I do see one Reuters piece, "Clinton bashes Wall Street, pledges U.S. income equality." What? I thought she said, in that CNN interview I wasted my time on last week, that she was going to be laying out her economic policies in her speech today.
Clinton will unveil more specifics of her economic policy in a series of speeches in coming weeks... Putting some meat on the bones of her economic policy could divert focus from issues dragging on Clinton's popularity....The substance is always coming later. And there's this in Politico, which seems to think the story of Hillary is insufficient by itself. "Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush renew sparring match over worker hours, pay." Had to put Jeb in there.
Not relying on Memeorandum, I found this in Business Insider:
Hillary Clinton just brought the most important economic issue of the next decade into the mainstream: the gig economy.... "This on-demand or so-called gig economy is creating exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation, but it's also raising hard questions about workplace protection and what a good job will look like in the future," she said at the New School in Manhattan on Monday.So, the gig economy is an interesting new subcategory in within the issue of jobs, but it doesn't seem that she said anything she'd do about it.
And — also in Business Insider — I see she had a heckler — a heckler who tried to pin her down on an issue she was talking around: "Senator Clinton, will you restore Glass-Steagall?" If only the press would ask questions like that. Not that she'd answer it. She didn't answer the heckler.
I turned this up too. It's not about the speech that was supposed to be important. It's Richard Cohen at The Washington Post — not my ex-husband Richard Cohen — saying:
[T]he incessant attacks on her, the parsing of every sentence, the jumping on her characteristic but harmless overstatements like “dead broke,” brings out the Sir Lancelot (or is it Galahad?) in me. She might not be a damsel in distress, but her enemies are making her into one.Oh, get that, Hillary opponents? Better not attack her or Richard Cohen, et al., will be moved to — gasp! — defend her. What bilge! You know, if we have to hold back attacking a woman lest men feel the need to defend her simply because she's a woman, then we shouldn't have a woman President.
Posts
64 comments:
I wonder if the media ever felt compelled, by their sacred honor, to defend Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell. Hey, one of those two was actually accused of witchcraft, an actual charge a knight might've needed to protect a lady from in a romance!
Also: I think the low-impact of the speech makes sense. America, despite Clinton hiding, has been saturated with Clinton for years -- almost a decade. She's just not that interesting. She's not saying anything new. If she wants people to pay attention, she needs to say something worth paying attention to.
First, absolutely dead on--I find the "white knight" crap such as Cohen's to be far more sexist than anything coming from anyone attacking Clinton. Though I do note that overkill--for any candidate, male or female--can backfire, as fence sitters may see your overwrought attacks and think that your more reasonable arguments are also hysterical.
Second, the less attention payed to Hillary the better for Hillary. She's in a position where all she has to do is stop giving everyone (on the Left and Right) ammunition, and let the crazies battle each other out, and she can swoop in and win her primaries by default and unleash a barrage of slimy, expensive attacks on whoever the GOP nominates. She must hope they "Romney" themselves, leaving a hobbled nominee she can finish off with ease.
Third, shame on the media. Granted, many MSM outlets have been criticizing her for her media blackout, but they really need to see this as the threat to their institution that it is. Refuse to even cover her, and step up the critical reporting of her, until she allows full and open interviewing. She should be made to answer uncomfortable but valid questions to the same extent as her opponents. To enable her coronation strategy is abdicating any role for journalists in democracy.
Yes, it took critics to turn Cohen into a lapdog. Take away that and he'd be balls-to-the-wall looking into Hillary.
"How dare you meanies note her repeated and blatant violations of federal records law. And don't look at her massive 'charitable organization' that looks really similar to an influence-peddling scheme. And, dudes, it's not really FAIR to judge her on her actions as a public official for most of the last 23 years."
Apparently, Richard forgot what "vetting" means.
I wonder if the media ever felt compelled, by their sacred honor, to defend Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell.
I bet they did, but man, they fought that impulse down hard.
They fought it down so hard they don't have the energy to fight the urge to defend women now.
Unless Fiorina wins the nomination or is a VP candidate.
First, absolutely dead on--I find the "white knight" crap such as Cohen's to be far more sexist than anything coming from anyone attacking Clinton. Though I do note that overkill--for any candidate, male or female--can backfire, as fence sitters may see your overwrought attacks and think that your more reasonable arguments are also hysterical.
Republicans have seldom mentioned her. They've sat back as the drip-drip-drip of ethical "challenges" keep on coming.
Third, shame on the media. Granted, many MSM outlets have been criticizing her for her media blackout, but they really need to see this as the threat to their institution that it is. Refuse to even cover her, and step up the critical reporting of her, until she allows full and open interviewing. She should be made to answer uncomfortable but valid questions to the same extent as her opponents. To enable her coronation strategy is abdicating any role for journalists in democracy.
You assume that they HAVE a problem with it.
They don't.
They can stop her BS tomorrow by refusing to cover her until she changes her ways. They won't. They want her to be President for...reasons.
The media, currently, is utterly superfluous when it comes to protecting our rights or dealing with the government.
The media love them the Clintons and adore Democrats.
With a Republican administration, they have fewer chances to feed on the public trough.
I chuckle every time you explain "Not my ex-husband Richard Cohen". I'm not sure why that sentence is funny.
Please know, however, that it brings a smile to my face.
I am easily amused.
To enable her coronation strategy is abdicating any role for journalists in democracy.
They MSM has already done that with The One.
"They don't.
They can stop her BS tomorrow by refusing to cover her until she changes her ways. They won't. They want her to be President for...reasons."
That's not the impression I'm getting from say the Washington Post. They've been pretty critical of her "non-interview" strategy and kept a count of how many questions she's allowed herself to be asked per day of her campaign (something like one question for every ten days of campaigning). I'm also sensing that they want more of a horse race for obvious reasons--a coronation with no real news is no help for a political reporter's career. I suspect that's why Bernie Sanders is getting the positive coverage he's been getting.
Are most of the reporters and editors left-leaning? Certainly. But they also have to pay their bills, earn their Pulitzers and get good clippings. Plus, politics or no politics, I'm not getting a sense that Hillary is well liked anywhere. She will only get votes by default when it's all said and done.
That's not the impression I'm getting from say the Washington Post. They've been pretty critical of her "non-interview" strategy and kept a count of how many questions she's allowed herself to be asked per day of her campaign (something like one question for every ten days of campaigning)
Again, they can stop it tomorrow.
Just don't cover her. At all. Focus on all of her ethical problems only and she'll come sulking back with her tail between her legs.
They want to maintain an artifice of not being cheerleaders without the difficulties involves with not being cheerleaders.
They're as serious as Dems are about dealing with out-of-control welfare spending.
Are most of the reporters and editors left-leaning? Certainly. But they also have to pay their bills, earn their Pulitzers and get good clippings. Plus, politics or no politics, I'm not getting a sense that Hillary is well liked anywhere. She will only get votes by default when it's all said and done.
Hell, they can't stop discussing how brilliant and intelligent she is without providing evidence of it.
They don't have that problem with, say, any Republican candidate ever.
"They MSM has already done that with The One."
Then maybe it's time for the alternative media to step up.
I recall reading about how Nixon used a similar strategy (more so in '72 than '68) of stage-managing everything and keeping the media the hell away from him so he could coast to victory. Another Hillary/Nixon parallel.
The mainline Democrats are waking up to just what an utter & complete train-wreck the Hillary campaign is. It's a very unpleasant 3AM wake-up call out of REM sleep.
Remember, HRC was the front runner in 2008, too, and she got beat by a nobody, complete dark-horse, junior Senator from Illinois. HRC's problem is that this campaign she's surrounded by the same toadies & boot-lickers that ran her campaign the last time. Like the Bourbons, they have learned nothing & forgotten nothing.
She can duck & weave & avoid giving substantive answers to questions only for so long. Once she's in front the voters & has to win over folks who aren't converted already, the Democrats will discover far too late that she has sunk what limited chances they had for 2016.
Who honestly wants to watch or listen to a speech by Hillary Clinton at this point? Are there still voters who don't know who she is, what she's done, and what her positions are? I mean, are the details of her Progressive/Socialist agenda something that people want her to talk about? To me it seems like listening to someone describe how they're going to rob you while you're duct taped to a chair. A phrase like "Income Equality" sounds as ominous as "Forced Labor" to me, but I assume there must be a whole bunch of people who think the Soviet Union was... awesome?
"Just don't cover her. At all. Focus on all of her ethical problems only and she'll come sulking back with her tail between her legs."
That's what they ought to do. The rule should be no one covers any part of her campaign, period, until she opens it up to all the media. That CNN reporter who gave her the softball interview last week should be blackballed from the profession for breaking ranks.
Probably will never happen. They'll keep taking their crumbs and be happy with it, and when the Clintons get back in the White House (with a First Dude who won't even categorically say he will stop doing paid speeches for crying out loud) we'll see just how low this country can sink.
As much as I don't like Clinton, I can't fault her media strategy. She's got no reason to engage in anything that might make her look bad. If the press is willing to be dragged around by ropes to please her, then that's a failing on their part, not hers.
"She can duck & weave & avoid giving substantive answers to questions only for so long. Once she's in front the voters & has to win over folks who aren't converted already, the Democrats will discover far too late that she has sunk what limited chances they had for 2016."
I still think the one thing that can save Hillary is the GOP flubbing another election. Barring that, though, she is a poor speaker and has no natural political skills. The Dems may realize too late they would have a better chance with Sanders.
Cohen is part of a not-insignificant number of people out and about who really don't care that Hillary's not making any meaningful speeches on the major issues of the day. They already think they know what she thinks, or simply think that no matter what she thinks, it's time for a woman chief executive (those types will also be the ones saying it's time for a woman president but not a Latino one in 2016, if Rubio or Cruz is the nominee, and they will be totally bollocksed up before then if Liz Warren enters the race late and offer Democrats a distaff alternative to Hillary).
You know, if we have to hold back attacking a woman lest men feel the need to defend her simply because she's a woman, then we shouldn't have a woman President.
Again, every once in a while, you write something that makes me think you actually get it.....
"I am easily amused."
The secret to a happy life, IMHO.
What bilge! You know, if we have to hold back attacking a woman lest men feel the need to defend her simply because she's a woman, then we shouldn't have a woman President.
Deep down inside Democrats really do believe in the inferiority of Blacks and women. We've already had 6 1/2 years of the notion that disagreeing with President Obama over policies and expecting him to perform as well as a white president is "racist," with another 18 months to come. Attacking Hillary's policies is, what, proof that you expect her to perform as well as a man in the presidency? When did that become sexist? It's only sexist if you believe -- as I do not -- that a woman is inherently inferior to a man.
Aww, you missed the best Clinton story of the day!
From the Weekly Standard: Hillary gives a big speech bashing Wall Street, and in particular mentions the evil of high-speed trading. Next week, she has a fundraiser in Chicago hosted by a high-speed trader, Raj Fernando of the recently-sold high-speed trading firm, Chopper Trading.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-attacks-high-frequency-traders-has-fundraiser-planned-one_990055.html
This is the sort of story that, if it had been a candidate like Mitt Romney, would have been on the front page of the New York Times, and there'd have been a half-dozen stories on just what high speed trading is on public radio. The PBS Newshour would have devoted ten minutes to it, and MSNBC would have devoted ten hours to it. Most news consumers in the nation would know something about the story, because it would have gotten some time on NBC, CBS and ABC. And all three of their Sunday shows would have mentioned it.
But nope; the Weekly Standard does the story. It will get picked up on Fox, but almost nowhere else.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-attacks-high-frequency-traders-has-fundraiser-planned-one_990055.html
Big Mike
Your reading of what Democrats believe is completely created in your own head, and therefore wrong. Democrats completely understand criticisms of Obama and no one [except you] is setting his performance bar low because he is black. We defend him no more than you defended Bush or Reagan for some of their poor policies. We defend him because Republicans complain about everything he does and continually hyperventilate about Obama in ways that are absurd. The same applied to hatred of Hillary. In this way I disagree with Richard Cohen. Go ahead and criticize - but have some substance.
The only Hillary speech I would listen to is her statement at her sentencing.
#whyisthiswomannotinprison
@Matt if Obama's policies are so good, why are his results so poor?
"Better not attack her or Richard Cohen, et al., will be moved to — gasp! — defend her. What bilge! You know, if we have to hold back attacking a woman lest men feel the need to defend her simply because she's a woman, then we shouldn't have a woman President."
Thanks, selective indignation is better than no indignation at all.
Of course, Progs are counting on sexism to carry the day in '16.
@Chuck,
Hillary gives a big speech bashing Wall Street, and in particular mentions the evil of high-speed trading.
The Democrats can't go after the financial industries. The financial industries are the economic driver industries of the east coast from north of Maryland to Massachusetts. All those states are solid blue, and the finance industries are the east coast cash cows of the Democratic Party. Going after those industries is equivalent to the Democratic Party chopping off its right arm, money-wise.
Did you see the Obama administration filing criminal charges against anyone in the aftermath of the 2008 Wall Street meltdown? Funny how that is, huh?
The "Gig Economy" is what they were talking about with the team that salvaged the Obamacare web site.
Where was I reading that ? Here.
That's what it;s about.
The spectacular failure of Healthcare.gov at launch led to the creation of what came to be known as the Tech Surge, a group of Silicon Valley developers who rescued the website from disorganized contractors and bureaucratic mismanagement. That group gave rise to the U.S. Digital Service and, to a lesser extent, 18F, two government agencies now working to improve the state of federal technology.
But the story of a group called the Marketplace Lite team has yet to be told. These are the designers and developers, mostly younger than those in the Tech Surge, who stuck around after others had left. Their experience hints at just how little the Obama administration knew about the business of building a website as complex as Healthcare.gov—but, also, how much the administration has improved since then.
I forget if you linked to that story. It's a good one.
Not one original thought.........
50 cent on the dollar is probably a bit high. Maybe 10 cent on the dollar for the creditors after the bankruptcy hearing.
No Eurozone bailout for you 4 bits.
That's what they ought to do. The rule should be no one covers any part of her campaign, period, until she opens it up to all the media. That CNN reporter who gave her the softball interview last week should be blackballed from the profession for breaking ranks.
Sadly, Hillary views that as a "grilling". Would she sit for an interview with Jake Tapper? Heck, let's make it easier on her --- would she sit for an interview with even Chuck Todd? I cannot fathom her ever considering it.
Probably will never happen. They'll keep taking their crumbs and be happy with it, and when the Clintons get back in the White House (with a First Dude who won't even categorically say he will stop doing paid speeches for crying out loud) we'll see just how low this country can sink.
Then when she leaves office, the press will marvel at how sleazy the Clintons were. Just like they did in 2000.
But Hillary --- she's different. Totally unlike sleazy ol' Bill.
What bilge! You know, if we have to hold back attacking a woman lest men feel the need to defend her simply because she's a woman, then we shouldn't have a woman President.
You'd think lessons would've been learned when all criticisms of Obama got attributed to "racism".
We defend him no more than you defended Bush or Reagan for some of their poor policies.
Demonstrably false.
Remember when Bush was at around 20% approval? It was because conservatives turned on him over his terrible policies.
Obama? Not having that problem.
We defend him because Republicans complain about everything he does and continually hyperventilate about Obama in ways that are absurd. The same applied to hatred of Hillary. In this way I disagree with Richard Cohen. Go ahead and criticize - but have some substance.
Well, there's the email problem and the issues involving the Foundation. Enough substance?
Did you see the Obama administration filing criminal charges against anyone in the aftermath of the 2008 Wall Street meltdown? Funny how that is, huh?
Yet the GOP managed to try and convict several people tied to the massive corporate acct fraud.
El Chapo threatens the Trumpster, can an MSNBC gig be in the offing?
Maybe share the show with The Most Reverend Al.
The MSM is such a farce. Fox ain't a whole lot better, but it is better. What would we do without the Internet, especially guys like Matt Drudge? Sometimes I consider it a miracle that we've had any GOPers at all in the White House, given how monolithic the media has been since the Sixties (and maybe before too).
What is amazing about all of this is not that the usual water-carriers for the Dem team are carrying water for Hillary!, but that Team Hillary! thinks that having the candidate say nothing, run around on a phony 'listening' tour while hiding from questions and refusing to take a stand on anything other than clichés and bromides, is a winning strategy. As candidates go, she is quite bad at this politics business, despite all of the practice she's had during Bubba's two terms and her own stint in elective office.
Even the Dem base is looking for something a bit more engaged with the issues. Hasn't Team Hillary! noticed the boomlet among grassroots Dem-Progressives for a superannuated socialist, who's drawing record crowds? No one can accuse Sanders of declining to address the issues of the day. (Same, by the way, is true of Trump, the difference being that other Rep candidates are addressing the same issues a bit more sensibly).
Hillary's net worth is $50 Million. Let me repeat that. $50 Million.
When people have accumulated that much wealth, they are powerful. Not necessarily criminal (I'm not a leftist), but powerful.
Add to this financial power, her political power within the Democratic party. Dems are scared to criticize or challenge her. They don't want to be shunned, if she wins. The sychophantic press generally gives her a pass (except for Ron Fournier).
And she has at least a 50% shot of becoming the next Prez -- the most powerful person on Planet Earth.
So, due to this financial and political power, she can legitimately tell 99.9% of the world to piss off.
Damsel in Distress? Hah -- don't make me laugh. She already played that card in her run for the Senate, and a bunch of gullible feminists and left-wingers bought it. She's the bad guy, now, we're the damsel in distress. She needs to be mocked early and often to stifle her quest for even more power. My 2 cents.
I'm beginning to understand the mindset of the proles who drug the Czar's family outside and turned the snow red.
Hillary has developed a talent for starting what appears to be an answer to a question and then verbally wandering off in another direction. At first I thought she was senile. Now I realize her "on message" tactic is to never directly or adequately answer a question. Never.
In addition, Hillary appears to be using the Bill Clinton tactic of never telling the truth when a lie is available. That tactic works only as long as the media remains compliant.
I know that the non-answer is the art work of a consummate politician, but Hillary takes it to an extreme that makes her non-answers appear clumsy.
Besides, I think Americans are now beginning to notice her platform is bare of ideas.
That's what's happened with our first black president.
Can't say a thing about him or RACIST!
Which is a great argument for not hiring another protected minority class for the job. If we put a white male in office, we can all criticize him as much as we'd like.
And — also in Business Insider — I see she had a heckler — a heckler who tried to pin her down on an issue she was talking around: "Senator Clinton, will you restore Glass-Steagall?"
You gotta admit that Hillary does attract a high-class of heckler. I mean, jeez, Glass-Steagall? Is she getting heckled by employees of the US Securities & Exchange Commission?
Matt, your defense of Hillary and Obama is amusing. I think it falls into the category of "Don't know nothin' 'bout history..."
Which is a great argument for not hiring another protected minority class for the job. If we put a white male in office, we can all criticize him as much as we'd like.
Only if they're not Democrats...
No one likes Hillary. It's just that she holds the same things dear that her base does too. How can they not vote for her? The fact that people don't like her anymore is beside the point.
James Taranto covered Hillary!'s speech today. It wasn't pretty.
Quick Hillary, Shut this gig down !
Angel the concierge stands behind a lobby desk at a luxe apartment building in downtown San Francisco, and describes the residents of this imperial, 37-story tower. “Ubers, Squares, a few Twitters,” she says. “A lot of work-from-homers.”
Brando said...
"They MSM has already done that with The One."
Then maybe it's time for the alternative media to step up.
I recall reading about how Nixon used a similar strategy (more so in '72 than '68) of stage-managing everything and keeping the media the hell away from him so he could coast to victory. Another Hillary/Nixon parallel.
7/13/15, 2:50 PM
The real parallel here is 1972. And then it was McGovern running on the far left for the time. Maybe Sanders will reprise the McGovern role.
Everyone knows Hillary! is a grifter and a liar and is a Champaign socialist. Those who vote for her already know this and just assume she will spread some of the vig to them. It's up to the Republican candidate to make the case that he isn't a newer and shinier version and cleaner of Hillary!. A country club Republican isn't going to do it.
Her speech today was a Machiavellian wonder. Lies, no understanding of history or economics, but damn sure of herself. God help us if she is elected President.
Nick Gillespie explains his rope-a-dope theory in "Hillary Clinton is the Political Equivalent of Floyd Mayweather"
Matt said...
Big Mike
Your reading of what Democrats believe is completely created in your own head, and therefore wrong. Democrats completely understand criticisms of Obama and no one [except you] is setting his performance bar low because he is black. We defend him no more than you defended Bush or Reagan for some of their poor policies. We defend him because Republicans complain about everything he does and continually hyperventilate about Obama in ways that are absurd. The same applied to hatred of Hillary."
His performance bar isn't low. Its lower than low. A broken clock is right twice a day and he hasn't achieved that level of competence. Reagan was right. We had over twelve years of growth thanks to Reagan. He also pretty much buried the USSR which now is being revived by Obama in part. Bush inherited a stock market crash, a recession in the making and an attack on the US. Yet despite this, the economy did grow under his watch and we reached a point of victory and then low and behold the party of treason takes the congress and the economy starts to totter and then the current moron-in-chief blows the victories we won. But even by your implied metric Obama still has reached up to the level of incompetence of Bush never mind Reagan.
As for Hillary hatred, any decent person would hold that criminal grifter in contempt. Is that what you are supporting? A criminal grifter?
Eight years ago, Hillary let someone get to her left and lost the nomination. She's going to be dam' sure that doesn't happen again. She's like the old generals always fighting the last war.
@Scott,
Go take a gander at the comments at the full article at the Daily Beast site.
There are a couple of Hillary fanboys/girls who are just insane, throwing ad hominem insults at all who doubt the sanctity of the Blessed Hillary.
If this is what Hillary's supporters look like at the Daily Beast, then Hillary doesn't need opponents.
What if the President gave a speech and nobody cared? That's the perfect President.
Dunno if we should or shouldn't have a woman president, but we surly don't need this corrupt, lazy, lying, careless woman for one, THAT is for sure.
What do you mean by "What if?"
I was at a home today featuring a picture with a little kid (in 1993 is my guess) shaking Slick Willie's hand.
Now, on Jeopardy, I see little slick Willie shaking JFK's hand.
I don't see anybody shaking Hillary's hand, and I intend to keep it that way.
I heard quite a bit about it on right wing radio.
Mostly they were playing or reading HRC bites so they could criticize her. But there was also plenty of conversation about her voice. Apparently she's hiding her innate shrill. This was likely the result of coaching, according to the wingers I heard.
If true, she's got that in common with Palin, who was supposedly coached on her voice too.
Richard Cohen will protect her from Vladimir Putin.
Oh Oh Ritmo woke up. It must be evening
PBandJ_LeDouanier: "Mostly they were playing or reading HRC bites so they could criticize her."
Astonishing.
Sound bites played?
Criticism offered?
Utterly, completely, outrageously out of bounds. This sort of thing is simply not done. And not to be tolerated!
Between those dashing knights:Cohen and PB&J, the fair, innocent, humble and gracious damsel Hillary! is well protected indeed.
@cubanbob, thanks much, but I thought my riposte to Matt was elegant.
I can't figure out who--between Hillary Clinton and Richard Cohen--is less worth listening to. Every word Hillary utters is a lie and that includes the words "and" "the" and "a".
As for Richard Cohen--he once wrote a column about having an epiphany of some sort about Obama while out riding his (not Obama's) bicycle. Metrosexual trash is a fair descriptor of the WaPo's Richard Cohen.
So Hillary, after checking which way the wind is blowing--and roping off all reporters--will come out and "put some meat on the bone" about her policies. Let's just say that any "meat" she puts on the bone will be rancid.
"Dead broke" wasn't a harmless overstatement. It was a lie.
"Way less rich than we deserved to be." Now that would be a harmless overstatement. But she's rich, she's been rich since before she went into the White House, and she's been in the top 1% at every moment during at least the last two decades.
This makes Cohen -- not your husband -- a liar himself, and indeed, since he's doing it to deceive voters, it makes him a fraud.
Who are you going for?
Throne of Skulls
Yeah, about that gig economy. Raised with it, and then later did it.
I've said many things over the years, and almost none of that was paid attention to.
That's O.K.; that's how it works.
----
I'm looking forward, in at least 2019 and 2023, to looking back. Ain't that a shame?
By which I mean to say: I wasted my life in any and every way in which I bothered to listen to other people. Moving forward: No more of that.
Effofffluffyfucks.
^
[my new stance, stated plain.
regards
comma
lori]
Remember when Ann said criticism of Obama made her more sympathetic to him? Same emotional impulse. Cohen just dressed his up in fairytale garb. It may be a natural reaction, but it sounds silly when given voice.
Post a Comment