The D.C. Media Attacks on Hillary

Eric Boehlert at Media Matters offers his thoughts on why the D.C. media is "primed to take down Hillary Clinton."

It's official: Hillary Clinton now faces two looming campaign challengers, Republicans and their allies in the press. But don't take my word for it. The anti-Clinton press campaign is now an open secret in the media, and it marks a whole new chapter in campaign journalism.

< Sy Hersh vs. the White House on Bin Laden Kill Mission | Shot Fired into George Zimmerman's Vehicle >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "Dog bites man." (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Anne on Mon May 11, 2015 at 01:49:54 PM EST
    "Sun Rises in East."

    "Media Attacks Clinton."

    I guess the American media is determined that the electorate will be as ill-informed as possible in order to guarantee a close election.

    What is it Charlie Pierce always says?  "This is your democracy, America; cherish it."

    Makes me want to stick needles in my eyes.

    Yesterday the NYT had an article (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon May 11, 2015 at 03:02:52 PM EST
    about HRC's younger brother Tony, who has apparenyly unsuccessfully tried to milk his connection to her and Bill Clinton.

    Egads! That story's gotta be 15+ years old. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 11, 2015 at 06:21:20 PM EST
    Yes, Tony Rodham did attempt to trade / cash in on his familial relationship to Bill and Hillary Clinton, and yes, it didn't work.

    By the same token, Neil Bush clearly milked his own family relationships, and it did work. He made a pretty good living at being the professional son / brother of Poppy, Dubya and Jeb. So why is the story of Tony Rodham even relevant to the Beltway media at present, if Neil Bush's corresponding story is being kept for the most part under wraps by that same media?

    Honestly, I'm increasingly feeling alienated from the Beltway's embedded political class and the traveling cocktail circuit which accompanies it, much in the same manner as expressed by a seething Joan Harris (Christina Hendricks) a couple Mad Men episodes ago, about having to work for the troglodytes at McCann Erickson: "I want to burn this place down."



    Who can forget Neil and his Purple C.O.W. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Mr Natural on Mon May 11, 2015 at 08:22:45 PM EST
    The good news is: (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 11, 2015 at 02:55:51 PM EST
    Hillary knows, down to her toe nails, that the "Embarrassment Heard Round the World," The Republican's eight year campaign of doing not one useful thing for their constituents, nor the country, except trying to destroy Bubba, and, managed, for all their troubles, to only raise his poll ratings 10/20 points higher than when he was first elected.......

    Way to go guys.

    But, all that was just a warm-up for the blood sucking, record breaking sexist destruction they have in store for her now.

    You know what would be a really great debate?

    Hillary, alone, on one side, ....... VS..... All 16 (or, so) Republican Candidates on the other.

    She really should issue the challenge. Talk about heads exploding!

    The mention of Nixon reminds me... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 13, 2015 at 06:32:23 AM EST
    Hillary Rodham was a key aide to House Judiciary Committee Special Counsel John Doar during the Watergate investigation that resulted in the committee vote to impeach.  Before that John Doar had been an assistant A.G. for Civil Rights under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson.  If you google around you'll be surprised that his death (last year) wasn't more widely noticed or his life more widely discussed here.

    At some point during the upcoming Clinton campaign we'll again be treated to the bitter accusations of Jerome Zeifman.  Zeifman was Chief Counsel to Rodino's Judiciary Committee, but felt shunted aside by the selection of Doar.  Zeifman's anti-Hillary tirades have been widely and uncritically quoted in the right wing blogosphere.

    Doar was one of my heroes (none / 0) (#34)
    by Towanda on Thu May 14, 2015 at 06:55:07 PM EST
    and I agree that the loss ought to have had more coverage, but the same was so of his life.

    I have read a lot about him, and it is clear that he changed everyone he met, and for the better. And working for him, at that stage in her life, must have had tremendous influence on her career and causes since.


    Larry Wilmore had the right response to this topic (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Mon May 11, 2015 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    Response to media on Clinton coverage

    I do miss the jujitsu satire of Stephen Colbert, but sometimes a straight up 'go f#$#$ yourself' is called for.

    I saw (none / 0) (#5)
    by lentinel on Mon May 11, 2015 at 03:56:48 PM EST
    that too.

    A how low can they go moment.

    Sorry... (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Mon May 11, 2015 at 04:00:34 PM EST
    The above comment was meant to be a reply to Oculus's post about The Times going after Tony Rodham - Hillary's brother.

    Someone Will Dig Up Roger... (none / 0) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 11, 2015 at 04:59:50 PM EST
    ...without a doubt before this over.

    Billy Carter (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lentinel on Mon May 11, 2015 at 08:59:25 PM EST

    Mrs. Clinton's favorability (none / 0) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 11, 2015 at 03:57:11 PM EST
    ratings have improved by nine percentage points since late last March when the media stoked fires regarding the Clinton Foundation and about how she emails.  The expectations for media attacks have inoculated many Americans against their accusations. Familiarity with unfriendly media has come to be seen as the natural order of things--whether based on the years of the Clinton Administration or more, recently, for instance, the dry hole dig of Benghazi--or its continuum.  The media has succeeded in generating herd immunity.  

    it has certainly made this old (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 11, 2015 at 08:38:24 PM EST
    lefty seriously consider sending some money Hillary's way just because I find the media's whole attitude and behavior toward Clinton reprehensible.

    Doesn't the Guiness Book of World Records ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 11, 2015 at 06:27:42 PM EST
    ... list the GOP's Whitewater investigations and its mutations thereof as both the world's largest and longest snipe hunts?



    Amazing how effective they were though (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ruffian on Tue May 12, 2015 at 07:57:49 AM EST
    in casting the aura of shady dealings, at least among the media that want to see such an aura. I wish I could remember who it was but some commenter over the weekend brought up 'all the investigations' as reason to feal 'queasy' about the Clintons.

    Jeffry Toobin needs to re-release his great book 'A Vast Conspiracy' to remind people about just how these things went down in the 90s.


    Snipe are actually (none / 0) (#43)
    by fishcamp on Sat May 16, 2015 at 07:40:05 AM EST
    wading birds that live in the marshes here in Florida, during the winter months.  Some of my clients that I guide during tarpon season, I also guide during the Snipe hunting season.  They are very difficult to find and even more difficult to shoot.  I'm sure many are opposed to shooting innocent little birds, even though it's legal, but Snipe have more moves in the air than any other birds I'v seen, so they don't actually get hit, just shot at.  What usually happens is the people get a nice airboat ride, and I don't get much of a tip.

    Nixon (none / 0) (#15)
    by thomas rogan on Tue May 12, 2015 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    The media had it in for Richard Nixon too.  The mainstream media is not part of a great right-wing conspiracy to elect Republicans.  They were quick to pile on Chris Christie.  
    Maybe the mainstream media is responding to something faintly despicable about the Clintons and the way they operate.  

    Always with (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Tue May 12, 2015 at 11:46:36 AM EST
    that mysterious, unspecified "something", can't quite define it except that it is "faintly despicable". Please.

    Nixon's and Christie's henchmen were caught doing , real criminal "things"


    Hunter S. Thompson (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue May 12, 2015 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    On Nixon:

    Richard Nixon is gone now, and I am poorer for it. He was the real thing -- a political monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy. He could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time. He lied to his friends and betrayed the trust of his family. Not even Gerald Ford, the unhappy ex-president who pardoned Nixon and kept him out of prison, was immune to the evil fallout. Ford, who believes strongly in Heaven and Hell, has told more than one of his celebrity golf partners that "I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon."

    Parsing the law... (2.00 / 1) (#23)
    by thomas rogan on Thu May 14, 2015 at 08:18:04 AM EST
    Watergate break-in, bridgegate, Marc Rich pardon, Nixon pardon, tens of millions of contributions to Clinton foundation despite 2008 pledge to reveal these to State Department, eighteen minute gap in Nixon tapes, 30000 of 60000 Hillary emails "deleted", Hillary not recusing herself 2008-2012 from State decisions despite Bill getting large speaking fees from banks and countries involved with the State Department.
    I think that if you believe in the spirit of the law rather than the letter and recognize that life is more than "it depends on the meaning of the word is" then you will see some similarities among these events.

    Trying to compare Watergate (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu May 14, 2015 at 09:12:55 AM EST
    where there were break-ins, wiretapping, and lying about the WH, are a far cry from all the allegations you list here, none of which have ended up in any criminal trial of any sort.

    This is your brain on conservatism.  Any questions?


    You Just Proved the Cliam (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 14, 2015 at 09:32:36 AM EST
    On one hand you have actual crimes, on the other unfounded allegations treated as actual crimes.

    Good job proving the media, and your own, bias.


    Parsing (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 14, 2015 at 09:43:47 AM EST
    which law pray tell?
    Another textbook application of the Clinton Rules on your part.

    Normal rules: Criminal activity linked to Nixon discovered. Investigation begins, more suspicious activity found. Nixon unsuccessfully tries to cover up. Result: busted.

    Clinton Rules: Clinton's rise in the morning, investigation begins, no criminal activity found. Result: Despite the masterful cover-up by the Clintons(again), the true sleuths can see right through it, busted.


    Ever ask yourself why Bill Clinton did (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Thu May 14, 2015 at 12:47:58 PM EST
    not start, or go to work for, a 'for profit' company rather than a charitable foundation? He could have made more money for himself as a lobbyist or any number of other ways if that was what he was after. He chose this route in part to avoid conflict of interest with his wife's career.

    I guess he should not have bothered channeling his energies into trying to make a difference for others when there is no way to avoid the 'appearance' of something shady that is always in the eye of the beholder


    Good point. (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 14, 2015 at 02:17:34 PM EST
    Don't a lot of people fantasize about, if they had tons of money how enjoyable it would be give much of it to those in need, and experience the result, and, the gratitude? It may sound selfish, or, duplicitous to give away money expecting some kind of emotional reward, but, I think it's just human nature, and, the truth.

    Anyway, I just think that had a lot to do with Bill Clinton's decision about what, and how, he wanted to conduct his life after the Presidency.

    He's just a good old boy, a Bubba. He never had much in the way of finances (Until he left the White House.)  He had a tough upbringing, he had to assume the role of The Man in the House, and protect his mother from her abusive husband. He wasn't called the "first black President" because of how much he did for African Americans. It was because Blacks recognized the environment he grew up in, and the struggles he, and his family, endured growing up were quite similar to their own.

    The good that he's doing now is nothing short of phenomenal. Many rich people give to charities, and/or fund a foundation. But, what Bill is doing is in a league all its own.

    If it was just about money, getting rich, and giving some away, he could have, as you stated, done it much better, and made much more personal money. No, I think the way he's doing it is just about as smart as his reportedly hi I.Q. can deliver.

    It's got everything:

    A.    His ego is satisfied by the huge amounts of money he's able to raise.

    B.    His soul is soothed by seeing the results the money he's raised has produced.

    C.    His brain is satisfied because it's occupied not just raising money, but, consulting with all the experts, and devising means & methods for the future. In other words, trying to break the cycle of poverty, and getting the foundation to become more self-sustaining.

    D.     And, finally, his macho is satisfied. Man, is it ever! Just try to imagine, he's looking out the window of a private Gulfstream650, cruising at 35,000 feet, what thoughts must be going through his mind! He won the biggest prize in politics anyone can aspire to. He beat (practically alone) the full might and fury of Newt Gingrich and the entire Republican Party. And, today, as some really Big Shot was recently quoted as saying, "Bill Clinton is the only man on earth whose phone calls never go unanswered. Whether it's Jamie Dimon, Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin, King Salman, or, Pope Francis, when they're told, "Bill Clinton's on the line," the answer is always, "I'll be right there."

    If this is a guy that would do something illegal, and risk all he's accomplished, and, the life he's currently living, well, he'd have to be pretty stupid, wouldn't he?


    I think Bill has done pretty well for (none / 0) (#30)
    by Anne on Thu May 14, 2015 at 03:17:25 PM EST

    Bill Clinton was paid more than $100 million for speeches between 2001 and 2013, according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton during her years as a senator and as secretary of state.


    Not exactly minimum wage...


    And........? (none / 0) (#31)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 14, 2015 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    Someone made the point that (none / 0) (#32)
    by Anne on Thu May 14, 2015 at 03:24:02 PM EST
    Bill could have made more going to work in the private sector as a lobbyist or wherever the revolving door leads, and I thought it worth noting that he hasn't exactly been living paycheck-to-paycheck as head of a charitable foundation, thanks to the millions he's been paid by private companies for giving speeches.

    O.K. I got it (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 14, 2015 at 03:51:55 PM EST
    But, isn't that kind of splitting hairs? How much is too much, how much is enough? Surely, if you're going to fly with the eagles you're not going to dress like a parakeet.

    But, if you're talking, in general, about money, it's volume, and its place in society, fine.

    Personally, I believe money has not only polluted our society, but is on its way to destroying it.

    I can't get my head around the fact that a football player (or baseball, or any athlete) can receive a contract valued at 125 million dollars. Forget his talent, forget the number of fannies he puts into the stands, forget the financial structure of sports, but, just in the name of value to society, that number just boggles my mind. That's about 500 times what the world's greatest cardiologist makes. And, that Mayweather fight, each boxer made that in one night.

    So, if you take a holistic view of our society, and the system it functions under, capitalism, what's the answer? It's supposed to be the "best" system ever devised. And, in some sense it is. But, all that's saying is that much better systems have never been implemented. The fact is that capitalism does increase a country's GDP, it also contains the seeds of its own destruction, a poison pill.(as we're seeing in our country today)

    Like I say, too often, everything is relative: income, violations, punishment, and so on.


    I think that comparison (none / 0) (#35)
    by Yman on Thu May 14, 2015 at 07:38:17 PM EST
    ... is absolutely ridiculous.

    Please remind me later to tell you ... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 12, 2015 at 12:33:57 PM EST
    thomas rogan: "Maybe the mainstream media is responding to something faintly despicable about the Clintons and the way they operate."

    ... what I think about the way YOU "operate."


    An Intuitive Grasp (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Repack Rider on Tue May 12, 2015 at 05:01:36 PM EST
    ...of the obvious.

    The media had it in for Richard Nixon too.

    Funny thing.  "I'm not a crook," turned out to be a leetle fib.

    If it is your belief that the media handled this incorrectly, please elaborate on how this story should have been treated.


    {head desk} (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by nycstray on Tue May 12, 2015 at 06:52:53 PM EST
    And not only that, stray. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 12, 2015 at 09:29:49 PM EST
    Did you know that Joe McCarthy saved us from the Red Menace, until he was undercut by that liberal commie basterd Edward R. Morrow and his cell of subversives at CBS News? I know I sure didn't!

    When I first read this in (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 14, 2015 at 01:12:13 PM EST
    Tiger Beat in the Potomac I just laughed.  I was reminded of the coyote and his acme rocket launcher.

    At least 1 step ahead of said press ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by christinep on Fri May 15, 2015 at 10:36:01 AM EST
    So ... it is being reported today that Hillary Clinton declared to a group of supporters that she has a strong goal regarding the Supreme Court ... a litmus test for any potential nominee in the matter of the Citizens United decision.  HRC's goal is to see that misbegotten decision overturned, and would expect any nominee to align with that position.

    No hiding; no secrets; and, imo, a clear top-line goal.  Now, which member of the press will be the first to attack that one?  And, for what reason would that be???  

    Actually, she is at least 2 steps ahead of the pitchfork press.

    They would attack her if she said (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Anne on Fri May 15, 2015 at 11:28:42 AM EST
    she'd let the GOP pick the next Justice...

    All snark aside, she'll be criticized for even having a litmus test, on that or any other issue.  

    The reality is that unless there's a vacancy among the conservative justices during the next administration, and assuming Clinton is the president, she'd basically just be swapping out one liberal justice for another, and the ideological balance - even as to Citizens United - isn't likely to change.

    And if Clinton is the next president, only the death of a conservative justice is going to give her the opportunity to really shift the Court's tilt - because you know none of them is going to voluntarily step down/retire with a Democrat in the WH.


    You never know, of course (none / 0) (#39)
    by christinep on Fri May 15, 2015 at 12:40:10 PM EST
    When a Justice or Justices may depart the Supreme Court.  And, as you point out, she would expect criticism from the press and/or the right for uttering a statement that seems a "litmus test."  What is even more interesting is:  Other than the known billionaire political donors, who is going to say that this is a wrong/bad position to hold? And, more so, what fascinating reason for open antagonism to this position could the press press.

    The position has pizzazz ... the spark comes from the timing as well as from the catnip that it should become to those who want to pounce but would paint themselves as anti-populist plutocrats if they take the political bait. The position, imo, is also the best posture to take in terms of law and the operation of a democracy.

    I would add the clear view on the need to overturn Citizens United to the deft and progressive positions HRC has taken on the need for criminal justice reform and comprehensive immigration reform.  


    Today's NYT, page one, (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Fri May 15, 2015 at 11:43:31 AM EST
    column one:

    WASHINGTON -- Eight years after Hillary Rodham Clinton was haunted by her Senate vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, another leading White House hopeful is struggling with questions about the war.
    And just as Mrs. Clinton seemed torn then between mollifying Democratic primary voters who were against the war and positioning herself to run in the general election, Jeb Bush, a Republican, appears deeply conflicted.

    Yeah, I Guess they Forgot the Part... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 15, 2015 at 01:47:12 PM EST
    ...about the NYT aiding republicans in their swindling of the public with bogus intelligence.

    The only stain should be on the party that did the swindling, not the folks who voted based on manufactured evidence.

    How that war becomes Hilary's problem is beyond me, and the fact that they are implying her vote was pure politics instead of her consciousness is scandalous.


    Cute. (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Fri May 15, 2015 at 12:44:01 PM EST
    What a soft way to say that Jeb is facing a problem in the primaries.  OTOH, it the comparison is meant to lessen his current troubles ... well, we still get back to the Bush name vs the Clinton name :)

    Clinton (none / 0) (#41)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 15, 2015 at 01:27:16 PM EST
    Rules! Never miss an opportunity to bash Hillary, twice no less, before naming Jeb and his current problems.