» The Making of the President

Ed Driscoll

The Making of the President

Once a Clinton flak catcher, always a Clinton flak catcher: “The former public face of Bill Clinton’s White House—and current host of ABC News’ This Week—George Stephanopoulos was floored [or at least pretended to be for the cameras -- Ed] as two prominent journalists and the Republican Speaker of the House from his Clinton days, Newt Gingrich, laid out for him just how bad the ‘Clinton Cash’ book is for his old bosses,” Matthew Boyle writes at Big Journalism:

“My point is they took money from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State—that is clearly illegal,” Gingrich said. “This is not about politics. It’s illegal. It’s dangerous to America to have foreign governments get in the habit of bribing people who happen to be the husband of the Secretary of State or next president of the United States.”

Halperin then stuck the knife in.

“Here’s why you know this is serious, because almost any Democrat who’s not Clintons’ payroll will tell reporters and others privately that these are serious issues,” he said. “Forget the politics. These are serious issues. The question for me right now is all these donors who gained and all these people who paid President Clinton to give speeches, what kind of communications did they have with people in the government? That may not be a quid pro quo, but everybody knows that a lot of those donations were from people who wanted access to the Clintons.”

And Heilemann twisted it.

“We have examples now where Barack Obama’s administration knew this was a potential problem,” he said. “That’s why they set up the agreement they had with the family—the agreement they had with Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton when she took the job as Secretary of State. There are now several that we know of at this moment—several documented instances—where whether or not it’s illegal they broke their agreement with the administration.

“When you think about the president having the standard of being the most transparent and open administration in history, what the Clintons have done here clearly is not the most transparent and open. I think that whether it’s illegal or not, they violated the spirit of Barack Obama’s presidency.”

Allahpundit-style exit quote:


Time for a special prosecutor?

‘Hillary Thinks She Is Bigger Than God’

April 24th, 2015 - 2:36 pm

In 1993, “the politics of meaning” was introduced by Hillary Clinton into the vernacular of the times, when she said during a commencement speech:

“We need a new politics of meaning. We need a new ethos of individual responsibility and caring. We need a new definition of civil society which answers the unanswerable questions posed by both the market forces and the governmental ones, as to how we can have a society that fills us up again and makes us feel that we are part of something bigger than ourselves.”

For most Americans, “the unanswerable questions posed by both the market forces and the governmental ones” are answered quite satisfactorily by religion. For self-admitted “Progressives” such as Hillary, that’s rather…problematic…to borrow the hip word all the cool kids are saying these days. Because for over 150 years,  “Progressivism” and religion have been two fundamentally opposed forces. Which is why last night, Hillary told the attendees at the 2015 Women in The World Summit:

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said.

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

Comparing the bolded line above to Obama’s infamous “bitter clingers” speech, Ed Morrissey writes at Hot Air that Hillary is striking a very different pose today from 2008, when she thought that she had the Democrats’ nomination locked up, and needed to only worry about some tyro anti-religious rookie politician to her left named Barack Obama and could safely pivot to the center:

In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is. As Hillary admits here — albeit unwittingly — the at-will destruction of the unborn goes against religious beliefs, long-held cultural values, and the structural “biases” that exist to recognize the value of human life. That’s what the “clump of cells” fallacy has to overcome, and as Hillary and the Left have discovered, it’s a tall order. And it’s not just abortion, but also same-sex marriage and forced participation in it, euthanasia dressed up as “right to die” movements, and the rest.

Politically speaking, this kind of hostility to religion plays well … among the “safe space,” “trigger warning” crowd. Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change “deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs” might be the most honest progressive slogan in history, but it’s not going to endear Hillary to the people who got offended by Barack Obama’s “bitterly clinging” comments — which she exploited in 2008 to paint herself as the friend of those denizens of middle America. Those voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.

What does Hillary do to counter this? I’m waiting to hear If you like your religion, you can keep your religion. That will fit the progressive pattern well.

The headline quoted above by Hugh Hewitt co-blogger John Schroeder neatly sums up Hillary’s worldview, and it’s not a new one. When Jonah Goldberg published Liberal Fascism in late 2007, it was written with the assumption that Hillary was likely the next Democrat nominee for the presidency, and her worldview dominates the second half of the book; Barack Obama is only mentioned twice, if my Kindle search function is accurate. Hillary believed since at least her college days that religion needed a serious overhaul if not entire junking; a trait that has been believed by every dyed-in-the-wool “Progressive” since the 19th century. As Jonah wrote in his chapter on “Brave New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism:”

The politics of meaning is in many respects the most thoroughly totalitarian conception of politics offered by a leading American political figure in the last half century. Hillary’s views have more in common with the totalizing Christian ideologies of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell than they do with the “secular atheism” such Christian conservatives ascribe to her. But they have even more in common with the God-state Progressivism of John Dewey, Richard Ely, Herbert Croly, and Woodrow Wilson and other left-wing Hegelians. Hillary’s vision holds that America suffers from a profound “spiritual crisis” requiring the construction of a new man as part of a society-wide restoration and reconstruction effort leading to a new national community that will provide meaning and authenticity to every individual. Hers is a Third Way approach that promises to be neither left nor right, but a synthesis of both, under which the state and big business will work hand in hand. It is a fundamentally religious vision hiding in the Trojan horse of social justice that seeks to imbue social policy with spiritual imperatives.

* * * * * * * *

Hillary is no führer, and her notion of the “common good” doesn’t involve racial purity or concentration camps. But she indisputably draws her vision from the same eternal instinct to impose order on society, to create an all-encompassing community, to get past endless squabbles and ensconce each individual in the security blanket of the state. Hers is a political religion, an updated Social Gospel—light on the Gospel, heavy on the Social—spoken in soothing tones and conjuring a reassuring vision of cooperation and community. But it remains a singular vision, and there’s no room in it for those still suffering from the “stupidity of habit-bound minds,” to borrow Dewey’s phrase. The village may have replaced “the state,” and it in turn may have replaced the fist with the hug, but an unwanted embrace from which you cannot escape is just a nicer form of tyranny.

If you’d like a real insight into Hillary’s worldview (beyond her pure money-grubbing avarice that makes Gordon Gekko look like a piker, of course), the later chapters of Liberal Fascism are real eye-openers, and I urge you to read them, if you haven’t yet.

….Unless of course, as a result of her myriad fundraising scandals, Hillary really is “Dead Candidate Walking,” as Michael Walsh believes today over at his PJM column.

Related: The Giver: A Chilling Cinematic Peek into Hillary Clinton’s Infamous Village.”

Breaking News from 2007

April 24th, 2015 - 12:04 pm


Failed presidential run followed by botched tenure as Secretary of State? Earning lots of wealth outside of the free market? Lots of botox? Speaking in Orwellian doublethink?

As Twitchy asks, rounding up response to the usual JuiceVox socialist sophistry, “Is Hillary Clinton cementing herself into the pantheon of rich liberal windsurfing hobbyists? If so, Vox declares it a good thing.” It looks like you’re going to need a much more limber, not to mention waterproof and gyroscopically balanced exoskeleton if Hillary will be hitting the high seas.

Another area though, where both archleftists are similar, is in their cold and aloof hauteur. In his column today, asking “Will the Clinton-Cash Scandal Doom Hillary’s White House Bid?”, Jonah Goldberg describes Hillary as a “Tudor of the Ozarks:”

Sure, the Clintons like money. That’s obvious. But the money is incidental to what’s really behind all of this: a mixture of entitlement and machine politics.

The Clintons are like the Tudors of the Ozarks. They believe they are royalty, but they also understand that even monarchs need friends. The Clinton Foundation is the perfect vehicle for their ambition. Like the medieval Catholic Church, it blurs the lines between ideals and interests. On the one hand, it does yeoman’s work in the Church of Liberal Dogoodery, but it also provides a conduit for business interests, foreign governments, academics, activists, and journalists to gain access to the imperial court-in-waiting.

Even if Hillary hadn’t conveniently wiped her servers clean, I suspect there wouldn’t be a lot of e-mails about quid-pro-quos. Such transactions aren’t made in the language of the bazaar, but in the lingua franca of loyalty, friendship, and noblesse oblige. Yes, Clinton Inc. needs money, but the money is likely seen more as tribute than bribery, a bit of coin offered up as a sign of loyalty to the coming Ozarkian Restoration — a restoration that may just have to wait for Chelsea.

There is one big difference though between Hillary and the British monarchy. “The House of Windsor is certainly more transparent” than the House of Clinton, Mark Steyn told Hugh Hewitt yesterday:

MS: Hugh, there is no ‘Clinton Foundation’… The only purpose of this foundation is to enable this family to lead the lifestyle of a head of state after it has ceased to be head of state. They spent $70 million dollars on travel at the Clinton Foundation. By comparison, the entire Royal Family, to fly between their various realms – the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, that’s a lot of air miles – the entire Royal Family in one year spent $7 million dollars. So in other words, the Clintons have ten times the airplane costs of the Royal Family, who are heads of state of dozens of bits of real estate around the world. The Clinton Foundation is a hollow shell foundation playing the usual shell game with U.S. taxation. There’s no need for a Clinton Foundation except for them to rake in money from Kazakhs and Ukrainians and Iranians and Saudis and everybody else…HH: Well, let me ask you. There are two questions. Which is more transparent – the Windsor or the Clinton family? And which is less tacky – the Windsors or the Clintons?

MS: Well, one can make arguments about the last point, but the House of Windsor is certainly, the House of Windsor is certainly more transparent. You can go to I think it’s Royalty.gov.uk, and the Lord Chamberlain who runs the Queen’s Household posts every itemized bit of travel. So if you were to ask the Queen, if you happened to be meeting the Queen and you happened to say why did Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Gloucester, spend $700 dollars getting from Calgary to Bermuda in 2009, she’ll give you a straight answer. Whereas if you ask a similar question to Hillary Rodham Clinton, she’ll say ‘Oh, well, these are just more distractions from the right-wing Koch-funded media, and I’m just here to talk to everyday Americans as long as they’ve undergone a background check and have been pre-screened so that it’s safe for me to pretend to interact with them…’

If Hillary acts like she has much to hide, it may be because she has much to hide. Mitt Romney, a very different Massachusetts Brahmin than Kerry, was succinct yesterday while speaking with Hugh:

“You know, I’ve got to tell you, I was stunned by it. I mean, it looks like bribery. I mean, there is every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of, what, 20% of America’s uranium production to Russia, and then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails. And you know, I presume we might know for sure whether there was or was not bribery if she hadn’t wiped out thousands of emails. But this is a very, very serious series of facts, and it looks like bribery.”

Exit quote: “This time it wasn’t about logos or burritos, but rather uranium, foreign affairs and serious corruption. The New York Times published an exposé on ties between the Clintons and a sketchy deal which left Putin in control of a significant portion of America’s uranium; uranium it can now sell to Iran and other bad actors in the world.”


One of worst aspects of the legacy media in recent years has been their attempts at columns devoted to “fact-checking,” often awarding two, three or four pieces of Pinocchio clip art to whatever they determine is a “lie” spoken by a candidate or politician. And invariably, these columns are wildly partisan, first seen in the nuclear-level attacks on Sarah Palin when she pointed out ObamaCare’s potential for rationing via what she described vividly as “Death Panels.” DefCon 1! Burn the witch! Fire all the Pinocchio clip art at her! But as Mark Halperin, then of Time magazine, admitted during a video interview with Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg in November of 2013 during ObamaCare’s disastrous roll-out:

The Affordable Care Act contains provisions for “death panels,” which decide which critically-ill patients receive care and which won’t, according to Mark Halperin, senior political analyst for Time magazine.

“It’s built into the plan. It’s not like a guess or like a judgment. That’s going to be part of how costs are controlled,” Halperin told [Malzberg].

Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt had on young leftwing Washington Post “fact checker” Michelle Ye Hee, who, as Jim Treacher notes above, doesn’t grasp the difference between facts and opinions. And also doesn’t know much about the subject she’s “fact checking.”

As Hugh says in his transcript:

Almost every would-be GOP nominee has made an issue of America’s declining naval strength.  This morning The Washington Post’s Michelle Ye Hee Lee gave “three Pinocchios” to Lindesy Graham and Scott Walker for recalling Ronald Reagan’s 600 ship Navy and deploring our drop to 273 ships today.

Not only does Ms. Lee suggest untruthfulness about these absolutely factual assertions by Graham and Walker, she does so without finding even one expert who challenges their assertions about U.S. naval strength hitting dangerous lows.  She joined me to defend her conclusion, but I wasn’t persuaded and believe the Post should issue a correction for putting out as a “fact check” a thinly disguised and actually poorly informed opinion of one of its writers.  I appreciate that Ms. Lee would come on to defend her piece but this issue is too important to leave to the “fact checkers” who aren’t actually checking facts:

* * * * * * * * *

HH: Now why do you call it a zombie claim? Because every naval expert I’ve talked to believes we’re in a crisis when it comes to ship count and strategic ability to project force, every single one. And as I read your piece, I didn’t actually find anyone disagreeing with Lindsey Graham or Scott Walker.

MYHL: Well, the zombie claim is sort of a reader-friendly way to describe that this is something that had been talked about in the past, and that it had been challenged in the past as well. And you know, we sort of use it to say hey, you know, we’ve been there before, we’ll say it again. So that’s sort of a reader-friendly way to put it that way. You know, I don’t think it’s that people disagree necessarily with the claim that there needs to be more ships, or that the current fleet is not sufficient compared to what the combatant commanders say they need. But it’s, again, going back to the idea that you know, the needs of, the need and capability of ships evolve over time. So to compare the number of ships in 2015 versus the number of ships in 1915, ’16, ’17 or in the 1980s is just not an apples to apples comparison.

HH: Now I’m going to disagree with you. I want to be respectful here, but I was around in 1980, and when President Reagan campaigned for a 600 ship Navy, he was saying we need a much larger Navy to meet a strategic challenge. When you quote Lindsey Graham and Scott Walker today, and George Pataki said to me last hour, they’re saying we’ve given away strategic advantage. So I think it is apples to apples, and I’d go specifically to, for example, are you familiar with the Ohio Class submarine, Michelle.

MYHL: Um-hmm.

HH: And so do you know how many we had when Ronald Reagan took over?

MYHL: I don’t know the exact figure.

HH: Zero. Zip. He invented them. And so he deployed two dozen of them. Now, they’re all going to age out by 2025-2030.

* * * * * * * *

HH: But isn’t that, what my point is, that’s an editorial judgment. That’s a political opinion. You and I disagree. That’s not a fact, because I think we should use the 600 ship Navy, because that was Reagan’s way of saying strategic deficit, we have…the ocean hasn’t gotten smaller, Michelle. We need a lot of ship bottoms out there. Maybe we don’t need 600, but we need a whole lot more than we’ve got. We’ve got a strategic deficit. Now you might disagree with me on that. But when you do fact checking, my problem with this is, is you’re asserting that they lied when you use Pinocchio. And they didn’t lie. You just disagree, and perhaps they have a knowledge advantage over you, for example, as with regards to the Ohio Class submarines or aircraft carriers or ship bottoms. Is that not a legitimate point of view for me to have?

MYHL: Well, I don’t think this has anything to do with my personal point of view. That’s not where I’m coming at this from. You know, to a certain extent, when you give a Pinocchio rating, you’re going to disagree. You and I are going to disagree. Other people and I will probably disagree. But you try to assess it on a consistent level using the same standards that you have done before. And that’s all I did in this case.

HH: But…

MYHL: And you know, no worries. If Hillary repeats a lie that Obama used in the last campaign, we’ll be consistent with her as well.

HH: No, but that’s not, the point is if you were wrong four years ago, you’re still wrong today. And to assert Pinocchios is to assert they’re lying, isn’t it?

MYHL: That it’s not the truth.

HH: And it is. And what Walker and Graham said is the truth. So I just think you’re editorializing under the guise of fact checking, and it’s a strategic, this is very important stuff, right? Our naval strength is very important. Should the Post be editorializing as opposed to just putting it on the opinion page, which I wouldn’t mind if you wanted to disagree and say hey, we’re not that small. That would be fine. But I mean, to argue Pinocchios, you’re putting it in a different category, aren’t you?

MYHL: I don’t think so. You know, I don’t agree with that. I’m not here to editorialize. I’m not trying to opine. I am trying to do my job of putting these numbers into context, trying to shed extra information to put them into context, and that’s what I aimed to do.

HH: I appreciate you coming on, Michelle Ye Hee Lee. Come back again. I love talking to Dan Balz and Philip Rucker, but I, this is a swing and a miss. I’d have to give you four Pinocchios on this story, but that would be my opinion, not a fact. Michelle Ye Hee Lee, thank you.

Read the whole thing — it’s a vivid reminder of the declining level of MSM journalism, partisanship in the guise of “objectivity” (On her linked-in page, Lee describes one of her influences as Arianna Huffington), and that every GOP presidential candidate is running against both the Democrat candidates, and their operatives with bylines.

“Exclusive: Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audit for other errors,” says a Reuters headline today. Errors?

Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.

The foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny in recent weeks. Republican critics say the foundation makes Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, vulnerable to undue influence. Her campaign team calls these claims “absurd conspiracy theories.”

Damn those crazy right-wing conspiracy-obsessed nutjobs at the New York Times!

In a Fox News preview of “The Tangled Clinton Web,” a New York Times reporter accused the Clinton Foundation of lying to her about a meeting Bill Clinton had with Kazatomprom officials regarding the sale of uranium to Russia.

“Frank Giustra arranged for officials to go to Bill Clinton’s house in Chappaqua,” reporter Jo Becker said.

“When I first contacted the Clinton Foundation, they denied any such meeting ever took place. And when we told them we have already talked to the head, who not only told us all about the meeting but actually has a picture of him and Bill at the home, that he proudly displays on his office wall, they then acknowledge the meeting had taken place.”

Becker’s scathing report based off of allegations in the book Clinton Cash found that the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in return for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approving the transaction of American uranium into Russian hands.

And now back to the Reuters article, already in progress:

For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off* from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.

Those entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars toward the foundation’s work on climate change and economic development through this three-year period. Those governments were identified on the foundation’s annually updated donor list, along with broad indications of how much each had cumulatively given since they began donating.

And of course, Politico’s Glenn Thrush is eager to provide the dopey pro-Hillary spin:

Badass! Meanwhile, at the New York Post, John Podhoretz spots the return of a golden oldie from the 1990s. Right on cue, “The ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ is back,” courtesy of Team Hillary:

That was the phrase Hillary Clinton herself used to describe the villainous puppet masters behind the Monica Lewinsky scandal back in 1998. And now, her camp has decided to reanimate this ludicrous bogeyman from the days when pets.com was the talk of Wall Street to combat new allegations of Clintonian malfeasance — allegations the substance of which she and we don’t even yet know.

The material dug up by the conservative writer Peter Schweizer for his new book, “Clinton Cash,” is credible enough to have led several news organizations not normally friendly to the right (The New York Times and The Washington Post) to strike deals with Schweizer and his publisher to share and independently substantiate some of its charges.

This a novel arrangement — and the imprimatur of news organizations that liberals like — has clearly frightened the Clintonians in a way past negative books did not.

Naturally, ’90s-era archliberal Vermont governor turned would 2004 presidential candidate Howard Dean was happy to play along with the meme on MSNBC, but received pushback from a curious source:

Even Mika Brzezinski appeared unconvinced by Dean’s line of argumentation when he refused to say that the optics of this scandal should have led Bill Clinton to cancel a speech in Moscow for which he was compensated to the tune of half a million dollars. The old slur centering on the notion that a vast conspiracy was afoot to discredit the Clintons no longer has legs. Perhaps that is because the Clintons have done so much in the intervening decades to demonstrate that they don’t need help from a shadowy cabal in order to disgrace themselves. Whatever the reason, the press seems disinclined to help Hillary Clinton cast herself as a victim as more and more allegations involving her improper conduct as secretary of state dominate the headlines.

Exit quote:

And it’s a test of how badly the MSM want to continue posing as Hillary’s palace guard, as well.

* A dramatic fall-off? Um, try again Reuters:

“There is something to be said for the warm cocoon of academia, and its ability to draw out the true thoughts of radicals,” Jorge Bonilla writes at NewsBusters. “Univision News President and Fusion CEO Isaac Lee’s recent presentation at the University of Texas at Austin was certainly no exception:”

Lee’s eye-popping remarks should serve as a timely reality check for conservatives looking at how to factor in Univision as part of their Hispanic outreach/inclusion strategies. During a Q&A with NYU professor Jay Rosen, Lee was asked about Univision’s “theory of trust” as related to the network’s impartiality and news coverage. Here is the crux of the Univision News President’s answer in all its glory.

“I think if you are an American journalist covering the Second World War, it’s not a problem for you to want the Nazis to lose. And I don’t think you need to be saying ‘Well, you know, the Allied Expeditionary Force Commander says this, and on the other hand the Fuhrer says that.’ I think it’s ok to understand that sometimes you have to be on the right side of the issues in history,” said Lee.

Strangely enough, I find that Lee’s reductio ad Hitlerum of those who are ideologically opposed to Univision’s agenda is both horrifying and refreshingly honest. Conservatives should know exactly where they stand in terms of what coverage to expect on the issues — immigration and beyond — and should conduct themselves accordingly.

Click over to see the video of Lee’s paranoid style* in all its glory, and his non-sequitur of a reply — you can deem yourself as being “on the right side of history” — no matter how big a cliche that phrase is — and still report to the best of your ability both sides of a story, as most American news agencies did during WWII. But sadly, Lee’s far from the only prominent socialist at a national TV network who paradoxically views his opponents as National Socialists. In 1964, Walter Cronkite and Daniel Schorr infamously smeared Barry Goldwater, descended from Russian-Jewish immigrants, as a crypto-Nazi,  a disgusting slur magnified by the power of midcentury mass media, a period when CBS represented well over a third of TV news coverage, given ABC’s comparatively anemic ratings at the time. In 1996, Ted Turner, likely terrified of the potential ratings success of Fox News (and justifiably so in retrospect), described the network to the L.A. Times by saying that “The late Führer, the first thing he did, like all dictators, was take over the press and use it to further his agenda. Basically, that is what Rupert Murdoch does with his media.”

More recently, the host of the CBS Evening News, picking up where Uncle Walter left off, when asked why he didn’t feature both sides of the global warming debate in his presentation responded,  “If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” (Wow, what a terrible thing to imply about Barack Obama!)

And just today, MSNBC* ran the photo on the right-hand side of this tweet to smear Scott Walker:

You stay classy, old media.

* And don’t get Jay Rosen started on news media figures he disagrees with, of course.

** And speaking of MSNBC

…By continuing to reduce the noxious emissions of state government:

No seriously — if you’re going to make the environmentalist catch-22 argument as Democrats John Kerry and Claire McCaskill have, that a shrinking economy is good for the environment because of less carbon emissions, then you have to agree that the same holds true for shrinking the government as well. Radical environmentalism isn’t my religion, but the Book of Saul demands that its practitioners stay faithful to their own tenets.

“Contra Mother Jones, though: I don’t think that Scott Walker deliberately set out to lay off those folks on Earth Day itself,” Moe Lane posits.

“Instead, I simply think that Scott Walker doesn’t give a flying leap about Earth Day one way, or the other. Which is, frankly, more entertaining.” As Jonthan Chait’s bete noire would say, heh, indeed.™

Certainly, Walker’s doing more for the environment than this plutocratic carbon-destroying One Percenter.



That level of carbon waste is so bad, Hollywood director Joss Whedon is pondering if he would withhold penicillin from the president should, Gaia forbid, he become ill. Particularly since Mr. Obama has been jetting away on “Earth Day” since the very start of his administration:

Update: I don’t think I need to remind most regular Ed Driscoll.com readers of this factoid, but for those newly tuning in:


Donna Brazile, attempting to praise Hillary, commits a Kinsley-esque gaffe that inadvertently winds up describing two centuries of artistic “progress” instead:

It’s low-key and voter-focused — solid, but not exciting. And according to Democrats close to Clinton and her team, that was more or less the point for phase one. Excitement can wait, they said in interviews last week, so long as she proves — as her campaign aides have repeated again and again — that this time, she is taking “nothing for granted.”

“There’s a rhythm. She’s starting off like Beethoven, with melodies and chords that people understand. But she’s got to end up like Beyoncé,” said Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist who worked on both of Bill Clinton’s presidential campaigns.

As Andrew Stiles asks at the Washington Free Beacon, “What does this even mean?”

Beethoven is the boring simpleton that everyone can relate to, and Beyoncé’s expertly packaged quadruple-bylined pop hits are the sophisticated catalog of musical elites? And that’s a good thing? Who knows? A much better analogy for Hillary’s efforts to interact with everyday Americans and prove she’s one of them would be Beethoven performing in front of a stadium full of Beyoncé fans, or perhaps Hillary herself trying to learn to choreography to “Crazy in Love.”

Beyond the backwards “progress” of commercial music from Beethoven to Beyoncé, there’s the candidate herself. In 2007 and 2008, Obama was comparatively young, fresh, new, and undefined, a self-described “blank screen,” an “exotic who says nothing” as one Democrat operative with a byline wrote to bolster the kickoff of his presidential run. The rock star comparisons could work and helped to explain away his domestic political inexperience, and as we now know, his unpreparedness to be a world leader. In sharp contrast, comparing Hillary to an energetic 33-year old musician-dancer is, well, quite a stretch, unless top scientists can make remarkable progress with titanium exoskeleton systems in the next six months.

But in any case, is the typical rock star, having guzzled a half-gallon of scotch or cognac and a multitude of white powdery substances really who you want in charge of the federal government, let alone answering the phone at 3:00 in the morning?  (And we all know how well Hillary actually did during that moment.)

Donald Trump is berrrry berrrry angry with Jonah Goldberg for some reason. Perhaps violating Garry Trudeau’s self-imposed rule for criticism, Jonah is punching down — far down — when he writes back:

Still, that was four years ago and my most recent comment about Trump was four months ago. A bit tongue-in-cheek, I called him the “bane of humanity” and chastised the media, including some of my colleagues at Fox News, for taking him so seriously.

I guess Trump’s Olympian self-regard can lead him to never forget a slight, harbor grudges against critics for a very long time, and drive him to engage in childish name-calling late into the night, which are obviously some of the attributes we all look for in a presidential candidate. A huge ego and a penchant for spite is totally the kind of guy we should entrust the nuclear football to.

Still, I take this all very seriously. First of all, I love National Review. And while it seems like Mr. Trump is under the impression that I am somehow running the magazine, maybe he knows something I don’t. After all, any man who could bankrupt a casino knows more about bankruptcy than I could ever learn.

Trump also knows more about self-promotion than almost anybody alive, Lady Gaga included. So he must have some kind of plan here. And if his goal is to get people talking about him — and that’s always one of his goals — it’s already succeeded. But the overwhelming reaction on Twitter has been very negative (thanks for the support folks). And if the real aim is a run for the GOP nomination, I’m not sure I understand why he wants to arouse the animosity of not just me and Steve, but Michelle Malkin, George Will, and Bret Baier (while praising MSNBC’s Ed Schultz):

* * * * * *

Again, if Trump is a tenth as brilliant as he says he is, there’s a really clever scheme hiding amidst all of this juvenile whining, like a shiny pony obscured by piles of manure. The thing is, I’m too dumb to see it. All I see is a guy who’s been preening for attention with bogus talk about running for president for years who’s deeply offended that nobody believes him or cares anymore.

If you followed politics in the 1980s and early 1990s, you invariably saw third or fourth (or fifth) down on the quadrennial presidential ballot, the name “Harold Stassen,” whom Wikipedia describes thusly:

Harold Edward Stassen (April 13, 1907 – March 4, 2001) was the 25th Governor of Minnesota from 1939 to 1943. After service in World War II, he was president of the University of Pennsylvania from 1948 to 1953. In popular culture, his name has become most identified with his fame as a perennial candidate for other offices, most notably and frequently President of the United States.

* * * * * *

Stassen was later best known for being a perennial candidate for the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States, seeking it 10 times between 1940 and 2000 (1940, 1944, 1948, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992). He never won the Republican nomination, much less the presidency; in fact, after 1952, he never even came close, but continued to campaign actively and seriously for President until just a year before his death.

And in later years, Stassen’s thinning hair was covered by an increasingly hirsute otter renting space atop his cranium, which made the products produced by Morrie’s Wig Shop in Goodfellas look subtle and realistic. Coincidence?


“Hillary Clinton admitted today that she was ‘surprised’ to learn that the people who told her small businesses have struggled in recent years were actually correct,” Joel Gehrke writes at NRO:

Clinton noted that small business creation has “stalled out,” to her chagrin. “I was very surprised to see that when I began to dig into it,” she said while campaigning in New Hampshire. “Because people were telling me this as I traveled around the country the last two years, but I didn’t know what they were saying and it turns out that we are not producing as many small businesses as we use to.”

The struggles of small businesses during President Obama’s administration are hardly a new subject on the campaign trail. Mitt Romney raised the issue throughout the 2012 presidential election.

“Small businesses lack the confidence they need to expand and hire new workers, and the President’s looming tax hikes are threatening to destroy another 700,000 jobs,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in September of 2012, for instance.

In a statement, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus mocked Clinton for expressing such surprise, pointing to reports of the cost increases Obamacare has imposed on small businesses.

”At every turn, Hillary Clinton has supported top-down Washington-driven policies that have stacked the deck against small businesses,” Priebus said. “Hillary Clinton can’t possibly be a champion for everyday Americans when she doesn’t understand their most basic economic concerns and was ‘surprised’ to learn that small businesses are struggling.”

Not that Hillary actually cares; last year she blurted out this pathetic Elizabeth Warren meets Obama “You didn’t build that” imitation:

“Don’t let anyone tell that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” Hillary Clinton proclaimed to loud applause at a political rally in Boston on October 24.

“You know that old theory — trickle-down economics,” she continued. “That has been tried. That has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”

I agree; trickling-down money from DC to failed corporatist ventures like Solyndra has been a disaster, but her previous boss wanted to “spread the wealth around,” to coin a phrase. Another “risky tax scheme,” as Al Gore would say, inasmuch as taxpayers were on the hook when it went bust, was forcing banks to trickle-down mortgages to credit risks who should have never owned homes in the first place; that was her largely her husband’s idea, a ticking fiscal time-bomb that blew up spectacularly in the fall of 2008:

Exit quote, from the late Tony Snow in 1999:

When told [in 1994, that Hillarycare, the prototype for Obamacare] could bankrupt small businesses, Mrs. Clinton sighed, “I can’t be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America.” When a woman complained that she didn’t want to get shoved into a plan not of her choosing, the first lady lectured, “It’s time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals.”

Hey, that last sentence sounds even better in the original German: “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz.”


“Hilarious: Clown de Blasio in Secret Bid to be Dems’ 2016 Nominee,” the Jammie Wearing Fools blog notes, begging, “Please, please, please make this happen:”

Despite repeated claims to the contrary, Mayor de Blasio is positioning himself to be the leftist “progressive” alternative to Wall Street-friendly Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president, a national party operative told The Post.

The progressive alternative to the far left Granny Clinton? How can you go any further left? Are they telling us she’s moderate or something? Well, how would anyone know when we don’t know her positions, she’s avoiding interviews like the plague and now on Day 8 of her campaign she hasn’t taken a question from the media.

De Blasio’s hope, the operative said, is a “draft de Blasio’’ movement will develop among progressive activists over the next several months that will lead to the mayor being able to defeat Clinton in the primary elections next year in much the same way leftist Sen. George McGovern successfully challenged the initially front-running establishment Democratic candidate, Sen. Edmund Muskie, more than 40 years ago.

And that worked out swimmingly, with McGovern winning one state.

Though as JWF writes, “Dude really needs to put down the bong. Well, we’ll give him this: He’d probably be willing to sit down for an interview instead of running from the media.” (And this week, Hillary has even more reasons to run from the media.)

C’mon Bane, steal the keys to Hillary’s Scooby Do Mystery Machine and make a run for it — the fire rises, my friend!

How bad was Hillary’s campaign rollout? So bad that even the Politico’s Glenn Thrush is forced to write this as his lede today:

When I asked one top staffer on Hillary Clinton’s campaign to pick the high point of her overwhelmingly understated 2016 campaign kickoff in Iowa, the person paused for a moment, then shot back – “The Aaron Hernandez verdict!”

The former New England Patriot’s conviction on murder charges punted Clinton’s two-day pastoral tour of the critical caucus state off of cable news, a blessing to a campaign that craved the softest of soft launches. Wednesday’s legal drama, coupled with the Monday media blitz by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio — who wanted to soak up the spotlight Clinton preferred to avoid — were welcome diversions for a team premiering not just a candidate but an updated approach to the oldest Clinton problem of all: dealing with people like me.

Democrat lackeys armed with steno pads who describe Hillary’s illegal email server as “badass”? That’s setting the bar rather low. Thrush is perhaps the ultimate example of what Glenn Reynolds would call a Democrat operative with a byline. In November of 2013, he feigned boredom during the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, and last year pretended, “I don’t get the furor over the [Wendy] Davis ad,” in which the would-be governor of Texas, flailing badly in the polls, mocked her opponent’s wheelchair. He admitted in his article today, “full disclosure: I attended both of the pre-launch off-the-record sessions Clinton’s team held with reporters.”

Which may be why Thrush eventually reverts to vintage form:

One week in, the campaign’s day-to-day discipline mirrors Palmieri’s personal style. In 2008, there was a wholesale ban on “process” stories –- the behind-the-scenes anecdote-crammed tales that are the lifeblood of political reporting in POLITICO and elsewhere – but Palmieri has instructed her staff to cooperate whenever practical. Her goal isn’t necessarily to reveal the inner workings of the campaign but to “demystify” them a bit, according to an aide, so that reporters don’t interpret every move Clinton makes as part of some vast behind-closed-doors conspiracy.

There’s also a conscious attempt to humanize Clinton’s staff to counter perceptions, promoted in the conservative and mainstream media, that she surrounds herself with sharp-elbowed political mercenaries enlisted in a dark quest for power. “She is surrounding herself with scrappy, battle-tested operatives and advisers who work hard and run campaigns like they’re 10 points behind, even if they aren’t,” read one of the campaign-generated memos issued to Clinton’s media surrogates, sent to me by a senior Democrat.

I love that line about countering perceptions “in the conservative and mainstream media” — instead of writing “near-universal perception” regarding Hillary’s paranoid staffers or something similar. Who doesn’t believe that — the far left, the folks who view MSNBC and the New York Times as being too conservative, and the sort of folks who in past days would go on Nation magazine Soviet Union river cruises aren’t exactly enamored of Hillary either.

More from Thrush:

Reporters weren’t told about her van trek until it had already started, and when the press pack arrived Clinton waved off tough questions about her recent conversion to the cause of gay marriage. Then her campaign released a carefully edited video of a voter thanking her for backing same-sex marriage at a Council Bluffs roundtable that had been closed to the media.

When NBC’s Andrea Mitchell confronted Palmieri about the candidate’s unwillingness to answer reporters’ questions about gay marriage in Iowa, the communications director gave little ground — telling Mitchell pointedly Clinton had “answered that question the day before” — prompting some reporters to remark how little things had changed since the last campaign.

Veteran public speaker Cavett Robert, the founder of the National Speakers Association, once advised clients in his profession, “Don’t be in too much of a hurry to promote, until you get good. Otherwise you just speed up the rate at which the world finds out you’re no good.”

But at age 67, with a lifetime at the center of Democrat power politics, six years to analyze what went wrong in 2007 and 2008, and knowing she has grudging, if near universal support from the palace guard MSM, shouldn’t Hillary — and her campaign — be good at this stuff?

Hillary: Bill’s After-Party Cleanup Woman

April 19th, 2015 - 12:39 pm

“Watching Hillary Clinton reach out and touch ordinary Americans is excruciating. In working a crowd of regular folks, Hillary is fingernails on the blackboard in a pantsuit,” Deborah C. Tyler writes at the American Thinker, in an effort to understand why Hillary seems like the human version* of the “uncanny valley” principle that posits the more lifelike the robot, the creepier it seems:

Bill Clinton is a famously gifted retail campaigner. A friend of mine who met President Clinton and spoke with him for a few minutes says he made her feel like the only person in the room. His brash presentfulness is a skill especially valued in a leader. But President Clinton’s ability to connect to and take in the people around him is a double-edged rapier, with a predatory blade. His natural ability to connect allows him to select those who will benefit him but also cull the vulnerable from the herd for his nefarious purposes. We know he consumes and abuses women around him, offenses of impulsive domination and aggression. Hillary has her own history of ethical, legal and financial scandal. But the scandals that have stuck to her are the stuff of malfeasant calculation, monies and memos appearing and disappearing in wrongful ways. Hillary’s scandals are the machinations that leave a paper trail (or a no e-mail trail), not the wreckages of foolhardy moments.

In driving the Clinton franchise to the highest levels of power on earth, Hillary has wretchedly compensated for her husband’s porous boundaries by constructing impenetrable walls around herself. As he became more reckless, she must have become more wary. Many years ago Hillary accepted the job of being Bills’ after-party cleanup crew. In the service of their upward march, she had no choice. Many people think Hillary Clinton is a psychopath without a conscience who cares nothing about her husband’s betrayals on a personal level. That formulation does not seem supported by what has leaked out about the Clinton’s relationship. It is more likely that she is a wellspring of anger hiding behind a smile you can hang laundry on.

What is certain is she spent years mopping up and deodorizing Bill’s messes. Bill’s affairs with and attacks on women have been more destructive to Hillary’s psychological integrity and self-worth than some miraculous hundred grand showing up in the Clinton cookie jar have been to him. His sexist violence strikes at the heart of who she claims to be, and continues to damage her basic sense of security and candidacy. For forty years, a room full of strangers is where the party starts for Bill, and where the messes are made for Hillary. For forty years every time Hillary entered a room full of strangers she had her bucket and mop. A bimbo splatter might be found anywhere. For forty years a room full of strangers, interacting in an unscripted moment, has been Hillary’s worst nightmare.

And needless to say, Hillary is tied to Bill because of his administration’s policies — “Hillary Clinton in 2002: Yes to Taking Out Saddam Hussein, No to Gay Marriage.” I wonder if any on the left remember back as far as 1998?

Related: And speaking of full circle, “Bill Clinton wipes tears from his eyes and hails Oklahoma as ‘an example for the world’ on 20th anniversary of Oklahoma City bombing.” But in order to position herself for 2016, Hillary cheerfully went to work for a president whose entry into politics began in the living room of the man who bombed the Pentagon.

* Of course, that depends on how extensive the exo-skeletal network is; for the sake of argument, I’m willing to assume there’s a least a human brain connected to all the titanium gears and circuitry.

Trigger Warning

April 19th, 2015 - 10:59 am

“Granny Get Your Gun,” shouts Maureen Dowd in her latest column — two guesses as to the identity of the granny she’s referring to.

I await the condemnations from CNN, the National Journal and MSNBC for the violent eliminationist rhetoric contained within MoDo’s headline.

And I can’t wait to read Paul Krugman rail against such language appearing in his own newspaper.

(Oh right — for Democrats, the party motto is always, “it’s different when we do it.”)

Related: Speaking of flashbacks to the left’s McCarthy-meets-Orwell wilding phase in early 2011, “Will there be a National Conversation after environmentalist shoots energy worker?”


“The media’s ageist hypocrisy” is explore by Noah Rothman at Hot Air, who notes that “Rubio has so far been able to deftly navigate around the landmines clumsily set by the press on his pathway toward the Republican Party’s presidential nomination:”

Since revealing his candidacy on Monday, Rubio has subjected himself to interviews with news outlets that are probably quite skeptical of Republicans in general, let alone a candidate as unapologetically hawkish as himself. From NPR, to Univision, to a variety of impromptu press gaggles, Rubio’s openness with the media contrasts greatly with Hillary Clinton’s stage managed presence.

Rubio managed to avoid cementing the impression that he is “the candidate of yesterday” on the issue of gay marriage when he told Univision’s Jorge Ramos without hesitation that he would attend the same-sex wedding of a hypothetical loved one. Democrats will find that this response complicates their mission to frame Rubio’s opposition to same-sex marriage as an outgrowth of personal animus toward gays and lesbians.

On Friday, Rubio defused another bomb set by the political press on the matter of his age. Specifically, whether or not he is experienced enough to lead the nation:

Very smart not making the obvious JFK reference, as it would offer a chance for a reporter looking to play the gotcha game to trot out the Lloyd Bentsen versus Quayle quote — though I hope all GOP candidates have their comeback ready, to laugh and reply,  “Actually, Bentsen didn’t know JFK very well, they weren’t friends, and it was simply a cheap shot to score debating points, just as you’re trying to do now, [Insert name of DNC-MSM interviewer here].”

Of course, that doesn’t mean that others can’t make the comparison for him, as both Charles Krauthammer, and Roger L. Simon, our own Maximum Pajamahadeen Emeritus, did earlier this week.

And praises Common Core, Sean Davis writes at the Federalist:

During her first official campaign event in Iowa earlier this week, former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton praised Common Core and referred to children’s education as a “non-family enterprise.” Clinton’s controversial statements about education, which were captured by C-SPAN, came in response to a question from a participant about how to offer a quality education throughout the U.S.

Just a reminder that Hillary’s “It Takes a Village” theme from the 1990s is her polite and folksy way of saying that in her socialist worldview, your children belong to the state, not to you.

In other Hillary news, as she likes to say, she’s exceedingly happy to “take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” And/or her own good. Does that include someone else’s handicapped parking spot?

(Perhaps though, owners of personal exoskeleton suits are granted exemptions under the ADA.)


The cultural gap between those who vote in the Republican presidential primaries and those who cover the candidates in those primaries is now a chasm.

One by one, the media covering the Republican presidential candidates attach some quickly assembled defining flaw to each candidate: “Rand Paul has a temper problem with the media”; “Ted Cruz is an unelectable extremist”; “Scott Walker’s lack of a completed college degree is likely to be a major problem.”

All of these flaws are in the eye of the media beholder. Ordinary Americans don’t particularly care if Rand Paul is brusque with interviewers; they have a low opinion of journalists already. Ted Cruz’s ideas are much less “extreme” outside of newsrooms. And only about one-third of Americans have a bachelor’s degree, making Scott Walker closer to the “average American” than everyone else in the field.

A lot of members of the media who are covering the GOP presidential candidates have exceptionally little in common with the voters who will select the Republican nominee. Thus, when the Republican candidates make their pitch to grassroots conservatives, the hot-take instant analysis from the big media voices usually concludes that the pitch was a belly flop. But the GOP candidates aren’t trying to win votes in the New York and D.C. newsrooms, and in a spectacular failure of empathy and understanding, a lot of reporters simply can’t grasp the hopes, fears, and priorities of GOP-leaning voters in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina . . . and Tennessee. [Site of last week's NRA convention in Nashville, which Geraghty attended -- Ed]

“The Skewed View of America Inside the Progressive Bubble,” Jim Geraghty, National Review Online, Monday.


I’ve been saying for years that people “should read the newspaper upside down” — that is, if they want to know the untold story, they should read the comments beneath online newspaper pieces.

The contrast between the elite liberal worldview of the paper, and that of the everyman reader below, is hilariously revealing. Occasionally, commenters provide both eye witness accounts, clarifications, contrary statistics — and a healthy dose of “ohferchrissakes” irritation at the latest pieties.

Now, do I think turning these comments into Important News Stories is lazy, agenda-driven and comical? Yes, but so is most of what “newspapers” do anyhow, and always have.

Those comments — and the tweets on “Black Twitter” and the crazy conversations over at World Star Hiphop or the smart ones at Reddit, mean _something_.

—Regular PJM contributor Kathy Shaidle, at her Five Feet of Fury blog, today.

Hangover: Last year, Michelle Fields interviewed young MSM-cocooned low-information Hillary supporters for PJTV. As the Internet cliche goes, “you won’t believe!!!” what one student says is Hillary’s biggest accomplishment:

Ambassador Chris Stevens could not be reached for comment.

Today on MSNBC-DNC, “President Barack Obama’s top adviser, Valerie Jarrett, went around the table and kissed reporters before an interview this morning on MNSBC’s Morning Joe. The moment was briefly captured on live television before the network cut away to a commercial break,” Daniel Halper writes at the Weekly Standard:

Jarrett’s first step is toward the BBC’s Katty Kay. “Hi, there,” Jarrett’s heard whispering as she leans in for a hug and kiss. Kay is “Anchor for BBC World News America in Washington.”

Then the senior White House adviser just as warmly greets Cokie Roberts, a National Public Radio contirbutor.

As the segment heads toward a commercial break, host Joe Scarborough can be heard saying, “Valerie, come give me a hug.”

As the Obama administration enters into its twilight phase (and yes, it feels so good to type those words), it’s nice to see their relationship with their close-circuit talking points distribution system ending the same way it began. Recall that during the administration’s first year when Morning Joe — which holds itself out as being co-hosted by MSNBC’s token Republican — read a memo on air “correcting” a segment immediately after it had been emailed to the show by the Obama White House. Who knows — perhaps by Valerie herself?

Back in 2009, Fox News’ revelations led to disgraced Obama “Green” “Czar” Van Jose given his walking papers by the White House for harboring, as Brit Hume said at the time, “views that were out there where the buses don’t run.” Hume responded to the administration’s boilerplate attacks on Fox by asking, “One wonders how our colleagues at CNN and elsewhere like being patted on the head and given the seal of approval by the White House.”

Forward! We’ve progressed in the last six years from head pats to pecks on the cheek. But it’s not like we weren’t warned in 2008 that Democrats with and without bylines shared a mutual lovefest:

And the love goes on as we’ve seen, with DNC stenographers lapping up Hillary’s prefabricated “Scooby Do” tour of mid-priced Mexican-themed chain restaurants in the American midwest:

They could kiss themselves over how good.

‘How to Make America Disappear’

April 14th, 2015 - 5:10 pm

Of course there has been a ‘libertarian country’ before,” Robert Tracinski writes at the Federalist.

“We’re it. Or at least we were, for roughly the first 150 years of our existence—which, far from being some sort of fairy tale or collective delusion, was probably the most successful period ever in the history of any nation.”

As Tracinski notes:

I’ve recently been seeing the revival of an odd line of argument I hear from the left now and again. In response to the launch of Rand Paul’s presidential campaign, for example, I heard it said that Paul’s vision for a much smaller government, for eliminating so many agencies and regulations, was a fantasy of a “libertarian country” that has never existed. The implication is that radically smaller government is a new idea that has never been tried.

Similarly, in response to my suggestion that maybe we should stop basing our government on massive, omnipresent coercion of the citizenry, the Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent replied:

Yeah, unstopped growth of socialist government usually ends, rather painfully for all concerned:

But I’m sure it will work this time.

Entirely unrelated tweets:


Ed Driscoll.com Regrets the Error

April 14th, 2015 - 1:22 pm

A year ago, in a post titled “Why Democrats Call Americans Racist,” we speculated:

As in the 2010 midterms, expect the madness from the left to ramp up exponentially between now and November. They’re just getting started.

(And then presumably some time between mid-November and the start of the new year, the left will begin declaring half of America sexist. Unexpectedly.)

We apologize for getting the timing wrong; ABC’s Cokie Roberts waited until yesterday to declare half of her network’s viewers to be sexist:

According to ABC’s Cokie Roberts, hints that Hillary Clinton may be unlikable can be traced back to sexism. The veteran journalist appeared on Good Morning America, Tuesday, to promote her new book, but the conversation veered into a discussion of 2016. Citing an unnamed poll, Roberts referenced “research that shows that a woman who is strong and powerful is seen as not friendly and empathetic.”

The journalist added, “Here we are in 2015…and we still have to deal with that.” She lamented, “[Clinton] is running against herself.” Roberts marveled, “She’s trying to figure out how to show people how she’s a warm and friendly person.”

Astonishingly, even NBC’s Andrea Mitchell can see what’s going on with with the media and Hillary, when asked by Luke Russert, who only has his NBC gig due to his father’s last name why the MSM is fawning over a woman who is only running for the presidency because she has her husband’s last name:

“What do you make of this rollout, the Scooby-Doo van going from New York to Iowa, just stopping at it seems random gas stations along the way?”

“This is their attempt to show her as the average person, relating to average everyday people as did her video, trying to show she can cross the country,” Mitchell responded, referring to Clinton’s 2016 announcement video.

“It’s a deliberate, very well-orchestrated attempt,” she continued. “Everybody in the media are being used in this regard.”

C’mon, for once, tell the truth DNC-MSM: Sure it feels dirty — but it’s that good, sexy warm kind of dirty, isn’t it, MSM?

Oh, and speaking of sexism — I don’t recall the MSM losing too much sleep over this in 2008: