Email

Oh, for heaven's sake MC ... it's Baron. Give it up. Partisan's one thing, but partisan and dumb? That's a whole other kettle of block-headedness.

 

That's how we found out about Glen Rice, so time well spent.

 

Bill Keller all but said it became personal between Palin and traditional journalists:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/magazine/sarah-palins-tom-and-jerry-problem.html

However tempting the newsworthy havoc of a Palin presidency, I’m pretty sure most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea.

And:

It has to do with a profound and mutual lack of respect that is not quite like any I recall between a candidate (or pretend candidate) and the press.

And:

Perhaps one key to Palin’s dislike of the news media is a streak of intellectual insecurity, or a trace of impostor syndrome. Her best defense against being found shallow is a strong offense.


Another factor, I think, is that the humiliations she has endured in the media have been unusually invasive — including, at the lowest point, speculation that Palin's youngest son, Trig, was actually born to her daughter, Bristol, and borrowed as a campaign prop. That would bring out the grizzly in any mama.

And:

This use-hate relationship, in which Palin manipulates us and we torture her, reminds me a little of Princess Diana, whose relationship with the press Tina Brown described as “a cycle of dependency and combat.”

And:

The press, I think, returns her antipathy in part because she makes us feel ridiculous.

 

Masterful editing. Palin did read the Times, etc when they had stories about Alaska. It was in her emails and in my post, but you just skipped over that part, I guess.

Not that she said it either.

My personal theory is that because Palin had worked in local TV, just like Gore had worked as a reporter/editorialist, they both had ideas on how to handle the press and both had those ideas thrown in their face and then theyr were curb stomped for their troubles.

Let's face it, the one thing a reporter doesn't want to hear from a candidate or really anyone they interview is, "I have a degree in journalism."

 

And this, my friends, is why we can't have nice things.

 

I'll try to address some of this, by points:

"Internal deliberations are none of our business."

Um, yes they are, when your party wants to prevent everyone else from having the same internal deliberation. That's why it's called pro choice. You can have that deliberation and have a choice to make, rather than have those choices reduced by law.

"Bill Maher, etc."

They're not journalists, they're entertainers. That's the response we always hear about Rush. You know, the guy that called a 13-year-old girl a dog.

"Reporter who rented the house next door."

Dismissed as a nut by everyone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't his book deal get pulled? Or if he did have a book, it flopped miserablely because of his reputation?

"Readers combing through emails"

First, it's laziness by the papers, who didn't want to actually spend money on a reporter to do the digging. Second, there's nothing wrong with it. Third, I hope they do the same with Hillary. It's called being a watchdog.

"Reporter questioned her pregnancy." Again, it's called following through. If they don't, then they get calls from people asking why are they hiding things that are being posted everywhere on the internet.

"Release private medical records" Every president does so with their physicals. She wanted to be president. Her health, as well as every candidate's, is an issue.

 

The libruhl media did a terrible job of covering him, didn't they?

 

Among the approximately 2,000 emails that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has released from her private account, there is a conspicuous two-month gap. There are no emails between Clinton and her State Department staff during May and June 2012, a period of escalating violence in Libya leading up to the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead.

A State Department spokesman told The Daily Beast that for the year 2012, only those emails related to the security of the consulate or to the U.S. diplomatic presence in Libya were made public and turned over to a House committee investigating the fatal Benghazi assault. But if that’s true, then neither Clinton nor her staff communicated via email about the escalating dangers in Libya. There were three attacks during that two-month period, including one that targeted the consulate.

That two-month period also coincides with a senior Clinton aide obtaining a special exemption that allowed her to work both as a staff member to the secretary and in a private capacity for Clinton and her husband’s foundation. The Associated Press has sued to obtain emails from Clinton’s account about the aide, Huma Abedin.

The Missing Hillary Emails No One Can Explain - The Daily Beast

 

I've got a buddy who works at State, and he says the rumor among his people is that the emails in question are basically summaries of intelligence info. He thinks the info isn't as clear-cut regarding whether or not it was classified, and that's a big reason why the NYT softened its initial reports (with another big reason being that her people pressed the issue). His prediction is that they won't find enough to prosecute for releasing classified info. "Senior people at State do this kind of thing all the time without ever getting caught."

He also says, and I agree, that the whole thing is a giant unforced error, and that Republicans won't find it too hard to keep it going through the campaign.

 

Classified is a pretty low barrier. I bet the menu at the Capitol cafeteria is classified.

 

"Follow the Freedom Fries."