You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘clintons’ tag.

It’s a slow news day so I will chose to start on the media obsession with Chelsea’s wedding

It’s the main item on WaPo too

Nothing, obviously on the cover of the eternally miffed at the  Clintons NYT, in spite of this being in NY

Out of the oil-kill coverage, the only thing still in print is BP direct propaganda

But Obama’s war is going great:

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

and his economy as well

and the 9.11 responders are just as happy that Congress denied them aid

2

View EXIF Data Theme of the Week Add Note Delete Note Edit Note Flag Image

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

.

Right after the revelations about the media conspiracy to install Obama using Jurnolist, Sullivan is patting himself on the back for not being on that list

One reason I would never be on such a list, of course, is my record of non-liberalism: my loathing of the Clintons, my anti-p.c. instincts, my disdain for taboos on race and gender and sexuality on the left, my early support for what I stupidly thought would be moderate conservatism under Bush and even dumber tub-thumping for war in Iraq after the trauma of 9/11.

Let’s see if I get this: I was never part of a group whose reason to exist was to attack Hillary Clinton on daily basis because….I hate the Clintons too much.

And it gets better

I was also shocked by George Stephanopoulos’ FNC-style questioning in the primary debate, and said so in no uncertain terms. But those errors and good judgments were mine and mine alone.

This disclaimer comes after the article on Jurnoist reveals that

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

and actively worked to attack ABC and its ancors for daring to ask Obama questions.

So, what are Sully’s errors again? (besides his love of W):

Thathe hated the Clintons BEFORE some of the Jurnoists people (Conason, Tomasky, feel humbled) and he hated ABC’s anchors for not giving Obama his fluffy pillows even more.

If that is a crime, flay me with a wet noodle. Please!

In all fairness, he also has a good last sentence

But socialized groupthink is not the answer to what’s wrong with the media. It’s what’s already wrong with the media.

Too bad that everything he wrote before was explaining why he was even more group thinky than most. His whole argument amounts to

I was Jurnoist before there was a jurnoist

And he is right

Milbank is flogging his CDS in this twisted column

Washington Sketch: Clinton finally ahead of Obama in popularity

.Now, everyone knows Hillary got more votes in the primary than Obama , so this “finally” only applies to the villagers, and there’s a lot of obfuscation about it

Here’s how Millbank starts it

It’s about two years too late, but Hillary Clinton has finally pulled ahead of Barack Obama.

Most of the article is laced with the usual “easy for her to” excuses we’ve seen since the primaries.

Although Millbank does shoot himself in the foot with one finding that he doesn’t pursue to its logical conclusion

Previous secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice were both more popular than their boss, President George W. Bush. But such a trend is not universal: Warren Christopher didn’t have ratings as high as his boss, President Bill Clinton.

Hmmm, can you see the hidden pattern here, kids? The little flaw in the media narrative on both Clintons? Could it be they were ALWAYS more popular not just  than Warren Cristopher, but W, jr.jr and others Milbank &friends tried to elevate above them? Truth is a daughter of time and it seems to be coming to surface from the gusher of snark.

Millbank concludes waving his CDS up high

Few could have imagined back in that prior life that the controversial and polarizing first lady would someday win the favor of two-thirds of her countrymen.

Yet, with all those fits of pique and venom, the article went big (and surprising) in B0botland

PUMA and PUMA 2.0 seem to be joining up:

The apologists’s huffing is rudely interrupted

. How can that be possible?

He is a Nobel Peace Prize winning chess playing Political genius??

Hell, just last week he put those pesky unions in their place!

and it gets better:

7. I am hoping she challenges him in 2012..She definitely

will have my vote..I supported Obama but I think we have been fooled…Its like having a Bush third term..
INdemo

So much so that an apologist asks an obvious question

LOL. Fighting all sides. Sheesh.

Where were these people during the primaries???

and gets n obvious answer

44. I think they got run off for being PUMAS.

Only a few survived. But they’re back since Obama seems to be regularly attacked on DU

And someone replies to the old “they aren’t that different meme”

58. With one difference

Hillary has a pair

On revisiting, in order to “protect the community” that comment has since been removed.

Someone even evaluates Millbank’s scribbling correctly

0. Milbank’s article is snarky.

Besides, Hillary has been polling better than Obama for months. These media types, including Milbank, trashed Hillary endlessly during the primaries and now they see the light? A pox on all their houses.

although a fer take comfort in th snark.

and more Hillary supporters dare to show up

18. That’s who I voted for!

A better read than Millbank’s little piece of snark .

I was going to write about Gallup’s new poll on the democratic image

Americans’ favorable rating of the Democratic Party dropped to 41% in a late March USA Today/Gallup poll, the lowest point in the 18-year history of this measure. Favorable impressions of the Republican Party are now at 42%, thus closing the gap between the two parties’ images that has prevailed for the past four years.

It certainly belies the belief of the Obama operative in B0botland

This country is too stupid for its president.That’s all

It seems that despite the thick propaganda, people finally saw that democrats in power behave no better than Republicans did when they had their turn. But there is a remarkable piece of news in the timeline – h/t Hotair for noticing it.

Yes, the Dems are usually on top, but they were roughly even during Clinton’s first term and Bush’s first term. ‘Twas impeachment and Bush’s second term that drove the GOP down. .

I don’t ever remember polls, articles – anything in the media informing us that the GOP lost credibility with their

Arkansas project efforts. All I ever heard was about Clinton being “disgraced”, divisive and Democrats being angry, ashamed that he damaged the party. That it was his fault that Gore was robbed er “lost” and Bush “won”

Look at the  31% approval of the GOP in 1999. GOP hurt itself more than it could hurt Clinton or the Democrats. This was never reported. People were smarter than the whole media then – and they are now too.

Read the rest of this entry »

via  Dutch Comedy TV

Not Your Sweetie

August 2019
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031