PRETENDERS: In this case, featuring Martha Raddatz!


Part 1—It happens every four years:
Every four years, they renew their pretending.

Yesterday, the pretending featured Martha Raddatz. She was filling in for George Stephanopoulos as host of This Week, a high-profile, Sunday morning production of ABC “News.”

Where was the pretending most obvious during yesterday’s broadcast? For our money, Raddatz’s performance was stiking at various junctures. But the pretending lacked any disguise when she strolled the Iowa State Fair with a well-known presidential candidate, Donald J. Trump.

It was an Iowa three-step:

Raddatz pretended to ask Trump a question; Trump pretended to answer. Raddatz pretended that she didn’t notice this failure by Candidate Trump.

The sequence had been videotaped as Raddatz and Trump strolled the fair. The official transcript looks like this. Below, we’ll provide explication:
RADDATZ (8/16/15): Let me ask you a serious foreign policy question. What would you do about ISIS using chemical weapons?

TRUMP: I think it’s disgraceful that they’re allowed and you can’t allow it to happen and you have to go in and just wipe the hell out of them

RADDATZ: What do you do? Do you go in with ground troops?

TRUMP: What did you say? Say that again.

RADDATZ (voiceover): What Trump wanted to talk about was Hillary.

RADDATZ: They’re saying Hillary didn’t draw this kind of crowd.

TRUMP: Not even close.

RADDATZ (voiceover): And after a few pork chops, I caught up with Trump again—to ask about another female opponent.

RADDATZ: What do you think about Carly Fiorina? You had some pretty tough words for her.

TRUMP: She’s a very nice woman. She got fired. She did a terrible job at Hewlett-Packard. She lost in a landslide. Other than that, she’s a very nice woman.
To see the full transcript, click here.

Can you see what happened there? Let us explain what you’ll see if you watch the tape of this segment.

In that sequence, Raddatz pretends to ask Trump “a serious policy question.” She asks the hopeful what he would do “about ISIS using chemical weapons.”

In response to Trump’s answer, which is vague, she asks a rather basic question:

“Do you go in with ground troops?”

At that point, Trump’s attention leaves Raddatz. When he says, “What did you say? Say that again,” he isn’t speaking to Raddatz. He is speaking to someone out of camera range who has said something to Trump.

Raddatz responds by telling Trump what the unseen person has said. “They're saying Hillary didn’t draw this kind of crowd,” she says.

At this point, Raddatz’s question about ground troops seems to slip her mind. Instead of restating her serious policy question, she lets Trump talk about Candidate Clinton—after explaining, in voiceover, that he preferred that topic.

Raddatz then says, again in voiceover, that she “caught up with Trump again” a bit later. When we see this happen, she asks him about Candidate Fiorina. In the mind of this corporate-paid pretender, the possible use of ground troops in Iraq and Syria no longer exists.

Raddatz is a TV entertainer—a corporate-paid pretender. In that striking sequence from yesterday’s show, she didn’t even bother pretending she isn’t!

She asked “a serious policy question,” but Trump “wanted to talk about” something else.

She completely acceded to his preference! Rarely is the guild’s pretending made so transparent, so clear.

The pretenders are back on the chain gang again. They’re pretending to be out on the road reporting a White House campaign.

Every four years, they stage this pretense, though rarely with so little disguise. We’ll offer examples all week.

That pretending by Raddatz and her producers was just remarkably clear.

Tomorrow: More pretenders


  1. A question such as "What do you think of Carly Fiorina?" invites a personal response, a remark about Fiorina as a person. If Fiorina were being taken seriously as a candidate, the question should be about some policy or proposal Fiorina has made: "What do you think about Fiorina's plan to close Guantanamo? What do you think about Fiorina's policy on taxation?"

    Complaints about sexism include that women are not taken seriously as candidates and that remarks about them and their campaigns are focused exclusively on the personal, their hairstyles, their clothes, their likeability. Trump says Fiorina is a "nice person" but she did a bad job at HP. The later is more substantive than Raddatz's question, but who cares whether he thinks she is a nice person or not? What are her merits as a potential president?

    I think this focus on personality to the exclusion of policy, issues and plans, encourages voters to make their decisions at the polls on the basis of such personality factors, like who would want to have a beer with. People may already do that as a shortcut to the hard work of thinking about what the candidates offer, but the press shouldn't be aiding and abetting it. So, I think Somerby makes a good point today.

    1. @10:38

      Why would Fiorina wish to close GITMO? Most Americans do not trust HRC. Does that mean they do not believe HRC is a nice person?

    2. What a jerk you are.

    3. "I think this focus on personality to the exclusion of policy, issues and plans, encourages voters to make their decisions at the polls on the basis of such personality factors"

      I think focus on policy questions limits the discussion to those who have an interest in policy, most of whom are smart enough to not need a Sunday talk show to tell them how to vote.

      I further think that people who constantly voice this complaint about personality in Presidential politics have less understanding of politics than Donald Trump.

    4. That astute Trump person will not ever get the Republican nomination. He should understand that before spending millions (or billions) on a vanity campaign. He may run as a third (or fourth) party candidate, but he won't get the mainstream party Republicans to back him. His track record as a former Democrat is part of the problem, before you get into the specifics of his behavior. People may love Judge Judy but they wouldn't put her on the Supreme Court. This is similar.

      The nature of the average voter is the reason why we have party organization and a nominating convention instead of directly electing our candidates. Look at the arguments among the founding fathers about who could be trusted with the vote and about the dangers of letting riff-raff into the process. That has not gone away in our political system.

  2. Clinton will win the election.

    1. HRC will turn over her private scrubbed server to the FBI.

    2. Who will scrub you and turn you over to the proper authorities?

    3. @12:05

      Spoken like one of the David Brock Correct The Record recruited "nerd virgins"*

      *Paul Begala term for Brock's Super PAC minions

    4. cicero, stuck by his paymasters at Bob's place because of his talent for repetition.

    5. @1:30

      Do Howler anonymous libs have a monopoly on repetition?

    6. does cicero admit recalling he agreed his brain was smaller than his tiny cock in yesterday's thread?

    7. Not likely. He wouldn't still be demonstrating it if he had enough memory space after the replay button was punched.

  3. Everyone says Fiorina did a terrible job as CEO of Hewlett Packard. I have no reason to doubt this. OTOH in order to rise from secretary to CEO, she must have done a very good job at the levels below CEO.

    Now, President of the United States is more demanding than CEO of HP. So Fiorina's record suggests that she's not up to the top job. However, who in politics would meet this standard? IMHO few, if any, of the current Presidential candidates and none of our recent Presidents would have had the ability to do well in high level management of a company like Hewlett Packard. Fiorina's management skills may be below the ideal, but they're superior to what we're accustomed to.

    1. Comparing the job of CEO of HP to President of the USA is comparing apples to oranges. For example, Harry S. Truman, regarding as an excellent president by historians, failed as a grocer. There are many examples of failure in business but success in other jobs -- perhaps because success in business depends on factors beyond an individual's control.

      My experience is that success in business requires a kind of immorality (or amorality), a lack of empathy and especially a lack of concern for people, that you would not want to see in a public servant (which the president ultimately is).

      Being president is not a "management" job so why would it require management skills? It is a leadership job.

      Fiorina's statements about what she would do as president suggest she is not up to the job. No need to look further than that.

    2. @11:18

      Fiorina is definitely up to the task of being POTUS. If libs rejection of conservative ideology were a disqualification for a candidate to be POTUS the U.S. would be condemned to having Democratic Party Presidents occupying The White House.

    3. Our country is not a multi national corporation.

    4. @ 2:04

      It also not a community in need or organizing, yet that didn't stop a Chicago machine pol from becoming POTUS.

    5. You characterize a man by a job he held for 2-3 years right out of college, instead of the years of work he did subsequently in his career? What will people be saying about you 30 years down the line? The country is not in need of ratfuckers, yet that didn't stop Cicero from becoming a children's librarian.

    6. @ 2:40
      Could you list these jobs Obama held that provided him with unique capabilities to be POTUS? Even HRC dissed Obama's voting record.

      "In the Illinois State Senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times 'present,'" Clinton said. "That's not 'yes.' That's not 'no.' That's 'maybe.'" HRC January, 2008

      Obama himself believed his time as community organizer was the biggest influence on his life. That explains a lot.

      "Mr. Obama’s three-year stretch as a grass-roots organizer has figured prominently, if not profoundly, in his own narrative of his life. Campaigning in Iowa, Mr. Obama called it “the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School,” an education that he said was “seared into my brain.” He devoted about one-third of the 442 pages in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” to chronicling that Chicago organizing period."

    7. Corporate attorney
      State Senator
      National Senator

      Obama wrote two books. Look how conservatives have mined them for potential scandals and dirt. And they think Hillary should be similarly forthcoming?

      You quote from Obama's book but pretend he is using the word "education" literally. He is saying he learned about the real needs of people in local communities and how to talk to them about their concerns, how to develop programs and appeal to a variety of voters.

      Bill Clinton, in his book "My Life" spends a lot of time talking about his early years organizing for Fulbright, talking with farmers and people in small towns, learning how to organize a campaign and how to help people with their problems. He then talks about running for office at Georgetown, his years as a Fulbright Scholar, and his early campaign work when he returned. This is called paying dues. It won't be 1/3 of his book because his book was much longer than Obama's (having already been president when he wrote it), but I'll bet the page count is pretty similar. Bill Clinton also says those early conversations with farmers and small businessmen strongly influenced his subsequent life in politics.

    8. Cissy-rass - It's a mute point. Clinton will be elected president and serve two terms because Republicans are in total disarray as Trump is showing us and Fiorina won't ever be elected president or even win one primary so handle it.

      I'm Republican btw.

    9. A reality-based Republican. My faith in humanity has been restored.

    10. @ 4:42

      Whom did you vote for in the last two elections?

    11. @3:35

      Have you noticed that liberals never read Obama's books. When it was reported Obama ate canine, liberals screamed bloody murder....until it was pointed out to them that Obama had himself recounted the incident.

  4. "Hillary's emails WERE backed up to another server – and it may still exist – as the FBI works to figure out how well the data was scrubbed."

    "Bloomberg reported Thursday night that Barbara Wells, an attorney for Platte River Networks, Inc., confirmed that while the server hardware now controlled by the FBI 'is blank and does not contain any useful data,' its contents could still be safe and sound elsewhere."

    "That's because the server's messages were 'migrated' to another server that still exists, she said, before ending the Bloomberg interview without specifying where that device is located and who owns it – only that her company no longer has it."

    1. None of this matters because she did nothing deserving of investigation while in office. It is a huge boondoogle orchestrated by conservatives to undermine her candidacy. Cicero's constant harping is good evidence of that.

    2. Clinton is perfectly capable of undermining her own candidacy without the help of cicero and other conservatives detractors.

    3. @ 1:03

      The HRC email scandal is fodder for even MSNBC, never mind CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, New York Times, WaPo, etc.

      How did conservatives manage to get the FBI, a department under Obama's DOJ, to investigate HRC's private server?

      Tell the FBI that HRC is exempt from investigation as she is no longer Secretary of State. Mishandling classified information as an ex Secretary of State is still a crime

    4. Clinton is no better and no worse than any other presidential candidate when it comes to running her campaign and addressing the complaints of conservatives. However, the attacks on her are far worse than those aimed at anyone else -- not solely because she has the best chance of winning the nomination. She scares the shit out of men strongly attached to their privileges.

      Nothing sent to Clinton (or that she sent to anyone else) was classified or marked classified at the time. The FBI is investigating whether some information should have been marked classified, but that is info that was sent to Clinton by others, not info she originated. She DID NOTHING WRONG, including mishandling classified info.

      The FBI is investigating whether certain info should have been classified or not, to resolve a dispute between the State Department and the Intelligence Community. They are NOT investigating wrongdoing by Clinton.

      But if they were, why would you assume Clinton is guilty solely because of such an investigation? What ever happened to the presumption of innocence? Further, EVERY investigation that Clinton has been through has turned up NO wrongdoing whatsoever. That suggests an even stronger presumption of innocence is warranted.

      Knowing the extreme scrutiny she is under, why would an intelligent woman with presidential ambitions but corner? Convenience? Get real! This is another attempt to smear a candidacy that conservatives fear is unstoppable.

      There is a reason why the voters don't care about this scandal. It has to do with the fable about the little boy who called wolf one too many times.

    5. Correction of typo: "but corner" should be "cut corners"

    6. @ 2:47

      If conservatives are afraid of a women POTUS why has Fiorina pol vaulted over 12 other candidates in the GOP field?

      Why would an "intelligent" women invite problems by having a private server stashed in her Chappaqua cellar instead of using the .gov email server?

      HRC stared out by saying at no time did she send or receive classified emails. This changed to at no time did she send or receive emails at the time of sending were classified. Now she has changed that to she never sent or received emails that were marked classified. If HRC did nothing wrong, why does she keep putting in caveats about her private server? Why didn't she turn over the server before the FBI asked her to? Why would she go to such extreme measure to erase personal emails about yoga and Chelsea wedding plans? Come on. If any GOP candidate for POTUS did liberal media and Howler libs would be apoplectic.

      BTW: Even Bob Woodward compared HRC emails to Nixon's tapes and his erasing 18 minutes from them.

    7. "Even Bob Woodward"

      Are you under the impression that because Robert Redford played him in the movie, Woodward is a liberal? He is a willing participant in the attempts to skewer Clinton. He is also pretty discredited as a journalist, for making up conversations and motivations and even feelings and thoughts he couldn't possibly have sources for in order to slant his narratives in his books. No one takes him seriously.

    8. "HRC stared out by saying at no time did she send or receive classified emails. This changed to at no time did she send or receive emails at the time of sending were classified. Now she has changed that to she never sent or received emails that were marked classified. If HRC did nothing wrong, why does she keep putting in caveats about her private server? Why didn't she turn over the server before the FBI asked her to? Why would she go to such extreme measure to erase personal emails about yoga and Chelsea wedding plans? Come on. If any GOP candidate for POTUS did liberal media and Howler libs would be apoplectic."

      She expressed this three different ways (all of which are true statements) because the accusations against her kept being stated in different ways.

      Clinton did the same as Powell and others and what she did was OK at the time, regardless of what rules have been passed since.

      Who in their right mind would want Republicans to read emails about yoga and Chelsea, when they already make a huge stink about how much she pays her hairdresser or whether she went into Chipotle because she was hungry or to make some political point?

      YOU have no right to personal, private conversations among family members, no right to know what someone weighs or how much they work out or whether they are worried about their abs or thighs. YOU have no right to expect a candidate to reveal stuff like that just so you can sniff like a pig searching for truffles in order to manufacture some other bogus pseudo-scandal. Examples of conservative nonsense from the past include a rumor that Clinton decorated the family Christmas tree (in the Whitehouse) with dildoes -- of course she didn't. What candidate wants to invite that kind of mischaracterization of PRIVATE life?

      People like you already fish through candidate trash cans and try to tap their cell phones, hoping for gold. There is no obligation for a candidate to assist you in that invasion of privacy.

    9. "BTW: Even Bob Woodward compared HRC emails to Nixon's tapes and his erasing 18 minutes from them. "

      Woodward doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. I think he got the GOP memo to go out there and start pushing the Nixon angle. It's totally preposterous and ludicrous, but the hell does Woodward care. He had zero integrity left anymore.

    10. "If any GOP candidate for POTUS did liberal media and Howler libs would be apoplectic."

      Interesting how you use the qualifier "candidate for POTUS". That eliminates Colin Powell, eh?

      But of JEB(!) did the same thing and I don't seem to hear the liberal media talking about it.

    11. "The Night Planet Liberalism Turned on Bob Woodward"

      Matt Welch|Feb. 27, 2013 11:29 pm

    12. "Come on. If any GOP candidate for POTUS did liberal media and Howler libs would be apoplectic."


      And so here's why Jeb Bush's name is conspicuously absent from the current coverage: He did the exact same thing. Like, the exact same thing.

      From the Tampa Bay Times [emphasis added]:

      The former governor conducted all his communication on his private account and turned over the hand-selected batch to the state archives when he left office. Absent from the stash are emails the governor deemed not relevant to the public record: those relating to politics, fundraising and personal matters while he was governor.

      And again here, the Tampa Bay Times reported Bush, "hand-picked emails from his time as governor to help build his case for a 2016 primary run for president."

      Who decided which emails were "relevant to the public record"? Jeb Bush.

      Obviously if journalists consistently include that nugget it deflates the Clinton narrative, especially the one about her being uniquely secretive. If Jeb Bush, who might be the Republican nominee for president, went through half-a-million private emails from his days as governor and self-selected which one's he'd let the public see and which one were truly private, that completely diminishes the media's preferred narrative that Clinton went rogue and somehow broke all the rules.

      She did not. But that's not the story the press wants to tell.

    13. @mm

      Jeb is guilty of the same thing HRC had managed to conceal until the committee on Benghazi discovered HRC used a private server that even The White House claims they were unaware of.

      Did Jeb as Governor of Florida conduct any federal government business involving TOP SECRET emails? If he did, the FBI should confiscate his thumb drive and server.

    14. Why do you think governors never handle classified documents? Are there no army bases or defense installations in Florida? No research -- well, maybe not.

    15. @ 6:21

      I didn't say governors never handle classified information. I clearly said if Jeb did keep such information on his server or thumb drive the FBI should confiscate the devices. POTUS Obama could instruct his DOJ to do just that.

    16. @mm

      How am I moving goal posts when Obama's own DOJ asked HRC for the server and thumb drives? Obama could do the same with Jeb. Why hasn't he?

      These are among the 30,000 HRC stripped out of the 60,000 that she finally turned over to State. The FBI hasn't even reported on what they found on HRC's server and thumb drive.

      "In court papers filed with U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, the State Department updated its progress. It said that as of last Friday, Intelligence Community reviewers had completed a preliminary screening and determined that "out of a sample of approximately 20% of the Clinton emails," the reviewers have "recommended 305 documents -- approximately 5.1% -- for referral to their agencies for consultation."

    17. The four past secretaries of state were asked. Only HRC complied. How's that for sneaky secretive behavior.

    18. HRC is the only candidate who has released the last 10 years of tax returns. That secretive woman. I wonder what she's hiding in plain sight? Doesn't she know that transparency means wait for the subpoena?

    19. "Why would she go to such extreme measure to erase personal emails about yoga and Chelsea wedding plans? Come on. If any GOP candidate for POTUS did liberal media and Howler libs would be apoplectic."

      cicero, you were rambling on about the specific fact that Clinton decided which emails were personal and which ones were work related. That was your specific complaint - that Hillary didn't release her personal emails, deleted them. Then you claimed liberals would be "apoplectic" if a GOP candidate hid their personal emails. When I showed you that this was precisely what Gov. Jeb(!) had done, you very slickly changed the focus to TOP SECRET emails.
      And at this moment no matter what the hysterical hyperventilating clowns on FOX are telling you, there is great skepticism about what the IC is trying to retroactively decide is classified.

      This is all about getting your greasy little hands on her personal emails, using whatever pretext you can grab onto. You new favorite Washington Post reporter, Bob Woodward said as much this morning when he told the gang on Morning Joe that he would "love to get my hands" on Clinton's personal email that have been deleted.

      I thought conservatives want to know what their government is doing, I thought conservatives were demanding release of her emails in answer to FOIA requests, yet now you're applauding the fact that the IC is going crazy over classifying material and fighting with the State Department over what can be publicly released.

  5. "How did conservatives manage to get the FBI, a department under Obama's DOJ, to investigate HRC's private server? "

    A fake video edited to make it look like HRC's private server was selling dead babies for profit?
    Oops, sorry, that's how they are trying to defund Planned Parenthood; a different rat-fucking designed by the same people who push a failed ideology.

    1. @ 2:25

      The unedited videos is available on the Center for Medical Progress website. Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate the people who made the video, not Planned Parenthood. On the other hand, HRC called the graphic videos “disturbing” and called for a national investigation into the practice of selling body parts.

      So why is the FBI investigation HRC's server again?

      BTW: Why does Planned Parenthood require taxpayer funding when Obamacare is supposed to cover all the things they do?

    2. Have you explained yet why Ben Carson did research using aborted tissue but is now pretending he has always been against it?

    3. @2:43 You don't seem to have much understanding of how medical services are funded in general. Sort of like asking why someone on food stamps would need additional money to eat (hint: who pays for the pots and pans).

    4. @ 2:51

      What does PP provide that other clinics do not? PP doesn't even do mammograms.

      You believe that people should be able to use their EBT card on Cuisinart?

    5. Planned Parenthood used to be called the Birth Control League back when family planning was illegal. They fought for the rights of poor and immigrant women to decide how many children they would bear. The name was changed when birth control became legal. Today they continue to provide emergency contraception, birth control, abortion, and STD testing services to women, especially those who are poor, immigrant, or unable to seek services via parents. (as in incest and rape).

      Don't kid yourself that the right doesn't want to restrict women's access to control over their own child-bearing.

      Do you equate a Cuisinart with rape counseling, Cicero? Answer carefully.

    6. @4:34

      Up until what moment of a pregnancy do you believe a women should be able to terminate a baby? Considering science is relied upon for Global Warming conclusions should science be considered in when a baby in the womb feels pain?

      Trying to pin the changing views on abortion on demand on the right is absurd.

      A 2012 Harvard survey of young voters found that two-thirds of 18-29 year-olds support stricter limits on abortion, while a slim majority embraces a more comprehensive pro-life stance.

    7. Cicero, do you know that infanticide is widely practiced around the world? Do you know that girl babies are the way disproportionate victims? Poor families can't afford the dowries and many cannot feed the. They are also way more likely to be sold into sex slavery way before puberty. And you want to discuss trimesters.

    8. I'm so happy those privileged little Harvard grads, somehow chosen to speak for everyone, will never be faced with a difficult decision. Some one with a shred of empathy wouldn't have posted that link.

      Men are the most vocal opponents of abortion. They are invariably the ones who come and threaten you when you're sitting at a table collecting signatures. This is a control issue for them, not life and death as it is for many women. Are you even aware that the majority of abortion requests are from married women, not wanton singles. Poor women who cannot feed another child, or cannot lose her job when her boss realizes she is pregnant. Women whose husbands won't use a condom.

      Cicero, you make me sick.

    9. @ 6:04 & 6:18

      Neither of you answered my initial question. Why?

      Remember Obama is a Harvard grad.

      BTW. What is Obama or the left for that matter, doing about China's practice of aborting female babies? Is that an actual war on women?

      Who said anything about forcing a women to deliver a baby? What reason would a women have for waiting until the third trimester to abort the baby when during the first three months of pregnancy (first trimester), a woman can have two types of tests to show the chance that her baby has a birth defect?

    10. There is enough factually incorrect in the paragraph that it is very clear you don't know what you are talking about. For example, is preeclampsia a "birth defect"? Does it happen early or late in a pregnancy? Can the mom die?

      You seem unaware that China has had a one-child law (regardless of gender) for decades, and that abortion is legal there. That has reduced both child sex trafficking and infanticide. China isn't the main problem. Try Thailand, India, Much of the Muslim world where sons are so overvalued that girls pretend to be boys, with social collusion.

      You know nothing about this topic except what idiots on Fox say, and that is garbage.

    11. @ 7:29

      Since you consider your expect on abortion would you answer my first question?

    12. No, because your question is meaningless. Taking life decisions out of the context of real people's lives is just propaganda. When you are faced with a life or death decision involving abortion, I will acknowledge your right to weigh the questions. Maybe someone you love dearly will be diagnosed with cancer in her second trimester and delaying treatment will greatly increase the chance of her death. Would you want some snot like you deciding what is right for your family?

    13. Hint: Chemo and radiation can kill or severely deform a fetus.

    14. @ 7:41

      But as it stands now, abortion is on demand. There are no questions asked of women who wants a later term abortion. To suggest that late term abortions are committed only to save a mother is just not factual.

      But are you saying that women who have abortions are not faced with the life or death decision they are making for the unborn?

    15. I am saying that the woman is the only person faced with the decision and it should be hers to make. Most women will of course consult others. It is wrong to force a woman to give birth against her will. Period. No matter what term you use to refer to the"unborn," the fetus does not participate in the decision. Nature makes similar tragic decisions affecting the unborn on a regular basis -- much more often than most people realize. I believe the right of the mother supersedes that of the unborn fetus, so it is right for the mother to decide, without coercion.

    16. cicero,
      Abortion is legal. All the whining from busybodies, who want to assure women are second class citizens, and really don't care a whit about the little zygotes* isn't going to change that fact.

      *we know this, because they haven't made a peep about in-vitro fertilization clinics discarding donor eggs (i.e the things they make-believe are precious lives when they try to keep women down).

    17. @8:56

      If you don't care what term you assign to the unborn why do you prefer fetus instead of baby?

      Do obstetricians ever say to expectant mothers:

      Your fetus is doing fine.
      Have you picked out a name for your fetus?
      What color are painting your fetus' nursery?
      Has your felt fetus kick you yet?

    18. @10:01

      Who has argued it isn't legal?

      Do you imagine that there are no women who do not share your opinions on this subject? They also do not believe they are 2nd class citizens. Both sides of the issue have fanatics as Howler liberals have demonstrated.

    19. @ 10:24

      A narcissistic sociopath pretending to know others beliefs and feelings. No wonder you're one of pimp Bozell's hos.

  6. 30 comments when I clicked on and 10 of them from cicero.

    I'm glad the boy has a hobby.

    1. It's a livelihood, not a hobby.

  7. Huffington is at it again. An unflattering picture of HRC with a headline claiming all is not well in Hillaryland, over a rehash of stale conservative talking points about sagging poll numbers, etc. Arianna Huffington, good buddy of Bill Maher (along with Ann Coulter) seems to be making her anti-endorsement. Bet she and Maher both declare for Trump.

    1. @ 7:01

      Trump loved HRC. Invited the Clintons to his wedding. Gave money to her Senate campaign and to her foundation. Trump was a full fledged Democrat for 67 of his 69 years. Huff and Maher are still left wing loons.

      How are polls reflecting HRC's falling numbers in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina "conservative talking points?" Is nothing the fault of HRC herself? Are conservatives responsible for Biden thinking about running against HRC?

    2. Because stating that a predictable dip as new candidates enter the race, while way ahead, does not mean her campaign is struggling to anyone but a conservative.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. @ 7:33

      What new candidate has entered the race against HRC?

      Here are bona fide liberals who say HRC is in trouble:

      On "Face the Nation" on CBS, Molly Ball, a politics writer for the liberal Atlantic magazine, said Clinton has difficulty behaving in a transparent and open manner."

      "At a time of rising populist backlash against Wall Street, inequality and wealth-purchased privilege, there is no Democrat more closely tied to the rich and the powerful than Clinton. At a time when Democrats need to draw contrasts with Republicans by sticking up for the little guy, Clinton’s solicitation of — and favors for — the powerful make her an inauthentic messenger.

      -Dana Milbank June 4, 2015

    5. These are not liberal writers.

      Polls are asking about Biden as if he were in the race. Why?

    6. Awesome. Now cicero is making the argument HRC isn't liberal enough to make a good President.

    7. @10:05

      Correction. Liberal media is making the argument HRC isn't liberal enough for their tastes. The Socialist Sanders gets 25,000 liberals at his event while HRC can barely get 2,000.

    8. "Liberal media." The canard that won't die. I'm mildly surprised that you even get paid for this cud.

  8. The Way of The Bobworld.

    "Can you see what happened there? Let us explain what you’ll see if you watch the tape of this segment."

    What the Bob means is "You liberals are dumb, so let me explain things before you watch the tape so you don't get the wrong idea or in case you don't watch, which is more likely because you are lazy.

    1. anon 10:42, your comment leads me to ask a question that so hasn't been answered: given that you have such antipathy to "Bobworld" (a fiction of your own creation) why do you frequent it so much? I'm also curious, are there any sites which you think are better, or that you would recommend?

    2. And your comment reminds me of what a broken record you are. I though Matt in the Crown was bad.

  9. Getting my husband back with the help of professional love spell .Dr Brave ??

    I'm very excited sharing this amazing testimony about how i save my marriage and get my husband back today, My name is Becky Miller , I live in Los Angeles, California, I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work.