I imagine that anyone engaged in a toe-to-toe slugfest with Hillary might well come to think of her as a monster. To me, that simply means that she's a formidable opponent, and that the huge stakes, mountains of money, time pressures, and physically exhausting regimen of campaigning are enough to knock even the best and brightest off center.

I do wish that our presidential candidates didn't have to engage in a year-long Iron Man competition when running. It would be better for their health, and our understanding of the issues, if it weren't necessary. Unfortunately, it is necessary. No one invented the system we have -- like Topsy, it jes grew -- and no one can uninvent it. It has all the defects that our society as a whole has, and won't be fixed unless and until we fix the rest of what is wrong.

Exactly what is "new" about what Tucker revealed?

Who said it was "new"?

The institution of the Big Media is the way it is, and Tucker simply said as much. Others have said it, too. Anyone who has been a part of it, or even close to it, knows as much. Not only is it outwardly decadent and corrupt, it is corrupting.

But is that news?

The fact that you think you're well familiarized with X doesn't mean that X isn't worth discussing. There are other people besides you.

here:

http://digg.com/politics/Tucker_Carlson_unintentionally_reveals_role_of_the_US_press

I finally got around to watching "Good Night and Good Luck" last night. The movie opens and closes with Murrow's address to the Radio and Television News Directors' Association in 1958. The full text of the address can be found here:

http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/commentary/hiddenagenda/murrow.html

and is well worth a read. Here is my favorite part and then the very famous ending:

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the coporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time-- frequently on the same long day--to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs.

Sometimes there is a clash between the public interest and the corporate interest. A telephone call or a letter from the proper quarter in Washington is treated rather more seriously than a communication from an irate but not politically potent viewer. It is tempting enough to give away a little air time for frequently irresponsible and unwarranted utterances in an effort to temper the wind of criticism.

/snip/

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.

His words could well apply more to the current day than they did 50 years ago.

But are we so intolerant of human weakness--so confident that there are armies of talented people like S. Power who in addition to all her many strengths also will not have a moment of weakness and say something stupid...

-- John Randolph

I don't know. Are we? Either way, I appreciate Peev for allowing me to decide rather than her deciding for me whether or not I am allowed to be let in on a conversation between her and a political operative is in my best interest for any reason. Whether it be my level of intelligence or stupidity or my level of intolerance or tolererance, or what ever else might come into play in Peev's opinion. I didn't ask for Peev to usurp my opinion.

show me:

Another failure of progressive online writers is their unwillingness to address the misogyny that has surfaced in the progrssive left.This has been shocking to me, it is like the 'dirty little secret' on the left this election cycle. It is being addressed on feminist blogs only. I could be wrong about this but I have never read any discussion of this problem other than on Media Matters in relation to the CNBC gang of women haters.

There's nothing new about it. Talk to people who were around during the years of the New Left when misogyny and homophobia were commonplace among its members. Were Hillary to cite this, she'd be immediately deluged with hate. That of course is what's behind much of the hatred of her.

I've long maintained, too, that the right's hatred of Clinton can really be traced back to his effort to let gays serve in the military. Sexism is behind the hatred of both Clintons.