Things That Happen Every Four Years

A book slamming the likely Democratic presidential nominee? Right as campaign season heats up? Gee, where have we heard this one before? Unfit For Command, anyone? Obama’s America? Or an entire book club’s worth of anti-Hillary books from 2007, before Obama came along and ruined the RW PR campaign?

Look, this happens every four years. I don’t get why the news media is acting like this book is a big deal. Every time there’s a presidential election, the right-wing media machine gears up and unleashes books, movies, etc. attacking the likely Democratic nominee. This is not news. Does the MSM think we’re stupid? Or are they the stupid ones?

In August 2013 I wrote a post called “Hating Hillary For Fun & Profit.” From that post:

I’m so old, I remember back before the 2008 race when they were desperate for Hillary to be the nominee. Right-wing publishers like Regnery, HarperCollins and Thomas Nelson had a library’s worth of anti-Hillary books ready to ship out, with enticing names like Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton, or American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Path to Power. They had an entire anti-Hillary communications plan all set up and ready to go, and then that Mooslim usurper terrorist pal Nobummer had to ruin their little party. Whah.

See, here’s how it works: the books (ghost-written, ‘natch) are really just an excuse to get “authors” on the TV talk show circuit to spout conservative talking points and perform a legitimized form of character assassination. Meanwhile, the books themselves are used as premiums for donations, subscriptions to NewsMax and the like. It’s all part of the Vast Right Wing Media Industrial Complex. One could say with a certain degree of accuracy that hating Hillary Clinton is a major conservative profit center.

I mean, cue the fucking calliope here, everybody. This isn’t real. None of it is real. Why are people pretending it is? Why does the MSM play along with this charade?

12 Comments

Filed under 2016 Presidential Election, media, Republican Party

12 responses to “Things That Happen Every Four Years

  1. Kathleen

    Because they are morally, ethically and spiritually bankrupt. And not very bright.

  2. jamie

    Because they move like a school of fish. The big guys turn and all the smaller ones, following their lead, turn with them. Because they only know how to do – or only care to do – the horse-race. Who wins this point, GOP or Dems? Because, as a result, the mental muscle requisite for depth or nuance or context or origin of a story has atrophied from disuse.

  3. screech

    “Why does the MSM play along with this charade?”
    Because they’re in on it up to their necks.

  4. Shutter

    Not to be a contrarian but has Hillary ever been elected to anything?

    • She was the U.S. Senator from New York.

      • Yes, but had she not had the good fortune of Giuliani’s cancer and marital troubles, she would have been the distinct underdog. When Giuliani dropped out, she only had to defeat Rick Lasio, the NYRP’s ‘designated loser.’ Her opponent for re-election was an obscure Mayor of Yonkers who has since been so invisible it would be hard to prove he hadn’t entered Witness Protection.

        The only authentically competitive race she was in was the 2008 race. And — as much as we’d like to erase our enthusiasm for the ‘narcissistic phony’ — she was having a hard time pulling ahead of John Edwards before the scandals brought him down, and couldn’t defeat President Obama.

        This above all is why I oppose a Clinton candidacy — not a Clinton Presidency. The Republicans have become so insane — and so dangerous — that giving them control of all three branches of government might — quite literally and I use the word correctly — rip the country apart. We HAVE to win this one. (And when I say ‘we’ I don’t just mean the Democratic Presidential Candidate, I mean that it has to be a win for the Democratic PARTY as well.)

        This means the key is electability. And there are four keys to that:

        A: GOTV. We have to get our voters to the polls — and not simply assume they’ll be so outraged they’ll go anyway. And there are several key groups, ‘young’ voters, Hispanics, lgbtq voters, and people who are not Evangelical Christians. We also need voters who are moved by certain issues, SSM, fear of the ‘1%,’ gun control, anti-bigotry, and, of course, most importantly, women’s issues. And most of all we need enthusiastic supporters to be working at getting others to the polls. And I could argue on each of these that Hillary is less likely to be the one to mobilize them than I would like.
        B:The Republican Party is splitting now, with the religious madmen, the simply crazy Tea Partiers, the business group, and the ‘Establishment’ Republicans capable of being at each other’s throats over many issues. We need a candidate who can see how to exploit and widen the split. Hillary is the only candidate who would,, from the beginning, heal the split (on the grounds of ‘enemy of my enemy…’ These groups ALL hate her, and would ignore their differences to defeat her.
        C:We HAVE to put Republicans and the entire Republican Party on the defensive. We don’t dare let them — yet again as they have since 1972 — put us on the defensive, because we do it very badly. We need to make them explain why they want to increase discrimination, injure the right to vote, hurt business (as they do, they support ‘financialism’ not ‘capitalism’ and true corporate small capitalists usually support the things Republicans oppose — see gay rights where corporations were ahead even of Democrats), take health care away, set back education and infrastructure, and bankrupt every state they run. But Hillary seems stuck in the mindset where Democrats run against individuals — and sometimes don’t even mention their party — while Republicans run against the ‘Democrat’ party and Liberalism in general.
        D: Our Candidate has to be willing to take risks and to go into almost every state and district and defend our candidates — even the unlikely ones who are considered probable losers (like Jim Mann in Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana in 2006, Heidi Heitsma in 2014, and, oh yes, Hillary Clinton in 2000 before Giuliani dropped out). The Clintons have never shown themselves to be good at doing this in any but ‘high-profile’ races. (They might even bring back the Tim Kaine philosophy, which kept a good, Progressive Candidate who was polling badly from even getting a list of donors in his district — can’t remember the name but he was running in Kentucky in 2010, and was even going to challenge Alison Grimes in the Senatorial Primary — and couldn’t have done worse.)

        Oh, and I hate to say it, but there is the matter of Hillary’s age — and let he who did not make jokes about John McCain in 2008 cast the first stone at me. She will be my age by the time she is running, and only 3 years younger than John McCain was, Accidents and illnesses can happen at any age of course, but they increase with age, and we are putting some damn valuable eggs into one basket here. If something does happen, or if some Republican attack proves to be crippling, I’d like to have at least a visible alternative (who is electable, as Biden, Bernie — much as I loive them — and Webb are not).

        And I don’t need someone more progressive, just more electable. I have stated I’d gladly support a Kate McCaskill, with all her flaws. (Of course, I’ve made no secret I’d really like to see Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand as my candidate — and she is MUCH more progressive — but she has said she won’t run if Hillary does.)

    • Shutter

      Thanks SB, I forgot about that.

    • WordPress has been hiccupy this morning, don’t know why my reply posted 5 times. Sorry.

  5. Despite my comments above, of course I will vote for her if she is the candidate, unless it were unmistakably shown that she had been more involved with the PUMAs than came out at the time.

    If you don’t remember the PUMAs (who are still in existence, with the acronym having a different meaning — it originally stood for “Party Unity My A**”), it was this group of purported anti-Obama Clinton supporters, it was they, not the Republicans or WND, who introduced the ‘birther’ nonsense into the campaign. You may remember the Chris Matthews interview outside the Democratic Convention where he eventually walked away saying “You people are insane.” It was assumed at the time that they were a republican ‘false flag’ operation, or representatives of the Geraldine Ferraro wing of “Archie Bunker Democrats.” (I’m not sure, but I think they were also sponsoring the guy who claimed to have had a gay affair with Obama.)

    This was probably true, that she had nothing to do with the group and regretted their existence. But I don’t think I could forgive it if she had some part in their actions — which helped rip down the wall between obnoxious Conservatives and the :Sewer Right” that no longer seems to exist.

    • RE: the PUMAs I wrote a lot about them a few years ago. But I remember one notorious PUMA named Cristi Adkins who founded Clintons4McCain. Wondering if anyone can track her down and find out how strenuously she’s supporting her chosen candidate of a few years ago?

      Time to dig deep into the memory hole and expose these assholes all over again.

      I honestly think there’s a reflexive Clinton-hate that started back when we were all naive and still considered the Republicans honest brokers and were not wise to the ways of the political world. A lot of people were poisoned against Hillary Clinton back 10-15 years ago (I actually saw one liberal mention the Vince Foster thing as a reason not to vote for her).

      I’ve always said I was on the fence between Obama and Clinton back in 2008, I saw pros and cons with both candidates and I was happy to go along with whichever one got the nomination. But one thing I always said Hillary had in her favor was that she wasn’t naive enough to think she could cross her fingers and just be hopey-changey on the GOP. I think Obama was hopelessly naive in thinking he could change the way things work in Washington. Hillary has been in their crosshairs since Rush Limbaugh called her then-teenage daughter a dog. She’s had all sorts of vile personal insults and conspiracy theories thrown her way and knows exactly who she’s dealing with on the other side of the aisle. I don’t think birtherism or fake Muslim-ism or “palling around with terrorists” or the unrestrained obstruction would have taken her by surprise the way it did Obama. And that in itself is a big plus in her favor over any other candidate.

      On the other hand, Republicans have been gearing for Hillary’s candidacy since 2008. Nominating someone like an O’Malley or whomever would really throw them off their game because they’re totally convinced the candidate will be Hillary. I think it would be hilarious to see them scramble and try to start over from square one again, the way they did in 2008.

  6. CB

    Here’s what I remember about Hillary on her way to the Senate.

    I lived in Buffalo at the time — you know Buffalo, that city upstate that the 90s recovery somehow never made it to, the city that the rest of NY, politicians ESPECIALLY, made fun of in their public comments, the city everyone thought of first, when Ed Koch made his “life upstate is a joke” comment. That Buffalo, the one everyone is so comfortable brushing off, whether it’s government or sports teams you’re talking about.

    Clinton not only came to Buffalo and engaged with the population there, she did it more than once during just that first campaign. I don’t remember Lazio coming to the area at all; if he did, he likely limited his exposure to Amherst, where the money fled. If she can scale that kind of outreach to the national level, it can only be a good thing.

    She was a good senator, or at least she tried to be. I voted for her both times. I live in Georgia now. Believe me, I know from lousy senators, new and old.

    I would dearly love for her to have a strong competitor in the primaries, one that would push her at least a little to the left of that centrist perch that she and Bill love so much. When all you have is center and right, right is all you’ll get, even when you compromise. That’s our problem now.

    But, here’s the thing. There is no Barack Obama waiting in the wings to announce this time. I haven’t seen any other Democrat who would make as strong a candidate as she. That ‘lesser of two evils’ canard is just a tarted way of saying ‘I don’t want to vote.’ That has never been an option for me, and it won’t be this time, either.