Some of this ‘Inside Politics’ crap is absolute bullshit
WTF does any of this gossipy trash have to do with the 300,000,000 people our politicians are elected to serve?
Why not report on the tangled web of influence whose interests often run counter to ours, the people of this country?
This is something that matters to us.
If you absolutely have to talk about making enemies, why don’t you spend more time on this one?
Why don’t you do critical investigations of claims like these which sound awfully suspicious. Were they rounding up the fragments of Al Qaida in Iraq, or is this just more of the same old majority Shia taking out Sunnis, exacerbating, not resolving its civil divide? Is truthiness and journamalism really that hard?
Every freaking politician in Washington has made enemies and friends. For most of the 90s, this kind of anti-Clinton reportage cost us taxpayers $40 million to endlessly investigate these folkls like they were common criminals, helping to provoke an extraordinary stupid impeachment. On the basis of nothing. Except the stuff of gossips.
And I find this kind of piling on to be pointless, of no value to the info overload of most Americans. It’s the stuff worthy of readers of The National Enquirer not the Boston Globe.
This doesn’t help anyone hang on in a tough economy, doesn’t support our troops or bring them home, has nothing to do with our nation’s security, educates or heals no one. All it does is provoke more gossip among insiders. Not a single reader gains anything valuable from this type of trash.
I may not be a Hillary supporter, but I’ve always felt it important to defend against the endless anti-Clinton attacks. Susan Milligan, you or the editor who assigned you this ought to go back to remedial journalism school. or, at the very least, balance it with coverage of McCain’s insider enemies or the time he publicly called his wife a ‘cunt’.
,
May 19th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Bravo! And thank-you, Kevin. Without doubt one of the stooopidist pieces I’ve read.
It was a silly choice of subject in the first place, but the reporting itself manages to make the choice sillier still.
To report or analyze any of the worthy subjects you point out, that would require at least some skill, knowledge and effort, some actual work. I’m beginning to think that one of the keys to understanding the debased level to which our political discourse has sunk has to do with the sheer laziness of far too many members of our so-called free press corps. I’m thinking in particular of those who make it onto the Tube, but then print reporters start to be influenced by the general acceptance of too little work, producing too little thought, followed by way to much verbal and written spouting.
And I’m not entirely comforted by the fact that some extraordinary reporting has gone on in the last eight years, and for those among us who are paying attention we did get to know a lot about what our government under the Bush administration has been doing. Next to that genuine reporting, what we get on cable news, and from the Sunday gasbags is all the more disheartening.
Long live our media critique; if nothing else, it keeps me sane.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Let’s face it, the Clintons have stepped on a lot of toes in their political careers, both “inside politics” and among many voters, and that explains to a great extent why so many people are less than enthuiastic about supporting them, and are less than thrilled about going thru all the angst again that we suffered thru in the 90’s. The Republicans grew to hate both the Clintons, and many Democrats grew weary of trying to justify and support them thru their many turmoils. That’s not “crap”, that’s a political reality. I was a tireless Clinton supporter during Bill’s time in the WH, but the thought of going thru all that drama all over again is not attractive. The Clinton’s chickens have