TODAY'S COLONEL JOHN R. STINGO AWARD GOES TO HOWARD KURTZ
GIVEN IN MEMORY the late New York columnist who, as AJ Liebling put it, never permitted "facts to interfere with the exercise of his imagination," today's award goes to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post for his contribution to the Clinton spin machine:
HOWARD KURTZ, WASHINGTON POST - Clinton's senior advisers have grown convinced that the media deck is stacked against them, that their candidate is drawing far harsher scrutiny than Barack Obama. And at least some journalists agree. "She's just held to a different standard in every respect," says Mark Halperin, Time's editor at large. "The press rooted for Obama to go negative, and when he did he was applauded. When she does it, it's treated as this huge violation of propriety." While Clinton's mistakes deserve full coverage, Halperin says, "the press's flaws -- wild swings, accentuating the negative -- are magnified 50 times when it comes to her. It's not a level playing field."
PROGRESSIVE REVIEW - On the same day the Post featured a story on Giuliani's seedy buddies but has yet to point out that Hillary Clinton had three business partners who went to prison: Webster Hubbell and the two McDougals. And the Post is not alone. We did a Google check over the past year and could find only the following mainstream press coverage of major scandals in HRC's past:
- Hillary Clinton's Bernie Kerick, Webster Hubbell: 5 mentions
- Whitewater: 31 mentions over the entire year
- White House travel office scandal: 6 mentions
- Cattle futures scandal: 5 mentions
There's some hard-hitting journalism for you.


7 Comments:
Relax in the safety of your own delusions. Never acknowledge your errors or change your opinions. Be ready at any mention of the subject to regurgitate, at great length, a litany of wrongs, and keep at it until your listeners' eyes glaze and ears bleed. Attack others for any deviation from the One True Way. Pull the wool over your own eyes. That's how to be a progressive anti-liberal, or anti-liberal progressive, if you prefer. Learn to enjoy irrelevancy and work on your memoirs, of which people will read the parts before 1990.
There's some hard-hitting commentary for you. And I don't mean that sarcastically, I'm sorry to say.
That's strange, "Anonymous 2"...absent specifics, I can't make out what "Anonymous 1" is on about.
"Hard-hitting commentary" unpacks a topic, in preference to delivering a peevish rant.
It's not hard to understand. We have a lot of people here too stupid to see that there is pretty much no difference between Clinton and Bush and they pounce on Sam in various ways every time he points out the similarities.
The problem is, he spiels on ad infinitum about past misdeeds and tends to shortshrift the current worse-than-misdeeds of the reigning ass-in-chief, much as 11:19 was pointing out.
The problem is, he spiels on ad infinitum about past misdeeds and tends to shortshrift the current worse-than-misdeeds of the reigning ass-in-chief, much as 11:19 was pointing out.
I keep waiting for 'cabdriver' to break out the classic retort: "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talkin' to? You talkin' to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to?"
So, what're waiting for?
Give it a shot.
Hey, I'm talking to you...
Post a Comment
<< Home