The New York Times goes there

I don't think the party itself is damage control. I think the relentless media push about it might be.

 

Starman, you realize the overtly racial reading of that reflects more on you than on me?
You are smart enough to understand that?
This is how shit gets lit around here.

 

Yes. The party is not damage control, for the reason you cited.

 

This is the key. I tend to believe the Enquirer more often than not, because they have gotten a lot of pretty big stories right, but their standards are different. We have a somewhat strict anonymous source policy, so we couldn't run 75 percent of what they print. We had a reporter who was very good and had excellent sources and he would try to circumvent the policy a lot, and he was usually right when the story finally came out, but we couldn't go with it without a name attached unless there was a very good reason. He moved on to a much more prominent position where the standards aren't the same and he breaks stories left and right.

 

If Hillary runs, all this will be forgotten under the avalanche of who Bill has been poking in the 16 years since he left the White House.

 

How many "divorce shockers" did the Enquirer write about the Clintons? Seems like a half-dozen or so, if I remember correctly my check-out line scanning of the headlines. I remember they had Laura divorcing W too, at least once but possibly more times (IIRC, he was drinking, he was having an affair with Condi Rice, etc).

People remember the things they get right, they tend to forget the stuff they get wrong.

 

Or Hillary's seafood dinner companions.


I think revelations Bubba was scrumping somebody else would elicit the biggest yawns in the history of the world. I doubt he'd even bother to deny it.

 

Karen Tumelty rings in with the WAPO entry of Michelle turns 50.
A bit more edgy and cryptic perhaps than the standard fare.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-michelle-obama-and-a-tale-of-two-50th-birthdays/2014/01/17/086b7f2e-7f98-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html?hpid=z3

Comments are interesting perhaps summed up best by this one:

"Who cares?

These are simply the wives of our elected representatives.

They have no special status in a democracy.

Stop the imperial style worship of these non-queens."

 

I think the last thing the legal offices at the Enquirer want is to be taken seriously.

"Who fucking believes those assholes (us)?" is probably their top defense, or it was in the past.

 

"Bill being Bill."

No one would give a flying fuck, nor should they.

 

No one would care as it relates to Bill.

But, Hilary would have to explain how/why she's accepted it, and remained with him. There's no way she wants to do that.

 

Why do good papers run this kind of shit?

She uses the occasion of Michelle's 50th birthday to run a puff piece about Hillary. But, in the process she infantilizes both of them.