Posted on 04/15/2015 7:43:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
It is fair to say that Hillary Clinton is as liberal as Ted Cruz is conservative. This will explain why our so-called "objective" media are already treating Hillary as the Third Coming (Obama was No. 2) while Cruz merits hide-your-children alarms.
Just the adjectives give it away. Hillary's Twitter launch on April 12 was received with words like "sleek," "savvy," "trending," "electrifying," and "approachable" She was packaged by the press exactly as she wanted it: a humble "champion of everyday Americans."
Compare that to the Ted Cruz launch on March 23. These words framed the introduction: "scary," "dangerous," "slimy," "firebrand," "rigid," "uncompromising," "hardline," "extremist," "flamethrower."
Media elites identify their own ultraliberal spot on the political spectrum when they choose to ascribe labels to candidates and causes. Most Republicans are routinely identified as "conservative," which is fair, and often presented as radical beyond belief, which is predictable. But Hillary is almost never identified as "liberal." Instead, journalists point out that she's been pressed to sound notes of "fiery populism" (read: socialism) to attract "more progressive" Democrats who admire Elizabeth Warren.
Let's not forget: In the first six months of 2007, the CBS and NBC evening news shows offered zero liberal labels for Barack Obama. ABC mustered one.
How about the issues? While ABC insisted Ted Cruz was extreme, favoring "no abortions, no gun control," there was no mention of Hillary's comparably "rigid" or "hardline" views on those issues. What abortion has Hillary Clinton ever found distasteful? She is no different than Obama or most Democratic leaders who support any abortion at any time for any reason.
There has been no focus by the networks on Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz proclaiming (in response to a Rand Paul dare) that there were zero abortion restrictions she favored. "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
That's exactly where Hillary stands, a 100-percent supporter of the abortion industry. And like so many pro-aborts they're dishonest. They want government involved -- paying the bills. She could have kicked off her campaign at Planned Parenthood.
Where's the beef? The pro-Hillary media are also betraying their bias by including almost no mention of her scandals since her announcement. Scandals are presented as merely something the Republicans will try to exploit -- implying that journalists have no interest in government ethics or, for that matter, investigative reporting. The Clinton era was marked by the "news" media's refusal to get to the bottom of a single Clinton scandal. Why change now?
They've all promoted her road trip to Iowa as a charming tour to meet those "everyday Americans," never noting that she's failing to grant interviews or hold press conferences. While her opponents subject themselves to hostile interviews with liberal networks, Hillary demonstrates she's still a raging egomaniac seeking to be coronated by stiff-arming any and all questions the press might have.
Instead, the pro-Hillary media explain that all this "humble" activity makes so much sense. As USA Today's Susan Page said on CBS, "Clearly, Hillary Clinton doesn't need to do a big rally in order to get our attention, right. We do nothing but pay attention to Hillary Clinton." Any strategy she attempts is all right with them. They'll sell her in any way she wants.
The media also avoid any focus on Hillary's startling lack of accomplishments in her public life, unless they cite something lame like her globetrotting travels as secretary of state. Her sorry handling of security at the consulate in Benghazi is largely dismissed, forgotten. They all walked away when she asked, "What difference does it make?"
As in every other modern presidential election, the Republicans will be pounded and pressed and caricatured by a hostile media. Hillary Clinton, by comparison, will have her public image carefully managed and massaged for maximum appeal. With the media, she exemplifies the phrase -- to borrow from liberal lingo about the wealthy -- "born on third base and thought she hit a triple."
The clowns in the “MEDIA” can’t help themselves. The Hillary, Huma and Scooby Burrito Show is the “surprise” hit of the season! They are definitely “ready” for Hillary, Scooby, Huma and “Chip Ole’” (Borrowed from “Rev. Al the race pimp.)
You could dress a poodle up and make it the Democratic Party nominee and the press would assist them.
The Van is only there to Attract the Press like Flies around S#&t
Cal Thomas recently said - the media treated Obama like the messiah, you can be sure they will treat Hillary like the Virgin Mary.
Don’t you mean a hairy virgin??
Think it’s bad now? Wait til Spring 2016.
Christ have mercy on all of us.
I really did expect the Chicago folks to run Warren and torpedo Hillary.
Based on the avalanche of journ-0-list support for Hillary, I don’t think it’s going to happen.
Mrs BJ Clinton may well coast to the nomination.
In a rational world she would be in the cell next to Blago and Jesse Jr.
Candy Crowley to the debate rescue!
I bet it won’t be Clinton on stage but a hologram of her..
“Obama was No. 2”
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.
Brent says that as if those words are positives. Maybe they said:
Hillary’s campaign kick-off was as sleek as a 350 pound starting tackle at second rate junior college. Although attempting to appear approachable and electrifying those that managed this disaster completely lacked the savvy to pull it off in any reasonable fashion. This woman would be a disaster as President and if there is any trending to be seen it is all downhill.
Ha!!! Excellent call!
Has ANYONE seen the hilarious video of the reporters chasing the Scooby van?
SOMEONE needs to loop that at double speed and put “Yakety Sax” on it - it’d be Internet gold!
Already on media life support. Oh my.
My guess is that most voters want to see fire in a candidate. The Republicans aren’t going to win over many democrat voters, they need the Independents to win. Give them a candidate that will make them want to vote for, and not stay home on election day in disgust. I don’t think the Independents are that interested in the old white rich woman, so maybe some new blood will work better. Then you also have to deal with the heads of mush youth voters, especially the women who will only vote for Hillary because “Its time for a woman” agenda. Trying to convince them that Hillary isn’t Mother Theresa, just another Evita will be a monumental project. 18 months of Hillary, Hillary, Hillary was planned for a reason.
Yes, Obama was, and still is, and shall forevermore be No. 2. I like the choice of words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.