February 18, 2014

Is the Morning News on the early attack against Hillary? For cheap pageviews?

Folks, I'm already on record as opposing Hillary Clinton for President in 2016. The idea of yet another neoliberal Democrat, presumably one who won't have new ideas, makes me barf.

That said, I don't cotton to apparent hatchet jobs, like that of Scott Parks at the Trailblazers blog:
My in-box hints at what awaits us if Hillary Clinton runs for President in 2016. Her opponents are already flooding the media with press releases and story pitches that rehash ancient events from the tumultuous Bill Clinton presidency.

The Whitewater Scandal: What did Hillary Know?

Monica Lewinsky: Where is she now?

The Death of Vince Foster: Murder or Suicide?

Hillary’s role in the Siege at Waco.
Simple, Scott.

Whitewater was overrated from the day Jeff Gerth of the NYT decided to start overrating it.

Lewinsky has nothing to do with Hillar.

You know the answer on Vince.

Hillary had nothing to do with Waco. From Bill's reaction, he didn't have a lot to do himself. That was all Janet Reno.

As I told him in an email:
It sounded instead like a cheap choice to deliberately run through right wing talking machine talking points.
This is far more than Wayne Slater picking at a loosely written story by Wendy Davis. (And, IMO, rightfully doing part of his picking.)

Whether Parks meant it this way or not, it comes off like a cheap hatchet job.

Yes, later on, he says:
My current favorite, totally devoid of truth, is the one about Chelsea Clinton really being the child of Web Hubbell, an old Clinton crony from Arkansas. You can tell Web and Chelsea are related because they both have thick lips, according to the right-wing propaganda machine.
First, it's "Webb."

Second, saying this to show that you probably don't believe other parts of the right wing machine is no good. Why repeat stuff you believe is asked and answered anyway?

That's reinforced by this:
Undoubtedly, efforts to recycle 20-year-old Clinton stories will enjoy wide popularity in the Wild West-like digital world. But the ultimate success of a smear campaign will depend on the extent to which major daily newspapers and television networks feel pressure to take the bait and revisit the 1990s.
Really, what this is is an attempt to drive hits to the blog, as you just recycled it yourself. No dice, Scott. I have the "no follow" on the HTML to your post.

In case you missed it, here's his email address. Let him know what you think.

Otherwise, this is even more likely to be, beyond fishing for pageviews, a head fake.

Because there's actual, real stuff to ask Hillary about.

Did she have any influence on Marc Rich or other pardons? Agree with Clinton "triangulating" to the right? Agree with executing Ricky Rector?

No comments: