We don’t know what the press will do if Clinton enters the race. We do know this—the indolence of the liberal world concerning the press corps’ recent behavior ["beating up" on Hillary Clinton] is a major sign of our essential fecklessness.Everyone, give me 1,000 words on the media's
The Howler also opines that
If a Republican front-runner was being beaten up this way, the screaming would have been heard from coast to coast by now. But on the One True Liberal Channel, the millionaire children have all been silent. At Salon, not a word has been said.Not a word? Not so much.
You could look it up!
Now, some in the liberalverse might have concluded that there's plenty of other things going on in the nation, and the world, to occupy them, and that the Hillary Hate-On will still be around should the "front-runner" decide to declare sometime in the next 28 months. For my part, I can barely pinch out a post every third day, which limits my opportunities to call out Hillary haters. But apparently I haven't gotten my priorities straight.
What's more, some of us indolent feckers might not think that Clinton's the ideal candidate for 2016, regardless of whether she's the "front-runner." (Just as not every conservative is manning the barricades in response to perceived media criticism of "Republican front-runners" Rand Paul or Chris Christie.) Some might even conclude that Sec. Clinton's past or present positions or present activities do not make her the ideal vehicle to ensure their policy preferences are enacted and enforced.
Plus, didn't we all agree to farm this shit out to Media Matters?
Short answer: Liberalism =/= Defending Hillary Clinton. (Insert low, mordant chuckles here.)
Oh, stop with the clowning you clowning clown.
Check out my incomparable archives!
Step 1. Perform lots of hyperbolic caterwauling about HRC's awfulness.
Step 2. Observe that the media is reporting on your wailing, which means repeating it verbatim.
Step 3. Sing another 50 verses of the Weh We're the Real Victims Blues.
It's one thing to point out the news media's tendency to glom onto anything sensational about the Clintons, true or not.
It's quite another to thus command and demand reverence for all things Clintonian because the press has treated them badly in the past.
Both Clintons have shown a remarkable facility, post-Presidency, to attract money and wealthy friends and to defend the practices of some of globalism's biggest assholes under the guise of statesmanship and philanthropy, and continue to defend policy decisions that were just plain terrible for average Americans. If anything, those are not qualities that suspend criticism, but, rather, encourage it, Somerby's opinion notwithstanding.
Clearly, it is difficult to excuse him missing the Salon piece, but when did snickering about Somerby become de rigueur?
Once upon a time, Roger, you found him to be a very helpful resource.
I like Bob. (I don't know him. I mean to say I generally like his work.)
But I've had run-ins with him before.
(Damn. I used to be halfway decent.)
I prefer his forensic work when he opposes illiberal actors acting illiberally to his work where he grouses about liberals who don't do what he thinks they should do. He is free to do what he enjoys doing best, of course, and I'm free to use his schtick to schtick it to him.
Thanks for reading.
Post a Comment