Offspring

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oObL3Ajmr2Y

I try not to waste my time blasting the media for the depth and breadth of its ineptitude and incompetence.

Let me know when Hillary starts talking policy until she's blue in the face ... :)

I think she's starting to do some of that.

Well, she's going to have to start doing a lot more of that if she wants to change the national media conversation. It's easy to blame the media and much more difficult to expound upon an up-wing policy narrative and enlightened strategy for moving the country forward.

Of course, as Hillary begins to unveil her plan for the nation's future, she may find her path to the Democratic nomination more challenged than imagined. Oh, wait ...

Yes. I think she's starting to do some of that. I read a story yesterday (have been trying to find the link again) of the difference between local coverage and national coverage. A local paper, I think it was in Iowa, was covering her actual statements and ideas on issues, in contrast to the national coverage which is typically about anything/everything else. I also read she's putting some of her war chest to work on building up the party infrastructure on the ground in some areas -- something desperately needed. And, as I think I mentioned earlier/elsewhere, she's sitting down in meetings with locals, mostly sans press, with the intent of "hearing".

She will need to do those things because I very much doubt most major media will change their coverage regardless of what she does or says. They really don't concern themselves with content or substance. They are mostly about superficials and horse race. But we'll see.

Something has struck me in the days since Secretary Clinton announced her candidacy for the presidency of the United States ...

"If you don't like what's being said, change the conversation."

There is a simple way out for Hillary when it comes to avoiding and eliminating a lot of the extraneous noise out there that is beginning to surround and to threaten her campaign.

She needs to start talking specifics about her ideas for positive change - on domestic and international issues. She must have some ideas and there is no time like the present to be putting out policy papers on the critical issues of the day.

That's all and good..

Except for one thing....

It's the New York Times who are putting out these reports...

Hardly the bastion of "right wing operative" you like to make things out to be...

And Liberal Groups like COMMON CAUSE are also calling for an audit of Clinton and her piggy bank foundation..

But, by all means, continue to ignore the facts.. Continue to blindly follow Clinton with no regard to how utterly contemptible and untrustworthy she really is..

It will just make the victory that much sweeter.. Much like it was in the aftermath of the Great Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014...

I was right then, if you will recall..

Michale

I see now..

So, when there is smoke on a REPUBLICAN, there is always fire...

But when there is smoke on a galactic scale on a Democrat, there is no fire...

Gotcha.. {{wink wink}}

Ya notice something??

You NEVER have addressed ANY of the allegations against Clinton...

"Gee!! I wonder why that is!!"
-Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

:D

Michale

Why yes, Michale, I have heard that famous saying. So have numerous rightwing operatives who reason thusly: "lots of rubes out there implicitly believe there's no smoke without a fire. Therefore, all we have to do is create a lot of smoke -- no fire necessary. Wonderfully effective way to damage reputations based on nothing except baseless accusations!

Benghazi is a perfect example. (As is everything that Ken Starr investigated to death.) And you are a perfect carrier which is why it's not possible to take you seriously on these issues.

Now, here's a "there's smoke because there's a fire story": http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fred-pagan-cochran-drugs
A staffer for Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) allegedly told law enforcement officials that he imported drugs from China with plans to exchange them for sexual favors.

If you feel some loyalty to this guy you can start to follow this story, see what the guy pleads, etc. Maybe it's some kind of evil set-up. Or maybe the guy is a drug dealer. You can see what facts emerge and make your judgement from there.

But when Ken Starr and the Benghazi whores spend literally millions of taxpayer dollars on witch hunts against the Clinton's and others, and continually fail to find squat, you really should start to ask yourself what's actually going on. Is it possible you're being played?

(Yes, yes, yes.)

Think back to the Bush years...

Bush blew his noise and the Left Wingers went ape-shit crazy...

Are you seriously trying to sit there and say that, with ALL of the allegations against the Clintons, there is absolutely NOTHING to any of it???

Every tidbit of impropriety is absolutely false and the Clintons are pure as the driven snow???

THAT is your claim???

Michale

"Nevertheless, parroting a series of recent accusations against the Clintons, Chait condemns the couple as “disorganized and greedy.” Much of what he repeats in his column is so easily debunked, however, that what he reveals is not their lack of character but his own weak journalism."

Have you heard the saying, "Where there is smoke there is fire"???

The Clintons are billowing smoke on a galactic scale..

And yet, you maintain there is absolutely NO fire whatsoever...

If it was just Republicans who were saying "maybe there is something here" then you would have a point..

But, as the links and the reports clearly prove, it is LEFT Wingers and PROGRESSIVE Groups who are also questioning...

They are ALL wrong???

Ideological loyalty is one thing...

But when does it cross the line to BLIND loyalty??

Michale

"Nevertheless, parroting a series of recent accusations against the Clintons, Chait condemns the couple as “disorganized and greedy.” Much of what he repeats in his column is so easily debunked, however, that what he reveals is not their lack of character but his own weak journalism."

You see, it's not only GOP groups that are slamming Hillary's foundation...

Michale

Clinton's donors are worried...

That means that Clinton SHOULD be worried too...

Michale

Hillary Clinton has a trust problem with the American people..

Or, more accurately, the American people have a trust problem with Hillary Clinton..

These trust issues are 40 years in the making...

And Hillary expects that she can win over the people in 18 months???

I'll believe it when I see it...

Michale

And yet, Americans just gave the GOP a record setting majority across city, county, state and federal lines...

Pretty much says it all about America's perception of the GOP.

I'm just sayin'... :D

Michale

"The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't."
-Old Military Proverb

Michale

"New York Post is a rightwing rag"

True enough, but they didn't cherry-pick. They reported that, despite HilRod's "un-trustworthiness", the very same poll respondents chose her over every Republican.

Pretty much says it all about America's perception of the GOP.

And 61% of Independents find Hillary untrustworthy...

And Hillary CANNOT win without a majority of Independents...

Michale

Agreed... But the poll numbers come from Quinnpac...

So..... :D

Michale

No matter how ya'all want to bury yer heads in the sand and ignore the facts, the issues are clear...

Hillary's baggage + a decimated Dem Party = bad BAD news in 2016...

Michale

Pretty much says it all....

Michale

Unless they are discouraged by the lack of a quality candidate...

obama voters will be enthused for hillary, regardless of whether they later stayed true to obama or found him wanting.

That has yet to be seen...

your point about new scandals supplanting the old is valid, but i'm not convinced most voters will draw any distinction.

The young people you previously mentioned weren't around or were small children during Clinton's previous scandals...

So, for them, these will be all new scandals.. And the integrity/trustworthiness will be a BIG issue amongst those same young people...

While they may not be so outraged as to vote GOP, the likelyhood that they will be so disillusioned and stay home is very high..

Hence 2014 Part Duex....

Michale

Ya know, people..

EVENTUALLY the "nothing to see here" drone of Clintonistas is going to become COMICALLY obvious....

Michale

Either way, their vote is cast... Like it was in 2014...

I don't think a mid-term election is a valid reference point. Democrats and young people always turn out much more during presidential elections than midterms. further, you didn't refute either of my points - obama voters will be enthused for hillary, regardless of whether they later stayed true to obama or found him wanting.

your point about new scandals supplanting the old is valid, but i'm not convinced most voters will draw any distinction.

JL

Hillary lost the primary in 2008 because she had tons of attached baggage...

Barack Obama had little to no baggage...

In 2016, Hillary has even MORE baggage....

There is scant to no evidence that her likely GOP challenger will have any baggage whatsoever...

History will repeat itself..

Whoever has the most baggage loses.. :D

Michale

I noticed you didn't dispute that point..

That, without the Clinton name, Hillary (with all her attached baggage) wouldn't have a chance in hell of being elected county dog catcher...

:D

Michale

No, you bring up Ken Starr because you DO have a valid case of sorts over that..

But Ken Starr is old OLD news and has no relevance or bearing on today's issues..

Meanwhile, to call her a "mean-spirited old lady" is simple nastiness -- which is what you get reduced to because you got nothin' else.

You mean like when ya'all call Republicans terrorists and arsonists and criminals and hostage takers??

You mean like that?? :D

Michale

Yep.

Michale: I bring up Ken Starr because he was part and parcel of the original "Destroy the Clintons" effort and much of the nonsense you parrot either references the original failed non-scandals or attempt to create similar new non-scandals. But people who paid attention have already been down this alley and we're bored with it, tired of it and simply tune it out.

Meanwhile, to call her a "mean-spirited old lady" is simple nastiness -- which is what you get reduced to because you got nothin' else.

"I like her and I know lots of other people who do."

I'm not a fan of hers and I won't vote for her, but women will. This woman I know, who voted for Bush, McCain, and Rmoney has already decided that's she's voting Hillary.

Over the years, the GOP has done a great job of demonizing government, politicians, and Washington. Of course, that ultimately sticks to them as well. Voters are not going to believe that she's dirty and whatever wacko bird the Billionaire Boys Club nominates is clean. They already believe that all of them are corrupt.

The simple fact that she has to go to such lengths PROVE she is floundering..

But hay... I can't fault you for drinking the Koolaid...

Just keep in mind that it's 18 months until the election. And her coronation will not protect her from REAL Americans..

Eventually she is going to HAVE to deal with Joe and Jane Sixpack...

And THEN you will be shown that I and all the other Independents are dead on right about her...

Take away the Clinton name and Hillary is nothing but a mean-spirited old lady....

Michale

Michale

Ken Starr has absolutely NOTHING to do with the here and now...

My guess is you are concentrating on old news because the new scandals is just too much to handle..

WHY is Hillary championing women's rights, yet takes millions from countries that brutalize women???

Forget Ken Starr and what happened 20+ years ago...

Address the here and now...

IF you can...

Michale

And I'd say Tomasky pretty much makes the point I made last night: lots of people (including Ken Starr with an essentially unlimited budget) -- who practically spit when pronouncing the Clinton's names -- turned over every possible stone desperate to find examples of true corruption or lawbreaking. These are people who wanted to find something -- anything -- they would have triumphantly trumpeted ANYTHING, but found nothing.

We know that doesn't matter to the koolaid drinkers but the rest of us have been there, done that, and I don't think it will work anymore. The righties will try it with all their might and there will be media outlets that should know better who will participate and all they will do is further compromise their own reputations. It will be tiresome and boring and minimally effective. The thing is, the 30% of the public that hate all-things-Democrat are unreachable. They will be the ones who take this seriously. Dems will worry for awhile, then the stories will start to come out showing there's no "there there" and after a few rounds of that, WE won't bother paying attention to any further repub accusations.

Then it will come down to the folks who pay minimal attention to politics -- who will get them excited and motivated to come out and vote? I don't see it with the repub clown car. Michale may think Hillary isn't charismatic but I like her and I know lots of other people who do. We'll see what happens but if I were you Michale I wouldn't put your faith in repub-fake-scandals to defeat her. Nor would I underestimate her intelligence or ability to learn.

So they stay home...

Either way, their vote is cast... Like it was in 2014...

Michale

ANYONE else....

Disagree. The "anyone but" meme didn't work against dubya and it won't work against hillary.

All the reasons that Obama-bots gave to vote against Hillary are STILL valid reasons...

you're operating under the faulty assumption that obama voters will choose their candidate based on "reasons" - or anything remotely resembling "reason." Most voters in general don't seem to work that way.

JL

agreed. however, the biggest reason hillary lost the primary in 2008 is no longer an obstacle

Yes..

ONE of the reasons Hillary lost is no longer relevant..

But ALL the reasons, sans that one, are still an issue...

Put another way...

All the reasons that Obama-bots gave to vote against Hillary are STILL valid reasons...

Her negatives...

Her baggage....

Her war votes...

Her coziness with Wall Street...

Add to all THOSE reasons are a plethora of NEW reasons..

Her choice to run a secret email server so she would have TOTAL control over her emails..

Her Foundation's dealings with some of the worst of the worst this planet has to offer....

Let me lay it out this way...

Hillary simply CANNOT win without Independents...

Agreed???

Do you see her actions and her coronation endearing to Independents???

I don't...

or to be more succinct, the roadmap to beat hillary in a campaign isn't to harp on her negatives,

I disagree...

Harping on Hillary's negatives WILL get the electorate excited about someone else...

ANYONE else....

Michale

JL

agreed. however, the biggest reason hillary lost the primary in 2008 is no longer an obstacle - namely, the nation was irrevocably, perhaps irrationally, infatuated with a young senator from illinois named barack obama. among democrats, that factor has turned in her favor on two counts:

1. obama supporters saw hillary take the high road, swallow her pride and serve beneath him in his administration.

2. obama detractors regret their choice of nominee, and think that many of obama's mistakes would not have been made if hillary had been nominated - making them doubly determined not to pass on hillary a second time.

among republicans, there's no doubt salivation at the prospect of tearing hillary a new one and going hard after all her faults and foibles in a general election battle. but i think after all the obama attacks of 2008, a large portion of the electorate already knows all there is to know on that count. people can be reminded of those issues, but those attacks don't really sting as much the seventh and eighth time around as they did when they were fresh.

JL

There is a reason... There are a MULTITUDE of reasons that Hillary lost the primary in 2008....

Many MANY of those reasons are still valid today....

I'm just sayin'...

Michale