Arguing that "she is not the right person for this moment," former Democratic congressional candidate-turned-cable host Krystal Ball laid out her case in a February 11 post at MSNBC.com for why Hillary Clinton should NOT run for president in 2016.
Oddly enough, part of the reason is "we are in a moment of existential crisis as a country." Given who is currently in the Oval Office, you'd think that would be a stunning indictment of the incumbent, but Ball doesn't seem to get that, explaining away Obama's woes by blaming it on, what else, corporate America (emphasis mine):
That there was even one item in the "far-left" search just noted is unusual. It's even more remarkable that the underlying report was written by Steve Peoples, a far-lefty disguised as a reporter if there ever was one. Excerpts from his Wednesday dispatch follow the jump.
Philip Rucker and Scott Clement sure are "Ready for Hillary." The Washington Post scribes dutifully pounded out a January 30 front-pager that furthers the Hillary-is-inevitable meme discernible throughout the liberal media. "Clinton holds big Democratic lead" thunders the print headline, with a subhead noting she enjoys "strong support in all demographics" while the "GOP field shows no clear front-runner."
Nowhere in their 25-paragraph story was the term "Benghazi" used -- indeed, it was also not referenced in the Post/ABC poll, while Bridgegate was -- although clearly it is the former secretary of state's blackest mark on her record. By contrast, potential GOP opponent Chris Christie was depicted as critically if not mortally wounded by the bridge-lane-closure scandal, while opponents to his right were dismissed as unlikely to beat Hillary (emphasis mine):
In her continuing campaign to promote Elizabeth Warren's presidential prospects, Mika Brzezinski has attempted to recruit an unlikely ally: Steve Rattner.
Rattner--President Obama's former "car czar"--is an investment manager and what passes for a moderate in the modern Dem party. The notion that he would support leftist Elizabeth Warren in a Dem primary is far-fetched to say the least. But Mika told Rattner he would "root" for Warren "because you will do that for me." A compliant Ratter replied that he would "do anything" for Mika. View the video after the jump.
Things got testy between Joe Scarborough and Howard Dean on today's Morning Joe over the issue of the Dem party moving left. In a particularly unkind cut, Scarborough accused Dean of spouting "Carl Bernstein nonsense," while Dean tried to shut Scarborough down, bleating "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." Adding spice to the mix, Mika Brzezinski made clear her great regard for lefty Senator Elizabeth Warren, saying she'd make a "formidable" presidential candidate.
The fracas was detonated by a discussion of a Wall Street Journalop-ed by a centrist Dem group called "The Third Way," which argued that following proposals from Warren and far-left, newly-elected NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, would be electorally "disastrous" for Dems. That in turn engendered a New York Times article about infighting among Dems, reporting among other things that Warren is using "hardball" tactics to intimidate banks supporting The Third Way. View the video after the jump.
On Sunday, The Washington Post reported on its front page “Democratic Party feeling heat from a revived left.” They rarely acknowledge the Democrats have an ideological base, and almost never use the word “liberal” to describe it.
Reporter Zachary Goldfarb did use the word “liberal” routinely, but when you want to push something really leftist, you aren’t getting extreme, you are growing more “populist.” The more leftist you get, the more you appeal to the people? There were no extreme labels for the left, but Obama’s allegedly been embracing “conservative thinking.” The Post easily finds a “far right” in the Republican Party, as in these recent examples from the news staff:
Say, did you happen to see that commercial for Elizabeth Warrren in the guise of an interview on "The Rachel Maddow Show"?
Those six minutes of scintillating chit-chat would have cost Warren big time if she and MSNBC went by the book, seeing how in-kind contributions to politicians don't get more obvious. (Video after page break)
New host, same loopy logic. Ed Schultz is gone from his weekday MSNBC slot, but the show's name lives on until Chris Hayes comes on board next month. Sitting in for Schultz tonight was the never-at-a-loss-for-words Michael Eric Dyson.
Discussing Elizabeth Warren's latest Senate hearing stunt, on the minimum wage, Dyson gushed "wouldn't that be great" if the minimum wage were raised to $22 per hour? Yeah, great . . . if you'd like unemployment to soar into the stratosphere, as lower-skilled workers were priced out of the market. African-Americans would be particularly hard hit. View the video after the jump.
The trashing of Ted Cruz continues apace in the bien-pensant MSM. From the New York Times, to the Washington Post, to Politico and elsewhere, the liberal media has the new Republican Senator from Texas in its sights.
Joe Scarborough is clearly camped out on the Cruz-bashing bandwagon. Earlier this month, so offended by Cruz was the sensitive Scarborough that he wouldn't deign to mention him by name. Today, not to be outdone by Frank Bruni, who called Cruz "an ornery, swaggering piece of work," Scarborough declared that Cruz acts like "a carnival barker at a local Republican event." View the video after the jump.
Reacting to Democratic Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren's victory in Massachusetts, CNN's Ali Velshi gushed on Wednesday morning, "I have to say, regardless of party, good for her."
"She prevailed. She got crushed and now she's going to be a U.S. senator," he noted her prior setback, when she failed to become the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. [Video below the break. Audio here.]
Reporting on the Massachusetts Senate race on Thursday, CNN's Brooke Baldwin played a Democratic card by noting the amount of Wall Street money Republican incumbent Scott Brown's campaign receives compared with his Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren, who has campaigned as a populist opponent of Wall Street.
"The Center for Responsive Politics was reporting nearly 9 out of every 10 Wall Street dollars spent in the Massachusetts campaign here going to Brown. How is that playing, how will that play with voters there?" Baldwin asked her guest, after noting the "huge sea change" causing Warren's lead in the polls. She didn't ask about any of Brown's attacks on Warren, however. [Video below the break. Audio here.]
Remember the saying "I think, therefore I am?" Well, MSNBC weekend host Melissa Harris-Perry does, and she used it to defend Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren against claims that she is not really part Cherokee Indian.
A Democrat trying to unseat incumbent Republican Scott Brown in the November election, Warren received support on Saturday when Harris-Perry laughably stated: "If candidate Warren grew up thinking she is Native American by heritage, who are we to say she is not? And who are we to define based on narrow constructs of race?"
In a report on Tuesday's NBC Today, correspondent Kelly O'Donnell described "awkward stumbles" for Senator Scott Brown and challenger Elizabeth Warren in a Massachusetts senatorial debate on Monday. Brown's supposed stumble was that he "first named an ultra-conservative" Antonin Scalia as an example of "a very good judge" and model Supreme Court justice.
O'Donnell described Warren's stumble being that she named "retiring" Indiana Senator Dick Lugar as a Republican she could work with if elected. In reality, Lugar was defeated by Richard Mourdock in the Republican primary.
For six days and counting (including this morning), the broadcast networks entertained the idea that Paul Ryan was lying in his convention speech last week. Yet the problem for journalists was that Ryan’s speech was accurate, even if they didn’t like the implications. NBC’s Chuck Todd on Thursday evening’s Nightly News, for example, even conceded that “what he [Ryan] said many times was technically factual,” but grumbled that “by what he left out,” he “actually distorted the actual truth.”
Such a sensitive standard means journalists could endlessly complain, since even truthful speeches or TV ads necessarily omit information detrimental to their campaign objective. The question is, will journalists be so sensitive when liberal Democrats take liberties with their campaign rhetoric?
As part of her hour-long August 20 special edition of Now about to "women's issues," MSNBC's Alex Wagner devoted a 10-minute-long segment to the so-called pay gap -- women earning on average 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. Wagner's guests, Salon's Joan Walsh, Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Lilly Ledbetter predictably did their parts to help Wagner sell the pay gap issue as one with Republicans in the dark ages and Democrats as the white knights. "Why are Senate Republicans still fighting legislation to account for that gap and to make pay equal," Wagner asked Warren at the start of the segment.
But alas, the so-called pay gap is a "a solid statistic" that has been "described incorrectly" in anti-Republican attack ads, Politifact noted back in June (emphasis mine):
In an unintentionally hilarious variation on the some-of-my-best-friends-are line employed by people defending themselves against accusations of prejudice, Elizabeth Warren—lefty Dem candidate for Senate from Massachusetts—has claimed that various people close to her have started small businesses.
Warren let loose her laugh line on Al Sharpton's MSNBC show this evening, responding to an ad Sen. Scott Brown is running that reveals how President Obama's "you didn't build that" line was eerily similar to an earlier Warren utterance. View the video after the jump.
For someone seemingly so bright, Rachel Maddow sure has a short memory.
There she was on June 19, talking about a proposed debate between GOP Sen. Scott Brown and Democrat challenger Elizabeth Warren and mocking Brown with her trademark brand of arm-waving, arrested adolescent sarcasm (video after page break) --
Chris Matthews isn't even trying anymore. The liberal anchor on Wednesday went into full Democratic adviser mode. Talking to Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, he turned an interview into a strategy session, saying of the campaign against Republican Scott Brown: "Let me help you on this, to the extent that I, as a journalist, can help you."
Providing an additional contribution, Matthews somehow managed to skip the controversy that's been plaguing Warren's campaign for a month and a half: The fact that she has repeatedly tried to pass herself off as a Native American. (At one point, the Democrat claimed she was 1/32 Cherokee.) While avoiding this embarrassing subject, Matthews incredulously wondered, "Why are the polls so close?...You should be miles ahead of [Brown]." [See video below. MP3 audio here.]
At the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, Jesse Washington's Friday evening coverage ("Who's an American Indian? Warren case stirs query") of the nuances involved in claiming Native American Indian heritage -- or ancestry, or biology, or allegiance, or identity, or identification, or membership (and I've probably missed a couple) -- occasioned by Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts is the journalistic equivalent of what the occasional Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball game was like (with final scores sometimes in the 20s) before the NCAA legislated the shot clock: a continuous exercise in stalling.
Washington's report is time-stamped at 10:31 P.M., meaning that its last rendition was at least 18 hours after the Boston Globe performed a rare exercise in journalism and found the following, of which there is no hint in the AP story:
Are you prepared for your inevitable coronation as national laughingstock?
Bernie Quigley of The Hill has written himself into the laughstock status by his incredibly laughable excuse for Elizabeth Warren's false claim to be part Indian. According to Quigley, paleface Warren really wasn't lying about her ancestry. Why? I have placed Quigley's bizarre rationale below the fold so you have a chance to put down your drinks to prevent the drenching of your monitors when you read it:
On Monday's CBS This Morning, Charlie Rose and Erica Hill touted Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren's past time as "the government's chief watchdog during the 2008 bank bailout" as she was brought on to discuss JP Morgan Chase's $2 billion loss. Rose and Hill asked all of their questions from the left, and completely ommited any mention of the recent controversy over Warren's claim of Native American ancestry.
The anchor set up the Senate candidate to push for more regulations on banks without rebuttal: "It's appropriate to have some government oversight, and notwithstanding the fact that we're just coming out of this huge crisis." Hill even wondered if the banks themselves"should be broken up into smaller entities."
Elizabeth Warren, who also goes by her Indian name, "Lies on Race Box," is in big heap-um trouble. The earnest, reform-minded liberal running for Senate against Scott Brown, R-Mass., lied about being part-Cherokee to get a job at Harvard.
Harvard took full advantage of Warren's lie, bragging to The Harvard Crimson about her minority status during one of the near-constant student protests over insufficient "diversity" in the faculty. Warren also listed herself as an Indian in law school faculty directories and, just last month, said, "I am very proud of my Native American heritage."
On Monday’s front page, The Washington Post promoted “liberal hero” Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat looking to retake the “Ted Kennedy seat” in the Senate. “Stakes high as liberal hero tries to unseat GOP senator,” read the headline. On Sunday, the Post’s Chris Cillizza said Warren had the “Worst Week in Washington” for her muddled answers to claiming she was of Native American heritage in professor jobs for a decade.
But it wasn’t the “worst week” in the Post – they ran no news story on the controversy until Monday, but in this Karen Tumulty story, it was completely buried until paragraph twenty:
If you hoped the race card wasn't going to be played by media members this election, think again.
On Fox News's America Live Friday, liberal commentator Jehmu Greene said to the Daily Caller's Tucker Carlson, "To question [Massachusetts Democratic senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren] on her qualifications is going to be something that does appeal to folks like you, voters like you - bow-tying white boys" (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
On today’s edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski openly professed her love for Democrat Elizabeth Warren, and showed viewers that she hopes the Democrat defeats Republican incumbent Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.). At one point in the segment, Brzezinski said, “And I'm so sorry for Scott Brown, who I think is adorable. But it's just not going to happen.”
This is not the first time Mika has openly cheered for the liberal Harvard professor to win the Bay State's Senate contest, but it is the first time since an embarrassing scandal came to light involving Warren's specious claim to be of Native American heritage. [Audio here. Video below the jump.]
Elizabeth Warren is the Harvard law professor running for Senate in Massachusetts as a Democratic populist-progressive champion. But don't call her "Elizabeth Warren." Call her "Pinocchio-hontas," "Chief Full-of-Lies," "Running Joke" or "Sacaja-whiner."
Warren has claimed questionable Native American minority status for years to reap career "diversity" benefits. Now, Cherokee leaders, campaign rival GOP Sen. Scott Brown and an army of Twitter detractors have called her out for gaming the racial-preference system. Live by identity politics, die by identity politics.