by Taylor Marsh
Nice email, huh? A reader sent it to me. Really exposes the arrogance of Bloomberg News's Margaret Carlson, doesn't it? Op-ed columnists, however, can say whatever they want, but they should not split hairs about the true motives behind their agenda, which is manifest through articles and subsequent cable tv talking head performances. Carlson also obviously doesn't think there will be any repercussions for sharing her anti Hillary Clinton agenda. She also doesn't seem to care if a reader knows she's out to get the Clintons, as long as it's not known in the wider world. After all, she can't interrupt her commentator gigs or her poison pen Bloomberg columns targeting the Clintons. There's work still to be done. This is what Clinton is up against. A traditional news media that has no integrity or ethics, while passing themselves off as "reporters" and unbiased analysts, while they're actually conning the public. The Carlson email above also helps reveal the duplicity behind one of Carlson's big media buddies, Eugene Robinson. Yesterday he wrote an article entitled: The Clintons' Beef With the Media. If Robinson writing the piece wasn't the first hint at where this was going, the title certainly was. The Clinton's "beef" with the media, like they don't have reason to distrust people like Carlson and Robinson, who don't have an objective bone in their bodies when it comes to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Now a regular at MSNBC analyst, Robinson's head is so firmly planted in the Obama hope clouds (see Bob Somerby), to pretend he cares one whit about the negative Clinton onslaught would be laughable, except that it's people like Robinson and Carlson who are part of one of the founding blocks of our democratic republic. It's fine to have a bias, but it should be openly disclosed, otherwise the press becomes corrupt. They're examples of just that reality.
Oh, you didn't know Eugene Robinson and Margaret Carlson had a bias? Of course not. Like many in the traditional media and beyond, to include the biggest "progressive" blogs around, Robinson doesn't declare he's for Obama. He masquerades as an analyst, pretending he's unbiased, while misleading the public that he can hold his Clinton hatred in check. So obviously the answer to my title question is that Robinson isn't clueless at all. He's simply duplicitous and neck deep in this journalistic (not to be confused with actual journalism) hypocrisy.
Anyone following the news media coverage knows what's going on. Studies have proven the bias. I've exposed it here in post after post, so many in fact I'm tired of linking to them all. (See here, here, here, here and here, here, here, to list a few.) What "journalists" like Robinson want you to believe is that it's all made up by the Clintons. That it's just their "beef."
It is true that the candidates' stump speeches are markedly different: Clinton's is about competence and diligence, Obama's about hope and change. But journalists didn't write those speeches, campaign speechwriters did. And any reporter or commentator who failed to note that Obama is an exceptional public speaker would be guilty of journalistic malpractice.
Reporters are busy combing through Obama's personal, professional and financial history, just as they have examined the lives of the Clintons. Obama has facilitated this process by releasing his tax returns, which Clinton has declined to do. It is not unfair to point this out.
Of course, Robinson, like his Obama blog counterparts, never mention the words Rezko, Exelon (new NBC video), if only to point out how badly Obama's judgment is. No one reports on former C.I.A. Larry Johnson's investigative pieces exposing Obama's horrific choices. It's all about what Clinton hasn't done. This goes on ad nauseam from people like Robinson and Carlson, but many others too. Clinton is continually painted in one light, while beams from heaven bask Obama in enlightenment.
As for Ms. Carlson, the email above comes amidst her appearances on tv, especially on shows like "Hardball," where she, too, pretends to offer analysis in the guise of We're Looking Out For You, Mr. and Ms. Voter, when at her core, like Robinson, she intends to do everything she can to stop Hillary Clinton. Now, she's got every right to do just that, but her duplicitous dishonesty in presenting herself as some unbiased analyst is nothing less than unethical and unprofessional. From a recent Bloomberg column of Carlson's entitled: Clinton, Iron Lady, Needs Another Game Plan. But she doesn't just go after Hillary. She throws the long ball, going all the way back to Lewinsky and Flowers, which is always a dead give away in identifying a true Clinton hater:
She has an explanation for why each of Obama's victories is inferior to hers. His wins are in teeny-weeny states (Virginia, Washington state, Missouri?) with large black populations (Iowa, Utah, Nebraska?). They are the result of independents and crossover Republicans who dilute the will of loyal Democrats, or they took place in caucus states that measure intensity not breadth (caucuses are suddenly bad for democracy).
... .. Even as Clinton pretends that any primary she doesn't win doesn't count by refusing to congratulate the winner, Obama's wins are getting bigger and broader. His coalition has expanded to include every age, education, region and income category, including those over 60 and those earning less than $50,000. Even white women -- including the blue-haired ones who are most averse to ``rolling the dice'' -- are moving toward him. ... ..
... ..The Clintons have suspended political correctness when necessary, labeling as unbalanced, a stalker, or a liar Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. They did so against Obama but it didn't work. Now Bill Clinton has gone quiet to try to get back his designation as the ``first black president'' tarnished in this campaign. The former Goldwater Girl and Wellesley alum never managed to be hailed as the first black first lady. ... ..
To contact the writer of this column: Margaret Carlson in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
Carlson's email is at the end of her Bloomberg column, so I'm not revealing something she doesn't want her readers to see.
The real insult and depravity of Carlson is that she's so arrogant that she feels comfortable telling all to a reader. She fears no consequences from her duplicitous anti Hillary agenda. Everybody's doing it, baby, so let 'er rip. Writing and presenting herself as unbiased, while actively using her position at Bloomberg news to damage Clinton's candidacy. It's all in a day's work for "journalists," these days known as political hacks, like Margaret Carlson.
Eugene Robinson, by ignoring the obvious and presenting the Clintons as people making up some "beef" with the media, aids and abets the Carlsons of the wider media. But hey, that's evidently become Eugene's job, his mission, as he slyly promotes all things Barack Obama in the next breath.
You'd have to have your head so far in the Obama clouds not to know what's going on. It has spread like a virus beyond the traditional media into the blogosphere, which has also been proven again and again. Carlson and Robinson are well paid for their troubles. Wonder who else is.