Maddow: Media idiots don’t ‘know how to talk about’ the Clintons

posted at 3:21 pm on March 11, 2015 by Noah Rothman

Here is a delicious clip so rich that it will necessitate a cognac just to digest. For a cable news channel host who spent the better part of the last 16 months handwringing over lane closures on the George Washington Bridge and indulging in fanciful scenarios that might implicate Chris Christie in that inconvenience, Rachel Maddow scolding the media for poor reporting on Hillary Clinton is perhaps a bit too dense with contrariety to absorb in one sitting.

Maddow opened a segment with fellow MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell by suggesting that there was some manner of hypocrisy or contradiction in the fact that both Benghazi Committee members Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC) have no interest in Hillary Clinton’s yoga routine or her daughter’s wedding plans, but that Gowdy wants access to Clinton’s “homebrew” server to make sure Clinton is being honest. “It’s never going to happen,” Maddow righteously averred.

“The State Department is terrible when it comes to dealing with Freedom of Information Act requests,” Maddow’s dubious defense of Clinton continued. “Not just with respect to the secretary, but with respect to everything.”

But the most glorious moment of this segment was when Mitchell accurately noted the many ways in which Clinton’s attempt at self-defense was undermined just minutes after she stepped away from the podium by the enterprising reporters who checked her facts.

Hillary Clinton insisted that she destroyed or will not disclose the majority of her electronic correspondence as secretary of state because they are personal. One of the people she corresponded with was, in fact, her husband. President Bill Clinton’s office denied that.

Hillary Clinton claimed that she opted for one device out of convenience while serving as secretary of state, but bragged just weeks ago that she is almost a “hoarder” of electronic mobile devices. The government oversight watchdog Judicial Watch, citing a State Department source, claimed that Clinton’s staff asked the agency’s technology experts to approve the secretary’s use of both an iPhone and an iPad during her tenure. Mitchell contends, however, that her sources confirmed to her that Clinton only just recently purchased an iPhone for personal use. Make of that what you will.

But the most delicious moment of this unconvincing attempt to defend Clinton’s paranoid and insular behavior as secretary of state came when Maddow sought to impugn the press for daring to question why the former secretary flagrantly violated State Department and Obama administration guidelines.

“There are some analogs for the rest of us in mortal life in terms of thinking about Hillary Clinton,” Maddow said after noting that, just like Hillary, MSNBC made her carry two devices in 2009 in order to be able to access her work and personal email accounts. “But the political truth of it is that there is no analog in mortal life to Hillary Clinton as a political being.”

I warned you. This is going to get cloying and decadent fast.

“Nobody has lived the life she has. Nobody is treated the way she is,” Maddow continued. “I think the bottom line here is that there’s a real question about whether or not Hillary Clinton gets vetted effectively and fairly as a presidential candidate, particularly one who’s not going to have a challenging primary, given the amount of static there is about everything she does.”

“The media noise, and static, and nonsense around her is so loud, it’s very hard to have effective reporting that people might actually care about about what she’d be like as a national leader,” Maddow added.

I don’t know. Seems to me that The New York Times breaking two stories about Hillary Clinton, one involving her alleged violation of an ethics agreement with the Obama White House by accepting Clinton Foundation donations while serving as a Cabinet official and another regarding her attempt to intentionally skirt FOIA laws, gives us a pretty clear indication as to what kind of a president she would be. That seems like effective reporting to those of us in the “hinterlands,” as Maddow derisively referred to the majority of the United States of America.

But the most delightful morsel came at the end of Maddow’s pep talk. Consumed by introspection, she furrowed her brow and stared into her desk. Forlorn, Maddow fretted about the stability of the republic given the lamentable condition of its Fourth Estate.

“Seeing the scrum this week, and a lot of the stupidity in the coverage around this issue, I worry about whether we’re going to be well-served by a Beltway press corps that doesn’t know how to talk about either Bill or Hillary Clinton without treading into real nonsense,” she closed.

You hear that, members of the political press? Even after more than two decades, you don’t know how to talk about the Clintons without sounding like conspiratorial fools. Rachel Maddow would like to provide some tips for you so that you can more effectively do your jobs in her eyes.

Maybe Maddow failed to recall that she indulged in some bizarre theorizing of her own when she suggested that Christie ordered the GWB lane closures due to an arcane fight with the legislature over Supreme Court nominees. Perhaps she forgot that even Bill Maher admonished her for being admittedly “unapologetically” “obsessed” with the bridge scandal that went precisely nowhere.

“He read about Reagan’s private, outside-the-CIA cabal of team-B zealots who were telling him that Russia had all the stuff they didn’t have so he could justify a giant defense budget,” Maddow said in 2012, engaging in more of the ill-advised speculation that she now disparages as “nonsense.” “It’s not just that Romney is uninformed,” the unduly self-assured MSNBC host wrote of Mitt Romney’s warnings regarding a resurgent Russia, “it’s that he hasn’t figured out how to fake it.”

Perhaps this capable cable news host should spend less time providing flimsy exculpations that might satisfy her deeply dispirited liberal audience, and more time addressing the conditions that have made her network the least trusted news outlet in America.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Screen Cap: “Look! I’m Harf with a Butch Cut”!

Key West Reader on March 11, 2015 at 3:23 PM

Those glasses really make him look smart!

Ditkaca on March 11, 2015 at 3:25 PM

Fresh from signing a petition 140,000 times……

itsspideyman on March 11, 2015 at 3:28 PM

Typical spin by the MSNBC crowd, but still very irritating.

SC.Charlie on March 11, 2015 at 3:30 PM

Who cares? More people see her on this blog than on her tv show.

LASue on March 11, 2015 at 3:30 PM

Don’t you wish you knew what MSNBC kept in their pharmacy? Whatever it is, it gives one freaky high. Forget Colorado.

RBMN on March 11, 2015 at 3:32 PM

Seriously, what the hell is it with liberals immediately — almost with a reflex — playing the victim card? Is that all they know how to do? Do they think people are that stupid to always treat criticized liberals as victims being treated unfairly? Good Lord these people are embarrassingly pathetic.

“Nobody has lived the life she has. Nobody is treated the way she is,” Maddow continued. “I think the bottom line here is that there’s a real question about whether or not Hillary Clinton gets vetted effectively and fairly as a presidential candidate, particularly one who’s not going to have a challenging primary, given the amount of static there is about everything she does.”

“The media noise, and static, and nonsense around her is so loud, it’s very hard to have effective reporting that people might actually care about about what she’d be like as a national leader,” Maddow added.

LOL!

They don’t care, Rachel. Too many voters — especially Democrats — are stupid, uninformed, apathetic, or some combination of those traits. All that matters to them is…

First! Woman! President!

To them, it’s about lady parts and that she keeps a Republican out of the White House.

That’s it.

And if you’ve been following politics for a while and still have no clue what Hillary Rodham Clinton would be like as a national leader, you’re probably too idiotic or too gullible as a potential voter to understand the candidates and their policy proposals.

Sigh, we’re doomed. Doomed.

Aizen on March 11, 2015 at 3:34 PM

Man, he just gets fuglier every day!

bernzright777 on March 11, 2015 at 3:34 PM

Since the only reason Maddow has a job is because she’s a lesbian, it may do MSNBC some good to simply have her and various other guest-lesbians engage in live sex acts for an hour or two instead of pretending that she is some sort of journalist.

It couldn’t hurt her ratings, could it?

BobMbx on March 11, 2015 at 3:34 PM

Rachel, just for you

now that she is a beached whale, they can change “thinkin’ about tomorrow” to
Stinkin’ about Tomorrow

Senator Philip Bluster on March 11, 2015 at 1:17 PM

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2015 at 3:35 PM

1. Maddow is often referred to as “MadCow” for a reason. She seems to exist in a permanent state of WAAAAHHHH! except when someone waves a non-progressive under her smart-girl glasses, at which point she defaults to Queen of Hearts mode.

2. The MSM would rather cut their own throats onscreen than tell the truth about Hillary! or Bill. That being that having either one in the White House is rather like having Boss Hawg from The Dukes of Hazzard there- with a side order of Alger Hiss and both Rosenbergs.

3. It’s not so much that the Clintons would sell us out to the Communists (what few are still left outside of American academia) as that they’d sell us down the river to somebody who hates our chromosomes, just to see if they could get away with it.

clear ether

eon

eon on March 11, 2015 at 3:35 PM

Well, suffice to say, Maddow would be an EXPERT when it comes to “nonsense”

deadrody on March 11, 2015 at 3:36 PM

Rachel Maddow? Why?

DanMan on March 11, 2015 at 3:37 PM

Where is the triggering warning that should accompany a Maddow pic and a video and quotes? It’s all too gruesome.

polly2150 on March 11, 2015 at 3:40 PM

Rachel Maddow? Why?

DanMan on March 11, 2015 at 3:37 PM

Noah Rothman: Media Critic.

Aizen on March 11, 2015 at 3:41 PM

I want to know the emails that got deleted. If Hillary values privacy so damn much she is free not to run for office.

coolrepublica on March 11, 2015 at 3:41 PM

“Nobody has lived the life she has. Nobody is treated the way she is,” Maddow continued.

Glory hallelujah.

cbenoistd on March 11, 2015 at 3:43 PM

Here is a delicious clip so rich that will necessitate a cognac just to digest.

This post begins with a sentence that could have been written by one of our cultural betters, T. Coddington Van Vorhees VII.

Brian1972 on March 11, 2015 at 3:45 PM

I bet that lesbo maddow would go down on Bill Clinton…for the leftwing loon she is.

b1jetmech on March 11, 2015 at 3:46 PM

Dude’s a fool. Always been a glorified fool.

And yeah, if she wants to dress and try and sound like a dude, than I get to call her a dude.

budfox on March 11, 2015 at 3:46 PM

Rachel Maddow is insignificant. The opinion of the American voter is what counts.

Cherokee on March 11, 2015 at 3:47 PM

Gender bended dimwits.
The portrait of 2015 America.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on March 11, 2015 at 3:48 PM

Clearly others in the media don’t have their noses far enough up Killery’s butt to show the proper fealty, groveling, and deference to the once and future queen…..

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2015 at 3:49 PM

Hillary Clinton insisted that she destroyed or will not disclose the majority of her electronic correspondences as secretary of state because they are personal. One of the people she correspondent with was, in fact, her husband. President Bill Clinton’s office denied that.

That’s really funny. Hillary and Bill must not be on speaking terms, since they can’t even get their lies straight.

cat_owner on March 11, 2015 at 3:50 PM

…perhaps a bit too dense with contrariety…

Akzed on March 11, 2015 at 3:50 PM

Perhaps this capable cable news host should spend less time providing flimsy exculpations that might satisfy her deeply dispirited liberal audience, and more time addressing the conditions that have made her network the least trusted news outlet in America.

Capable?

Sycophantic, yes.
Moronic, yes.
Biased, yes.
Tedious, yes.
Craven, yes.
Mendacious, yes.

But capable? Not in this reality. It’s why her network is little more than a pathetic propaganda and spin machine.

Athos on March 11, 2015 at 3:51 PM

Too rich bit*h

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2015 at 3:51 PM

It musta been tough for him growing up with a name like Rachel.

Akzed on March 11, 2015 at 3:53 PM

One of the people she correspondent with was, in fact, her husband.

Noah, Noah, Noah.

Pronoun, noun, preposition.

Got to love that guy.

pain train on March 11, 2015 at 3:53 PM

Fred Savage or Fred Savage’s twin brother.

BuckeyeSam on March 11, 2015 at 3:54 PM

Only his sister Chrissy Hayes has the Womyn Parts necessary to talk to Rick about Hillary.

ConstantineXI on March 11, 2015 at 3:55 PM

I want to know the emails that got deleted. If Hillary values privacy so damn much she is free not to run for office.

coolrepublica on March 11, 2015 at 3:41 PM

*reaches out and tests forehead*

You feelin’ OK, son?

antipc on March 11, 2015 at 3:55 PM

I want to know the emails that got deleted. If Hillary values privacy so damn much she is free not to run for office.

coolrepublica on March 11, 2015 at 3:41 PM

A+

…checks back…

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2015 at 3:57 PM

During the 2008 Democrat primaries MSNBC was Obama Central, with Russert, Tweety and Olberman cheerleading the anti-Clinton lynch mob.

myiq2xu on March 11, 2015 at 3:58 PM

“The media noise, and static, and nonsense around her is so loud, it’s very hard to have effective reporting that people might actually care about about what she’d be like as a national leader,” Maddow added.

I think it’s safe to say that anyone who hasn’t formed an opinion on Hillary yet, won’t forming their own opinion.

antipc on March 11, 2015 at 3:58 PM

coolrepublica on March 11, 2015 at 3:41 PM

“I’m tellin’ ya, I was hacked!”

– cr

pain train on March 11, 2015 at 3:59 PM

Maddcow doesn’t remember how the media idiots talked about Nixon, because she was born in 1973 and so was only in boxer shorts at the time.

F-

Del Dolemonte on March 11, 2015 at 4:01 PM

Do we really want to return to Clintonworld?

Our President, Right Or Wrong, Whatever: It’s easy to believe what Bill Clinton says, if you’re willing and able to believe most anything

By Michael Kelly, 5 February 1998

I believe the President. I have always believed him. I believed him when he said he had never been drafted in the Vietnam War, and I believed him when he said that he had forgotten to mention that he had been drafted in the Vietnam War. I believed him when he said he hadn’t had sex with Gennifer Flowers and I believe him now, when he reportedly says he did.

I believe the president did not rent out the Lincoln Bedroom, did not sell access to himself and the vice-president to hundreds of well-heeled special pleaders, and did not supervise the largest, most systematic money-laundering operation in campaign financing history, collecting more than $3 million in illegal and improper donations. I believe that Charlie Trie and James Riady were motivated by nothing but patriotism for their adopted country.

I believed Vice President Gore when he said he had made dunning calls to political contributors ‘on a few occasions’ from his White House office, and I believed him when he said that, actually, ‘a few’ meant 46. I believe in ‘no controlling legal authority.’

I believe Bruce Babbitt when he says the $286,000 contributed to the DNC by Indian tribes opposed to granting a casino licence had nothing to do with his denial of the licence. I believed the secretary when he said that he had not been instructed in this matter by then White House deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes. I believed him when he said later that he had told lobbyist and friend Paul Eckstein that Ickes had told him to move on the casino decision, but that he had been lying to Eckstein. I agree with the secretary that is an outrage anyone would question his integrity.

I believe in the Clinton Standard of adherence to the nation’s campaign finance and bribery laws, enunciated by the president on March 7, 1997: ‘I don’t believe you can find evidence of the fact that I had changed the government policy solely because of a ‘contribution.’ ” I note with approval the use of the word ‘evidence’ and also the use of the word ‘solely’.

I believe that it is proper to change government policy to address the concerns of people who have given the president money, as long as nobody can find evidence of this being the sole reason.

I believe the president lived up to his promise to preside over the most ethical administration in American history. I believe that indicted former Agriculture Secretary Mike Epsy did not accept $35,000 in illegal favors from Tyson Foods and other regulated business. I believe that indicted former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros did not lie to the FBI and tell others to lie to cover up $250,000 in blackmail payments to his former mistress.

I believe that convicted former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell was not involved in the obstruction of justice when the president’s minions arranged for Hubbell to receive $400,000 in sweetheart consulting deals at a time when he was reneging on his promise to cooperate with Kenneth Starr’s Whitewater investigation.

I believe Paula Jones is a cheap [email protected] who was asking for it. I believe Kathleen Willey is a cheap [email protected] who was asking for it. I believe that Monica Lewinsky is a cheap [email protected] who was asking for it.

I believe Lewinsky was fantasizing in her 20 hours of taped conversation in which she reportedly detailed her sexual relationship with the president and begged Linda Tripp to join her in lying about the relationship.

I believe that any gifts, correspondence, telephone calls, and the 37 post-employment White House visits that may have passed between Lewinsky and the president are evidence only of a platonic relationship; such innocent intimate friendships are quite common between middle-aged married men and young single women, and also between presidents of the United States and White House interns.

I see nothing suspicious in the fact that the president’s intimate, Vernon Jordan, arranged a $40,000 per-year job for Lewinsky shortly before she signed an affidavit saying she had not had sex with the president. Nor do I read anything into the fact that the ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, visited Lewinsky at the Watergate to offer her a job. I believe the instructions Lewinsky gave Tripp informing her on how to properly perjure herself in the Willey matter simply wrote themselves.

I believe that The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, US News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, and NPR are all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Especially NPR.

Resist We Much on March 11, 2015 at 4:02 PM

..when the worm turns and the sycophantic media realizes it’s time to get behind the beached whalefor POTUS candidate, they will start decrying the incessant RWC pleas for the e-mails. They will fail, of course, to remember the absolute feeding frenzy that was their obsession with Sarah Palin’s e-mail disgorgement.

Also, one wonders if the press will do the searchable thing with Moby Dickless’s missives like the L.A.T. did with Palin’s.

The War Planner on March 11, 2015 at 4:06 PM

It musta been tough for him growing up with a name like Rachel.

Akzed on March 11, 2015 at 3:53 PM

He and his buddy Sue were good friends though….

dentarthurdent on March 11, 2015 at 4:06 PM

..and so was only in boxer shorts at the time.

F-

Del Dolemonte on March 11, 2015 at 4:01 PM

..er, jock strap.

The War Planner on March 11, 2015 at 4:06 PM

Hilary must be happy to know that she’s already secured this guy’s vote.

OrbeaRider66 on March 11, 2015 at 4:21 PM

Even this dove-brain got it.

Schadenfreude on March 11, 2015 at 4:47 PM

This Maddow person is a very angry young man.

glsmith36 on March 11, 2015 at 4:51 PM

WHERE IS STEPHANIE HARF?

And what did they do with her body?

Key West Reader on March 11, 2015 at 5:14 PM

This Maddow person is a very angry young man.

glsmith36 on March 11, 2015 at 4:51 PM

Harf with an angry dude doo

Key West Reader on March 11, 2015 at 5:17 PM

“But the political truth of it is that there is no analog in mortal life to Hillary Clinton as a political being.”

I warned you. This is going to get cloying and decadent fast.

“Nobody has lived the life she has. Nobody is treated the way she is,”

I get it, Rachel. Hillary Clinton is the new Immortal Invincible candidate. Welcome to the Church of Hillary.

And nobody else has treated the American people with such disdain as Hillary Clinton, except for the current President.

Steve Z on March 11, 2015 at 5:34 PM

Madcow used to be invited on Meet The Press but just couldn’t contain the total disrespect she feels for anyone of differing (non liberal) opinion. She used to snort and mockingly laugh over everyone, even saying things like “So much for the old white guys opinions” – refusing to even engage when everyone was trying to be inclusive.

It was sad and eventually they gave up on her/him/it.

Tard on March 11, 2015 at 5:41 PM

Rachel who?

Limpet6 on March 11, 2015 at 7:48 PM

Well, to a certain extent she has a point. No one has been treated like Hillary since Jimmy Hoffa, or maybe Al Capone.

msr on March 11, 2015 at 8:03 PM

Oh God. I agree with her. Where’s the Blanton’s?

WryTrvllr on March 12, 2015 at 12:15 AM

What kind of moron parents would name their son “Rachael”? No wonder he’s a low information Marxist.

acetylene420 on March 12, 2015 at 11:22 AM