Carpenter: You can hardly, you can hardly see dem nipples.

Frank Cross: See? And these guys are REALLY looking.

Scrooged 1988

I was channel surfing Sunday Morning when I stopped at Meet the Press, the subject of the way was Hillary Clinton’s all but certain 2016 run.

After speaking to the authors of an upcoming book on Mrs. Clinton David Gregory brought the Meet the Press panel in to talk Hillary 2016. Andrea Mitchell was on that panel. During the discussion of the potential Hillary run she said something both incredible and familiar.

No, I don’t mean what she said about donors the that Glenn linked to yesterday. While a tad juicy, that didn’t shock or surprise me.

What Andrea Mitchell said concerning Hillary 2016 that was worth remembering was this: (Emphasis mine)

She’ll also have to show what she achieved as secretary of state. Yes, Benghazi will be raised over and over again. But she has to show some real accomplishments. And that is completely up in the air. We’ll see what John Kerry is doing, we see what negotiations are in play in Iran. We don’t know how that’s going to turn out.

Are you kidding me? Who does Mitchell think she is, Doug Mataconis?

Allow me to explain, on July 8th of last year at 6:34 AM EST I began a rather memorable Twitter tete a tete with Doug concerning Hillary’s accomplishments as secretary of state. The key tweet from our spirited exchange came 20 minutes in when I asked this question:

That tweet led to many twists, turns and dodges but they ended at 7:16 AM when Doug left the conversation without having offered an answer proclaiming:

I put the question open to those reading our exchange and noted the lack of responses in  my post of the next day

1. In the forty five minutes my first tweet to his last, an informed, intelligent and prolific writer could not name a single accomplishment in the record of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

2. While my twitter steam is alive with tweets from others agreeing with me, not a single tweet from a reader of #p2 @morning_joe or even #hillary2016 showed up to defend the record of Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of state.

3. The absolute need to change the subject from anything but Hillary’s record suggests her actual record is something that must be avoided at all costs.

Given Ms. Mitchell quote,  perhaps I was too hard on Doug in back in July. Not to minimize him as a writer and follower of national events but I’ll wager he’d concede his record can’t compare to Andrea Mitchell’s.

Consider,  Andrea Mitchell started as a reporter in the LBJ years when I was five years old. Whatever I might think of her biases her accomplishments in the news business are impressive. She is on Television on a daily basis, is known to almost everyone in Washington,  has access, connections and a resume that I can, at this point in my career,  only dream of.

Yet one year after Hillary Clinton left the office of Secretary of State,  Andrea Mitchell when discussing that record on Meet the Press while easily naming Benghazi as a problem declared Mrs. Clinton’s accomplishments were up in the air?

THIS IS Andrea Freaking Mitchell!  She probably supports Mrs. Clinton for president stronger than I support the Boston Red Sox.

If her ability to name an accomplishment Mrs. Clinton had in four years as Secretary of State is totally dependent on how well John Kerry cleans up after her that means SHE HAD NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS, PERIOD!

It also mean the basis for promoting Hillary for president in 2016 is the Hillary Principle that I articulated four days after my exchange with Doug:

If a democrat is promoted to an office beyond their level of ability, the very act of holding said office, regardless of the lack of success or degree of failure, will be considered evidence of success , particularly if said Democrat is a member of a “protected” or “oppressed” group as defined by the party and/or media.

Given that America was willing to re-elect Barack Obama based on one of the worst terms a President has had in my lifetime I regret to say it would not surprise me at all that the nation would be willing to elect Hillary based on nothing other than spin.

Update: Added the Scrooged quote at the top. The Scene is here

I suspect those stagehands staring at that solid gold dancer aren’t as motivated as Andrea Mitchell is to see a Hillary accomplishment.

I’d bet real money if this post is linked widely or mentioned on Rush that Andrea will suddenly come up with something, ANYTHING no matter how convoluted.

Update 2: An interesting note via Glenn from the NY Post:

A system of political rewards and punishments devised by the political power couple set aside “a special circle of Clinton hell . . . for people who had endorsed [President] Obama,” according to “HRC,” a new book by Politico former White House bureau chief Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes of The Hill.

The most helpful Clintonistas were rated “1” under the Clintons’ rating system, while turncoat former allies, such as John Kerry, received “7’s.”

Hmmm if Andrea Mitchell is right John Kerry is safe for now since Mrs. Clinton’s record as Sec of State is based on him.

Then again who said the “Elect Hillary” business is based on her record?

Update 3: Doug seems a tad miffed at the piece but I think he’s missing the point.

7 months ago in a midst of a twitter exchange I asked him a question he had no idea was coming & he couldn’t answer on the fly over the space of 20 minutes while doing all the things a person does in the morning to get ready for the day.

Andrea Mitchell was going on Meet the Press, knew she was going on, knew the subject was Hillary Clinton 2016, and had to know the question of her record as Sec of State would come up in discussion…and still couldn’t name a Hillary success at State.

Update 4: Glenn Reynolds takes a different view than Ms. Mitchell on the purpose of John Kerry vis a vis Hillary’s Accomplishments as Syria continues to explode

As I’ve noted before, John Kerry’s role is to make Hillary Clinton’s unimpressive tenure at State look better by comparison. So far, he’s fulfilling it perfectly.

If “Not being as wrong as John Kerry” makes on presidential material I should form my 2016 exploratory committee at once.


Olimometer 2.52

It’s Monday and the weekly goal sits at $51.11

With a weekly goal of $350 that means we’re only $298.89 to go to make week 2 in February a success as opposed to week 1.

Only 12 readers at $25 are needed to clear this weeks goal and start to make up on last week’s shortfall.

Olimometer 2.52

Your tip jar hit can help me do this. Please consider kicking in.

And now there is another reason to kick in on a more permanent way

DaGuy low rez copy-psd If you become one of the 55 3/4 subscribers @ at $20 a month are necessary to secure the cost of DaMagnificent Seven & my monthly mortgage on a permanent basis but do so at the $25 level
you can receive one of several Exclusive Original Chris Muir high Res Graphics of the original members of DaTechGuy’s Magnificent Seven Gang. like the one on the right

Low res tha lotPlease specify which of the eight hi res (including myself you wish to receive) Subscribe at $50 a month and receive all eight. Subscribe at $100 a month and get all 8 wanted posters high res graphics plug the high res version of all of us exclusively created for subscribers of DaTechGuy blog by Chris Muir himself!

Yeah you can’t trust those Sarah Palin Types who’ve been saying crazy stuff like this since 2009

And by the way, [with] health care being so big in D.C. right now, be wary when some kind of tie-in occurs. Because it will crop up: a tie-in with guns in an attempt to take away our rights under the guise of some new health care plan. You know that this is coming–that the two issues will somehow crop up and they’ll be tied together. So we have to be very wary of that.

What a bunch of nuts eh?

Update: Instalanche & Irony Overload in three tweets

Because NOTHING says irrelevance like getting elected.

Octavian: Dr Song, I’ve lost good clerics today. You trust this man?

River Song: I absolutely trust him.

Octavian: He’s not some kind of madman then?

River Song: I absolutely trust him.

Doctor Who Time of the Angels 2010

I took a look at the Sunday Shows this morning and I’ve noticed a common theme. The River Song Gambit

On the various shows the same question was asked over and over again: “Are we better off than we were four years ago.”

Here is David Axelrod (Moe Lane had it up first)

On This Week we had a different face but more of the same:

Only on Face the Nation did you see an answer. When Bob Schieffer asked the question Martin O’Malley gov of Maryland quickly said “No” and changed the subject.

Bill Richardson, Stephanie Cutter went along with changing that subject.

That’s the problem for the Democrats, it’s the question that overrides everything else, it’s the question that must be avoided and the subject changed at all costs. This election can’t be about Barack Obama’s record, it has to be about something else.

When River Song dodged the question about a “Madman in a Box” she could lean on the centuries of success of the Doctor

Unfortunately for the president, show a video montage of the Obama record and the reaction is the same as the above clip:

Hello, I’m Barack Obama: “Basically, Run”

Update: Time Can be re-written:

A day after saying, no, the country was not better off than it was four years ago, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley reversed course on Monday and said, yes, indeed it was.

Must not have been a fixed point.

via Hotair Hilary Rosen that mysterious unknown women totally unknown in Democratic Circles despite 35+ visits to the White House and a lot of donations has decided to pull a Sir Robin:

“Not going on #MTP this weekend. I’m going to be a mom who stays home.”

Didn’t the MSM spend months saying what a lightweight idiot Michele Bachmann is? Apparently she is too tough for Ms. Rosen.

Maybe they can get the president of NOW to sit in instead.

Cue Python

Back on November 27th Cokie Robers on ABC’s this week said this:

I would not be at all surprised if Rick Santorum won the Iowa Caucus

The Panel which included Christiane Amanpour, Michael Gearson, Sam Donaldson seemed surprised and Johnathan Karl told Roberts that he would take that bet.

Today on This week with two days to the Caucus, Jake Tapper asked his panel who was going to win Iowa. Matthew Dowd said a “three way tie”, Neera Tanden hesitated Byron York, and Craig Robinson, both said: “Santorum”.

In an interview later in that same show Johnathan Karl was asked who he predicted to win in Iowa and he answered: “Santorum”. No word what his bet with Cokie Roberts might have been.

On Meet the Press host David Gregory interviewed Santorum and accidentally illustrated the difference between a tough interview (as per Jake Tapper v Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann today) and an advocacy (Dare I say “Journo-listic” ) interview, but in the end his very different panel was also talking Santorum.

Nobody is laughing anymore.

As a Santorum fan I would have liked at least one more day when the expectation game had not reached this point, but the point of the entire exercise is to Win and I will be delighted if Santorum does it but I think it highlights an important point.

No matter how much we pontificate, no matter how many words we write and no matter how much money is spent, in the end it is the voter and not the pundit that makes the final decision.

…when I hear this nonsense.

“The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default” said Greenspan on NBC’s Meet the Press

Am I actually hearing Alan “Dig him up and put him in charge when he dies“Greenspan saying something like this out-loud on a national television show?

If I wanted to undermine confidence in the American Dollar this is exactly what I’d do.


I woke up at 4:30 this morning (no Willie I don’t know why) and caught the end of a re-peat of Meet the press. What did I find? the MSM Psy-ops is still in progress.

When discussing the Huckabee decision the panel considered two factors, on the “likeability” front they gave Tim Pawlenty the explicit advantage. Then they mentioned his strength among Christian Conservatives and said such candidates appealing to that demographic might gain from his departure, but didn’t name any names.

Really, the media panel hasn’t heard of any Christian conservatives who might be running? Maybe I can help them. Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann ring a bell? Oh and perhaps you might have heard of some woman by the name of Palin, I’ve heard she has sold a book or two over the years.

Perhaps they must all be Politico readers because in their story on Huck’s decision I noticed they gave the conservative candidates the short shift.

In a thirty-two paragraph story here is what they had to say:

Several strategists predicted that grassroots conservative activists — drawn to Huckabee’s seat-of-his-pants, outsider campaign — would take a good look at Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain.

That’s paragraph 12 are they mentioned again in one sentence in paragraph 22 like so:

Republicans there said that, without the defending caucus-winner in the race, it was now anybody’s game. Pawlenty, who has been working the state hard, could get a fresh look, along with Bachmann, Cain and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

That’s it. Two sentences in a three page story. Meanwhile John (I have absolutely no prayer of winning the Nomination but don’t tell the MSM that) Huntsman gets this:

South Carolinians pointed to former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as candidates who could benefit there from Huckabee’s withdrawal. Huntsman already has Richard Quinn, a South Carolina strategist who also flirted with Huckabee, working for him, and could stand to pick up more of the Arkansan’s admirers.

“I would very seriously consider [Huntsman’s] candidacy,” said former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, suggesting that Huntsman could capture voters who were drawn to Huckabee’s sheer newness on the national stage. “When Jon expressed an interest in running it definitely caught my attention because he might be just the fresh face on the field that’s needed at this time in the Republican primary process.”

Somehow the Politico also manages to leave out it there is any effect on a certain former Alaska governor. Meet the Press and the Politico feeds Morning Joe we can be almost certain that we won’t see much if any of the names, Palin, Cain or Bachmann this morning.

We shall see if they join the operation this morning, as Rush has said, the MSM will tell you who they fear and these omissions speak volumes.

I watched with some amusement the “No Labels” republicans on Meet the Press paired with the other side. Joe as usual made some good points, but his assertion that Rush Limbaugh is enraged with the group is nonsense. There is no nice way to say it so I’ll just say it: He’s laughing at you because he correctly thinks this no label thing is a farce.

George Will nails it:

adopting a political label should be an act of civic candor. When people label themselves conservatives or liberals we can reasonably surmise where they stand concerning important matters, such as Hudson’s ruling. The label “conservative” conveys much useful information about people who adopt it. So does the label “liberal,” which is why most liberals have abandoned it, preferring “progressive,” until they discredit it, too.

And Glenn Reynolds (guest Jan 15th btw) dots the I and Crosses the T (in the navel sense):

Why are they against labels? Because if they were labeled accurately, no one would listen to them . . . .

That ones gotta leave a mark, particularly from the blogfather but hey if no labels can prove me wrong more power to them!