Thomas Friedman, "WikiHillary for President": Twisted

Tweet

After Iranian Revolutionary Guards operating out of Yemen fired C-802 missiles against the USS Mason last week, you might have expected would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman to discuss this imbroglio and how it reflects upon Obama's bogus unsigned nuclear deal with Iran. But instead, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "WikiHillary for President," Friedman deems it more expedient to fawn over Hillary Clinton. Friedman concludes:

"When I read WikiHillary, I hear a smart, pragmatic, center-left politician who will be inclined to work with both the business community and Republicans to keep America tilted toward trade expansion, entrepreneurship and global integration, while redoubling efforts to cushion workers from the downsides of these policies.

I’m just sorry that campaign Hillary felt she could not speak like WikiHillary to build a proper mandate for President Hillary. She would have gained respect for daring to speak the truth to her own constituency — and demonstrating leadership — not lost votes.

Nonetheless, thanks to WikiLeaks, I am reassured that she has the right balance of instincts on the issues I care about most. So, again, thank you, Putin, for exposing that Hillary. She could make a pretty good president for these times."

Ah yes, WikiLeaks. But what about Chris Cillizza's Washington Post article entitled "Hillary Clinton’s email problems just came roaring back," from which we learned two days ago:

"On Monday, however, the various issues associated with Clinton's email setup came roaring back. According to emails released by the FBI, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy asked the FBI to ease up on classification decisions in exchange for allowing more FBI agents in countries where they were not permitted to go. The words 'quid pro quo' were used to describe the proposed exchange by the FBI official."

All of which is perhaps nothing compared with the access granted to Hillary's attorneys to review her emails notwithstanding the fact that they lacked proper security clearances, and the use of hammers and BleachBit to ensure that all of her communications would never see the light of day.

And all of which is absolutely nothing compared with Hillary's unmitigated support over the years of an ersatz husband engaged in deprivations against women.

As South Park would have us know, America is witnessing a contest between a "turd sandwich" and a "giant douche."

Hillary "could make a pretty good president for these times"? Stick it where the sun doesn't shine, Tom.

Gail Collins, "The Secret Side of Donald Trump": Trump Endangers the World (Hillary Only Threatens American Rule of Law)

Tweet

Devoting her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Secret Side of Donald Trump" to the "upside of Donald Trump" and scrutinizing his position on health care, Gail Collins concludes:

"The bottom line is that once you really pin him down, Donald Trump is a mail-order conservative Republican, except more trash-talking about Muslims and Mexicans. Surrender hope and be careful not to die in the streets."

Pin Trump down? Actually, it was Trump who pinned Vince McMahon down at the WrestleMania Battle of the Billionaires, thus demonstrating to the world that he has what it takes to be the next American commander in chief. (A pity McMahon didn't pin Trump for the count and shave the Donald's "hair," thereby exposing, once and for all, the secrets of his remarkable coiffure.)

More to the point, I think Gail's opinion piece is too kind. As we are told today in a Washington Post editorial entitled "GOP leaders, you must do everything in your power to stop Trump":

"Now [the Republican Party] is faced with a front-runner who, in the interval between the two Priebus comments cited above, said of a protester, 'I’d like to punch him in the face.' This is a front-runner with no credible agenda and no suitable experience. He wants the United States to commit war crimes, including torture and the murder of innocent relatives of suspected terrorists. He admires Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and sees no difference between Mr. Putin’s victims and people killed in the defense of the United States. He would round up and deport 11 million people, a forced movement on a scale not attempted since Stalin or perhaps Pol Pot. He has, during the course of his campaign, denigrated women, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, people with disabilities and many more. He routinely trades in wild falsehoods and doubles down when his lies are exposed."

I suppose all of the above effectively counterbalances Trump's rassling techniques. Maybe, just maybe, he is not the person you want with his finger on the launch button of America's nuclear arsenal.

But what about Hillary? Collins tells us what Trump told Scott Pelley on CBS:

"I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody is going to be taken care of."

But regrettably, Collins does not inform us what Clinton told Pelley one week ago:

"PELLEY: You know, in ’76, Jimmy Carter famously said, 'I will not lie to you.'

CLINTON: Well, I have to tell you I have tried in every way I know how literally from my years as a young lawyer all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people.

PELLEY: You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?

CLINTON: I’ve always tried to. Always. Always.

PELLEY: Some people are gonna call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.

CLINTON: Well, no, I’ve always tried —

PELLEY: I mean, Jimmy Carter said, 'I will never lie to you.'

CLINTON: Well, but, you know, you’re asking me to say, 'Have I ever?' I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever will. I’m gonna do the best I can to level with the American people."

In response to the above interchange, Chris Cillizza wrote in his Washington Post weblog "The Fix":

"I mean, what? W-H-A-T? 'I've always tried to' tell the truth? On what planet is this a good answer for a politician?"

On the subject of lying, Ed Morrissey wrote one year ago in a Fox Nation article entitled "Hillary Fired for Lies, Unethical Behavior from Congressional Job: Former Boss":

"Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the [House Judiciary Committee which was investigating Watergate]. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

'Because she was a liar,' Zeifman said in an interview last week. 'She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.'"

"Conspired to violate the Constitution"? That sounds kind of serious. Hillary's claim that she came under sniper fire in Bosnia pales in comparison.

And so, whereas a capricious, narcissistic Trump poses a potential hazard to the entire world, Hillary only threatens rule of law in the US.

Go ahead, take your pick.

Gail Collins, "Trump Shows His Inner Rabbit": The Art of Mendacity

Tweet

"PELLEY: You know, in ’76, Jimmy Carter famously said, 'I will not lie to you.'

CLINTON: Well, I have to tell you I have tried in every way I know how literally from my years as a young lawyer all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people.

PELLEY: You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?

CLINTON: I’ve always tried to. Always. Always.

PELLEY: Some people are gonna call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.

CLINTON: Well, no, I’ve always tried —

PELLEY: I mean, Jimmy Carter said, 'I will never lie to you.'

CLINTON: Well, but, you know, you’re asking me to say, 'Have I ever?' I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever will. I’m gonna do the best I can to level with the American people."

- Interchange between Hillary Clinton and Scott Pelley, CBS News, February 18, 2016

In response to the above interchange, Chris Cillizza wrote in his Washington Post weblog "The Fix":

"I mean, what? W-H-A-T? 'I've always tried to' tell the truth? On what planet is this a good answer for a politician?"

As long as we're on the subject of lying, Ed Morrissey wrote one year ago in a Fox Nation article entitled "Hillary Fired for Lies, Unethical Behavior from Congressional Job: Former Boss":

"Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the [House Judiciary Committee which was investigating Watergate]. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

'Because she was a liar,' Zeifman said in an interview last week. 'She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.'"

"Conspired to violate the Constitution"? That sounds serious. Hillary's claim that she came under sniper fire in Bosnia pales in comparison.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump Shows His Inner Rabbit," does Gail Collins mention the kerfuffle involving Hillary's interview with Scott Pelley? Not a chance. Instead, she concludes her opinion piece by turning our attention to Donald Trump's denial of his allegation that George W. Bush lied to Americans concerning the rationale for the Second Gulf War:

"In a dramatic highlight of the last Republican debate, Trump accused the Bush administration of deliberately deceiving the American public about the invasion. ('They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none.') It was a potentially historic moment: a top Republican candidate for president attempts to lead his party into a frank reappraisal of the Bush-Cheney administration’s inherent honesty.

Here we are, one week later: 'I’m not talking about lying. ... Nobody really knows why we went into Iraq.'

Meanwhile, reporters continue to ask Trump supporters what the attraction is. And his fans say that he tells it like it is."

Trump tells it like it is? No way. Unless saying whatever pops into your head at any given moment is "telling it like it is."

But whereas Trump's recent declaration and retraction concerning George W. Bush amounted to just another instance of ad-lib chicanery, Hillary takes fibbery to a higher, more carefully spun, level. As observed by Marc Thiessen in a January 25, 2016 Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Clinton’s email excuses are falling apart":

"Lash out as she might, Clinton’s constantly changing email story is rapidly falling apart. First, Clinton claimed there was 'no classified material' on her private server — which turned out to be untrue. Then she claimed none of the intelligence on her server was 'classified at the time' — which also turned out to be untrue. Now, in a National Public Radio interview last week, Clinton said there was no information that was 'marked classified.'"

May Donald go back to hosting reality shows and Hillary return to giving speeches before financial institutions, if they are still willing to pay her when she is no longer a presidential aspirant.

Gail Collins, "Republicans, Widows and Porn": Sisters in Arms

Tweet

"There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!"

- Madeleine Albright, speaking on behalf of Hillary Clinton's candidacy

Yesterday I observed that The Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo News, Bloomberg and UPI had all published articles concerning the State Department subpoena served on the Clinton Foundation, but The New York Times decided to ignore the matter entirely. I asked whether the Times is still a newspaper or if it has become a highly politicized, self-serving propaganda machine. Well, maybe I was too harsh on the Times. After all, during the PBS "NewsHour" Democratic debate on Thursday, Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff remarkably failed to ask Hillary a single question about the subpoena.

I supposed that it should come as no surprise that in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Republicans, Widows and Porn," Gail Collins also fails today to mention the subpoena. Instead she reserves most of her criticism for Ted Cruz ("The run-up to this weekend’s Republican debate was greatly enlivened by the news that Amy Lindsay, an alum of 'Animal Lust' and 'Whose Thong Is It Anyway?,' was starring in a Cruz campaign ad") and Donald Trump ("it might provide the opportunity for someone to recall that the widow in question once referred to the man who is now the leading Republican presidential candidate as 'a maggot, a cockroach and a crumb'").

So what is more important? The pulling of a Cruz advertisement or service of a subpoena upon the Clinton Foundation? We obviously know what's more important for Gail.

But don't worry, Gail! You've got good company! In a guest Times op-ed entitled "My Undiplomatic Moment," Madeleine Albright attempts to explain away her "special place in hell" comment supporting Hillary's candidacy. Albright writes:

"However, I do want to explain why I so firmly believe that, even today, women have an obligation to help one another. In a society where women often feel pressured to tear one another down, our saving grace lies in our willingness to lift one another up. And while young women may not want to hear anything more from this aging feminist, I feel it is important to speak to women coming of age at a time when a viable female presidential candidate, once inconceivable, is a reality."

Hillary is a "viable" candidate? Sorry, Madeleine, but the State Department subpoena (you remember the State Department, don't you, Maddy?) served on the Clinton Foundation did away with that viability. As Chris Cillizza wrote in a Washington Post article entitled "Hillary Clinton’s week just went from bad to worse":

"There is, without question, a desire on the part of many Republicans to cast Clinton in the worst possible light using almost any means necessary. But it strains credulity to believe that Republicans somehow concocted a way to get the State Department and the FBI to look into Clinton's tenure at State."

Hillary's candidacy will unravel when the FBI makes its recommendations. She would be doing the United States, the Democratic Party and women a favor by ending her presidential bid now and not later, unless it is her intention to demonstrate conclusively that female politicians are just as despicable as male politicians.

David Brooks, "Livin’ Bernie Sanders’s Danish Dream"; Paul Krugman, "On Economic Stupidity": The Times Ceases to Be a Newspaper?

Tweet

Let's play a game: Do a Google search using the words "state department," "subpoena," "Clinton Foundation" and "New York Times." What do you see? I see links to Washington Post (a "top story" on the home page), MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo News, Bloomberg and UPI articles concerning the State Department subpoena served on the Clinton Foundation, but nothing from The New York Times. I also did a search using Yahoo: Again, no sign of the Times.

The significance of the subpoena? Chris Cillizza writes in a Washington Post article entitled "Hillary Clinton’s week just went from bad to worse":

"There is, without question, a desire on the part of many Republicans to cast Clinton in the worst possible light using almost any means necessary. But it strains credulity to believe that Republicans somehow concocted a way to get the State Department and the FBI to look into Clinton's tenure at State."

Indeed, something is rotten in the State of Clinton. But more to the point, is the Times ("All the News That's Fit to Print") a newspaper or has it become a highly politicized, self-serving propaganda machine?

Meanwhile, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Livin’ Bernie Sanders’s Danish Dream," David Brooks takes aim at the socialist from Vermont:

"American values have always been biased toward individualism, achievement and flexibility — nurturing disruptive dynamos like Bell Labs, Walmart, Whole Foods, Google and Apple — and less toward dirigisme, order and economic equality.

It’s amazing that a large part of the millennial generation has rejected this consensus. In supporting Bernie Sanders they are not just supporting a guy who is mad at Wall Street. They are supporting a guy who fundamentally wants to reshape the American economic system, and thus reshape American culture and values."

Okay, I'm no fan of Bernie Sanders, but it's Hillary Clinton who held herself above the law and who would reshape the American criminal justice system. (Why should she deign to use a secure State Department email address for official business?) Needless to say, no mention of service of the State Department subpoena on the Clinton Foundation in Brooks's opinion piece.

David's colleague, Paul Krugman, writing today in a Times op-ed entitled "On Economic Stupidity" also lashes out at Sanders:

"On the Democratic side, both contenders talk sensibly about macroeconomic policy, with Mr. Sanders rightly declaring that the recent rate hike was a bad move. But Mr. Sanders has also attacked the Federal Reserve in a way Mrs. Clinton has not — and that difference illustrates in miniature both the reasons for his appeal and the reasons to be very worried about his approach."

Krugman, who sang paeans to Occupy Wall Street, is telling us that we should be "very worried" by Sander's approach? Fascinating.

More to the point, Krugman also fails to mention the subpoena served upon the Clinton Foundation. You see, Hillary, having received the Times's endorsement, is now a sacred cow and appears to be immune from criticism. If the FBI recommends indicting Hillary and her aides, I can only wonder if the Times will choose to cover that story.

Gail Collins, "Hillary, Bernie and History": Women Can Be Just As Rotten as Men?

Tweet

Yesterday, in the aftermath of comments from Madeleine Albright ("There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!") and Gloria Steinem ("When you’re young, you’re thinking: 'Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,'"), Ruth Marcus declared in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Hillary Clinton needs to figure out how to talk to women — and fast":

"Feminism doesn’t mean imposing a moral obligation on women to vote a certain way. It means trusting them, not demeaning them, when they choose the candidate they like best, male or female. Even if their mothers disagree."

Marcus's opinion piece followed on the heels of Frank Bruni's New York Times op-ed entitled "Feminism, Hell and Hillary Clinton":

"Clinton’s gender indeed matters. Just as you couldn’t properly evaluate Obama’s arc without factoring in race, you can’t see her accurately without recognizing that she’s a woman of her time, with all the attendant obstacles, hurts, compromises and tenacity.

That informs — and, ideally, illuminates — her perspective. And her presidency would carry a powerful, constructive symbolism that can’t and shouldn’t be ignored.

But those are considerations among many, many others in taking her measure and in casting a vote. To focus only or primarily on them is more reductive than respectful, and to tell women in particular what kind of politics they should practice is the antithesis of feminism, which advocates independence and choices."

Well said, Frank.

Gail Collins's "contribution" to the debate over Albright's and Steinem's remarks? In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary, Bernie and History," Collins concludes (my emphasis in red):

"It took almost 40 more years before a woman won a major presidential primary. That was, of course, Clinton in 2008 in New Hampshire. She didn’t win the election, but she was so credible, and finished so strong, that the nation came away believing a woman in the White House was a completely normal idea.

If the younger voters who are flocking to Bernie Sanders don’t share their elders’ intense feelings about needing to elect a woman president right now, it’s partly because Hillary Clinton helped create a different world. So no matter what comes next, everybody’s a winner."

Hillary "helped create a different world"? Yeah, right. No mention by Collins of the acceptance by the Clinton Foundation of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, a country which whips and imprisons gang rape victims.

And no mention by Collins of Hillary's tweet on November 22, 2015:

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

Which was followed by Juanita Broaddrick's tweet on January 6, 2016:

"I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73....it never goes away."

In addition, there's the small matter of Hillary's honesty as perceived by the American electorate. As reported by Chris Cillizza in Washington Post article entitled "Hillary Clinton has a major honesty problem after New Hampshire":

"Hillary Clinton has an honesty problem.

That point is driven home hard in the exit poll following Clinton's 22-point drubbing at the hands of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. More than one in three (34 percent) of all New Hampshire Democratic primary voters said that honesty was the most important trait in their decision on which candidate to support. Of that bloc, Sanders won 92 percent of their votes as compared to just 6 percent for Clinton."

Bottom line, Hillary Clinton has proven that female politicians can be just as despicable as male politicians. Collins writes:

"Strong as the emotions are in the Clinton and Sanders camps, both sides have to feel sort of chipper when they look over at the Republicans, who are engaged in something between professional wrestling and Godzilla Versus Rodan."

In fact, the real battle between Godzilla and Rodan will arrive if Hillary is nominated by the Democrats and runs against Trump in November. And in this case, no matter what comes next, everybody’s a ... loser.