MADDOW (7/21/16): This is a, this is a landmark thing. Nobody quite like this has ever been nominated as a major party candidate for president. He will be the oldest man ever nominated for president in this countrty by either party."There she goes again," the analysts cried. Several tore at their hair.
Does anybody bungle trivia the way this poser does? We've told the analysts to laugh it off. Increasingly, though, they can't do so, and we're not sure they should.
Sorry, Charley! Donald J. Trump is not the oldest man ever nominated for president in this country. If we go back far enough in our history, we can find older such men.
Donald J. Trump was 70 years old as he graced that balloon-free stage. All the way back in 2008, John McCain had been 72 when he was nominated. Long before that, in 1996, Bob Dole had been 73!
Moments later, Maddow tried again. Producers had whispered in her ear. She therefore proceeded to tell us rubes what she had meant to say:
MADDOW: Speaking of reporting, I should say, I said that Donald Trump is the oldest nominee. What I meant to say was that, if he is elected, he would be the oldest man ever elected president.That wasn't exactly right either. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was 73 when he was elected for the second time. As the poser struggled on, she finally assembled a string of words which could perhaps be called technically accurate:
MADDOW (continuing directly): There have been other people his age or older who have been nominated. But if he gets all the way, he will be the oldest man ever to ascend to the White House.A person could say that was accurate. It all depends on what the meaning of "ascend to" is!
As a general matter, this sort of thing doesn't exactly matter. On the whole, Rachel and Them were just killing time with trivia in the wake of Trump's speech.
Plus, this trivia was off the cuff. Presumably, she hadn't been working from prompter.
That said, Maddow's regular nightly program has become more and more trivia-driven as the months have passed. And as she wastes her viewers' time this way, Maddow has more and more adopted a pose as a political/election lore expert.
Maddow isn't a political/election lore expert. Beyond that, her hapless staff seems remarkably error-prone of late. In her regular weeknight outings, this has produced a string of comical errors Sometimes, Maddow has made these errors. Sometimes, these errors have been made by her poor abused substitute hosts.
Increasingly, Maddow's errors have provided bits of comic relief. We'll review a few in the next few days, after which we'll proceed to something more important:
Maddow's errors are comical, but her constant use of propagandistic trivia is making her viewers dumb and dumber. Beyond that lies her abject refusal to fight the powers that be.
Maddow is paid millions of dollars per year. Increasingly, it shows.
Tomorrow: The very next night!
HOW WE GOT HERE: Narrative without end, amen!
MONDAY, JULY 25, 2016
Part 1—Concerning the brain of Gail Collins: The craziest statements we saw all weekend came from Jean Edward Smith.
Professor Smith's "mammoth new biography" of George W. Bush is largely praised in this review by the obedient Jason Zengerle. The review appeared in the Book Review section of yesterday's New York Times.
We haven't read the professor's whole book. Yesterday, we did read the two chapters in which the crazy, 84-year-old scholar attempts to discuss, or pretends to discuss, the events of Campaign 2000.
The craziest statements we saw all weekend came from Professor Smith's account of that campaign. We'll discuss the hapless professor's remarkable statements before the week is done.
That said, the professor's statements are one small part of a much larger journalistic narrative—a crazy, twenty-four year campaign which may yet send Donald J. Trump to the White House.
It's crazy to think that a person like Trump could actually get to the White House. For that reason, we should examine the crazy conduct which has made that possibility real.
In part, we can examine that conduct in Jane Mayer's New Yorker piece about Tony Schwartz, the "journalist" who went for the cash and wrote The Art of the Deal. To peruse Mayer's piece, click here.
Mayer's piece has largely been viewed as an expose of Trump's craziness—indeed, of his status as alleged sociopath. That said, it's also a striking portrait of journalistic misconduct of an egregious but rather common kind.
It helps explain how we got to this place. We'll review Mayer's portrait of Schwartz by the end of the week.
Schwartz helped bring us to this place through his journalistic misconduct. That said, let's return to Professor Smith's biography—and let's examine the brain of Gail Collins.
Among a range of remarkable statements, Smith repeats every crazy standard claim concerning The Many Big Lies of Candidate Gore. As with Melania, so with Smith! There is no part of that journalistic narrative he didn't copy-and-paste.
Yesterday, in the New York Times, Collins played the same destructive old game. Medical science should examine the brains of the people who have played this remarkable game for the past twenty-four years:
How compulsive is this behavior? Amazingly, the highlighted passage was written by a "journalist" who will vote for Candidate Clinton! Medical science should study the brain of the person who wrote that passage—a passage which takes us back to the period when Candidate Gore was being invented, by "the press," as The World's Biggest Known Liar.
Just for starters, let's note the sheer stupidity of what Collins wrote—of what she wrote in her fourth paragraph from one of the Times' highest platforms.
Collins starts with an accurate statement. In June 2000, Hillary Clinton did in fact say that she rooted for the Yankees as well as the Cubs when she was a girl growing up near Chicago. So far, Collins' statement is accurate—though a person might wonder why a journalist would bother with such a trivial point more than sixteen years later.
That person wouldn't understand the compulsions of our upper-end press—or their sheer stupidity. Let's start with the stupidity which comes into play when Collins suggests that Clinton's statement that day was just comically false.
Gail Collins grew up in the Midwest too; she grew up in Cincinnati, from which, alas, she was later allowed to escape. Apparently, Collins' upbringing in that locale has led her to reason as follows:
Since she didn't root for a team in each league, no one else in the Midwest could have done such a thing! According to this puzzling life form, that isn't the way fans root in the Midwest! No ten-year-old boy, no ten-year-old girl, could have disrupted this pattern!
No, that doesn't make sense. But as we've shown you for eighteen years, this is the way these life forms reason, when they pretend to do so at all. On this basis alone, medical science should make it a point to study their brains.
That said, another question intrudes. Why would a journalist instantly mention this sixteen years later, writing from such a major platform?
The answer to that is obvious. In June 2000, Collins and the rest of her guild were busy creating a powerful narrative, one which prevails to this day. For the previous fifteen months, they'd been inventing Candidate Gore as The World's Biggest Known Liar, a status which made him resemble Bill Clinton. And they were now inventing Hillary Clinton as The World's Biggest Known Liar too!
The chimps were in thrall to this powerful theme; in June 2000, they seized upon the Cubs and the Yankees as proof of their deathless assessment. One chimp after another screeched and flung poo around his cage concerning Clinton's disturbing false statement, which displayed her character problem, the one which persists to this day.
They ignored the fact that profiles written years before had affirmed and supported Clinton's claim. We cited those profiles in real time, but nothing keeps these hustlers and chimps from the story-lines they adore.
Tomorrow, we'll review the profiles which, years before, had said that Hillary Clinton, as a girl, was a fan of both the Cubs and the Yankees. For today, let's consider one other part of this deeply destructive tale. Let's consider an abiding love story—the love these chimps feel for trivia.
Earlier profiles say and suggest that Clinton's statement was true. Beyond that, the claim was ginormously trivial—but so what? Sixteen years later, the High Lady Collins rushes to bring it up again.
Consider the context of that remarkable conduct:
Candidate Trump seems to have been repeatedly lying his ascot off about a wide range of significant matters. He seems to have been repeatedly lying about his alleged opposition to the war in Iraq. We'll guess that he has repeatedly lied about his alleged birther probe.
On Friday, he restated his crazy claim about the way Rafael Cruz was firing from the grassy knoll on the day President Kennedy died. In his convention speech, he once again said that the United States is the highest taxed nation in the world, a crazy claim which he and his writers certainly know to be crazily false.
In short, one of the candidates in this race actually is The World's Biggest Known Liar! But nothing derails the treasured themes the chimps have built through the years.
For that reason, Collins typed the material we highlight above. She placed it right in paragraph 4, right there on page one, where it would continue to drive that destructive narrative.
As we'll see, Smith's book is full of crazy statements taken from that same destructive campaign. For her part, Collins couldn't wait to return to the Cubs and the Yankees.
Collins and Smith are hardly alone. In yesterday's hard-copy Washington Post, Glenn Kessler returned to the troubling claim that Clinton once lied about her own name! Just last week, PolitiFact displayed its standard journalistic incompetence when it reviewed that same claim.
It's entirely possible that Candidate Trump will be in the White House next year. The narrative we're discussing today sent George W. Bush to the White House. It could do the same for Donald J. Trump.
All this week, we'll review the ways our "journalists" and professors are keeping this theme alive. They've been pimping this theme for twenty-four years, but our liberal heroes refuse to complain. This is one of the basic ways we've all managed to get here.
Tomorrow: Snopes the God!
Part 1—Concerning the brain of Gail Collins: The craziest statements we saw all weekend came from Jean Edward Smith.
Professor Smith's "mammoth new biography" of George W. Bush is largely praised in this review by the obedient Jason Zengerle. The review appeared in the Book Review section of yesterday's New York Times.
We haven't read the professor's whole book. Yesterday, we did read the two chapters in which the crazy, 84-year-old scholar attempts to discuss, or pretends to discuss, the events of Campaign 2000.
The craziest statements we saw all weekend came from Professor Smith's account of that campaign. We'll discuss the hapless professor's remarkable statements before the week is done.
That said, the professor's statements are one small part of a much larger journalistic narrative—a crazy, twenty-four year campaign which may yet send Donald J. Trump to the White House.
It's crazy to think that a person like Trump could actually get to the White House. For that reason, we should examine the crazy conduct which has made that possibility real.
In part, we can examine that conduct in Jane Mayer's New Yorker piece about Tony Schwartz, the "journalist" who went for the cash and wrote The Art of the Deal. To peruse Mayer's piece, click here.
Mayer's piece has largely been viewed as an expose of Trump's craziness—indeed, of his status as alleged sociopath. That said, it's also a striking portrait of journalistic misconduct of an egregious but rather common kind.
It helps explain how we got to this place. We'll review Mayer's portrait of Schwartz by the end of the week.
Schwartz helped bring us to this place through his journalistic misconduct. That said, let's return to Professor Smith's biography—and let's examine the brain of Gail Collins.
Among a range of remarkable statements, Smith repeats every crazy standard claim concerning The Many Big Lies of Candidate Gore. As with Melania, so with Smith! There is no part of that journalistic narrative he didn't copy-and-paste.
Yesterday, in the New York Times, Collins played the same destructive old game. Medical science should examine the brains of the people who have played this remarkable game for the past twenty-four years:
COLLINS (7/24/16): In 2000, when [Hillary Clinton] first ran for the Senate, the fact that New York had never sent a woman to the Senate was an afterthought, given all the other stuff there was to consider. “It was the first time I’d been a candidate and the first time I’d lived in New York,” she recalled in a phone interview. The very idea of that race was incredible—maybe outrageous. And it didn’t begin well. She had trouble with the carpetbagging issue. At one point, Clinton attempted to woo the locals by claiming that although she’d been brought up as a Chicago Cubs fan, she had always rooted for the Yankees because people need a team in each league. This was contradictory to every law of Midwestern fandom, which holds that no matter what else you do, hating the New York Yankees is a central principle of life.Incredibly, that's the fourth paragraph of the featured, front-page essay in yesterday's Sunday Review. It extends a deeply familiar, deeply destructive twenty-four year theme.
How compulsive is this behavior? Amazingly, the highlighted passage was written by a "journalist" who will vote for Candidate Clinton! Medical science should study the brain of the person who wrote that passage—a passage which takes us back to the period when Candidate Gore was being invented, by "the press," as The World's Biggest Known Liar.
Just for starters, let's note the sheer stupidity of what Collins wrote—of what she wrote in her fourth paragraph from one of the Times' highest platforms.
Collins starts with an accurate statement. In June 2000, Hillary Clinton did in fact say that she rooted for the Yankees as well as the Cubs when she was a girl growing up near Chicago. So far, Collins' statement is accurate—though a person might wonder why a journalist would bother with such a trivial point more than sixteen years later.
That person wouldn't understand the compulsions of our upper-end press—or their sheer stupidity. Let's start with the stupidity which comes into play when Collins suggests that Clinton's statement that day was just comically false.
Gail Collins grew up in the Midwest too; she grew up in Cincinnati, from which, alas, she was later allowed to escape. Apparently, Collins' upbringing in that locale has led her to reason as follows:
Since she didn't root for a team in each league, no one else in the Midwest could have done such a thing! According to this puzzling life form, that isn't the way fans root in the Midwest! No ten-year-old boy, no ten-year-old girl, could have disrupted this pattern!
No, that doesn't make sense. But as we've shown you for eighteen years, this is the way these life forms reason, when they pretend to do so at all. On this basis alone, medical science should make it a point to study their brains.
That said, another question intrudes. Why would a journalist instantly mention this sixteen years later, writing from such a major platform?
The answer to that is obvious. In June 2000, Collins and the rest of her guild were busy creating a powerful narrative, one which prevails to this day. For the previous fifteen months, they'd been inventing Candidate Gore as The World's Biggest Known Liar, a status which made him resemble Bill Clinton. And they were now inventing Hillary Clinton as The World's Biggest Known Liar too!
The chimps were in thrall to this powerful theme; in June 2000, they seized upon the Cubs and the Yankees as proof of their deathless assessment. One chimp after another screeched and flung poo around his cage concerning Clinton's disturbing false statement, which displayed her character problem, the one which persists to this day.
They ignored the fact that profiles written years before had affirmed and supported Clinton's claim. We cited those profiles in real time, but nothing keeps these hustlers and chimps from the story-lines they adore.
Tomorrow, we'll review the profiles which, years before, had said that Hillary Clinton, as a girl, was a fan of both the Cubs and the Yankees. For today, let's consider one other part of this deeply destructive tale. Let's consider an abiding love story—the love these chimps feel for trivia.
Earlier profiles say and suggest that Clinton's statement was true. Beyond that, the claim was ginormously trivial—but so what? Sixteen years later, the High Lady Collins rushes to bring it up again.
Consider the context of that remarkable conduct:
Candidate Trump seems to have been repeatedly lying his ascot off about a wide range of significant matters. He seems to have been repeatedly lying about his alleged opposition to the war in Iraq. We'll guess that he has repeatedly lied about his alleged birther probe.
On Friday, he restated his crazy claim about the way Rafael Cruz was firing from the grassy knoll on the day President Kennedy died. In his convention speech, he once again said that the United States is the highest taxed nation in the world, a crazy claim which he and his writers certainly know to be crazily false.
In short, one of the candidates in this race actually is The World's Biggest Known Liar! But nothing derails the treasured themes the chimps have built through the years.
For that reason, Collins typed the material we highlight above. She placed it right in paragraph 4, right there on page one, where it would continue to drive that destructive narrative.
As we'll see, Smith's book is full of crazy statements taken from that same destructive campaign. For her part, Collins couldn't wait to return to the Cubs and the Yankees.
Collins and Smith are hardly alone. In yesterday's hard-copy Washington Post, Glenn Kessler returned to the troubling claim that Clinton once lied about her own name! Just last week, PolitiFact displayed its standard journalistic incompetence when it reviewed that same claim.
It's entirely possible that Candidate Trump will be in the White House next year. The narrative we're discussing today sent George W. Bush to the White House. It could do the same for Donald J. Trump.
All this week, we'll review the ways our "journalists" and professors are keeping this theme alive. They've been pimping this theme for twenty-four years, but our liberal heroes refuse to complain. This is one of the basic ways we've all managed to get here.
Tomorrow: Snopes the God!
Matthews watch: He's puzzled by all the Hillary-hatred!
FRIDAY, JULY 22, 2016
Admits he can't figure it out: Convention coverage gives us a chance to watch the fraudsters at work.
We don't mean convention speakers, horrible though they may be. We refer to the corporate pundits who are paid gigantic sums to pretend that they're providing news, information, analysis.
During a modern convention week, they're forced to speak for hours each night. And uh-oh! They aren't reading staff-prepared text. They're forced to perform off the cuff!
This can produce remarkable moments. Consider what Chris Matthews did during the 1 A.M. hour, very late Wednesday night.
Matthews sat with two conservative guests and with corporate liberal Joan Walsh. Early in the hour, he asked conservative honcho Matt Schlapp to explain all the Hillary-hatred.
"The level of personal attack on Hillary Clinton, we've never seen it before," Walsh had said. Matthews took over from there.
Walsh probably meant that we've never seen such conduct at a major party convention. As she obviously knows, we've seen these levels of Hillary-hatred many times in the past—for example, during the first ten years of Matthews' own "cable news" program.
Whatever! After citing the cries of "Lock her up," Matthews turned to Schlapp and began expressing his puzzlement about all the Hilary-hatred. We'll give this segment a Wednesday dateline, although it was past the midnight hour when Matthews voiced his heartfelt incomprehension:
Already, Matthews' question was strange. As we've painstakingly documented, Matthews was one of the most repellent, craziest Hillary-haters during the 1990s, the very era he referenced.
By the end of 1999, he was savaging Candidate Gore every night of the week. Presumably, this was warming the heart of Jack Welch, his corporate owner, the man who made him so rich.
But as we've recorded in detail, Matthews' trashing of Hillary Clinton, a Senate candidate, was quite lunatic at that time—and we do mean totally crazy. Convention cries of "Lock her up" have nothing on Matthews' past conduct.
We'll provide the same old links below. But late Wednesday night, in the 1 A.M. hour, Matthews just couldn't figure it out. He knew that Bill Clinton was a bad guy. But why did so many Republicans seem to hate Hillary so?
(In 2005, of course, USA Today reported that President Bush had used the Lincoln Bedroom for fund-raising purposes just as much as Bill Clinton did. Neither Matthews, nor anyone else, said a word about that. For our real-time report, click here. Admit it, though! You've never heard of this!)
At any rate, Matthews was still completely puzzled by the GOP's Hillary-hatred. That said, the con man really jumped the shark when he went on to make these remarks about those weird Republican men:
"We still haven't gotten to the bottom of the Hillary-hatred." Frankly, Matthews was stumped!
Matthews is a con man, of course, a consummate cable fraud. So is Walsh, his trusty companion, who has sat loyally by his side when he staged this same cons in the past.
Walsh refuses to mention the truth. Matthews is simply a fraudster.
Why are we calling so many names? Because Matthews was a lunatic Hillary-hater during the period in question! And because he expressed exactly the types of complaints about the horrible, know-it-all Clinton he now ascribed to Republicans. Briefly, let's review:
In December 1999, Clinton announced that she would run for the Senate. She would oppose Rudy Giuliani, one of Matthews' most manly of men.
As the race began to take shape, Matthews engaged in viral, unfettered, undisguised, lunatic Hillary-hatred. It took some of the very forms he now seems to wonder about.
We've recorded the facts many times. But due to the press corps' ironclad code of silence, it never creates a wider discussion about the way this decades-long con game has worked.
Kevin Drum won't discuss this matter; neither will Jonathan Chait. Rachel Maddow calls Chris her "dear friend." Walsh is a regular, active part of this rolling cover-up / Soviet-style disappearance.
Why do we call this a fraud? Because of all the Hillary-hatred Matthews kept exhibiting right through 2008! But since he mentioned the 1990s, and since he mentioned Clinton's educational status, let's revisit a bit of his own Hill-hatred during that horrible time frame.
Early in December 1999, Matthews was trashing Candidates Gore and Clinton pretty much every night. On December 6, he conducted a crazy interview with Gail Sheehy concerning her recent biography, Hillary's Choice.
Matthews' behavior was crazy this night. But in these excerpts, he seemed to reveal one possible source of his own Hillary-hatred:
According to Matthews, the Clintons thought "they're better than us morally, politically, culturally, and intellectually." In particular, Hillary Clinton "has this moral superiority" which has her thinking that she was "the superior moral, intellectual and cultural and political force" in her marriage, and that Bill Clinton "was just some bumpkin she picked up and dragged along."
Matthews seemed to spill with an obvious type of gender resentment this night. Meanwhile, how had this woman managed to screw up the Clinton health care proposal so badly? In words which dripped with resentment and anger, a red-faced crackpot explained, persistently stifling Sheehy:
During this period, Matthews kept pimping the wondrous, regular-guy Giuliani. His overwrought trashing of Candidate Clinton was just this side of insane.
Matthews derided Clinton as "Evita" and "Nurse Ratched" right through 2008. It got so bad that Howard Kurtz even did a profile of Matthews' Hillary-hatred in the Washington Post. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/27/08.
(Kurtz: "In recent weeks, Matthews has...likened her to Evita Peron, 'the one who gives gifts to the little people, and then they come and bring me flowers and they worship at me because I am the great Evita.' " TV's little boy was still mad.)
Around that time, a change in corporate ownership led to a change in corporate policy at MSNBC, a ridiculous corporate "news org." After Obama won the nomination for president, Matthews reinvented himself as an unfettered Hillary fan.
Late Wednesday night, Matthews staged his latest scam, in which he feigned confusion about the type of Hillary-hatred he worked so hard to establish within the mainstream press. As she has done in the past, Walsh agreed to forget the history behind this relentless scam.
Rachel will never tell you this. Chris Hayes is "all in" on the suppression of this journalistic history. Joan Walsh frequently sits at the con man's side when he produces these gong shows in which, Soviet-style, his history disappears.
People like Matthews will do what it takes to keep their millions rolling in. People like Maddow, Hayes and Walsh will play along with the game.
Can we talk? Matthews' years of crazy misconduct helped establish the frameworks of understanding thanks to which Candidate Trump has a real chance to win this November. Few people worked harder to slander Candidate Gore. Few people worked harder to establish the press corps' standard narratives about Big Liar Hillary Clinton.
You will never see this matter discussed on The One True Liberal Channel. The corporate pundit corps' code of silence also helps explain why Candidate Trump may win.
Meanwhile, our lizard brains tell us to adore our Rachel, who loves her "dear friend" Matthews so much. Watching her clown on her nightly program, we can tell that the orange-shoed star is just very much on our side.
Candidate Trump may win this fall. If he does, it will be because of the world Chris Matthews made with the help of his corporate friends.
Chris was puzzled late Wednesday night. He just couldn't understand all the Hillary-hatred!
Admits he can't figure it out: Convention coverage gives us a chance to watch the fraudsters at work.
We don't mean convention speakers, horrible though they may be. We refer to the corporate pundits who are paid gigantic sums to pretend that they're providing news, information, analysis.
During a modern convention week, they're forced to speak for hours each night. And uh-oh! They aren't reading staff-prepared text. They're forced to perform off the cuff!
This can produce remarkable moments. Consider what Chris Matthews did during the 1 A.M. hour, very late Wednesday night.
Matthews sat with two conservative guests and with corporate liberal Joan Walsh. Early in the hour, he asked conservative honcho Matt Schlapp to explain all the Hillary-hatred.
"The level of personal attack on Hillary Clinton, we've never seen it before," Walsh had said. Matthews took over from there.
Walsh probably meant that we've never seen such conduct at a major party convention. As she obviously knows, we've seen these levels of Hillary-hatred many times in the past—for example, during the first ten years of Matthews' own "cable news" program.
Whatever! After citing the cries of "Lock her up," Matthews turned to Schlapp and began expressing his puzzlement about all the Hilary-hatred. We'll give this segment a Wednesday dateline, although it was past the midnight hour when Matthews voiced his heartfelt incomprehension:
MATTHEWS (7/20/16): Why— Don't tell me email, that's a recent event. Why do these people—you said it's a raucous event. Why do they, and have they, for years, maybe twenty years, hated Hillary Clinton?...Matthews couldn't figure it out. Walsh seemed puzzled too.
They hated her during Whitewater. They hated her—they say Vince Foster.
WALSH: All these things that never panned out.
Already, Matthews' question was strange. As we've painstakingly documented, Matthews was one of the most repellent, craziest Hillary-haters during the 1990s, the very era he referenced.
By the end of 1999, he was savaging Candidate Gore every night of the week. Presumably, this was warming the heart of Jack Welch, his corporate owner, the man who made him so rich.
But as we've recorded in detail, Matthews' trashing of Hillary Clinton, a Senate candidate, was quite lunatic at that time—and we do mean totally crazy. Convention cries of "Lock her up" have nothing on Matthews' past conduct.
We'll provide the same old links below. But late Wednesday night, in the 1 A.M. hour, Matthews just couldn't figure it out. He knew that Bill Clinton was a bad guy. But why did so many Republicans seem to hate Hillary so?
MATTHEWS: Let's get back to this, because— Look, I've been a critic of the Clintons. I didn't like the way they raised money in 96 at all, the Motel 6, bringing people in overnight. I didn't like— But that was Bill Clinton.He didn't like the use of the Lincoln Bedroom. But that was Bill Clinton, the puzzled multimillionaire said.
And Bill Clinton, of course—Hillary Clinton, she didn't go after him, but she stuck by him. Bill Clinton was the bad guy, lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky all those months. Why is Hillary the bad guy?
(In 2005, of course, USA Today reported that President Bush had used the Lincoln Bedroom for fund-raising purposes just as much as Bill Clinton did. Neither Matthews, nor anyone else, said a word about that. For our real-time report, click here. Admit it, though! You've never heard of this!)
At any rate, Matthews was still completely puzzled by the GOP's Hillary-hatred. That said, the con man really jumped the shark when he went on to make these remarks about those weird Republican men:
MATTHEWS: I think there's something that a lot of men in the Republican Party don't like about Hillary Clinton...There's something about her personality that gets to them. I want them to tell me what it is...Schlapp said it's the fact that she lies so much; after all, Comey said! At any rate, when Matthews went to commercial break, he sadly offered this:
I think there's something about her very rich education, incredibly high level of education, her intellectual ability. There's something in there culturally that you guys really don't like.
"We still haven't gotten to the bottom of the Hillary-hatred." Frankly, Matthews was stumped!
Matthews is a con man, of course, a consummate cable fraud. So is Walsh, his trusty companion, who has sat loyally by his side when he staged this same cons in the past.
Walsh refuses to mention the truth. Matthews is simply a fraudster.
Why are we calling so many names? Because Matthews was a lunatic Hillary-hater during the period in question! And because he expressed exactly the types of complaints about the horrible, know-it-all Clinton he now ascribed to Republicans. Briefly, let's review:
In December 1999, Clinton announced that she would run for the Senate. She would oppose Rudy Giuliani, one of Matthews' most manly of men.
As the race began to take shape, Matthews engaged in viral, unfettered, undisguised, lunatic Hillary-hatred. It took some of the very forms he now seems to wonder about.
We've recorded the facts many times. But due to the press corps' ironclad code of silence, it never creates a wider discussion about the way this decades-long con game has worked.
Kevin Drum won't discuss this matter; neither will Jonathan Chait. Rachel Maddow calls Chris her "dear friend." Walsh is a regular, active part of this rolling cover-up / Soviet-style disappearance.
Why do we call this a fraud? Because of all the Hillary-hatred Matthews kept exhibiting right through 2008! But since he mentioned the 1990s, and since he mentioned Clinton's educational status, let's revisit a bit of his own Hill-hatred during that horrible time frame.
Early in December 1999, Matthews was trashing Candidates Gore and Clinton pretty much every night. On December 6, he conducted a crazy interview with Gail Sheehy concerning her recent biography, Hillary's Choice.
Matthews' behavior was crazy this night. But in these excerpts, he seemed to reveal one possible source of his own Hillary-hatred:
MATTHEWS (12/6/99): Here's the weird thing about this dysfunctional relationship, and you've been sorting this out as an author for so many months. You have one partner on the team that thinks they're always right. They think they're better than us morally, politically, culturally, and intellectually and every other way. The other person believes they've never done anything wrong.Furiously, Matthews explained what "this woman" seemed to think. For a lengthy treatment of his conduct that week, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/27/08.
If you have one who's a born cover-up artist who can't even turn in an honest golf score, and the other one who thinks she's always right about everything, God help us!
[...]
MATTHEWS: Do you think she could have been elected president on her own?
SHEEHY: I think she thinks that she can be at some time in the future, but I don't think that means that she would be inattentive as a senator. I think she would be—I know she would be a workhorse.
MATTHEWS: No, but does she think that she came out behind in this deal? I get the feeling she's got this moral superiority that somehow he was lucky to have her, but she wasn't lucky to have him, like she could have gotten there with any guy—as that little story you tell in the book goes, any guy she could have dragged into the presidency—because she was the superior moral, intellectual and cultural and political force, and he was just some bumpkin she picked up and dragged along like a barnacle behind her rear end. I mean, I have to wonder. This woman seems to think that she should be president. It's an accident of history that he is and not her.
According to Matthews, the Clintons thought "they're better than us morally, politically, culturally, and intellectually." In particular, Hillary Clinton "has this moral superiority" which has her thinking that she was "the superior moral, intellectual and cultural and political force" in her marriage, and that Bill Clinton "was just some bumpkin she picked up and dragged along."
Matthews seemed to spill with an obvious type of gender resentment this night. Meanwhile, how had this woman managed to screw up the Clinton health care proposal so badly? In words which dripped with resentment and anger, a red-faced crackpot explained, persistently stifling Sheehy:
SHEEHY: Well, I think she thought she knew what she was doing, and she thought Ira Magaziner would be—It wasn't just Hillary Clinton! It was all those "propellor heads" (read: Ivy League grads) with whom she surrounded herself. (Magaziner was widely portrayed in the press as the ultimate Ivy League egghead.)
MATTHEWS: The guy with the propeller on his head!
SHEEHY: Right.
MATTHEWS: I mean, why did she hang around with that clack? Those guys have never been elected to anything, they've never run for anything. Why does she trust those kinds of guys?
SHEEHY: Well, she—
MATTHEWS: They're all lefties and propeller heads! They're worse than she is!
During this period, Matthews kept pimping the wondrous, regular-guy Giuliani. His overwrought trashing of Candidate Clinton was just this side of insane.
Matthews derided Clinton as "Evita" and "Nurse Ratched" right through 2008. It got so bad that Howard Kurtz even did a profile of Matthews' Hillary-hatred in the Washington Post. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/27/08.
(Kurtz: "In recent weeks, Matthews has...likened her to Evita Peron, 'the one who gives gifts to the little people, and then they come and bring me flowers and they worship at me because I am the great Evita.' " TV's little boy was still mad.)
Around that time, a change in corporate ownership led to a change in corporate policy at MSNBC, a ridiculous corporate "news org." After Obama won the nomination for president, Matthews reinvented himself as an unfettered Hillary fan.
Late Wednesday night, Matthews staged his latest scam, in which he feigned confusion about the type of Hillary-hatred he worked so hard to establish within the mainstream press. As she has done in the past, Walsh agreed to forget the history behind this relentless scam.
Rachel will never tell you this. Chris Hayes is "all in" on the suppression of this journalistic history. Joan Walsh frequently sits at the con man's side when he produces these gong shows in which, Soviet-style, his history disappears.
People like Matthews will do what it takes to keep their millions rolling in. People like Maddow, Hayes and Walsh will play along with the game.
Can we talk? Matthews' years of crazy misconduct helped establish the frameworks of understanding thanks to which Candidate Trump has a real chance to win this November. Few people worked harder to slander Candidate Gore. Few people worked harder to establish the press corps' standard narratives about Big Liar Hillary Clinton.
You will never see this matter discussed on The One True Liberal Channel. The corporate pundit corps' code of silence also helps explain why Candidate Trump may win.
Meanwhile, our lizard brains tell us to adore our Rachel, who loves her "dear friend" Matthews so much. Watching her clown on her nightly program, we can tell that the orange-shoed star is just very much on our side.
Candidate Trump may win this fall. If he does, it will be because of the world Chris Matthews made with the help of his corporate friends.
Chris was puzzled late Wednesday night. He just couldn't understand all the Hillary-hatred!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)