Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Saturday, October 17, 2015

NPR's memory hole

Dr. Google has a remedy

Although we now have more news sources than ever, we don't seem to be getting more information. In their eagerness to contribute to the news glut, media outlets generate increasing amounts of fluffy bits of non-news. It's extremely disappointing to find National Public Radio getting in on the act. On October 15, 2015, NPR's “lead digital reporter” Jessica Taylor posted a shallow item titled New Clinton Spanish Posters: Hillary or Evita? Although Taylor took the trouble to learn that Clinton's staffers disclaimed responsibility for the Spanish-language posters and images appearing in Texas, she used the rest of her short article to muse about resemblances to icons of Eva Peron, Madonna (as Eva Peron), fashion designer Carolina Herrera, and Shepard Fairey's 2008 Hope poster. The mystery of the poster's origin remained unsolved.

Perhaps it was too much trouble to do the minimal amount of research required to uncover something about the poster's origins. The earliest example I found with a quick Google search was in December 2012, when a site called “The Right Perspective” (not exactly friends of Hillary) ran a very similar image (only the background differs) with an article about Clinton's expected presidential campaign. Essentially the same illustration appeared in May of last year on the “Bearing Arms (Guns & Patriots)” site with an opinion piece mocking Clinton's position on gun control.

Who cobbled together the original image? Who switched the background of wavy red and white stripes to a burst of sun rays? These deep questions remain unanswered. The pictures have, of course, spread throughout the Internet, as memes are wont to do. Zazzle has it on posters and other paraphernalia. Politico reports that a copy was posted in Clinton's Brooklyn campaign office, although that falls a bit short of establishing it as officially sanctioned by the campaign, especially given its non-campaign antecedents.

Yes, it's a tiny little non-story. And it's something a “lead” reporter for NPR wastes time on—and not very well.

Tuesday, June 03, 2014

The Tea Party is not dead!

Just very, very sick

One of the joys of Facebook is stumbling across long-lost friends or relatives and renewing acquaintances. The downside is the discovery that an old friend or cousin has gone completely around the bend. Last year I ran into an nth cousin I hadn't seen since we were both teens. It was nice to swap family photos and do some catching up. But what do I find on her Facebook timeline? Stuff like this:

 Now THAT was a commander in chief

Yeah, one hell of a commander-in-chief, all right. Did he also hug the many widows and widowers he created with his military adventurism?

Of course, my cousin pays tribute to our current president, too:


Hilarious! This implies, of course, that Obama's economic record is nothing to brag about. His job-creation record must be much worse than that of his glorious predecessor, right? Funny thing, though, about reality. George W. Bush took two terms to eke out a job increase of 0.21%. (Actually all the growth was in the second term, because it was 0.0% for Bush's first term.) Obama managed 0.23% in a single term, and it's still increasing during his second term.

This naturally inspires a question: Who from among the GOP's leading lights could be as great a president as the much-missed George W.?

Who would you like to see as a presidential candidate?

Frankly, the gray silhouette strikes me as the most qualified and inspires the most confident. Of course, my cousin wants a Republican president who will finally get to the bottom of the Democratic president's many, many scandals. Like Benghazi:


It would be much too easy for the GOP merely to accept the many answers they've already received. Besides, they didn't like those answers. Obama and Clinton have simply refused to cooperate. They stubbornly won't admit that they deliberately arranged to have Americans killed by Muslim terrorists. If they would just confess and volunteer to go to jail, we could finally put Benghazi behind us. So clearly it's the Democrats' fault that this just keeps grinding on.



It appears that my cousin is concerned that her children are targets for terrorists—probably foreign, but possibly domestic. You can also tell, quite clearly, that the guards in the photo are packing heat. I presume it's merely a detail that these guards (a) are not at the Sidwell Friends school attended by Obama's daughters and (b) Sidwell guards do not carry firearms. My cousin, you see, has a strong aversion to fact-checking, which is likely to destroy an otherwise perfectly good story, just like most of the other posts that my cousin “liked” and “shared” from The Tea Party page on Facebook. (Today's special treat: Nutcase Allen West calls for Obama's impeachment. What? Again?)

My cousin intersperses saccharin pieties among the right-wing memes. Apparently God loves us (at least since 1954) and wants us to be happy, which is in odd conflict with the many miseries he's visited upon us, all “documented” by the right wing. Perhaps we're in the End Times!

One Nation, Under God

The end.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Scary times for the GOP

Elephants stampede in terror!

The Republican National Committee is running a little contest. It sent out an e-mail this week encouraging people to log on to gop.com to cast a vote for the “scariest Democrat.” One must admire the blithe lack of embarrassment as the GOP mocks the Democratic candidates for president. Haven't they noticed that Tom Tancredo is running for their nomination? Or Rudy Giuliani? It's a remarkably sorry crew on the Republican side.


So, what do you see if you click on the link to the GOP's crude (and noisy) website? Such a surprise! The scariest Democrat—by a huge 91% romp—is Hillary Clinton! Did you know it would turn out that way? (I'll bet you did!)


The more conspiracy-minded among us tend to think that the Republicans keep hammering away at Sen. Clinton because they want the Democrats to nominate her. You see, they're licking their chops at the prospect of going after her in a general election. After all, doesn't everyone know that she carries more baggage than other Democrats and is sure to lose? (Except, however, that she keeps winning.)

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn whether the Republicans really fear her or are merely pretending to do so. (There are probably plenty of Republicans who aren't sure themselves.) As a red-meat liberal myself, I would frankly enjoy it more if Hillary ripped open some Republican bellies and devoured their cirrhosis-ridden livers. She's been playing it safe and hovering in the political midst of the pack, but who can say it hasn't been enormously successful to date? She's already withstood more than fifteen years of unremitting and nasty personal attacks. Republicans must fear deep in their withered hearts that she can endure their worst. Perhaps they have overplayed their hand, working so hard to demonize the junior senator from New York that people are surprised and relieved when they see her on the campaign trail: She doesn't actually have horns and a tail. Why, she seems like regular folks!

Let the GOP caper about and make their merry Halloween jokes. They may as well enjoy themselves while waiting for their richly-deserved doom to come upon them.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Hillary gets serious

So much for mainstream media

Folks seeking alternative news sources enjoy many choices from outside the mainstream. It's difficult to beat Town Hall, National Review Online, NewsMax.com, or WorldNetDaily for reporters who have exempted themselves from all of the restrictive canons of journalism. We know that fact-checking can kill a good story, and what could be more important than a good story? Right? (Extreme right.)

Nevertheless, even the far-out news media can on occasion miss a huge story, the kind of scoop that any one of them would have died to get first. This week the alternative media were outmaneuvered by the fearless Weekly World News, a tabloid that is alternative even to the alternatives.

The news is that Sen. Clinton is prepared to reveal her choice of running mate as a dramatic coup de théâtre that will shake up the 2008 presidential sweepstakes. Hillary is looking to link up with Bigfoot in a powerhouse ticket that will crush Republican hopes to retain the White House. As the Weekly World News blurb says, “Republicans scramble for candidates when news of the former first lady and her hard-hitting running mate's bid for the Oval office is announced!” Indeed.
Hillary/Bigfoot to run in ’08!

By DENNY SPURLING

HOMER, N.H.—A member of Hillary Clinton's campaign team couldn't suppress his excitement when he recently confided to Weekly World News that the New York Senator is not only running for president, but has selected a running mate in the 2008 race.

“Leading Republicans have threatened a ‘wild and woolly battle’ in the upcoming election and we've got just the guy to help meet that challenge,” said Clinton advisor Don Key.

The ‘guy’ is none other than a towering wild man well known to readers of Weekly World News. We don't mean Bill Clinton: we mean Bigfoot. “Bigfoot doesn't intend to bully people,” Key went on. “His style will be a no-nonsense, get-it-done approach similar to Teddy Roosevelt—with a slightly altered motto of ‘Grunt softly and carry a big club.’”


When told of the still-secret news, G.O.P. spokeswoman Ellie Funt ridiculed the idea.

“Good grief, how can someone run for Vice President when he doesn't even exist! No one ever sees him except hunting prey in the wild or battling equally imaginary foes!”

Reminded that this is how most people saw Dick Cheney, Funt stayed on message.

“Running Sasquatch is just another stupid stunt by desperate Democrats,” she continued. “Besides, the public won't vote for someone who stinks like a billygoat. Who'd come to those rallies?”

“The ‘red states,’ most likely,” remarked Don Key.

While shocking to many, the choice is not entirely a surprise. Political observers first became suspicious when they read about Bigfoot getting into shape. (“The Bigfoot Diet,” Weekly World News, Jan. 1, 2007). It was obvious that his workouts and dieting were a preparation for some type of public appearance.
Watchers of the political scene always recognize dieting as a reliable indicator that a politician is preparing to run for office. Whenever Ted Kennedy slims down, it's inevitably the case that an election is in his immediate future. By a curious coincidence, the Weekly World News was fortunate enough for its diligent reporters to have published details on Bigfoot's diet program a mere three weeks before breaking the news of his likely candidacy for the vice presidency. This is a tabloid with a track record.
Democrats are mostly enthusiastic about the potential candidate. Typical is Washington state delegate Ernie Fuhrman.

“I'd be proud to vote for the ol’ boy,” he said. “We got a lot in common. We live in the same area, we both hunt deer, and neither of us are much for goin’ to barbers. I even forgive him for stealin’ my wife back in ’65. After all, that was a hard winter and it can get lonely up in the mountains.” Fuhrman laughed. “I guess that would make him a natural politician, right?”

Still, the Clinton camp knows there is much work to be done.

“Bigfoot will have to stop shunning crowds, kicking dogs who come sniffing his leg and learn to be accepted into polite society,” admitted Key. “When he nearly crushed my knuckles, I knew we had to begin by teaching him a proper handshake. And we may have to rule out kissing babies—not because he scares them but because he attracts them like a big, live teddy bear. The last thing we want is video of a bunch of tots clinging to his fur while their moms scream in terror.

“Fortunately; once she's had a hot shower and a leg wax, his companion, the former Mrs. Beatrice Fuhrman, will make a charming co-campaigner to her common-law mate.”

Objective political scientists disagree about whether Bigfoot will help the Democrats' chances in the election.

“The public is tired of the same old sound bites and party lines,” said Dr. Will Farestait of the Green Mint Think Tank. “They want an outsider to represent them. Since we've seen how a lumbering, semi-human creature with few verbal skills can attain elected office these days, Bigfoot should be a shoo-in.”

Not so, said sociology professor Frank Benjamin.

“Bigfoot has no credentials. No track record, unless you count muddy footprints in a marsh. He doesn't have a snowman's chance.” Benjamin added, “There's also a problem with his legislative agenda. I've heard he thinks that litterbugs should be torn limb from limb. I'm reasonably sure that language will not be accepted by certain liberal legislators—though, ironically, the conservatives may warm to it.”
It cannot be denied that Bigfoot would be a formidable campaigner. His animal vitality would enable him to log many hours on the hustings without tiring. And just imagine his ability to intimidate his rivals during debates. While Lloyd Bentsen contented himself with merely humiliating Dan Quayle with rhetorical barbs, Bigfoot would certainly favor actions over words.
Of course, the big unanswered question remains: Why would this normally shy creature agree to step into the spotlight?

“We first approached him with a banana and a platform that is heavily environmental,” stated Key. “Turns out he's very concerned about our vanishing wilderness, forests sickened by acid rain and polluted waters. He's saddened that his once-pristine home environment is degrading rapidly.

“I truly believe he'll rule the Senate in a positive way for eight years in a Clinton administration—then go on to serve as our president for two terms,” predicted Key. “Can you imagine him negotiating nuclear weapons control with North Korea?

“I can even see the campaign slogan now," Key said. “‘Give ’em hell, Hairy!’”

Bat Boy was approached for a statement, but his people said he was deeply disappointed by Sen. Clinton's decision and would release a formal statement at a later date.