Those sneaky lefties got caught talking to each other through private secret sneaky leftie emails again, and we learn that a lot of them don’t want Hillary Clinton to be nominated in 2016, which apparently was big news. Not news to me, mind you, but it was a revelation to The Hill. Maybe the Media will adjust the narrative now, though.
At The Atlantic, Molly Ball writes that Hillary Clinton’s unofficial campaign so far is long on pablum, short on substance. Molly Ball has revealed a tendency to be clueless in the past, so a certain degree of skepticism is required here. But Dave Weigel pretty much says the same thing. She’s being covered by media like syrup on pancakes, but she isn’t giving them anything to write about, he says.
Taylor Marsh writes that Hillary Clinton is too making substantive policy statements, but they are statements about women’s empowerment and so they are ignored, because sexism. There’s no doubt something to that. On the other hand, Taylor’s examples are not exactly earth-shattering stuff. Dems have been running on equal pay for decades. And the party generally is no longer running away from reproductive rights as they used to.
Also, too, since when have media covered Dem candidates’ policy positions? Or anybody’s, for that matter? They cover the horse race. They cover personalities. They cover scandals, real and imagined. They cover gaffes. They cover the stuff one candidate claims about the other candidate. Actually reporting on what candidates might do in office, not so much.
I suspect what the reporters tailing HRC are waiting for is a commitment to seek the nomination, at which time they will climb all over each other trying to be the first one to get a report on the Web someplace. They may be so focused on that she could promise to personally fly air strikes over Iraq and no one would notice.
Maybe she knows that, and maybe that’s why she won’t commit.
If she actually is considering not running, she should do the Democratic Party a favor and make up her mind now. If she actually is not running she should get out of the way and let other Dems get the media attention. But she probably is planning to run, and remaining ambivalent as long as possible is part of her campaign strategy. In the meantime, she’ll get innocuous press coverage about appearing here or there and not saying shit, which may be what she wants for now.
“Also, too, since when have media covered Dem candidates’ policy positions? Or anybody’s, for that matter? They cover the horse race. They cover personalities. They cover scandals, real and imagined. They cover gaffes. They cover the stuff one candidate claims about the other candidate. Actually reporting on what candidates might do in office, not so much.”
Analyzing policy positions is too much work.
It required a brain and critical thinking skills.
And curiosity, and investigative ability.
It’s much easier covering horse races and gaffes.
Our “Fourth Estate” makes me want to drink a fifth a day.
Ok, better make that a liter.
And if Hillary runs, and it’s back to the future with our MSM, I’ll be up to a gallon a day.
I picked a bad time to give-up sniffing glue.
The lack of information most people possess is amazing to those who have a clue how much information there really is that is even beyond those of us who try to keep up.
The lack of news on the news is the same. The 3-day-old summaries of internet stories that constitutes our local TV news is so disgusting that I have not watched a local newscast for over a year.
Who else is around for the Democratic nomination? I never hear any other name with the exception of Elizabeth Warren, who says definitively she won’t run. Who else is a viable candidate? I wish there were more names so I could give them some thought; but, no one seems to even want to write about any one except Hillary. I am already bored to death.
Bonnie,
Besides Warren, there’s O’Malley, MA’s Governor.
Maybe Sherrod Brown, Ohio’s Senator, might be convinced to run.
There’s semi-crazy Schweitzer.
Andrew Cuomo was – until Heather Teachout did better than expected. But I think Andrew’s ego will tell him he’s still a viable candidate.
Kirsten Gillibrand, my NY Senator, might go in if Hillary doesn’t.
And, there are others out there – Governor’s and Senators.
And ALL of them – even Cuomo – would be better than any Republican candidate.
Except, maybe Jeb.
But, does anyone want another Bush v. Clinton election?
I hope not.
“there’s O’Malley, MA’s Governor”
Slip of the finger, Gulag. He’s MD’s gov.
And what about Biden? We could have a wonderful time with Gaffe-a-Day Joe as prez for 4 or 8 yrs.
HRC is either running or doing the best impersonation of a candidate I’ve seen. Modern politics is as carefully scripted as a Shakespearean play. She’s not authorized to announce she’s running. That act doesn’t come up til after the midterms. After she does announce there is a sequence of policy statements she will be allowed to make at dates and events already scheduled. The only variances from the script will be to respond to the unscheduled events (like statements by the opposition) which disrupt the kabuki theater.
If the public would embrace the real deal, with gaffes and missteps, we might see some real politics rather than the over-processed synthetic mash we have been getting for so many decades we’ve forgotten what real leadership looks like. Real leaders stick their necks out, make public decisions and occasionally make public mistakes. But it’s THEM, not their handlers. I despise the crowd of make-up artists, speechwriters and policy ‘experts’ who are playing the candidate like a marionette.
Thanks.
Yeah, I meant MD.
And I LOOOOOVES me some Biden!!!
Watching Hillary non-campaign is like watching paint dry. Maybe this is as intended, so as not to give the press a position they can get wrong and hang her on before the race gets started officially.
Many dems I’ve spoken too say, Hillary is the only one who can win, so we all need to either get out of the way and/or get behind her now. And forget about “Joltin’ Joe,” Warren or Gillibrand. They want a coronation; its her turn.