Category Archives: Hillary Clinton

Putin Hates Hillary Memory Hole

Donald Trump’s Twitter feed notwithstanding, U.S. intelligence long ago confirmed that Russia hacked DNC computers, RNC computers, etc. This is not up for debate, nor has it ever been up for debate. The tiny bit of daylight between the CIA and the FBI is the motive behind the hacking: was it to help sway the election to Trump, as the CIA believes, or was it just to undermine Americans’ faith in a democratic institution, as the FBI maintains?

As I’ve said before, it’s obvious the goal was to help Trump. When everyone is hacked but only the Democrats’ emails are released to Russian propaganda tool WikiLeaks, you have to be pretty dumb to think anything else was going on. Whether the Kremlin actually thought it would work or not is another matter. Clearly, they were trying to help Trump, and if Hillary Clinton still won, hers would be a damaged win. A damaged President Hillary Clinton would be almost as good as a President Trump. Remember: pre-election day, everyone assumed Hillary was going to win.

Furthermore we have history. Vladimir Putin hates Hillary Clinton for many reasons, chief among them being he viewed her as a threat to his hold on power. From the 2011 memory hole:

MOSCOW — Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin accused Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday of inciting unrest in Russia, as he grappled with the prospect of large-scale political protest for the first time in his more than decade-long rule.

In a rare personal accusation, Mr. Putin said Mrs. Clinton had sent “a signal” to “some actors in our country” after Sunday’s parliamentary elections, which were condemned as fraudulent by both international and Russian observers. Anger over the elections prompted a demonstration in which thousands chanted “Putin is a thief” and “Russia without Putin,” a development that has deeply unnerved the Kremlin.

Speaking to political allies as he announced the formation of his presidential campaign, Mr. Putin said that hundreds of millions of dollars in “foreign money” was being used to influence Russian politics, and that Mrs. Clinton had personally spurred protesters to action. The comments indicate a breakdown in the Obama administration’s sputtering effort to “reset” the relationship between the United States and Russia.

Gee, can’t imagine why he wouldn’t want Hillary to be president of the United States, can you?

And then there’s this from 2010:

TBILISI, Georgia—U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday assured Georgia that it remains a key U.S. partner, using tough language to call for Russia to end its “occupation” of separatist territories in the Caucasus nation, while shying from criticism of President Mikheil Saakashvili’s democratic credentials.

Fears had been growing here that Georgia was lower on the U.S.’s list of priorities than it was during the presidency of George W. Bush, as the Obama administration pursues a “reset” policy on Russian relations aimed at easing tensions and strengthening economic ties.

“We continue to call for Russia to abide by the August 2008 cease-fire commitment…including ending the occupation and withdrawing Russian troops from South Ossetia and Abkhazia to their preconflict positions,” Mrs. Clinton said at a joint news conference with Mr. Saakashvili. “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

The far-left never tired of portraying Hillary Clinton as a warmonger, but the truth is she was hawkish in her dealings with Vladimir Putin, an oppressive oligarch who deserved to be treated with caution. The result was that Putin worked to swing the election to his BFF Donald Trump, or at least inflict as much damaged on Hillary as possible. Mission accomplished.

What I don’t understand is why the moderate GOPers, who always claimed President Obama was “soft on Russia,” fell in line behind Donald Trump. I’m thinking of folks like Marco Rubio and Tennessee’s own Bob Corker, who called Obama’s actions weak on Russia. And yet they fell in line behind Trump, whose campaign’s ties to the Kremlin were no secret, and who had long praised Putin. I don’t get it.

As the Washington Post reported a few days before the election,

“Putin has kind of got it in for Hillary,” said Clifford Kupchan, chairman of the consulting firm Eurasia Group and a Russia expert who attended private meetings with Putin during the Clinton years. “The statements after the Duma riots were like kerosene on a fire, and it really made Putin angry.”

This was before the election, when a Hillary Clinton win seemed all but assured. But Putin’s man squeaked by on a technicality, and now we’re all suffering the consequences.


Filed under 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton, Russia

You’ve Come A Long Way, Maybe

The Los Angeles Times is rightfully getting some heat for running a photo of President Bill Clinton to accompany a story about Hillary’s historic nomination.

Like other newspapers, The Times illustrated its main story Wednesday on Hillary Clinton’s historic nomination for president with a photo — of her husband.

Of course, Bill Clinton is no ordinary spouse of a candidate (and neither was Hillary Clinton when her husband was president). Still, many readers detected a whiff of sexism in The Times’ decision to feature a large photo of the former president basking the adulation of the Democratic National Convention crowd when it was the former secretary of State who received her party’s nomination for president.

Gee, I’m not sure “other papers did it, too,” and, “Bill Clinton is no ordinary spouse,” are worthy excuses. And I missed the apology in these two paragraphs, too.

My God but it’s going to be a long three and a half months.


Filed under 2016 Presidential Election, feminism, Hillary Clinton, media


The Hillary Hate Machine has been with us for over 20 years now.

As has been well-documented (here at my place and elsewhere), it has become a cottage industry for the right-wing media machine. The professional right has found it quite profitable to peddle Hillary Hate through a string of “documentaries” and book titles, and it’s natural that after decades of this bullshit, a good bit of it has filtered into the American consciousness.

Few political figures have been served up as a national punching bag so religiously and relentlessly as Hillary Clinton. That she hasn’t retired from public life but instead continued to push forward in the political arena, finally making history as America’s first female presidential nominee of a major political party, is a testament to her strength and resolve. This in itself is impressive.

I’ve heard every horrible thing one can say about Hillary Clinton: corporate whore, warmonger, cravenly ambitious, manipulative, crooked, incompetent — and that’s the nice stuff. Let’s ignore the lesbian, murderer, cat-killer stuff. I am really going to enjoy hearing what those folks have to say when Madame President serves out her two terms and ends up not be any of the things the far-left and far-right have said about her.

Yes, Hillary Hate is a real thing, has always been a real thing, and has now been turned into an actual profit center by the right-wing establishment (the Kochs, the DeVoses, the Vigueries, the Adelsons, the Perries …). We’ve got D’Nesh D’Souza’s “Hillary’s America” playing at the local multiplex in my neighborhood, despite the fact that his predictions in “2016: Obama’s America” were hilariously off-base. It seems there’s no shortage of financing for a right-wing smear campaign, no matter how outrageous.

It’s a technique rarely employed by the Left, perhaps because there is no “professional Left” of the same institutional vigor as exists on the right. Regardless, now that this strategy has been institutionalized and monetized, it will be used to attack every subsequent Democratic leader — indeed, it already has. God forbid any member of the Obama family should aspire to anything in public life after January 2017; if they do, expect the Wingnut Wurlitzer to be cranked up to full speed.

But where did the Hillary Hate start? It’s a question many have pondered lately. We’re a nation of short memories, after all. So, thank you, internet, for bringing us this old piece from 1996, which is now making the rounds. (Hat tip: I saw it over at DailyKos, a place I rarely visit anymore. Might have to change that…)

So let’s jump into our time machine and go back to 1996, a year many of today’s young voters don’t even remember. But I remember it well, and this article brings it all back. Remember the time when the right feared Hillary was a far-left Socialist? Remember the establishment’s disdain for her as a feminist, at a time when feminism was under attack? Of “Backlash” and the kewl kids saying, “I’m not a feminist but …”?

The fact that Hillary was a working woman reshaping the more traditional “wifely” role of First Lady, the fact that she had an office in the Old Executive Office Building and was concerned more about policy than china patterns, was enough to set the Sally Quinns and other Washington social elites off their rockers. And it’s tempting to say that Hillary Hate was just another piece of the anti-woman/anti-feminist “backlash” making its way through the culture at the time. I think there’s some truth to this.

But I’m also reminded that Hillary Hate really started as Clinton hate: Hill and Bill were the “white trash” outsiders, who thoroughly pissed off the Washington establishment with their brashness. The Beltway media hated them from day one, and wasn’t even self-aware enough to question why.

From 1996:

Speaking more generally, a close friend of the Clintons’ brings up yet another theory: “The President thinks that they are treated so harshly because he is ‘white trash,’ as he puts it. The way somebody put it is, Imagine Washington as a country club, and Clinton as the golf pro. They think he’s perfectly competent at what he does, they think he is a good guy. You want him to have a drink at your table with you and your friends, and maybe even come to dinner. But the golf pro is never ‘one of us,’ never a real “member.”

The Clintons were never one of the Beltway establishment, and yet they had the nerve to crash the country club. I vividly remember the tsk-tsking about Bill Clinton’s McDonald’s runs. Quelle horreur! For the record, we saw the same reaction when the Obamas came to power in 2008. They were outsiders, they weren’t part of the establishment, they were different. It’s really funny to see how the outsider Clintons became the establishment — even criticized for it in 2016 — but 20 years of public service allows one to build a network. The Clintons reshaped the Democratic Party in the ’90s, and it’s the party we have today: one of inclusion, one which brought us our first African American president and, God-willing, our first female president. This is something to be proud of. The outsiders are now the insiders and yes, it took 20 years, but this is how it’s done. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is imploding into a festering cesspool of rage and hate.

So the next time I hear someone tell me any of the dozens of awful things about Hillary Clinton that I’ve been hearing for the bulk of my adult life, it bears remembering where this vitriol comes from. The Clintons were originally outsiders, who came in and reshaped the political establishment. Upsetting the tea tray at a time when America was undergoing a cultural shift of its own sparked a good bit of backlash. That the right was able to sprinkle all of that with for-profit fairy dust and political opportunism only cemented the deal.


Filed under 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton

Why The Berners Are Wrong

There’s been a long discussion about Bernie v Hillary in the “This Is Just Sad” comment thread, and while I’m sure everyone is sick of the conversation, this is my blog, so I get to have the last word. Tee hee.

Bernie has obviously lost the nomination, but there are still some true believers out there, the folks I call the Stalwarts. Most of those, I maintain, are people who never intended to vote for Hillary anyway and probably never will. They call themselves #NeverHillary for a reason. Alrighty, then. I really don’t see the need to play nice and give Bernie all sorts of concessions and basically coax and coddle the Stalwarts along. They call themselves #BernieorBust for a reason, too.

But here’s where I get to tell those folks why they’re wrong.

I’ve seen the Berner arguments against Hillary here, there, and everywhere. It’s all the same exact stuff, verbatim, whether it’s on my blog, on Bernie Twitter or in Facebook groups. So, let’s unpack this, shall we?

The Stalwarts’ main arguments come down to three basic things:

1) Hillary is corrupt/a corporate puppet/Wall Street whore;
2) The system is corrupt and only a “non-establishment” person can overhaul it;
3) I live in a Red State so my vote doesn’t matter anyway, so I’ll lodge a protest vote.

These are the most common arguments; I know there are others. Some Stalwarts may have a pet issue they deeply care about — Keystone XL, pensions, Wall Street reform, Israel, etc. If you are one of those people, then you do not want to vote for Bernie. You want Bernie in the Senate where that stuff actually gets addressed. I would maintain that Bernie has a very poor record of accomplishment during his tenure in Congress, but YMMV. The point is, Congress makes the laws and holds the purse strings. Not the White House.

Let’s look at the other arguments.

• Hillary the corrupt/puppet/whore. Facts not in evidence. And can we please stop calling powerful women “whores”? That is some sexist shit, and it needs to stop. Now.

These are the same Republican arguments I’ve been hearing for decades. I find it really amusing that people who call themselves left-wingers are so eager to parrot Breitbart/Broadside Books when it suits their needs. But I’m not surprised. The right-wing has turned hating the Clintons into a cottage industry for over 20 years. Remember “what will we tell the children?” This is what they told the children: the Clintons are sleazy, corrupt, whores, thieves, yada yada. This is how the conservative machine delegitimizes successful Democrats. I eagerly anticipate the coming smear campaign against Barack and Michelle Obama. God forbid either of them should aspire to achieve anything beyond the White House, right? Gotta poison that legacy.

Many of the Stalwarts were in grade school during the Clinton impeachment hearings. They internalized this messaging without even realizing it; it was fed to them with their morning Fruit Loops. So they drank the right-wing Kool-aid without even being aware of it. No wonder.

(Let me say: I am relishing how all of the main players from the impeachment days have finally gotten their come-uppances. The Clintons, however, have done just fine. Interesting, that.)

• The system is corrupt and we need a “non-establishment” person to overhaul it. Ah yes, this is a very popular talking point among the Stalwarts. After all, “I voted for hope and change and all I got was the same old stuff.”

Well, that’s not EXACTLY true, we did get the biggest advance on healthcare coverage in my lifetime. Obamacare has actually saved lives. We also got marriage equality for my gay and lesbian friends. We got pulled out of the worst economic depression in my lifetime. We got a lot of stuff: a changed relationship with Cuba, a deal with Iran, etc.

But if you’re one of these purity trolls who thinks that wasn’t good enough, that it was only half an enchilada not the whole enchilada, then pay attention: Obama ran for president because he wanted to change the way business was done in Washington. That was the big theme of the 2008 campaign. And he failed. He concedes that he failed. He promised what he could not deliver. And Bernie, too, will fail at this.

A big reason why is because the damn young people failed to show up to vote in 2010. Until the whiners and complainers remember that change happens when people show up to vote IN EVERY ELECTION, not just every 4 years, they will always be disappointed and change will always be a pipe dream.

The other reason is that these are deeply entrenched, long-established systems and institutions. Changing them will take a long, long, long time. No one candidate, no one president, no one election will do that. Change happens slowly and incrementally. That is reality on earth. Your not liking it doesn’t make it any less true. Take it from an old person who knows.

But the main point is, if you were disillusioned by Obama because reality didn’t match up to the campaign promises, then you would be extremely disappointed in Bernie. He cannot deliver on his promises. Obama couldn’t, and he can’t, either.

• I can lodge a protest vote because I live in a Red State. Just, no. Oh, how tired I am tired of hearing that. Yes, my state is deep red, but every vote still matters. Excuse me for pointing this out, but Donald fucking Trump is the Republican candidate, in case you hadn’t noticed. The Republican Party’s weakest, most divisive candidate in a generation. Republicans are fleeing the “look at my African American over there!” guy like rats off a sinking ship (a tired metaphor but unfortunately apt).

Trump is poised to give the Republican Party its final shiv, something which has been coming since the disastrous W presidency. This is an electoral game-changer, and there’s no doubt that some Red States could turn Blue this time around. Et tu, Utah?

This is truly unprecedented. The fractured Republican party has handed Democrats a big opportunity. Anyone who thinks they have the luxury of a protest vote at a time when any state could flip is a selfish idiot that I have no time for. Also, too, those “Clinton is the same as Trump” people. That is too stupid for words. If that is what you think, then crack a book sometime. Maybe read up on what happened in 2000 when 500 Stalwarts could have kept George W. Bush out of the White House.

So yes, I am right and you’re wrong. It’s my blog after all. 🙂 Also, I’m going to be super busy the next week or two so this may be my last post for a while. Thought I’d make it a meaty one.


Filed under 2016 Election, 2016 Presidential Election, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton

I’m Not Your Smile Monkey

We’ve all been there, amiright right ladies? You’re walking down the street, or in a grocery store, or at the post office, or any old place, really; you’re going about your day (and maybe it was a shitty day, maybe it wasn’t), and you’re thinking whatever you’re thinking, wrapped up in your own business, because the one thing you are not worried about in that moment is what some asshole loser guy thinks about you. And right then the asshole loser guy comes up to you and says, “Smile!”

How much do you want to pop that guy in the nose in that moment? And how much self-restraint does it take to not go full-shrill and tell him to mind his own fucking business and if he doesn’t like your sourpuss face, look at someone else?

This happened to me a lot when I was younger and hotter. Fellas, let me tell you now: if this is your pick-up line, you are Doing. It. Wrong.

“Smile!” is right up there with, “When’s the baby due?” when you’re not pregnant. If I want to smile I’ll fucking smile, okay? And if I don’t, I won’t, and it’s none of your goddamn business how, or why, or when. I’m not here to be your scenery.

I think I speak for all women when I say, Fuck you, asshole. I’m not your smile monkey. Go get some goddamn manners.

So yes, the backlash against Joe Scarborough for Tweeting at Hillary Clinton to “smile” last night is very richly deserved. He actually had the temerity to monitor her facial expressions? We weren’t put on earth to be your set decoration, guys. Ditto the other right-wing assholes who didn’t like the sound of Hillary’s voice. News flash: we don’t give a fuck what you think of our facial expressions, the volume of our voice, or any other aspect of our physical selves. Now go into the kitchen and make me a goddamn sandwich.

The #SmileForJoe hashtag on Twitter is just the kind of smackdown these pompous douche canoes deserve. There’s some brilliant stuff over there. Check it out.


Filed under 2016 Election, 2016 Presidential Election, feminism, Hillary Clinton, media

Don’t Shush Me, Bro

It seems the only thing of importance that happened at last night’s Democratic debate is that Hillary Clinton interrupted Bernie Sanders and he shushed her. This has erupted into a big debate on the Twitters and Facespace thing, but I actually think it’s an important topic we need to discuss.

The rules of communication are different for women and men.

Here’s the deal, guys: women don’t like to be shushed. At all. If my husband ever tells me to be quiet or shush — yes, it’s happened — it elicits an intense, visceral, negative response. It makes me furious. And when it happens in a professional setting? It pushes every feminist button I own.

Why? Because you’re telling me I’m not important. You’re discounting me. You’re saying my ideas don’t matter, and that I don’t have the right to express them.

Men interrupt each other all the time and I daresay they don’t have that same response. It’s just how they communicate. But men and women come at communication from very different places.

The way we communicate is one of the many subtle ways women are expected to take a subservient role in society. I know it looks like we’ve come a long way, baby — hey we can vote and wear pants, huzzah — but when you look at basic social interactions, we’re constantly sent the contradictory message that we are second place. We get talked over, our ideas don’t matter, our issues aren’t important to the country at large they’re “women’s issues,” so who really gives a shit. Our work is worth less. Our effort is less valuable. This is the world from a professional woman’s point of view.

“But Beale,” you say, “Hillary interrupted him.” Yes, she did. Of course she did. And this is another thing about the difference between male and female communication: professional women always have to assert themselves to express their opinion. Because women are talked over all the damn time, it’s something we’ve lived with for generations, and many of us have learned how to interrupt if we want to say something.

I’ve become a really brazen interrupter, I am the first to admit it. Because if I don’t, I don’t get to speak!

Men interrupt each other all the time. And they are okay with each other doing it. It’s how they talk. When women assert their right to express themselves, we’re shushed. I’m pretty sure you guys don’t even realize you’re doing it, but we notice it, and we don’t like it. Because again, you’re telling us we don’t matter and our opinions aren’t important. You’re not recognizing our right to express them. I know it’s subtle — subconscious even — but it’s there.

This morning I was asked, “Well, what would you have done if you were speaking and a man interrupted you?” I’d have let him, of course. That’s what we women always do when we’re interrupted, most of the time. It’s how we’re socialized to behave. If we don’t we’re rude, bossy, brassy, bitchy, too aggressive. That’s the world, people.

As a professional woman I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been in meetings where I’ve had to assert my right to express my opinion. And that means interrupting. I’ve become a master interrupter, and it’s not a pretty habit, but if I want to speak, that’s how it happens. Too often, it’s different when a woman does it than when a man does it. That is my experience.

I’m sure this sounds really unfair to a lot of men out there. Women should be allowed to interrupt but they shouldn’t be called on it? What was Bernie supposed to do?

Well, life isn’t fair, guys. Bernie could have raised his hand, or that infamous waggling finger of his, as a sort of “placeholder” social cue. I’ve seen men do that, and it’s not a shush, it’s a “I want to respond to that.”

One thing I’ve noticed Republican woman do — Liz Cheney is really expert at this — is that they just talk without pausing. Liz Cheney literally never comes up for air once she gets going. I’m sure these women have received media training for this, and I’m sure this is a big reason why they basically recite talking points. It’s really hard to speak without pausing and also do so extemporaneously (see Palin, Sarah — someone else who speaks without pausing but she ends up coming off like a ditz.)

This is a real thing, people. If you ever watch Bill Maher’s show, you will see it in action. There’s always one woman on the panel and she never gets to speak unless she interrupts. The men interrupt each other all the time but when women do it, it’s rude, so many women are reluctant to assert that right. And once we do get going you’d better not pause for air or else you’ll get interrupted in turn, which isn’t rude when it happens to you, only when you do it.

Something to think about. Have at it.


Filed under 2016 Election, 2016 Presidential Election, feminisim, Hillary Clinton, Women, women's rights

Still Not Getting It On The Wealth Thing

I’m having so much fun watching the RWers embrace the whole Clinton-wealth meme, like a kid who found dad’s secret porn stash. It’s hilarious. I mean, watching Chuck Todd and Chris Cillizza on Friday discuss whether Hillary Clinton is “out of touch with mainstream America” because she said they were broke when they left the White House was an exercise in cognitive dissonance.

It’s spawned headlines like this one:


Oh, they just wish! They wish! I love it when the beltway elites start discussing “real America” and the wealth issue. Nothing shows how out of touch they are than this conversation. They truly do not get it.

What tripped up Mitt Romney was not his wealth. America didn’t dislike Mitt Romney because he’s rich — a poor person is not going to run for president of the United States. The problem was his attitude about his wealth. The problem was the perception that the Romneys felt they were better than everyone else because of their wealth. That their wealth somehow entitled them to lead the country. And that everyone else is just lazy “takers” who don’t work hard, who are not deserving of things like unemployment insurance and food stamps. That the Romenys deserve their handouts but the rest of us do not.

That’s what those guys don’t get. The Clintons don’t give off that attitude. That’s what the wealth issue is about. It’s the “makers and takers” attitude so pervasive among rich Republicans.

So keep talking, Republicans.


Filed under 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney

Hillary’s Head Injury Glasses

Karl Rove opened his yap and some stupid fell out and we’re all supposed to be shocked? No one is shocked, certainly not the Big Dog:

Former president Clinton obliterated the former Bush’s brain. Clinton said, “I got to give him credit, you know that embodies that old saying, ‘Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.’First they say she faked her concussion, now they say she’s auditioning for a part on The Walking Dead. She works out every week, she is strong, she’s doing great. As far as I can tell she’s in better shape than I am now…I was sort of dumbfounded. You can’t get too upset about it — it’s just the beginning, they’ll get better and better at it. I’m still waiting for them to admit there was nothing in White Water.”

Of course they’ll get better at it. They’re still trying to find something in #Benghazzzzziiii, too. I’m sure in about six months we’ll see the Regnery Publishing start churning out its Jerome Corsi-penned Benghazi exposes (yours free with your subscription to WingNut Daily!).

It’s unbelievable to me that the news media is even bothering to play along. Look, folks. Let me make it real simple for you: when Karl Rove starts trying to delegitimize the presumptive Democratic nominee with a crackpot conspiracy theory, this tells you everything you need to know about every single conspiracy furball the right has ever coughed up about the Clintons, President Obama, etc. Because much as the establishment Republican Party would like to pretend that birtherism, FEMA camps, Clinton’s serial rapist past, John Kerry’s Vietnam War record, etc. are all promulgated by some fringe on the extreme right (that they have nothing to do with!), clearly it’s all been coordinated from the heart of the GOP.

Karl Rove just tipped his hand because he forgot we live in an age where there are no secrets anymore. They’re trying to delegitimize any Hillary Clinton candidacy/presidency based on a weird conspiracy theory that they’ve just started.

Let the chain emails to Aunt Edna and Uncle Elmer fly.


Filed under 2016 Presidential Election, conspiracy theory, Hillary Clinton, Karl Rove, Republican Party

Hating Hillary For Fun & Profit

In case you missed it, NBC has announced it’s developing a four-part miniseries about Hillary Clinton starring Diane Lane (no air date set yet) while CNN Films is working on its own Hillary Clinton documentary project set to air in 2014.

Strangely, Republicans are shitting bricks over the idea that someone other than them would make a Hillary movie:

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus threatened to pull the group’s partnership with NBC and CNN for 2016 GOP presidential primary debates if the networks moved ahead with plans to air films on Hillary Clinton.

“If they have not agreed to pull this programming prior to the start of the RNC’s Summer Meeting on August 14, I will seek a binding vote stating that the RNC will neither partner with these networks in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates they sponsor,” Preibus said in a statement.

In individual letters to CNN president Jeff Zucker and NBC chairman Robert Greenblatt, Priebus called the documentaries “a thinly veiled attempt at putting a thumb on the scales of the 2016 presidential election.”

Oh, my but that is certainly hilarious. Priebus even had this to say:

“This special treatment is unfair to the candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2016 who might compete against Secretary Clinton…

Well, ain’t that sweet of him to be so concerned about the Democrats’ other nominees! Funny, I don’t recall any of this concern when right-wing group Citizens United wanted to air Hillary: The Movie right before the Democratic primaries in 2008.

You remember Hillary: The Movie, right? That sparked the infamous Citizens United vs FEC case which gave us Super PACs and the avalanche of electioneering cash we’ve all come to loathe. Thank you, ex-Republican National Committeeman Jim Bopp.

Or, let’s roll back the calendar to two weeks before the 2004 election, when Sinclair Broadcasting pre-empted its regular programming to air an anti-Kerry propaganda film.

Two weeks before the presidential election. Not two years, two weeks.

So, sorry Reince Priebus if your whining about this rings a tad false. Also? Check your fucking calendar. It’s still 2013.

Is it just me, or are Republicans now alarmed at the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign? Why yes, they are. They’re trying so hard to get ahead of the framing on this, everything from calling her “too old” to the whole Benghazi nonsense, to threats over Hillary biopics they can’t control. I mean gosh, they didn’t have a problem with this in 2008. What changed? It’s so transparent, it’s hard not to laugh.

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.

There simply is nothing comparable on the left. At all.

(As an aside. I’d love to ask someone at HarperCollins what they did with all those extra copies of Dick Morris’ book, Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race. I mean, seriously you guys?)

What’s really outrageous is that Obama was just sworn into his second term a tad more than six months ago. I really, really can’t believe Mr. RNC PR BS is having hissy fits over nominees and presumptive nominees and primaries when Obama’s second term has barely begun.

Again: seriously you guys? You’re that desperate?


Filed under 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton, Media, Republican National Committee

Is This A Joke?

Welcome Crooks & Liars!

Is someone at the New York Times getting pwned or is this for real?

The 2016 election may be far off, but one theme is becoming clear: Republican strategists and presidential hopefuls, in ways subtle and overt, are eager to focus a spotlight on Mrs. Clinton’s age. The former secretary of state will be 69 by the next presidential election, a generation removed from most of the possible Republican candidates.

Despite her enduring popularity, a formidable fund-raising network and near unanimous support from her party, Mrs. Clinton, Republican leaders believe, is vulnerable to appearing a has-been.

“Perhaps in the Democratic primary and certainly in the general election, there’s going to be an argument that the time for a change of leadership has come,” said the Republican strategist Karl Rove. “The idea that we’re at the end of her generation and that it’s time for another to step forward is certainly going to be compelling.”

For a party trying to make inroads with women voters, calling Hillary Clinton’s age into question seems a dubious strategy. But also:

• The party that ran John McCain, born in 1936, for president in the 2008 election questions the age of Hillary Clinton, born in 1947?

• The party that constantly invokes the sainted name of the long-dead Ronald Reagan, the oldest president ever elected, questions Hillary Clinton’s age?

• The party whose base shows up wearing Revolutionary War costumes is questioning how current the likely Democratic Party candidates are?

• The party whose White House hopes rest with Jeb Bush, brother of the last failed Republican president and son of a failed Republican president before that, is throwing around words like “change of leadership” and “end of a generation”?

• The party whose unofficial motto is “party like it’s 1954” is calling the Democratic Party old-fashioned?

• The party whose pick for governor of Virginia is actively trying to bring back long outmoded anti-sodomy and anti-oral sex laws dares question the modernity of the Democratic Party?

[ADDING … the party which is trying to repeal Obamacare for the gazillionth time says Democrats don’t have new ideas?]


Seriously, they just don’t have a clue, do they?


Filed under 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton, Republican Party