A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
Or we could actually hold the press accountable for pushing gooseshit narratives and falling for access journalism.
Stephen Bannon, the Trump campaign’s new chief executive as of Wednesday, said as much two years ago in emails with Breitbart reporter Matt Boyle. Bannon ran Breitbart at the time, and the two schemed about how to get activists to “turn on the hate” as part of a plan to “burn this bitch down.” The emails, obtained by The Daily Beast, are just another reminder that the Trump campaign’s new management is unlikely to play nice with party leaders.
Bannon pushed for a more scorched-earth approach.
“Leadership are all c--ts,” he wrote. “We should just go buck wild.”
Then he wrote, “Let the grassroots turn on the hate because that’s the ONLY thing that will make them do their duty.”
Boyle concurred.
The Republican establishment must love Bannon becoming a Trump campaign leader.
A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
How wonderful for America that its potential first female president has to be perfect or become a failure. It's like what women run into in any job ever.
I'd put it on the same difficulty scale as being the first black president.
I mean I'm not sure what the point of even discussing this is is the thing.
Like A.) What are we, Clinton's coach?
B.) "Avoid scandals" is kind of yeah okay cool beans.
As president, definitely avoid doing things that later people can say were bad. Sometimes, it makes presidents have a hard time. Also as president, try your hardest not to ever be assassinated, it puts a real crimp in your administration.
No no not just avoid, be squeaky clean oh okay, unlike prior presidents you'll want to be perfect in an indefinable manner.
She's going to be a president of the US. Which means she will take part in some godawful thing or another on a regular basis. When some of these things come to light she will be raked over the coals to a greater or lesser degree. None of this is going to be "the reason she had a tough presidency". It's just going to be the way she exists in the presidency.
A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
Or we could actually hold the press accountable for pushing gooseshit narratives and falling for access journalism.
A world where you can seriously hope for a fundamental shift in a vast and decentralized media apparatus and the way 300 million people interact with it in a way that is to your liking is the same world where Jill Stein can count herself to have a real shot at the presidency.
I think this "I'm helping, I'm just like you!" everyman thing is going to help Trump and will be hammered on all day.
Even though it's ludicrous to have to show up to a disaster I think it's a misstep for Obama or Clinton to not go.
Again, it's stupid, but it's a story I think the media and trumpians are going to run with.
The governor literally asked them to not show up and get in the way. I'd rather Trump get a temporary bump in popularity than they slow down aid efforts just for a photo op.
Any presidential visit is a total zoo due to the security stuff involved. The fly over was not what got bush into trouble with katrina. It was the total failed federal response to it that was. In this case the gov is saying he is getting all the help he is asking for from fema and the feds and asked obama not to come until the worst was over so as to not get in the way of actual rescues and support for needy people.
A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
How wonderful for America that its potential first female president has to be perfect or become a failure. It's like what women run into in any job ever.
I'd put it on the same difficulty scale as being the first black president.
I mean I'm not sure what the point of even discussing this is is the thing.
Like A.) What are we, Clinton's coach?
B.) "Avoid scandals" is kind of yeah okay cool beans.
As president, definitely avoid doing things that later people can say were bad. Sometimes, it makes presidents have a hard time. Also as president, try your hardest not to ever be assassinated, it puts a real crimp in your administration.
No no not just avoid, be squeaky clean oh okay, unlike prior presidents you'll want to be perfect in an indefinable manner.
She's going to be a president of the US. Which means she will take part in some godawful thing or another on a regular basis. When some of these things come to light she will be raked over the coals to a greater or lesser degree. None of this is going to be "the reason she had a tough presidency". It's just going to be the way she exists in the presidency.
If you don't feel like talking about it you can just not.
I should have clarified. I think it's totally worthwhile to discuss the fact that I think it's silly for Kevin Drum to cosplay a mediocre political consultant when I'd prefer some actual substantive information about the people running for president.
A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
Or we could actually hold the press accountable for pushing gooseshit narratives and falling for access journalism.
A world where you can seriously hope for a fundamental shift in a vast and decentralized media apparatus and the way 300 million people interact with it in a way that is to your liking is the same world where Jill Stein can count herself to have a real shot at the presidency.
The problem is not Clinton's "reputation" (which is an artifact created by the press), it's that the press doesn't do its job. And as long as we keep putting the blame for the press continuing to be a flock of the silliest geese to ever honk on Clinton, there will be no impetus for them to improve. And pundits like Chait and Drum compound the issue by doing the heavy lifting in pushing the blame away from the media.
A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
Or we could actually hold the press accountable for pushing gooseshit narratives and falling for access journalism.
A world where you can seriously hope for a fundamental shift in a vast and decentralized media apparatus and the way 300 million people interact with it in a way that is to your liking is the same world where Jill Stein can count herself to have a real shot at the presidency.
The problem is not Clinton's "reputation" (which is an artifact created by the press), it's that the press doesn't do its job. And as long as we keep putting the blame for the press continuing to be a flock of the silliest geese to ever honk on Clinton, there will be no impetus for them to improve. And pundits like Chait and Drum compound the issue by doing the heavy lifting in pushing the blame away from the media.
You can't fix a problem by ignoring it.
see - the GOP's alliance with racists and white nationalists eventually flowering into Trump's nomination
A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
Or we could actually hold the press accountable for pushing gooseshit narratives and falling for access journalism.
A world where you can seriously hope for a fundamental shift in a vast and decentralized media apparatus and the way 300 million people interact with it in a way that is to your liking is the same world where Jill Stein can count herself to have a real shot at the presidency.
The problem is not Clinton's "reputation" (which is an artifact created by the press), it's that the press doesn't do its job. And as long as we keep putting the blame for the press continuing to be a flock of the silliest geese to ever honk on Clinton, there will be no impetus for them to improve. And pundits like Chait and Drum compound the issue by doing the heavy lifting in pushing the blame away from the media.
You can't fix a problem by ignoring it.
see - the GOP's alliance with racists and white nationalists eventually flowering into Trump's nomination
...meanwhile, at the metaphorical ice cream store...
A: I would like French Vanilla with those little flecks in it
B: We only have regular vanilla, sorry
A: This is an outrage!! The whole fucking ice cream system is corrupt! I'd rather eat broken glass than your shitty ice cream! BURN IT ALL DOWN!!!!
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Yeah there is a huge double standard in an election where the opposite party is running a racist who openly called for his opponent to be killed/jailed, its his opponent that has to really keep her nose clean by god.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I hear that a lot. "We have to hold them accountable." I don't know what that means.
And I'm not being snarky or sarcastic or hostile. I just don't know.
Like, do we send letters/emails to the editor? Or post tweets of their hypocrisy and double standards? Not watch their shows or click on their websites?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I hear that a lot. "We have to hold them accountable." I don't know what that means.
And I'm not being snarky or sarcastic or hostile. I just don't know.
Like, do we send letters/emails to the editor? Or post tweets of their hypocrisy and double standards? Not watch their shows or click on their websites?
Yeah I have no idea how I, regular citizen, can keep them accountable. It's a mystery.
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
For actual print papers you can actually send them messages of displeasure. I mean I did that to the times once and they actually responded with a real person (fuck Matt Calkins with a stolen demon penis), I mean Calkins is still employed, but someone legit read my complaint.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think this "I'm helping, I'm just like you!" everyman thing is going to help Trump and will be hammered on all day.
Even though it's ludicrous to have to show up to a disaster I think it's a misstep for Obama or Clinton to not go.
Again, it's stupid, but it's a story I think the media and trumpians are going to run with.
Obama has been specifically told not to go by the governor in the state. Either states rights matter or they do not, I'm tired of this double fucking standard.
This sounds like a negative spin, I didnt understand it to be that way.
The governor was on maddow last night singing his praises. His response more or less was "Were in contact often, they have met or exceeded our every need expediently and were great, people need to help the red cross help us now and realize this isnt over yet were not even in the recovery stage its still going on."
The general response to "why didn't anyone show up" was "What the fuck would they do if they did?"
I think this "I'm helping, I'm just like you!" everyman thing is going to help Trump and will be hammered on all day.
Even though it's ludicrous to have to show up to a disaster I think it's a misstep for Obama or Clinton to not go.
Again, it's stupid, but it's a story I think the media and trumpians are going to run with.
Obama has been specifically told not to go by the governor in the state. Either states rights matter or they do not, I'm tired of this double fucking standard.
This sounds like a negative spin, I didnt understand it to be that way.
The governor was on maddow last night singing his praises. His response more or less was "Were in contact often, they have met or exceeded our every need expediently and were great, people need to help the red cross help us now and realize this isnt over yet were not even in the recovery stage its still going on."
The general response to "why didn't anyone show up" was "What the fuck would they do if they did?"
I didn't mean it as a negative. It's just again the Governor does not want photo op politicos fucking shit up.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
How wonderful for America that its potential first female president has to be perfect or become a failure. It's like what women run into in any job ever.
I'd put it on the same difficulty scale as being the first black president.
I mean I'm not sure what the point of even discussing this is is the thing.
Like A.) What are we, Clinton's coach?
B.) "Avoid scandals" is kind of yeah okay cool beans.
As president, definitely avoid doing things that later people can say were bad. Sometimes, it makes presidents have a hard time. Also as president, try your hardest not to ever be assassinated, it puts a real crimp in your administration.
Sounds like you're ready to write tips for Overwatch.
A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
Or we could actually hold the press accountable for pushing gooseshit narratives and falling for access journalism.
A world where you can seriously hope for a fundamental shift in a vast and decentralized media apparatus and the way 300 million people interact with it in a way that is to your liking is the same world where Jill Stein can count herself to have a real shot at the presidency.
Everyone, including the media, is getting pretty pissed about what has happened with Trump. I'm crossing my fingers that there might actually be some change here.
As much as pessimism is apparently our default state, things do change, and there are a lot of factors at work today that could potentially reshape the media very thoroughly over the next couple of decades. The next generation does not interact with the news in anywhere near the same way as the ones before it did.
A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
This pisses me off so much The "why" is one of the fundamental pillars of journalism. "The narrative" should flow from facts and understanding, not any kind of appearance. I mean, "it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them"!?!?
The worst thing about this is that he is talking about just the facts. Clinton does have a poor reputation. Any whiff of scandal will dog her administration. Unfortunately I don't think even being truly squeaky clean will work. She could be absolutely perfect and I fully anticipate scandal will be drummed up whole cloth out of goddamn nothing. Trying to please the unpleasable is a losing strategy. She should build a coalition as broad as possible, and stuff trying to appeal to the crazy.
A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
This pisses me off so much The "why" is one of the fundamental pillars of journalism. "The narrative" should flow from facts and understanding, not any kind of appearance. I mean, "it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them"!?!?
The worst thing about this is that he is talking about just the facts. Clinton does have a poor reputation. Any whiff of scandal will dog her administration. Thing is, I don't think even being truly squeaky clean will work. She could be absolutely perfect and I fully anticipate scandal will be drummed up whole cloth out of goddamn nothing. Trying to please the unpleasable is a losing strategy. She should build a coalition as broad as possible, and stuff trying to appeal to the crazy.
That's pretty much what she's doing already, thankfully.
A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
Or we could actually hold the press accountable for pushing gooseshit narratives and falling for access journalism.
A world where you can seriously hope for a fundamental shift in a vast and decentralized media apparatus and the way 300 million people interact with it in a way that is to your liking is the same world where Jill Stein can count herself to have a real shot at the presidency.
Everyone, including the media, is getting pretty pissed about what has happened with Trump. I'm crossing my fingers that there might actually be some change here.
As much as pessimism is apparently our default state, things do change, and there are a lot of factors at work today that could potentially reshape the media very thoroughly over the next couple of decades. The next generation does not interact with the news in anywhere near the same way as the ones before it did.
They are? I'm pretty sure there were a bunch of think pieces about his nonpology that acted like he turned a new leaf.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Today in white supremacist campaigns, Trump campaign kicks out Indian supporter who cast his primary vote for Trump. Now reconsidering.
So this guy was completely OK with all the racism until it affected him personally.
This is my hugely sympathetic face.
He does sound like a normal Republican though. He should probably just suck it up and vote Trump.
I'm not sure I'd characterize it as such. A lot of later-generation immigrants just have no racism detectors. Up here too, a lot of immigrants hear our Conservatives go into a rural community, slam training and acclimatization programs for new citizens as taking jobs away from "real, honest, hard-working Canadians" and they don't realise that those words aren't describing them. Unless, you know, they'll vote for the Conservatives, in which case they totally do.
Today in white supremacist campaigns, Trump campaign kicks out Indian supporter who cast his primary vote for Trump. Now reconsidering.
So this guy was completely OK with all the racism until it affected him personally.
This is my hugely sympathetic face.
He does sound like a normal Republican though. He should probably just suck it up and vote Trump.
I'm not sure I'd characterize it as such. A lot of immigrants and children of immigrants just have no racism sensor. Up here too, a lot of immigrants hear our Conservatives talk about "real honest, hard-working Canadians" and they don't realise that those words aren't describing them. Unless, you know, they want them to and will vote for the Conservatives, in which case they totally do.
If he somehow missed the nakedly anti-immigrant sentiment of the Trump campaign up to that point he is either completely stupid or completely OK with racism as long as it's against Mexicans, Arabs, or other people who aren't Indian.
A little appreciated facet of Obama's presidency is that it was almost entirely scandal free. This didn't stop Republicans from trying to invent scandals, of course, as the endless Benghazi witch hunt proves. But none of the Obama "scandals" ever caught on. There are two potential reasons for this:
1: They were all ridiculous.
2: Obama has such a clean reputation that they just didn't stick.
If you think the answer is #1, then I admire your optimistic view of Washington and the political press corps and wish you the best of luck in your future political analysis.
The real answer, plainly, is #2. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the target of dozens of equally invented scandals. In Clinton's case, the press follows them endlessly. In Obama's case they don't. Why? Because in Obama's case they don't fit a narrative. Obama has a reputation as a wonky guy who runs a tight ship and doesn't play games. Because of this, invented nonsense will get a few days or weeks of coverage, but that's usually it.
Clinton, needless to say, has a reputation that's just the opposite. Mostly this is undeserved, but not entirely. That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that she has the reputation she does, and that means scandals fit the press narrative of who she is. So when Republicans launch attacks on her, it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them. The press will play along endlessly.
This means that Chait is right: if Hillary wants to avoid a failed presidency, she needs to be squeaky clean. That won't stop the attacks, but at least it will blunt them. Conversely, if there's even one scandal that has some real truth to it, it will dog her for her entire presidency. I hope she gets this.
Clinton is pretty vulnerable and her presidency could be an unhappy one for Democrats if she's not circumspect about her behavior. She's not starting with much goodwill or benefit of doubt.
Or we could actually hold the press accountable for pushing gooseshit narratives and falling for access journalism.
A world where you can seriously hope for a fundamental shift in a vast and decentralized media apparatus and the way 300 million people interact with it in a way that is to your liking is the same world where Jill Stein can count herself to have a real shot at the presidency.
Everyone, including the media, is getting pretty pissed about what has happened with Trump. I'm crossing my fingers that there might actually be some change here.
As much as pessimism is apparently our default state, things do change, and there are a lot of factors at work today that could potentially reshape the media very thoroughly over the next couple of decades. The next generation does not interact with the news in anywhere near the same way as the ones before it did.
They are? I'm pretty sure there were a bunch of think pieces about his nonpology that acted like he turned a new leaf.
I think this "I'm helping, I'm just like you!" everyman thing is going to help Trump and will be hammered on all day.
Even though it's ludicrous to have to show up to a disaster I think it's a misstep for Obama or Clinton to not go.
Again, it's stupid, but it's a story I think the media and trumpians are going to run with.
Obama has been specifically told not to go by the governor in the state. Either states rights matter or they do not, I'm tired of this double fucking standard.
This sounds like a negative spin, I didnt understand it to be that way.
The governor was on maddow last night singing his praises. His response more or less was "Were in contact often, they have met or exceeded our every need expediently and were great, people need to help the red cross help us now and realize this isnt over yet were not even in the recovery stage its still going on."
The general response to "why didn't anyone show up" was "What the fuck would they do if they did?"
I didn't mean it as a negative. It's just again the Governor does not want photo op politicos fucking shit up.
Sorry I didn't mean that at your personally, I kept hearing this from a couple of people. There's definitely a thing in the media yesterday going "Were just asking the questions: why hasnt any candidate or obama gone!?!?!?!?!?" It was just very strange all around.
Today in white supremacist campaigns, Trump campaign kicks out Indian supporter who cast his primary vote for Trump. Now reconsidering.
So this guy was completely OK with all the racism until it affected him personally.
This is my hugely sympathetic face.
He does sound like a normal Republican though. He should probably just suck it up and vote Trump.
I'm not sure I'd characterize it as such. A lot of immigrants and children of immigrants just have no racism sensor. Up here too, a lot of immigrants hear our Conservatives talk about "real honest, hard-working Canadians" and they don't realise that those words aren't describing them. Unless, you know, they want them to and will vote for the Conservatives, in which case they totally do.
If he somehow missed the nakedly anti-immigrant sentiment of the Trump campaign up to that point he is either completely stupid or completely OK with racism as long as it's against Mexicans, Arabs, or other people who aren't Indian.
In both cases: fuck him
Edited my post, but oh for sure, he's an idiot and fuck him, but it's less like Republicans who hate gay people until their son is gay, and more like the black person who doesn't believe that racism exists. It's happening to them and they just don't realise it, which is slightly distinct from just slamming oh other people until you realise that you are also other people.
Or rather, it might be. I wouldn't be surprised if it was, that is, based on past experience. Alternately, he might be one of those super special minority people who hate all other minorities too. That's a whole other circle of Hell.
Today in white supremacist campaigns, Trump campaign kicks out Indian supporter who cast his primary vote for Trump. Now reconsidering.
So this guy was completely OK with all the racism until it affected him personally.
This is my hugely sympathetic face.
He does sound like a normal Republican though. He should probably just suck it up and vote Trump.
I'm not sure I'd characterize it as such. A lot of immigrants and children of immigrants just have no racism sensor. Up here too, a lot of immigrants hear our Conservatives talk about "real honest, hard-working Canadians" and they don't realise that those words aren't describing them. Unless, you know, they want them to and will vote for the Conservatives, in which case they totally do.
If he somehow missed the nakedly anti-immigrant sentiment of the Trump campaign up to that point he is either completely stupid or completely OK with racism as long as it's against Mexicans, Arabs, or other people who aren't Indian.
In both cases: fuck him
I think this is a pretty harsh stance to take on the kid, he just didn't realize that The Other included him.
I can see how that realization could really shatter your understanding of the world and make you think more critically about what people like Trump are really motivated by.
Posts
Or we could actually hold the press accountable for pushing gooseshit narratives and falling for access journalism.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/19/donald-trump-s-new-chief-steve-bannon-called-republican-leaders-c-ts.html The Republican establishment must love Bannon becoming a Trump campaign leader.
I mean I'm not sure what the point of even discussing this is is the thing.
Like A.) What are we, Clinton's coach?
B.) "Avoid scandals" is kind of yeah okay cool beans.
As president, definitely avoid doing things that later people can say were bad. Sometimes, it makes presidents have a hard time. Also as president, try your hardest not to ever be assassinated, it puts a real crimp in your administration.
No no not just avoid, be squeaky clean oh okay, unlike prior presidents you'll want to be perfect in an indefinable manner.
She's going to be a president of the US. Which means she will take part in some godawful thing or another on a regular basis. When some of these things come to light she will be raked over the coals to a greater or lesser degree. None of this is going to be "the reason she had a tough presidency". It's just going to be the way she exists in the presidency.
A world where you can seriously hope for a fundamental shift in a vast and decentralized media apparatus and the way 300 million people interact with it in a way that is to your liking is the same world where Jill Stein can count herself to have a real shot at the presidency.
Any presidential visit is a total zoo due to the security stuff involved. The fly over was not what got bush into trouble with katrina. It was the total failed federal response to it that was. In this case the gov is saying he is getting all the help he is asking for from fema and the feds and asked obama not to come until the worst was over so as to not get in the way of actual rescues and support for needy people.
If you don't feel like talking about it you can just not.
The problem is not Clinton's "reputation" (which is an artifact created by the press), it's that the press doesn't do its job. And as long as we keep putting the blame for the press continuing to be a flock of the silliest geese to ever honk on Clinton, there will be no impetus for them to improve. And pundits like Chait and Drum compound the issue by doing the heavy lifting in pushing the blame away from the media.
You can't fix a problem by ignoring it.
see - the GOP's alliance with racists and white nationalists eventually flowering into Trump's nomination
Pfft. That's not a problem. It's a feature.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I hear that a lot. "We have to hold them accountable." I don't know what that means.
And I'm not being snarky or sarcastic or hostile. I just don't know.
Like, do we send letters/emails to the editor? Or post tweets of their hypocrisy and double standards? Not watch their shows or click on their websites?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Yeah I have no idea how I, regular citizen, can keep them accountable. It's a mystery.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think I get it. Trump dislikes refugees so he will kick them out except for a few that will then for for him in 2020?
This sounds like a negative spin, I didnt understand it to be that way.
The governor was on maddow last night singing his praises. His response more or less was "Were in contact often, they have met or exceeded our every need expediently and were great, people need to help the red cross help us now and realize this isnt over yet were not even in the recovery stage its still going on."
The general response to "why didn't anyone show up" was "What the fuck would they do if they did?"
That is just a textbook example of how to impede actual relief efforts by turning them into a media circus.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I didn't mean it as a negative. It's just again the Governor does not want photo op politicos fucking shit up.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Made me think of the scientologists doing "disaster relief" after the Haiti earthquake.
They brought no food or water or supplies. They were going to buy that locally. As if the problem was people not affording it!
Oh, and they gave some massages to people too.
Today in white supremacist campaigns, Trump campaign kicks out Indian supporter who cast his primary vote for Trump. Now reconsidering.
Sounds like you're ready to write tips for Overwatch.
Everyone, including the media, is getting pretty pissed about what has happened with Trump. I'm crossing my fingers that there might actually be some change here.
As much as pessimism is apparently our default state, things do change, and there are a lot of factors at work today that could potentially reshape the media very thoroughly over the next couple of decades. The next generation does not interact with the news in anywhere near the same way as the ones before it did.
This pisses me off so much The "why" is one of the fundamental pillars of journalism. "The narrative" should flow from facts and understanding, not any kind of appearance. I mean, "it doesn't much matter if there's any substance to them"!?!?
The worst thing about this is that he is talking about just the facts. Clinton does have a poor reputation. Any whiff of scandal will dog her administration. Unfortunately I don't think even being truly squeaky clean will work. She could be absolutely perfect and I fully anticipate scandal will be drummed up whole cloth out of goddamn nothing. Trying to please the unpleasable is a losing strategy. She should build a coalition as broad as possible, and stuff trying to appeal to the crazy.
So this guy was completely OK with all the racism until it affected him personally.
This is my hugely sympathetic face.
He does sound like a normal Republican though. He should probably just suck it up and vote Trump.
That's pretty much what she's doing already, thankfully.
They are? I'm pretty sure there were a bunch of think pieces about his nonpology that acted like he turned a new leaf.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That poor kid. I know everyone has to learn some life lessons the hard way, I know I did, but my heart still goes out to him.
I'm not sure I'd characterize it as such. A lot of later-generation immigrants just have no racism detectors. Up here too, a lot of immigrants hear our Conservatives go into a rural community, slam training and acclimatization programs for new citizens as taking jobs away from "real, honest, hard-working Canadians" and they don't realise that those words aren't describing them. Unless, you know, they'll vote for the Conservatives, in which case they totally do.
If he somehow missed the nakedly anti-immigrant sentiment of the Trump campaign up to that point he is either completely stupid or completely OK with racism as long as it's against Mexicans, Arabs, or other people who aren't Indian.
In both cases: fuck him
this is what you were voting for, wasn't it? Can't really be mad about it now
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
That happened literally yesterday.
Sorry I didn't mean that at your personally, I kept hearing this from a couple of people. There's definitely a thing in the media yesterday going "Were just asking the questions: why hasnt any candidate or obama gone!?!?!?!?!?" It was just very strange all around.
It's perfectly fine as long as you acknowledge that you yourself had a bevy of awful opinions when you were a teen yourself.
I know I can own up to that.
Edited my post, but oh for sure, he's an idiot and fuck him, but it's less like Republicans who hate gay people until their son is gay, and more like the black person who doesn't believe that racism exists. It's happening to them and they just don't realise it, which is slightly distinct from just slamming oh other people until you realise that you are also other people.
Or rather, it might be. I wouldn't be surprised if it was, that is, based on past experience. Alternately, he might be one of those super special minority people who hate all other minorities too. That's a whole other circle of Hell.
That's actually the reason I feel sorry for him.
Seriously.
I cast my first vote for Nader during the 2000 election.
I will own this shame for the rest of my life.
I think this is a pretty harsh stance to take on the kid, he just didn't realize that The Other included him.
I can see how that realization could really shatter your understanding of the world and make you think more critically about what people like Trump are really motivated by.