Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject The PRESS v. Hillary Clinton: Pt 2. Let's Get Political
Topic URL
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4962911#49629114962911, The PRESS v. Hillary Clinton: Pt 2. Let's Get Political
Posted by McCamy Taylor on Fri Mar-07-08 10:49 PM
Hello Again! Last time I had gotten all the way up to late January 2007 in the right wing media conspiracy to make Hillary look like a lying, cheating Bitch and Obama look like a doping Black Muslim (who had been outed by Hillary, damn her already damned for all eternity soul!)
Before I get to that, there is one more flavor of bitchiness that I need to cover, the lying bitch . The corporate media, right, center and left has taken particular pains to tell the American public that Hillary is a great big fat liar. Lie, lie, lie. That is all she does from the moment she gets up until the moment she goes to sleep at night. There isn’t an authentic bone in her body.
And would the American news media lie to you about something as important as whether or not a Democratic presidential candidate is a liar?
I. The Biggest Big Lie: Hillary is a Lying Bitch
Hey, it worked so well in 2000 against Gore. It was the MSM’s finest hour. Much classier than sitting on the exit polls in Ohio 2004. That smacked of illegality. Common thuggery. This is practically art in comparison.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701197.html?nav=rss_politics/elections In December, the WaPo announced that Hillary and Obama were expected to announce that they were running for president in January.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701230011 However, when first Obama then Hillary announced their intentions to run for president in January, the corporate media pretended that it had not been told about Hillary’s plan in advance, and instead it claimed that her campaign moved up its scheduled announcement date to compete with Obama. The implication was that she was trying to steal his thunder or overshadow him, and that she was lying when she said that she had always intended to declare in January.
The same Media Matters article lists several “lies” that the corporate media claims that Hillary told in the run up to this “lie”. She was accused of lying about her favorite movie (!!!), about when she made a video (!!!), about faking a phone call and faking the reason for canceling a meeting. In fact, there is no evidence that any lies were told. It was all a bunch of MSM hot air aimed at spoiling her presidential bid announcement.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701240001 CYNTHIA TUCKER (Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor): Where Hillary doesn't want to be is in a position that makes her seem purely calculating. It's true I think that she has -- she --
FINEMAN: It'll be too late. It'll be too late for that.
MATTHEWS: Haven't you just defined her?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701240011 (Dick Morris on Fox) “Asserting that Clinton "has a deep-seated ideal of a liberal, nanny, socialist state" and "believes that it's a religious commitment," Morris purported to reveal that Clinton "feels the ends fully justify the means" and that she "consciously and deliberately is phony, manipulative, artificial, contrived, and she believes it is her duty to do that so that she can accomplish her objectives that she thinks are God's work."
“Earlier in the segment, Morris claimed that she wears "a complete mask, a complete opposite of who she is."’
http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/park0307.htm Kathleen Parker “Like a warped bell, Hillary Clinton rings untrue.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703140001 Media Matters debunks more lies.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705100008 Media Matters debunks a Fox News lie that Hillary only started to smile and wear bright colors because she is running for president by showing lots of photos of her over the years looking exactly as she does now. (Proving that some lies are better than others)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080125/COMMENTARY/461921693/1012 Author R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. writing for the Washington Times says of Hillary “her experience, which includes lying under oath, obstructing justice, slandering”. All easily proven to be lies, since she has never been charged or indicted for anything.
II. Hillary’s War
All these lies about Hillary being a liar have a purpose. They feed another Big Lie----the Irar War is Hillary’s War—which feeds an even bigger Big Lie that Karl Rove told last fall---the War in Iraq is really a Democratic War. Recall that he insisted that the only reason the Senate voted in the Iraq War Resolution in the Fall of 2002 was because Senate Democrats insisted upon a vote. In Rove’s warped world view that makes them 100% responsible. And Hillary is the designated Democrat who has been selected to carry the weight of our collective sins---so that the GOP nominee won't have to.
This is a Big Lie which is particularly deadly within the Democratic Primary where the War is massively unpopular. It is also the MSM lie that has benefited Obama the most. For the better part of last year, the nation’s journalists insisted upon portraying Hillary as a hawk with essentially the same voting record as John McCain who was always gung ho on the war—until she decided to run for president, as which point she did a sudden about face. Obama himself has done nothing to change this misperception, since it allows him to present himself as a dove to Hillary’s “hawk”.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703220017 Chris Matthews: "Hillary is for this war!"
Pardon my French, but this is bull shit!
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705010006 Media Matters says it more clearly than I can, When ABC’s Jake Tapper claimed that Hillary voted in 2002 for a war resolution or declaration of war against Iraq, MM actually went back and looked at what Hillary voted for and more importantly, found the statement she made at the time.
“Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our Nation. “
snip
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world."
Got that? bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely and My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism .
As early as Oct. 2003 Hillary had separated from Bush on the handling of the Iraq War:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705300003 Hillary: Among the many questions that I and others raised and the many criticisms we lodged against the use of the authority , which I and the majority of this body voted for, was the administration's aborting of the United Nations process and the inspections regime in order to launch military action.
Hillary gave similar statements over the years up until 2006, which is when corporate media reporters claim that she had a sudden (calculated) change of heart about the war.
Ok, armed with what Hillary actually said, here are the media distortions:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701300002 Jake Tapper suggests that Democrats may not find Hillary’s anti-war stance “authentic”
Well, they won’t if a bunch of reporters tell them that it isn’t and that she is a pathological liar.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705060001 On May 6, Fox News Sunday panelists repeated an emerging myth that legislation Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) announced she is introducing with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) "to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq" in October 2007 represents -- in the words of host Chris Wallace – a "big change" for Clinton "who has previously rejected timetables for withdrawal and now supports this idea of rescinding the original authorization to use force."
The Washington Post and CNN’s Bill Schneider follow suit and call this a sudden change in her position.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705220001 Bay Buchanan claims Hillary was a staunch supporter of the war and only recently changed her views.
In a similar vein, the MSM was quick to claim Hillary as a supporter of the surge even though what she said about it was
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/us/politics/21vets.html?ex=1345348800&en=0abcc66b8402da3e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss KANSAS CITY, Mo., Aug. 20 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton told an audience of war veterans on Monday that some elements of the strategy in Iraq appeared to be achieving success, but said a military solution was unattainable and the best way to honor the service of American troops was to “bring them home.”
“We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it’s working,” said Mrs. Clinton, the New York Democrat and candidate for her party’s presidential nomination. “We’re just years too late changing our tactics. We can’t ever let that happen again. We can’t be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war.”
Somehow, the corporate media transformed this into the Big Lie Hillary supports the surge which Media Matters documents was reported on MSNBC, New York Post, Drudge, Washington Times, and Face the Nation.
I wonder where Democrats got the idea that Hillary was a hawk, no different from John McCain and George Bush?
Like the first big media skirmish which I describe in The Press v. Hillary Clinton Part 1 , Hillary’s War hurt her within the Democratic Party and it aided her rivals---or, in this case, rival since the MSM was showering Obama with free publicity in direct proportion to the way that it was ignoring Edwards. That painted Obama as the dove to Hillary’s hawk---even though their voting records in Congress on the Iraq War were nearly identical.
III. Who is Afraid of Hillarycare?
Since Hillary’s name is synonymous healthcare, attacking her on strengths is important. But how do you make healthcare scary in a Democratic Primary?
Never underestimate the ingenuity of the press when it comes to fear tactics.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709170005 Democrats are afraid of corporations, so Newsday reported that Hillary’s 2006 re-election campaign got $850,000---putting her second highest of any senator for health care industry donations. It did not mention that most of it came from doctors, nurses and providers, and that if their donations were subtracted she fell off the top 25 list. Medical providers have interests that often exactly opposite to corporations. Most are in favor of a single payer health care system---that goes for doctors too, now that they have to deal with paperwork and billing hassles. Simply saying that Hillary gets a lot of money from the health care industry is a deliberate distortion that borders on a lie if you do not explain the different needs and interests of health care workers and the health care corporations. The result of stories like this is to paint Hillary as a corporate candidate.
In case that was not scary enough, the Drudge Report cooked up an even scarier lie
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709180016 On September 18, the Drudge Report, the website of Internet gossip Matt Drudge, featured the lead headline "HEALTH INSURANCE PROOF REQUIRED FOR WORK" under a picture of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). However, the Associated Press article to which the headline linked did not report that Clinton's recently proposed health care plan would require people to show proof of health insurance "for work." Rather, it reported that, in an interview with the AP, Clinton said: "At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed" for people who do not purchase health insurance as required by her plan. According to the article, Clinton also said, "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans." The AP article also stated that Clinton "said she could envision a day when 'you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview -- like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,' but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress."
The New York Post picked up the story for people who do not read the Drudge Report. Note that the fear issue raised by the Drudge Report would later be exploited by the Obama Campaign when it circulated it Harry and Louise II ads, claiming that Hillary would punish people who could not or would not participate in her universal healthcare system. Those ads were more believable, because the right wing had already paved the way with their lies.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200710300004 Perhaps the cruelest lie was the one stated on CNBC, when Hillary was blamed for the fact that 40 million Americans lack health insurance. Forget Bill Kristol and the GOP plan to keep Dems from enacting a healthcare policy. Forget Harry and Louise. Forget the health insurance industry lobbying and pr campaigning. Forget the Bush administration. The War in Iraq was Hillary’s War and American Insurance Crisis was Hillary’s Insurance Crisis. She probably bought the hammer and nails used to crucify Jesus, too.
I have read posts at DU in which seemingly sane people blame Hillary for the insurance crisis in America. Or, sometimes they blame Clinton’s penis. I wonder which health insurance board his penis sits on.
IV. Hillary the Lizard Lady
Those looked like real tears to me, but the boys and girls in the press corp were not fooled for a moment. Those were crocodile tears!
Actually, they were fooled for a moment. Before Hillary had the nerve to win New Hampshire, the state that was supposed to seal Obama’s fortunes the way that it sealed McGovern’s fortunes back in 1972, the press took a ghoulish delight in watching Hillary break down. Was this her Muskie moment? Was she too weak to be commander-in-chief? Was she all washed up?
When she won New Hampshire on a tide of Irish-American womens’ solidarity---who can a Catholic woman trust better to protect her reproductive rights, a woman or a man?---the press was not happy. Not happy at all.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801080008 While discussing a recent campaign event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, during which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) voice broke as she talked about why she is seeking the presidency, several media figures described Clinton's actions as "calculated," reviving a characterization frequently made by the media that Clinton is "calculating." For instance, right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin asserted that "this woman is all about calculation," while Weekly Standard editor and New York Times columnist William Kristol said, "I think no Clinton cries without calculating first" and nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh described the occurrence as "motional blackmail," adding: "This is calculated."
The corporate media verdict was that Hillary the automaton has no real human emotions, so Hillary the liar must have been crying crocodile tears in order to trick the voters of New Hampshire into picking her over Obama. This is another odd notion that I see around DU a lot.
V. Hillary is a lying, cheating RACIST bitch
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Hillary had proven that the MSM could not do to her what CREEP did to Muskie back in 1972. She was made of sterner stuff. Time to try to really desperate tactics from Pat Buchanan’s list of dirty tricks (see Part 1). Time to pull out the race card.
Those who think that the Clintons pulled out the race card have not being paying attention.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/chris_matthews_racist_paleface_voters_in_new_hampshire_are_what_did_obama_i MSNBC host Chris Matthews didn’t just uncork his line on Primary Night about how New Hampshire Democrats would have displayed their racism to pollsters if they heard an “Archie Bunker voice” on the other end of the line. He repeated it on Wednesday’s “Morning Joe” show on MSNBC. He was upset at anyone who thought the pollsters and pundits were wrong about the Obama victory, when white voters lied to pollsters: “Methinks Paleface speak with forked tongue.”
Matthews declared he thought this was over in 2006: “I thought white voters had stopped being what they want to be. And you know what it tells me? People aren’t proud of who they are.” Host Joe Scarborough, asking Matthews to address the alleged bigotry in New England, drew out Matthews, the former top aide to Boston-area Rep. Tip O’Neill, to denounce the whole Boston area: “There’s different kinds of prejudice, as you know, in the north than there is in the south, but it exists. It may not be ‘I think I’m better than you,’ but it might be ‘I don’t want to live next door to you.’”
Say what? That lying sack of shit! I have never been to New England in my life, but I took one look at the pre election poll numbers and looked at the vote and said to myself Hmmm. New England. Lot of Catholics up there. The women decided that they trusted another woman more than a man. I can understand that. I come from an Irish-American family myself.
And so does Tweety. He knew perfectly well what the final analysis would show, and he came up with that race baiting theory of his to interject race into the race before South Carolina. And boy did it work. We had people at DU swearing that New Hampshire was full of bigots.
Then there was this from Pat Buchanan Ghettoizing Barack in which he describes a distorted view of how the brilliant Clintons deliberately played the race card to shoot themselves in the foot and lose South Carolina and build up sympathy for Obama, because, because….
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ghettoizing_barack.html Forget Pat Buchanan. He still thinks that Black People are scary.
http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/060410.htm Here is how the so called “playing of the race card” went down.
Hillary said:
I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said, "We are going to do it," and actually got it accomplished.
Three times the NYT printed this quote minus the part in bold, changing the meaning. Hillary had meant to compare Obama to the youthful but relatively inexperienced JFK and herself to the older, wilier LBJ. The change of the quote made it look like she was comparing herself to MLK Jr. Media Matters kept correcting the NYT and they kept doing it anyway. Soon, everyone—the WaPo, the La Times-- was repeating the phony version of her quote. Fox News even changed what she said to make it sound worse.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801150016 An Associated Press article reported that House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn "expressed disappointment with Clinton after she said it took President Lyndon B. Johnson, a white politician, to finally realize King's dream of racial equality by signing the Civil Rights Act." But that is not what Clinton said.
At the same time Bill Clinton gave a speech in which he discussed Obama’s record on the war. He stated that the differences which Obama claimed between his war stance and Hillary's were a “fairy tale”.
Read about how good old Tim Russert edited what Bill said and played it here
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130003 so that it would sound like Bill called Obama’s campaign a fairy tale. I guess Russert was trying to suggest that Clinton was intimating (on the eve of South Carolina, a state which Jesse Jackson once carried) that only in fairy tales could a Black men become president of the United States. The problem was that is not what Bill Clinton said. He said that Obama was distorting his own anti-war history---and accusations of lying are color blind, as Hillary Clinton and Al Gore can attest.
Newsweek, the Washington Post and others picked up this mischaracterization of Bill Clinton’s remarks. Obama supporters at DU trumpeted both sets of MSM lies as if they were gospel truth---and proof that the Clintons had suddenly metamorphosed into cretinous low brows who plotted to score points in a state like South Carolina by pissing off the largest voting block.
Obama, as usual, cleaned up, thanks to the media Fatwa.
Oh, I almost forget one. It isn’t exactly a racially charged charge, though many in the corporate media and here at DU pretended to think that it was. Cocaine. Plenty of White and Hispanic folks use it. The issue has haunted Obama, since he decided to include it in his memoir. However, it is unlikely to sway Democratic voters, who are not really interested in “sin” issues.
When Clinton campaign co-chair Billy Shaheen suggested exploiting the issue, he had to resign. That should have been the end of the story. However, the MSM was not about to let a drug story drop. So Chris Matthews invited Mark Penn, David Axelrod and Joe Trippi on his show and began badgering all them with questions about Obama’s drug use---did he share drugs, did he sell drugs? Several times, Clinton’s chief strategist indicated that he wanted to change the subject but Matthews kept bringing the conversation back to the subject of drugs until finally Penn said the word “cocaine” at which point Trippi of all people went ballistic.
Here is the link to the transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22259731 /
Now, here is where things get surreal at MSNBC—a network which I am beginning to believe exists somewhere on the other side of the Looking Glass. Somehow Tweety has managed to convince a bunch of seemingly sane people at MSNBC that Penn came onto his show and like someone with a strange form of tourettes he just started mouthing off about ‘cocaine” out of the blue, making him the second Clinton staffer to accuse Obama in public of cocaine use. Be sure to read the transcript of the show, before you go on so that you appreciate how unreal the media distortions that follow are.
Keep in mind that Tweety had discussed the fact that the issue had turned into a campaign fund raising gold mine for Obama and was garnering him support, as you would expect in the Democratic primary. Therefore, talking about the issue helps Obama in the primaries (it hurts him in the generals) and hurts Hillary.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801150018 Matthews claims that three Clinton staffers have publicly mentioned Obama’s drug use by adding Penn’s appearance on his show above to BET Founder Bob Johnson’s unsolicited (and uncontrollable) comments---billionaires are never staffers.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801180014 Jonathan Alter claims that Penn brought up the subject of drugs on Hardball (!!)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802070002 On the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, correspondent David Shuster said to Mark Penn, chief strategist for the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY): "About five or six weeks ago, you were on Hardball with David Axelrod and Joe Trippi , and you were the one who brought up a word and reminded people of Barack Obama's past drug use." Shuster then asked Penn: "Do you now acknowledge that that tactic was a mistake?"
Say what? I am surprised Penn did not lean over and slap Shuster. Or at least cuss him up one side of the head and down another.
Not long afterwards, David Shuster would accuse the Clintons of “pimping out” Chelsea. Poor David. I can not feel sorry for him anymore, not after he lied about what happened on Hardball on Dec 13 with Mark Penn right there in front him. What a disgusting game of “gotcha”. He must have learned it from Tweety---along with the misogyny.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/politics/01press.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1204950008-YcRWwcPm5xELciIMeCkyhQ This NYT article originally created a stir---and made the David Shuster the victim along with reinforcing the Big Lie Hillary is a Bitch-- because it claimed that Hillary had demanded that Shuster be fired. In fact, she only asked that MSNBC correct problems within their network. There is a retraction online now—not that this makes a difference to the millions who read the original story, or the people at DU who called Hillary a bitch for over reacting.
The article contains some other interesting facts:
The night after Mrs. Clinton reprimanded Tim Russert and Brian Williams during the Cleveland debate on MSNBC for asking her a disproportionate number of “first” questions, she appeared Wednesday at a rally in St. Clairsville, Ohio. When someone stood to castigate the news media for being unfair to her, the audience cheered, with some even turning to cast a collective evil eye on the reporters in the high school gymnasium.
In a New York Times/CBS News telephone poll conducted Feb. 20-24 and released Tuesday, nearly half of those respondents who described themselves as voters in Democratic primaries or caucuses said the news media had been “harder” on Mrs. Clinton than other candidates. (Only about 1 in 10 suggested the news media had been harder on Mr. Obama.)
The press had better be careful. We learned in New Hampshire what happens when people get the impression that you are beating up on a woman.
VI. Hillary is Richard Nixon and that is the worst kind of bitch. And Obama is still a Scary Black Muslim
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803050001 Discussing Sen. Hillary Clinton's answer to a question about whether she believed Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, Newsweek editor Howard Fineman said that Clinton's answer was "positively Nixonian in its pauses and innuendos." In fact, Clinton's first three words in response to the question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not."
Fineman is either the biggest, fattest liar of them all---or he was too drunk during the 60 Minutes interview to pay attention so he did like everyone else at MSNBC seems to do and he took Tweety’s word for it (bad idea).
This story got legs at yet another right wing site, this time the good old Drudge Report, which edited Hillary’s comment.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803030004 A Drudge Report headline linking to a 60 Minutes interview of Sen. Hillary Clinton read, "Hillary: Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know' ...," falsely suggesting that Clinton characterized the issue of Sen. Barack Obama's religion as unresolved. In fact, she did the opposite.
In fact, she did the opposite. Correspondent Steve Kroft first asked Clinton, "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" to which Clinton replied, "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Kroft then asked, "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim," to which Clinton replied, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft went on to ask, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying, right?," did Clinton respond, "No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know" .
Following Clinton's response to Kroft's third query on the subject, Kroft said, "It's just scurrilous --" to which Clinton responded, "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."
Please watch the video of the interview that accompanies the link above. Hillary is no more Nixonian than Obama is. Fineman is talking out of his ass. However MSNBC and NBC continued to promote Drudge’s mischaracterization of Hillary’s response, precipitating this
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803060002 In his March 6 Washington Post column, Harold Meyerson characterized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's remarks about Sen. Barack Obama's religion during the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes as "hemming and hawing." Meyerson wrote: "Party leaders must make clear to the candidates that some attacks and innuendos should be out of bounds -- such as Clinton's hemming and hawing on '60 Minutes' over whether Obama really is Christian."
Notice that the net result of this Drudge Report attack is just like the "Obama is a Muslim" story from one year ago. It furthers the Big Lie that Obama is a Muslim by keeping the question on TV news shows and in the pages of newspapers, so that general election voters all across America keep thinking about it. All this thanks to a well timed question asked by a Viacom emnployee followed by the Drudge Report and then the good old guys at GE. And it paints Hillary at the villain, clearing the way for Obama the Muslim to be the nominee, since Democrats are so ready to blame the bitch and so naive about where the real danger lies.
All of this smoke and mirrors only works because nowadays nobody in the MSM does their own legwork. They are all lazy. They get one of their number to write a story, and then the rest of them feel free to repeat it endlessly until someone says "That's wrong" and then they finally have to stop. By then, the damage is done. Next time, they pick someone else to “make a mistake” or “misquote” and concoct a different lie so that they can send around another bit of propaganda. That way no one looks bad or particularly inept. There is safety in numbers.
Thanks again to Media Matters, a must read for everyone who isn't sure if what they are seeing and/or reading is the truth or corporate media bullshit. Hillary is a shrill bitch, a man-hating bitch, all Hillary's supporters are man-hating bitches and miscellaneous media lies in Part III. See you then!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
