2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhen The Media Play By ‘Clinton Rules’
Having coined the phrase Clinton Rules to explain the national news medias obsession with phony scandal narratives involving Bill and Hillary Clinton, I should be gratified to see it pass into general circulation.
First came New York Times columnist and liberal MVP Paul Krugman, casting doubt upon that newspapers virtually incomprehensible 4,400-word treatise, which insinuated that Secretary of State Clinton had peddled a Wyoming uranium mine to the Russians in return for contributions to her familys charitable foundation:
If you are old enough to remember the 1990s, Krugman wrote, you remember the endless parade of alleged scandals, Whitewater above allall of them fomented by right-wing operatives, all eagerly hyped by mainstream news outlets, none of which actually turned out to involve wrongdoing. The usual rules didnt seem to apply; instead it was Clinton rules, under which innuendo and guilt by association were considered perfectly OK, in which the initial suggestion of lawbreaking received front-page headlines and the subsequent discovery that there was nothing there was buried in the back pages if it was reported at all.
To some degree, hard feelings are inevitable in politics. The Times has recently documented how successful conservative groups such as Karl Roves American Crossroads are at planting anti-Clinton messages among Democrats. That Hillary hater on Facebook may be a professional troll. Theyre also spending big bucks on focus groups, studying how to make the partys likeliest nominee look like a gold-plated bitch come November 2016.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/when-the-media-play-by-clinton-rules/
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Thanks for giving me one more reason to support Senator Sanders.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)A President that spends all of their time and energy defending their questionable history has no time or energy to take care of We the People's business.
Capitulating is what neoliberals do when they kiss Wall Street and the Republicans asses. We've had far too much of that already and Hillary is just more of the same.
But thanks for playing.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)trying to bring down Clinton and staying mum about other democratic candidates.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Only triangulaters need to play that crap.
So, which is it? Hillary is a strong strong strong woman? Or Hilary is a poor poor poor victim?
You folks can't seem to make up your mind.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)the victim". Funny how we don't accuse other democratic politicians who have been subject to dirty tricks campaigns by the GOP of whining about being victims.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Who is it you think you are fooling?
It ain't me bud.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)But as expected, you dodged the question, in true triangulater style.
London Lover Man
(371 posts)but what if Bernie is the nominee - they absolutely have no attacks against bernie, and no defense against Bernie's point-of-matters.
They'll wind up spending the campaign dollars trying to out-Bernie Bernie Sanders, and failing miserably, ending CU's short lived career after Bernie puts together a constitutional amendment removing CU as the law of the land, and begin 100% public funding of election - not even corporatists are allowed to contribute.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If Bernie were to become the front runner, he would become the target of the phony scandal mongers. And don't kid yourself into believing he's immune to it. No one is. They make shit up.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Handled 'em just fine. In fact, showed them for the freakin' fools they are. Trashed them without lowering himself to their level. Been doing it to Teapublicans for many years.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)hurl.
Clinton is dealing with it up front, because she is seen as most likely to win. What Bernie has faced so far doesn't even count as scandal mongering.
mcar
(42,357 posts)Chasing non scandals and made up crap about a candidate?
To What "questionable history" are you referring?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Not that I said I was. I'm not, but just precisely what the fuck is it you propose I do to stop them?
Questionable history. You, the facts of what someone has done that you would rather not be out in public. The stuff that makes people call "haters" for observing. That questionable history.
That clear up your confusion?
mcar
(42,357 posts)Because what you said makes no sense.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Indeed. Particularly the ones that claim to be progressive but somehow have quickly fallen in love with right-wing smears.
name not needed
(11,660 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)DVRacer
(707 posts)And you understand why they did that, but the average voter will not take the time to understand. That to me that is HRC's campaigns biggest problem the optics look bad at every turn. From roping off the media to the whole email blunder to the average voter it just doesn't look good. I get the explanations but when you have to stop and explain everything it piles up in voters minds that you are hiding something. People are hungry for open and honest they are tired of opaque and fuzzy images of the truth and if it is fuzzy you can damn we'll be assured it will be twisted into something it's not.
George II
(67,782 posts)...we have to remember that along with being a candidate this and next year, she's also an ex-First Lady, probably requiring more security than other candidates at this point. I'd bet that by next year this will be forgotten by everyone but Karl Rove and Sean Hannity.
And once we get to later this year or early next year, all the remaining candidates will have increased security.
mcar
(42,357 posts)Enough.