Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clinton, clash of titans (Rand Paul is a Titan?)

[No Elephants]

Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clinton, clash of titans


By Timothy Stanley, Special to CNN
updated 9:32 AM EST, Thu January 24, 2013


Editor's note: Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for Britain's The Daily Telegraph. He is the author of "The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan."

(CNN) -- If Monday's inauguration displayed the gushing, ceremonial aspect of American democracy, Wednesday revealed its more sober and confrontational side -- a Senate committee hearing. The hearing was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vs. the Republicans on the painful subject of Benghazi, Libya.

After a lot of anger from the senators and a surprising amount of emotion from Clinton, the final score was a draw. But some Republicans did better than others, and Clinton probably emerges with a healthier reputation than the administration that she's leaving. Moreover, the debate throws up some tantalizing "what ifs" about 2016. Is America ready for Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul?

<snip>

To conservatives, she was once the Lady Macbeth of liberalism; the feminist power behind Bill Clinton's throne whose every utterance seemed calculated to upset the right. Her book "It Takes a Village" was greeted like a manifesto of anti-American collectivism -- so much so that Rick Santorum felt compelled to pen a response called "It Takes a Family." But secretaries of state often find themselves elevated from partisan politics in to the heavenly realm of "national interest" (think Henry Kissinger or Colin Powell), and therein Clinton has redefined herself as a competent and admirable public servant.

<snip>

's obvious that the political situation in Libya is not more stable since Moammar Gadhafi was removed from office (just ask any Algerian), that insufficient security was provided at the consulate, that the administration fumbled its explanation of what occurred on September 11, 2012, that the rescue operation was delayed and that the CIA had some shadowy role to play in the whole mess. Clinton's assurance that "I do feel responsible" is not reason enough to stop asking these questions and just move on.

Who then made the best case for the prosecution from the Republican side?

Given that Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida was participating, it felt at moments like an audition for 2016 -- and Rubio's staff put the video of his questions up on his website with remarkable speed.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/opinion/stanley-hillary-clinton-benghazi/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

Rand Paul is a titan?

Racist Pat Buchanan, speechwriter for the Nixon Agnew criminals, is a crusader?

Kissinger reached a heavenly realm?

Transparent attempt to tear down Hillary while elevating possible Republican Presidential candidates in 2016, pisant Paul and cardboard cutout Rubio.

New low on the part of CNN, IMO.

[Divine Discontent]

1. wow, that was CNN? that read like some sort of Washington Times, 'news'-max BS!!

ugh...

Rand, a titan? Oh, that's just rich! :rofl:

[No Elephants]

2. I think at some point after Ted Turner sold it, CNN looked at FOX News"s ratings and decided to

become a FOX clone.

It's too bad, because, under Turner, CNN had built up an international reputation as the classy all-news station to watch and some folks are slow to catch on.

A few years back, someone said to me, "What happened to Wolf Blitzer? I thought he was a liberal."

It's not about whether you are a liberal (or a neoliberal) or a neocon. It's about doing what the boss tells you or losing your job.

Hence, where in 2004 we had Chris Matthews very literally drooling over Dummya, in 2008, Obama sent a tingle up the leg of the very same Matthews.



BTW, I thought the funniest (intentionally) line of the 2012 campaign was Obama on Tweety's reaction to the first Romney-Obama debate;

"During the 2008 campaign, I gave him a tingle. In 2012, I gave him a stroke."

[Enthusiast]

3. That's where we are with today's media.

Every stinkin' channel has morphed into Fox "News" except MSNBC in the evening.

[No Elephants]

5. MSNBC in the evening is very much like FOX News, only from the Democratic perspective.

Sometimes, someone will say Obama is not going far enough in favor of unions, or something like that. Mostly, Ed Shultz, whose mom was a public school teacher.

However, by the time push comes to shove, every discouraging word about Democritats disappears and it's all anti-Republican and pro-Democrat 100% of all the time.

That is not journalism or even honest political coverage. It's only the mirror image of FOX.

Complaints from the White House got both Olbermann and Ugyur in trouble. Olberman did not get his contract renewed (and promply got thrown under the bus by Democrats who used to kiss his feet in the Bush days) and Cenk got his show taken away from him, plus an offer from MSNBC that he felt honor bound to refuse.

And then, there was that guy who got suspended for complaining that Chelsea was campaigning for Hillary, yet reporters were not allowed to question her. Yes, he used an over the top metaphor of "pimping" for the campaign, but still. The fact remains that the WH and the Hillary campaign, when they put in a call, get their way at MSNBC. And, so he started to look for work elsewhere, got caught and got fired for looking for work elsewhere (supposedly).

Things like that are very powerful incentive to STFU with your criticism of anything Democratic. People like paychecks.

It does not happen necessariy because MSNBC is left leaning. The bosses are from NBC. It's about ratings, which depend upon interesting shows, which depend on having things to report. And, in our first Amendment-less society, the White House, be it the Bush White House or the Obama White House, the campaigns, everybody, simply cuts off the reporter in question unless they pretty much get their way. No tips, no leaks, no confirmations or denials.


There's more than one way to skin the First Amendment alive.

[Enthusiast]

6. Wow, No Elephants.

While MSNBC is biased toward the Democratic Party perspective I can't agree that they are a mirror image of Fox. Not even close.

MSNBC doesn't have to resort to doctored footage and outright fabrications to make points against Republicans. Remember, "You didn't build that!", or the Breitbart doctored footage on the Secretary of Agriculture or Occupy? And how about the altered footage laying the case against ACORN? There are simply no comparable examples from MSNBC. There are many more examples of lies and deception by Fox "News". MSNBC isn't even on the same planet with regard to honesty, compared to Fox. If you have anything approaching these examples of lies and deception by MSNBC I would like to see it.

I do agree that MSNBC will often tow the party line for the President (establishment). But, we have also witnessed outrage by MSNBC hosts toward the DOJ for allowing Wall Street to go unpunished for widespread fraud.

I understand the firing of Cenk and Olbermann was completely unjustified. This was why I quit MSNBC for a long while, for over a year. Now that they have taken Current TV away I have no alternatives. I will probably switch back to Dish Network from Time Warner so I can get Free Speech TV and Current.

[No Elephants]

7. I never watch FOX, so I am not familiar with every fake thing FOX has done.

I don't even watch MSNBC as much as I used to.

However, I am very familiar with the ACORN case. AFAIK, there is no evidence that FOX doctored that film, as opposed to O'Keefe. AFAIK, he was not then an employee of FOX, but only took the film to FOX.

Sure, FOX accepted the film as genuine all too quickly, but so did the Democratic Congress of the United States and the President of the U.S., even to the point of immediately passing and signing a law to defund ACORN. That law drove ACORN out of existence. The law was later declared unconstitutional as a bill of attainder, something the Constitution forbids. However, the decision was too late to save ACORN. I don't recall any Democrat apologizing, let alone submitting a bill that would get ACORN back on its feet..

So, if I weigh a private entity like Fox falling for the film precipitously, against the federal government's doing the same thing as FOX did--and then hastily passing an unconstitutional law to destroy ACORN to boot, I'd have to say the government was more wrong and far more dangerous.

Did MSNBC jump on the government or Obama, the constitutional law lecturer, for that? Or only on O'Keefe and FOX? I don't recall anything like MSNBC faulting a single Democratic officeholder for that. Was that deceptive of MSNBC? I think it was.

There are more than one way to lie. Remaining silent when you are supposed to be reporting is a way to lie, too. Telling part of a story when you are supposed to be telling the whole truth is another way of lying. Pretending you are so far morally superior to FOX when you are also deliberately distorting the truth too is an attempt to be deceptive as well.

If doctored footage and falsified evidence is your only standard for MSNBC evening's not being the mirror image of FOX, then I guess you come out differently than I do. But, they are both shills, one for the Republicans and the other for the Democrats--and both are highly deceptive in their own ways.


As far as D of J: Heading the D of J is not an elective position, so Holder does not need votes. Therefore public opinion about Holder stands on a different footing than does public opinion of a candidate running for re-election or likely to run for re-election.

Obama is responsible for Holder and Obama does not need votes anymore. I would be surprised if they are bashing Obama for what the D of J does anyway. My guess is that they are acting as though the buck stops on Holder's desk.

And, it's been four years since the 2008 crash. MSNBC evening just now--after Obama was re-elected--discovered that D of J had not prosecuted anyone on Wall Street? If Holder is wrong now, he was wrong in 2010 and 2011 and 2012, too. Was MSNBC all over his case when it might have reflected badly on Obama, or only after the statute of limitations ran out anyway?

But, let us go back to the comment of yours to which I was responding, namely:

Every stinkin' channel has morphed into Fox "News" except MSNBC in the evening.

By that post, did you mean that you have proof that NBC, CBS, ABC and every other channel has doctored films and fabricated stories to the degree that FOX has?

Or were you making a more general statement to the effect that every channel except MSNBC evening is biased and shilling for Republicans? I interpreted as the latter, and that is what I responded to. Moreover, I said that MSNBC is very much like Fox News, not that MSNBC does every single thing that FOX does.

[Enthusiast]

9. Fox continues to tell us that ACORN was

the organization depicted in the O'Keefe film. I first learned about the O'Keefe deception on MSNBC. Both Keith and Rachel Maddow were incredulous that the President would fire Van Jones when his organization was not guilty of anything. So, at least then, MSNBC had a degree of independence from party control the likes of which we have never seen on Fox. Big Ed expressed his dismay when the President did not lend his voice on the labor issues in Wisconsin and Ohio. These are just a few things off the top of my head. So, MSNBC is not on the same planet when it comes to objective TV journalism. They could stand to improve in a big way, of course.

[Enthusiast]

4. You are so right on. "They" have some very odd notions.

Rand Paul is a titan in his own tiny bigoted mind.

I hope Rand is the GOP nominee for President. Rand is downright repulsive. They will not be able to dress him up enough to create appeal outside the old Confederacy where racism is still an asset. Funny thing about the GOP though, they do not recognize how repulsive their candidates are until it's too late.

[No Elephants]

8. Yep. They aredistancing themselves from Romney, as though everything was his fault

and he was the only problem.

In fact, in popular polls, although not the electoral, he was running neck and neck with Obama. Let's remember that Obama has self described as a moderate Republican of the 1980s, which is probably about what Romney is at heart, too.

However, their bases forced each of them to run differently from what they are, Obama more to the left and Romney far more to the crazy right.

Had he run that way in Massachusetts, he would not have been nominated to run against Kennedy for the Senate in 1994 and he would not have been elected Governor. If you look at the wiki of Romney's father, I would not have a bunch of trouble voting for him today and that is how Romney was raised.

So, I found it very laughable to see and hear Democrats saying and posting that they would have voted third Party except that risking a Romney win was too heinous to contemplate. If they think they can't vote third party because of Romney, I doubt they will ever see their way clear to voting third party.

The good news is that my California politics buddy may be right. When I bemoaned how far right the Democrats, and therefore the nation, have gone, he said calmly, "Everything is cyclical." And after the pendulum swung all the way to Christine O'Donnell and Todd Aikens, it has indeed been swinging back.

My hope is that it swings as far left as it did right, but my pessimism says that will not happen because the left has no version of the Koch brothers. The rich guys on the left all support the establishment and organizations like NO Labels have, well, labeled anyone left of the DLC as extreme and toxic.

So, unless the left stops splintering over every teensy nuance, the left will never rise again, I fear.