HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » lapucelle » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Mon Jun 13, 2016, 01:17 PM
Number of posts: 2,487

Journal Archives

She was right. Say it. Hallelujah edition.

I was just in the lounge reading a pet peeve thread about the use of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" at funerals. And then I watched Kate McKinnon's cold open for SNL the Saturday after the election. And then, for the first tim in a long time, I found myself crying.

Collectively we were all injured by whatever crimes were committed in the course of sabotaging this election, but on a purely personal level, it is Hillary Clinton who was the target and the primary victim.

I've yet to hear any of the punditry actually say it. Where is the outrage on a level personal that this was done to the first woman nominee of a major party for the office of the presidency? Will no one stand up for her as a person and as a victim?

She was right. Say it.
And then acknowledge that she was also wronged.

Silence = Complicity



She was right. Say it. Of false equivalency and Mr. Bannon's narrative.

The newspaper of record is absolving itself from responsibility for its part in helping to put Trump in the White House. The function of journalism in a free democracy is so crucial that its voice is protected by the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights. With that right comes the duty to report in the public interest. Many abrogated that duty in pursuit of revenue and ratings. It began early with the New York Time's agreement with the discredited author of the discredited screed "Clinton Cash" for rights to exclusive early access in exchange for promoting the book's "story lines". Think Progress noticed:


So did the Time's readers:

Similarly, readers warned the NYT about the dangerous game of "what-about-herism" before the election. Readers (via the recently eliminated post of public editor) put them on notice:

And the NYT's very own Liberal Conscience warned them as well:

Yet the Times was still defending their discredited tactic as recently as May:

The Washington Post seemed more aware of the danger:

However, WaPo, in its very own "exclusive deal" with the discredited author of Bannon's publication, had no problem promoting the right wing Clinton Cash narrative in order to to stoke its revenue.

WaPo seems to finally have a clue about how badly it was played and pwned, but alas, it is too late to have any impact on the election.

The New York Times and the Washington Post need to take personal responsibility for their failed campaign coverage. And then they need to apologize frequently and publicly. We should expect nothing less. And besides, think of the revenue generating hits that would follow!

Silence = Complicity



Paging Doctor 13. SHE is wanted in the Tardis.

Prepare for heads to explode as the newest Time Lord (Lady?) prepares to take HER place in the storied BBC series.



She was right. Say it. The Bruni edition

I’m talking to you, Frank.

While your support for Mrs. Clinton pre-November 9, 2017 was evident, it was often couched with helpful advice for the clumsy candidate.

Not so the day after:

"She was a profoundly flawed candidate unable to make an easy connection with voters. She was forever surrounded by messes: some of her own making, some blown out of proportion by the news media, all of them exhausting to voters who had lived through a quarter century of political melodrama with her."


And then there’s this more recently:

"They’re still not sure how much of Trump’s victory had to do with Hillary Clinton’s flaws versus the party’s poor grasp of America, and the more they focus on the former, tattling for the tell-all book “Shattered” and then tittering over its revelations, the less they own up to the latter."


Post-election Mr. Bruni has been walking a fine line that seems to ensure he is on the "correct" side. It reads like narrative shopping, this movement to and fro to as the conventional wisdom shifts from one standard story line to the next. He even suggested that Mrs. Clinton run for mayor so she could "settle scores", because, you know, that's what Hillary does.


It has all led people to think, “Et tu, Bruni?’

Today’s column is a start, but it’s not enough. Now that the newspaper of record that employs you has eliminated the desk of the public editor (the editorial board's representative of the people) it’s time to step up.


Stop worry about being on the correct side. Be on the right side.

Silence = complicity



As per tomorrow's Onion: "He speaks in tongues,"

an alarmed Pence tells his wife, "and on the Sabbath!"

No Mr. Vice President. The man you helped to cheat out of a free and fair election is speaking Spanish.

That's just the fully fluent Tim Kaine on Al Punto's Sunday morning news and politics show on Univision. Maybe Junior can recommend an "interpreter".

Catch the full interview via this link:

She was right. Say it. Day 4

In measured and professorial tones, Jonathan Turley cautioned CNN viewers about the dangers of jumping to broad, worst-case scenario conclusions after the candidate who was cheated out of a free and fair election for the vice presidency made this statement:

"… the investigation -- it, it's not -- nothing is proven yet. But, we're now beyond obstruction of justice in terms of what's being investigated, This is moving into perjury, false statements and even potentially treason."


Turley weighed in on CNN:

“…that is a dangerous game to play. People suggesting this might be treason, which is facially ridiculous.”

After Jake Tapper helpfully reminded the learned professor that it was Tim Kaine who had used the T word, the ever the judicious constitutional scholar reminded the audience of the importance of remaining moderate and objective with this reasonable and objective rejoinder:

“And that destroys his credibility and the credibility of his party.”


“Moderation for thee, but not for me!” sang Turley’s inner angels.

Thank you, Professor, for an object lesson in employing double standards. Let me ask the question that the ever helpful Mr. Tapper failed to: does your metric apply to this guy's party as well?


Silence = complicity


She was right. Say it. Day 3

Earlier this week, Gilligan and the Skipper made it clear that the blame for the shocking result of November's election still rests solely on Mrs. Clinton's weary shoulders.

"Russia didn't tell Hillary not to go to Michigan." sneered the carefully-coiffed Joe Scarborough after some helpful prompting by former journalist Mike Barnicle.

Now it appears that the Special Counsel might have some Special Questions for the Special Mr. Kushner concerning the possibility of the involvement of Jared's data mining enterprise in Russian efforts to target swing voters in swing states for some Special Propaganda.

The story was first reported back in May. Gilligan and the Skipper dutifully ignored it so the clowning could continue.

Silence = Complicity


Fox and Friends just found a great new way to remind viewers that Jared Kushner is Jewish!


Will Macron be using an earpiece during the press conference?

He isn't wearing one for Trump's opening statement.


What Macron said.

Here's some of the original French with a bit more context:

"Le défi de l'Afrique, il est totalement différent. Il est beaucoup plus profond, il est civilisationnel aujourd'hui. Quels sont les problèmes en Afrique ? Les États faillis, les transitions démocratiques complexes, la transition démographique qui est, je l'ai rappelé ce matin, l'un des défis essentiels de l'Afrique. Quand des pays ont encore aujourd'hui 7 à 8 enfants par femme, vous pouvez décider d'y dépenser des milliards d'euros, vous ne stabiliserez rien."

I've spent the better part of the day thinking about exactly what Macron was saying or trying to say, text and subtext. It's certainly more detailed and nuanced than some links suggest.

This is a story on which Macron can be hit from both the right (i.e. he's advocating contraception and/or abortion) or from the left (i.e. he's advocating population control of POC; he's blaming African women for problems that were in fact caused by white colonialism; he's characterizing Africa as having an inferior civilization.)

I read one piece on huffingtonpost.fr by a writer who seemed a bit bewildered about why the foreign media was pushing the racism narrative so strongly.

It could be that racial superiority is so entrenched in the French establishment mindset that the huffpo writer doesn't recognize racism when he sees it; he does, however, note that certain points were cherry picked, taken out of context, and presented out of order.

My question is, "Who would want both the left and the right in anti-Macron protesting mode during Trumps' highly publicized visit later this week?"

Who indeed.

* I haven't been able to find a complete transcript of Macron's remarks in French.

* If you're going to use an online translator, please understand that they don't always capture nuance or note alternative meanings of individual words. For example, "défi" can mean either "problem" or "challenge"; "civilisationnel" is especially tricky. It can mean either "related to civilization" or "related to development".


Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »