We live in an age of narratives, not news. The narrative in the mainstream media is that Hillary Clinton is “inevitable” as the Democratic nominee, with supporting polling data from the New York Times (that oversamples Democrats and under-samples Republicans) manufactured to support the narrative. But the real news, what people need to know, is that Hillary looks like a disaster-in-the-making, with very poor campaign skills and an indefensible record overseeing foreign policy disasters that have exploded in the face of Obama.
But some in the mainstream media are beginning to shed their reluctance to say that the empress has no clothes. Check out this editorial from the Miami Herald (hat tip: Jerry Schmitt)
The aura of inevitability in which Hillary Clinton basked for so long has smacked up against the reality of the rough-and-tumble of a presidential campaign. And both she and the Democratic Party are worse off. (snip)
…it’s no longer too early for Mrs. Clinton to make the case that she’s hungry for this job, that she’s the better choice for the position. So far, though, she hasn’t really moved the needle of her poll numbers since declaring her candidacy. And despite the intimate, unrecorded chats Mrs. Clinton has held with small groups of voters, her 27-day silence let others fill the void and tell the public who she is, and mostly in negative terms. (snip)
…Mrs. Clinton comes with baggage, the contents of which should be examined, explained. The dubious sources of donations to the Clinton Foundation, for instance, are fair game.
The problem is:
…the Democratic bench isn’t very deep, and that stands to cause enduring damage to the rich mix of ideas and ideology that has propelled American politics for centuries now.
If tomorrow Mrs. Clinton decided, “You know, maybe I don’t want to be president after all,” who would step into the void? So far, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has a large, cultish following that could translate into a credible, popular campaign. Joe Biden? Experienced and personable, but like Mrs. Clinton, and even Jeb Bush on the Republican side, there’s a freshness lacking, though it’s not a deal-killer.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is in there pitching, and former Maryland Gov. Mike O’Malley is exploring. But where the country is only benefiting from the scrappy fighters on the Republican side, from the credible to the far-out, Mrs. Clinton and her party lack that “oomph.” They must keep in mind that inevitability is hardly a winning strategy.
Category Archives: Cronyism
Jennifer Rubin notes this morning that Hillary’s obviously terrible campaign skills are getting noticed in the mainstream media. It’s so bad that Hillary is actually going to launch her campaign a second time next month with a big public rally.
It is said that a lot of second- and third-tier Republican candidates (Carson, Huckabee, Fiorina, etc) are only running to enable them to get nice post-campaign media contracts from Fox News, and in a similar vein I’ve been wondering whether Hillary’s entire candidacy isn’t basically the same thing, just on the Clinton scale. And apparently I’m not the only one thinking this.
My new theory is that indeed Hillary wants the nomination primarily for the market value it would confer on Clinton Inc., but that neither she nor Bill would mind her losing because it will cement their stratospheric market value for another decade either way. After all, once Obama becomes an ex-president, he’s going to become the top liberal draw—unless you are the first major party woman nominee for president. And if she happens to win, so much the better for Bill, who can keep charging $500,000 a speech. (What? You think he’ll actually be the “first man” of the nation, taking on some kind of charitable cause like first ladies always have? Do you really not know the Clintons yet?)
Some enterprising reporter should ask whether Bill and Chelsea will continue to make paid speeches if she’s in the White House. If Hillary every answers a media question again.
Dumbfounded Americans UNLOAD on Marie Harf’s unbelievable statement: ‘Iraqi forces held their lines’
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf gave the Iraqi army props following the fall of Ramadi.
Never mind that Iraqi forces cut and ran, surrendering the city to Islamic State militants.
“The Iraqi security forces have held their lines on the outside of the city,” Harf told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Wednesday.
Talk about putting lipstick on a pig, that’s taking spin to a whole new level.
Bloomberg columnist Josh Rogin posted Harf’s comment on Twitter and the reaction indicates that the Obama administration is fooling very few people these days.
The recepients were Jake Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff to then-Secretary of State Clinton, Cheryl Mills, an adviser to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and Counselor and Chief of Staff to the Secretary, and Victoria Jane Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.
“Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait until morning?” Clinton says in the email, time stamped 11:38 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2012.
The email had as its subject line: “Chris Smith.” The murdered ambassador was Chris Stevens.
The Secretary of State didn’t even know the name of the U.S. ambassador to Libya — even after terrorists stormed an American compound and killed him.
The American left has spent the past few weeks trying to tell us that they believe in free speech, but…—and the “but” is that anything that offends the sensibilities of Islamic fanatics is unnecessarily provocative, hateful, and possibly racist. Therefore, such “hate speech” shouldn’t be allowed.
Now they’ve gotten a taste of their own medicine. They tried to censor an anti-censorship event.
This raises a big question, one of the great paradoxes of our era. Why is it that a large segment of left has embraced a code of appeasing “sensitivity” toward Islam—when they are its obvious next victims? Why do they wring their hands over “microagressions,” while urging us not to provoke people who execute homosexuals and throw acid in women’s faces?
They kowtow to Islam precisely because it is a real threat, a macroaggression that trumps all of the microaggressions. So you could say that it is simple cowardice. They protest against people they know are extremely unlikely to harm them, and they shut up about the fanatics who might actually follow through on their threats.
In fact, a running theme of the left’s arguments, repeated with a great deal of apparent sincerity, is the notion that it is irrational to fear Islam, that describing the religion as violent and dangerous is “Islamophobia.” They seem to have largely talked themselves into believing that they have nothing personally to fear from Islam. Jihadists may throw gays off of buildings in Syria, but it can’t happen here.
This is nonsense, of course, but it is revealing of the mindset. They actually talk themselves into believing that “censorship of LGBT artists” is an equal or even greater threat, far more urgent than anything having to do with Islam. For the left, the main source of evil in the world always comes from within America and from within the West, never outside of it.
The left is fundamentally reactionary. It is a reaction against capitalism and against America. The left are defined by what they are against, or more accurately who they hate. So they are drawn to sympathy toward Islam because it is not-us: non-Western, non-American, neither Christian nor a product of the Enlightenment.
Emma Sulkowicz. Lena Dunham. UVA’s “Jackie.” These days you can’t turn around without running into somebody who’s making a false claim of rape to get attention. And our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters applaud them. The truth doesn’t matter. The lives of the falsely accused don’t matter. Only the agenda matters.
If you’re as sick of these liars as I am, this will be a welcome sight:
I don’t know who’s behind the @FakeRape account, but I like his or her style. If the media won’t tell the truth, tell it directly to the people who need to hear it most:
In other Mattress Girl news, she screwed Columbia University really hard by carrying that stupid mattress during graduation. Ashe Schow at the Washington Examiner reports:
Allowing Sulkowicz to carry her mattress may have helped Nungesser’s case in court, as the school made clear that large objects were banned but then did nothing to stop Sulkowicz.
Nungesser’s lawyer, Kimberly Lau, told the Washington Examiner that Columbia’s acceptance of Sulkowicz’s graduation stunt was “absurd” and would help her client’s case.
“This goes beyond mere facilitation; they have now granted a special exception,” Lau said.
I’m curious if this wunderkind will be schlepping this mattress to future job interviews?
A study claiming that gay people advocating for same-sex marriage can change voters’ minds has been retracted due to fraud.
The study was published last December in Science, and received lots of media attention. It found that a 20-minute, one-on-one conversation with a gay political canvasser could steer voters in favor of same-sex marriage. Not only that, but these changed opinions lasted for at least a year and influenced other people in the voter’s household, the study found.
Donald Green, the lead author on the study, retracted it on Tuesday shortly after learning that his co-author, UCLA graduate student Michael LaCour, had faked the results.
“I am deeply embarrassed by this turn of events and apologize to the editors, reviewers, and readers of Science,” Green, a professor of political science at Columbia University, said in his retraction letter to the journal, as posted on the Retraction Watch blog.
Chicago Law Prof on Obama: “Professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified & never attended any of the faculty meetings”
The highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law spoke out on Barack Obama saying, “Professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings”:
I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).