Listening to the weird, strange and obsessive discussion about Bill and Hillary Clinton on cable talk shows, one can only conclude that counseling and treatment is required in certain cases, and turning the channel is required in others.
This is not a criticism of the Clintons, it is a criticism of the punditocracy and commentariat classes who have been almost preternaturally wrong in predicting the election, and candidly, don’t have much to say beyond the lunch-talk conventional wisdom of the day.
First, let’s get this straight, Hillary Clinton will not be the vice presidential choice and an entire swath of cable coverage is flat-out wrong, silly and ridiculous. Watching the almost addictive saturation fantasizing about this, which I for one will no longer watch, makes one wonder if this is clinical. It is amazing that close to 90 percent of what runs on cable political news involves a fantasy that will not happen.
Remember where you heard it.
Regarding Bill Clinton, one can sympathize that in talking to voters nowadays, one must assume that the voter is an Arianna Huffington blogger plant secretly planning to humiliate the object of what she calls citizen journalism. In truth, this "citizen journalist" is deceptive and fraudulent if one applies any standard of journalism, citizen or not.
Very odd, but not surprising, that Howard Kurtz can write a long piece in The Washington Post about this "citizen journalist" without any discussion of what is clearly unethical conduct by anyone purporting to be any kind of journalist, who should identify himself or herself as planning to record and publicly use whatever is recorded.
Bill Clinton got sandbagged twice, first by a cheap-shot Vanity Fair piece, then by a cheap-shot blogger masquerading as a journalist, in the same way that Obama was cheap-shotted by someone who sneaked into a fundraiser under false and deceptive pretense, then secretly taped him, with the same lack of integrity she used taping Bill Clinton.
Regarding Hillary, she did not win because of a number of factors, sexism being minor in comparison to major blunders on campaign strategy, fundraising, message and gaffes.
However, some of the discussion of Hillary was clearly weird, strange, in some cases sexist and in many cases so obsessive and compulsive that those who engaged in this should be professionally embarrassed that they lowered the standard of political coverage.
Then again, many who wasted airtime on nonsense don’t know much about energy, don’t know much about finance, don’t know much about military strategy or veterans’ issues, so they don’t talk about these things. They only talk about what they know about, which is little outside their world of Washington insiderism, which is largely divorced from what matters most to Americans.
I do predict major changes on the cable television front, a subject I will return to soon, based on events now underway behind the scenes.
original post from The Hill's Pundits Blog