They hated Hillary from the time she was First Lady. First, Bill dared to imply she might be intelligent enough to chair a health care committee, after that, she had the gall to not just arrange flowers around the White House. The Times hadn't seen a political First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt. They couldn't deal, they were old white men, how dare she!
I hate to say this, but the Dems would be well advised to run a male for President, the misogyny in this country is well entrenched, no matter what excuses anti-Hillary types make.
And for fuck's sweet sake, do not nominate Bernie! That way lies a disaster that would make 2016 pale by comparison. I hope the purity ponies have learned their lesson.
Even that, though, is written breathlessly, glamorously. Using words like "genius" and "fame" or "mythology". They are writing about , sullen, ill educated, lazy, cheats, con artists, thugs: people who are completely boring, who nobody would want to share a prison cell with, let alone sit next to at a inner party. They are writing about cheating bullies who have nothing interesting to say and never had. But the NYT writes about these stupid grifters like they are Einstein and Rudolph Nureyev wrapped into a Jackie O sandwich. Because it's thrilling.
A tight horserace sells more papers than a blowout. Then, Hillary was a cinch to win. Today, Putin is more likely to win than either of them. He is, after all, more likeable, and why use a middleman or middlewoman when you can have the genuine big honking deal?
The Times, to put it mildly, is chickenshit 90 percent of the time, but I do give them props for the Trump money story. It was well researched, too bad Trump supporters can't read more than 2 pages of any article.
That Bushco illegal wiretapping story sat on the spike long enough to be re-installed... because of a direct request from Bushco.The NYT held the story for a year! A year which included a hotly contested election!A sitting president and his administration institute a policy that is unconstitutional on its face, and clearly violates the law, is caught red handed, and completely evades consequences...by asking nicely.
Yeah, but they're both dried up and useless most of the time. At least you can put the NYT in your parakeet cage.
Its thrilling to them because he's thrilling to them. They are crazy about him.
They hated Hillary from the time she was First Lady. First, Bill dared to imply she might be intelligent enough to chair a health care committee, after that, she had the gall to not just arrange flowers around the White House. The Times hadn't seen a political First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt. They couldn't deal, they were old white men, how dare she!
I hate to say this, but the Dems would be well advised to run a male for President, the misogyny in this country is well entrenched, no matter what excuses anti-Hillary types make.
And for fuck's sweet sake, do not nominate Bernie! That way lies a disaster that would make 2016 pale by comparison. I hope the purity ponies have learned their lesson.
To be fair, the Bush admin convinced them "national security"or some such. I think.
It's thrilling to them because they broke a story.
Even that, though, is written breathlessly, glamorously. Using words like "genius" and "fame" or "mythology". They are writing about , sullen, ill educated, lazy, cheats, con artists, thugs: people who are completely boring, who nobody would want to share a prison cell with, let alone sit next to at a inner party. They are writing about cheating bullies who have nothing interesting to say and never had. But the NYT writes about these stupid grifters like they are Einstein and Rudolph Nureyev wrapped into a Jackie O sandwich. Because it's thrilling.
SOmeone hasn't been keeping up with Rachael Maddow's show.
Does Mr. Baquet still have his job today after last night's blistering Rachel Maddow segment?
There is a paper of record. It's edited by Marty Baron and is called The Washington Post. Just, you know, for the record.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
It's cover for being a pervy drunk when not at work. "See? I can't hate women!"
....which is 2 pages more than all those other non-Trump supporters who are furiously fawning over Kardashian photos....(well-intended humor comment)
A tight horserace sells more papers than a blowout. Then, Hillary was a cinch to win. Today, Putin is more likely to win than either of them. He is, after all, more likeable, and why use a middleman or middlewoman when you can have the genuine big honking deal?
The Times, to put it mildly, is chickenshit 90 percent of the time, but I do give them props for the Trump money story. It was well researched, too bad Trump supporters can't read more than 2 pages of any article.
That Bushco illegal wiretapping story sat on the spike long enough to be re-installed... because of a direct request from Bushco.The NYT held the story for a year! A year which included a hotly contested election!A sitting president and his administration institute a policy that is unconstitutional on its face, and clearly violates the law, is caught red handed, and completely evades consequences...by asking nicely.
It's a nice comical counterpoint!