August 10, 2013

CNN's Hillary Clinton documentary is making "life more difficult" for Candy Crowley, who's keen on maintaining the separation between journalism and partisan politics.

"You can say all you want, this is a commissioned documentary from people who are not in the employ of CNN. It’s not me. It’s not Wolf Blitzer. It’s not John King. It’s an outside documentary group. But we’re with CNN and so this is not a story where the nuances are well-received, particularly by Republicans."

She ought to know about nuances that Republicans don't receive well, like that nuanced occasion when she was supposed to be moderating a debate between 2 presidential candidates and the Democrat was getting cornered so she fought on his side.

48 comments:

SGT Ted said...

She isn't keen on separating her politics from her job. She is a just another stenographer and cheerleader for the Democrats, telling obvious lies to deny reality.

AaronS said...

Yes, indeed. I rather think the Republicans get the nuances just fine. The question is whether CNN gets the nuances.

I still find it hard to believe that Crowley just happened to have that speech's verbiage right on the tip of her tongue. She had that speech presented to her in some fashion so she would remember it when that moment came up. It was surely planned though I doubt by Crowley herself.

So the question (as it has always been) is does the media understand that they don't get the nuance or do they understand and think it's alright.

Harold House said...

"fought on their side"....

you mean the truth right?

Tom said...

What Crowley did in the debate saved Obama's presidency. Mitt had Obama by the throat and, like a squirrelly manager in a WWE wrestling match, she throttled Mitt with a folding chair just before Obama was about to lose consciousness.

Almost Ali said...

Still, I'd love to see their rendition of Hillary. Because I can't think of one positive thing she has done - except maybe to give birth to a child.

AlanKH said...

Candy-O, it's too late for you. You grabbed the Precioussssss. You own it.

What a freaking waste...the utter pettiness of making a biopic about a policy wonk who never really accomplished anything other than getting this job and that. Subtract the scandals, and Hillary just isn't that interesting.

CNN, get a life.

Inga said...

She didn't so much fight on his side, rather she remembered facts that happened to corroborate what he was saying.

n.n said...

Crowley should recognize that arrogance precipitates corruption. The fourth estate is writing its own epitaph.

Almost Ali:

In an age where sacrificial rites are resumed and even normalized, the decision to not abort a developing human life is significant. Unfortunately, while Clinton chose to honor her responsibility to a life conceived with her husband, she is also a supporter of those rites for others, perhaps her competing interests. The contemporary sacrificial rites are a form of evolutionary, ostensibly self-immolation; but, the consequences are not constrained to the practitioner and her immediate victim.

Hagar said...

The Hillary! films are unlikely to have any impact - at least not positive - on her putative 2016 candidacy, and Reince Priebus has just managed to make himself - and the Republican Party at large - look petty and silly again by threatening to boycot the networks if they go ahead with the productions.

So this maneuver may have a slight additional negative effect for the Republicans in 2014, but that is about it.

Big Mike said...

... like that nuanced occasion when she was supposed to be moderating a debate between 2 presidential candidates and the Democrat was getting cornered so she fought on his side.

Noticed that, did you?

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

Obama actually called on her for intervention, "Candy...Candy...". That's what I remember the most about that. Of course, she responded and that was the story and I didn't hear a lot about his desperate pleading.

SteveR said...

Dead to me, now

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Even Crowley wouldn't have succeed at that corrupt debate hijacking, if Romney had had the courage of his convictions. He should have gotten in her face, read her the riot act, and redoubled his assertions - which were correct. The public, which doesn't yield much honor to corrupt talking heads, would have loved the display of rectitude - particularly in contrast with Obama's overly glib evasions.

jr565 said...

Harold House wrote:

you mean the truth right?


Is that what Candy was uttering?

jr565 said...

for Harold:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/cnns_candy_crowley_romney_was_actually_right_on_libya.html

"You know, again, I heard the president's speech at the time. I sort of reread a lot of stuff about Libya because I knew we'd probably get a Libya question, so I kind of wanted to be up on it. So we knew that the president had said, you know, 'these acts of terror won't stand,' or whatever the whole quote was.

I think actually, you know, because right after that, I did turn to Romney and said you were totally correct but they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape and that there was this riot outside of the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn't. So he was right in the main, I just think that he picked the wrong word."
So, because Romney picked the wrong word, she felt the need to derail the attack that Obama was vulnerable on and which he was dodging?

Sam L. said...

Mah pore heyart jest buhleeeeeeeeds fer pore, por, pitiful Candy, it do, it do.

William said...

Just the fact that Diane Lane was chosen for the role gives it a bias in favor of Hillary. I would recommend casting Andrew Dice Clay in the role of Hillary to give it a more impartial feel.

David said...

Even worse is the unstated problem.

At Cable NEWS Network, the news division lacks influence.

Edward Lunny said...

" ‘Life more difficult’ " Considering the pain and suffering that your cowardly, collusion, and boot licking has caused. The abject dereliction of your duty as an ,alleged, journalist, your " difficulties " haven't begun to approach the level to which one could judge it to be sufficient.

cubanbob said...

CNN: a convention of Soviet era journalists from Pravda, Tass and Itzvestia trying to define nuance in how the news is reported and who will get the blame if the politburo or the party secretary are displeased. Next.

Bruce Hayden said...

Not going to get a lot of sympathy here from most Republicans and conservatives outside the beltway for either CNN or NBC/MSNBC. Both have gone out of their way to harm Republicans and Republican nominees with the way that they handle debates. And, as others have pointed out, Crowley made her move, stopping Romney's momentum, and will have to live with it, as will the network that she works for. They should have fired her on the spot - but didn't likely because they didn't see that she had done anything wrong (except greatly harm their band outside the beltway).

The obvious question is why the two networks probably most opposed to Republicans, and, in the case of CNN, most aligned with the Clintons (remember when it was called the "Clinton News Network" for its slavish defense of Bill Clinton and his Administration?), have simultaneously decided to film or contract for miniseries aimed at glorifying Hillary! My guess is that there were some suggestions made somewhere by Clinton supporters that this would be a good time - early enough that it could have full effect and to avoid demands for equal time, but late enough that some are already thinking of the 2018 election.

Will said...

Crowley jumping onto the Field of Play as a player rather than letting the principals contest the match was simply unforgivable. This will be her infamous Legacy not just as a Moderator but as a Journalist.

Michael K said...

"I still find it hard to believe that Crowley just happened to have that speech's verbiage right on the tip of her tongue. "

I think she has admitted that Axelrod gave her a transcript of Obama's remarks "in case" it should come up. Romney missed an opportunity to a quick response like Gulliani's to the chick (Soledad) on another CNN show who started to argue with him. He said, "Who am I debating here ? You too?"

Mamie said...

Romney is not a cynic at heart, and Candy's running interference for Obama simply knocked him off his game.

I think "flabbergasted" covers it pretty well.

AprilApple said...

Watch our unprofessional one-sided pro-democrat media point fingers while they perform their duty as loyal D-party media operatives. The pro-Clinton bio will be made, distributed and disseminated and the dutiful pro-dem media will all claim "It's not me!"


NBC is now using this excuse:
'The Clinton "documentary" is OK because of the difference between our Propaganda News Division and our Propaganda Entertainment Division.'

AprilApple said...

From the link:
"Reporters have had to reassert that there’s an editorial wall between their journalism and the programming decisions of network executives."

Bullshit.

AprilApple said...

Candy was Obama's body guard.

Hagar said...

Ignore Hillary!
She won't run.

Harold House said...

jr565 said...
Harold House wrote:
you mean the truth right?=
Is that what Candy was uttering?"

good catch. yuppers. as opposed to Romney who wouldn't know the truth if it were strapped to his car roof like a helpless dog....

oh did I say that???

Almost Ali said...

n.n:

We should really give Hillary a measure of credit, certainly not for her selfless accomplishments working for the public good - but because a long time ago she put herself in position to lead an interesting life. And her public life is not over, not if Bill has anything to do with it.

But the danger now appears to be rooted in her feminism, that she's out to prove parity or superiority. The things she apparently dreamed of back when she wore comfortable sandals and patronized coffee houses. Ironically reciting not Martha Marx, but Karl Marx.

I wouldn't give her presidential chances a prayer in hell, but I gave Barack Obama even less chance, say, akin to Oprah shopping for a pocketbook.

Unknown said...

Romney was just taking the dog to Obama so Obama could have it for dinner... oh did I just say that our president does not share American background and culture?

Pete M said...

I'm not clear why her response was controversial. Romney said that Obama had not referred to Benghazi as an "act of terror", and Crowley said correctly that he had. She also said that it took a long time for the administration to acknowledge to that the attack wasn't the outgrowth of anti-islamic film. In other words, she gave ammo to both sides on an issue that had a a very impact on the election.

Iconochasm said...

Harold, that's exactly what was so unbelievably, pathetically embarrassing about the 2012 election. No matter how substantial or significant any criticism of Obama was, "Mitt Romney has a dancing horse!" was considered a pithy, slam dunk rebuttal. Congratulations. You managed to get a President reelected on the strength of shenanigans, amazing luck, and weaponizing the villian from Mean Girls. Your ilk must be very proud.

Iconochasm said...

Pete said
I'm not clear why her response was controversial. Romney said that Obama had not referred to Benghazi as an "act of terror", and Crowley said correctly that he had.


Go reread that transcript. The best possible honest spin is that he made an oblique reference that left the door wide open, unhinged, and disassembled to later claim that he had made no such reference. He even, iirc, specifically stated that that was exactly what he had done in an interview after the speech that was not released until after the election (fortuitous, that, eh?). No one sane would have blamed him for not expressing certainty the very next day. But you would have to be insane to have listened to the man lie for two weeks, then believe him when he turned around and said that that had never happened.

AlanKH said...

Priebus should be telling the networks "no more damn journalist moderators." The media role should be to simply report the debates. The actual debates should be moderated by small panels (2-4 people) of think tank sorts, 2 left- and two right-of-center (libertarian counting as the latter for counting purposes). Each panelist asks so many questions. That way Democrat network hacks don't get to shape the direction of the debate. Balance, dammit, balance!!

Harold House said...

dear ichonoclasm

What was pathetic about the 2012 election is that you guys ran Romney. He was beaten like a rented mule.

Don't blame the MSM whatever that is for your choice of candidate. You shot yourself in your own foot.

sinz52 said...

"What was pathetic about the 2012 election is that you guys ran Romney. He was beaten like a rented mule."

Who else did the GOP have? Santorum? Gingrich? Michele Bachmann?


A lot of potential candidates--Thune, Daniels, etc.--chose not to run. And Pawlenty dropped out early.

You saw who was running for the GOP nomination. Other than Romney, it was a weak field.

RAS743 said...

Has this person even a trace of self-awareness? Apparently not. Her defense is her tribal membership and the Pauline Kael effect.
Of course she inserted herself on the side of the Democrat, as would any of her tribe. It's only that she was in the position at the time that we are ridiculing her now rather than, say, Charlie Rose.
As for Hillary, I'm already reconciled to 16 years of Democratic rule. Any electorate that is capable of elevating this man to the presidency just because, irrespective of his lack of qualifications, is perfectly capable of voting for "the first woman president," her malignant associations with this administration and her husband's administrations be damned.

Iconochasm said...

Harold, I voted for Gary Johnson and came out of the republican primaries with a deep loathing of Romney. And yet, the Obama campaign was so vapidly negative, so vacuously and shallowly shrill and offensive, that I found myself defending the man against the spurious nonsense that you guys considered brilliant political invective, again and again and again.

Ron Paul would have flattened your empty suit hypocrite. :)

Harold House said...

alankh....yeah right.

unfair questions like "what book did you read last"..that was grossly unfair.

Matthew Sablan said...

It's not Republicans who parrot off the un-nuanced Faux News claims.

Matthew Sablan said...

"She didn't so much fight on his side, rather she remembered facts that happened to corroborate what he was saying."

-- Too bad a few days after the debate she conceded that Romney was correct and Obama was wrong.

Matthew Sablan said...

Crowley: "So he [Romney] was right in the main."

In short, anyone who thinks that Crowley's defense of Obama was anything but objectionably wrong is, well, ignoring Crowley. She tries to salvage some dignity, but the simple fact is, Crowley admits: Romney was right. Which, by definition, means she should not have said he was wrong.

For that alone, the RNC and the Republican candidate should flat out reject her as a moderator ever again.

Matthew Sablan said...

"What was pathetic about the 2012 election is that you guys ran Romney."

-- This is what I don't understand. McCain, Bush and Romney were all, essentially, the sort of Republican that Democrats always say they want Republicans to run. Fairly centrist, open to big government solutions to problems, willing to compromise with the left without viciously tearing them down. Then, once the election starts, the left turns on them: Savagely. My favorite were the people on the left who constantly made fun of McCain for being unable to type on a keyboard because of the injuries he suffered from being tortured (which, they noted, he probably deserved.)

In short: There is no reason for the level of venom leveled against Romney or McCain or Bush if -- here's the if -- if the left is being honest with Republicans. The simple fact is, it doesn't matter -who- we run, the left will other-ize them and tear them apart.

Frankly, the main reason both have lost is that neither was willing to go as negative. McCain refused to bring up Rev. Wright, Romney ran an economic, issues-focused campaign.

The left went full on character assassination in both elections. McCain, who took public financing as promised as opposed to Obama who broke that promise, spent some of his limited funds to run an ad CONGRATULATING Obama for winning the nomination. He got called racist for it.

So, frankly, the opinions of the left, especially ones who seem focused on the whole "dog on the roof" thing instead of, oh, I don't know, continual reports of a hostile work environment in the White House under Obama, are rather immaterial to Republicans, as you can imagine.

Harold House said...

hey matthew...u left out Calvin Cooledge...the GOP could have brought him back; or perhaps Nixon...you have such a rich stable of wannabe presidents...how about Newt? he was your great hope for a week or so? Or that braindead nitwit from Minnesota (well two braindead nitwits then, I stand corrected).

The dog on the roof of the car is, of course, no laughing matter but it is pretty much the embodiment of the GOP...strapped down, terrified, out of control and ready to throw up as soon as the car stops.

Matthew Sablan said...

So, would Obama eating a dog be the embodiment of the left's willingness to sell their own ideals out solely for the power of the elected few?

bbkingfish said...

I hope the GOP holds all the 2016 primary debates on Fox News. Preaching to the faithful, the candidates can feel free to ratchet up the crazy, and really stoke up the base.

I'm sure the party (Priebus) would prefer to eliminate the primary debates altogether. They were a disastrous freak show for the R's in 2012. No way the candidates would stand for that, though. They are addicted to free face time on TV, and, in many cases, have different agendas than the national party.

RecChief said...

Candy Crowley maintaining a separation between journalism and partisan politics????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


And I am not even a Republican