Log in

No account? Create an account

March 24th, 2008

Thom Hartmann has descended to hypocrisy

Thom Hartmann just mocked (complete with goofy voice) pundits claiming that the Hillary-driven in-fighting is making the candidates stronger, adding that, no, it’s making John McCain stronger. Actually he treated Obama and Clinton equally, after having corrected himself earlier by saying, no, actually it’s all Hillary. Meanwhile, for a few weeks now the network or one of the stations I have been streaming has been using Thom Hartmann’s own ‘Hillary’s campaign of filth is making making both candidates stronger’ passage, as a promo.

Moronically, he is calling on both candidates to turn their attention to McCain and be positive about each other; okay, I’ll bet Obama would go for that, but how are you going to make Hillary comply? Hartmann has such a reputation for ‘intelligence’, but his ‘intelligence’ is wasted because of his serious confusion of words and ‘things’—as in his confusion of ‘candidate’, which may focus on McCain, and the un-speakable (not able to be spoken) living woman, Hillary Clinton, who will attack Barack Obama.
I can see it already, because, unlike Al Gore, Hillary Clinton has been lying about her experience for real.

The argument that she’s immune to smear attacks because they’ve already thrown everything at her, years before, is wrong in part because Hillary Clinton has been supplying new material. In fact, this material is better than the older stuff, because—unlike ‘She murdered Vince Foster’, etc.—this new stuff has a factual basis.


Why did it take me so long to decide that Rachel Maddow is an idiot not worth the aggravation she gives me, given the option of listening to Jeff Farias or bad music instead? I fear it’s actually that Maddow has gotten worse since becoming a darling of cable TV ‘news’.

Even when the passage of days ends Rachel’s insistence on blaming Barack Obama for Hillary Clinton’s poop-tossing, there will remain the constant failure to get to the point, and the smarminess of the delivery of that point, and there will remain the obvious retort to her point: No shit, Sherlock!

A problem with doing your doctorate in prison AIDS policies is that, if graduate school is anything like undergraduate school in such topics, you can easily bullshit your way through it without realizing you are bullshitting; moreover you have been trained, unwittingly, in skills for bullshitting. You are left in perfect condition for television punditry, if you choose that route, and then you may never be able to recover your full humanity.

Poor Rachel! :)

Latest Month

June 2016


  • 25 Mar 2014, 01:22
    In case it matters, the most recent confirmed lahar is about 500 years ago, but there were mixed reports of eruptions in the late 1800s.
  • 25 Mar 2014, 01:20
    Pretty low until you jinxed them.
  • 25 Mar 2014, 01:01
    What would you estimate the odds to be of it happening in the next 200 years?
  • 27 Jan 2014, 06:22
    Thinking about it further, I think I now understand. You're saying the WSJ is being antisemitic, not the people they're quoting.

    I don't think they'd listen to it coming from us, but a…
  • 27 Jan 2014, 06:09
    I'm not noticing it either. Seems to me they *are* being assholes to Jews, but only moreso than anybody else if we happen to be in the way. I think that's gneral-purpose assholery, not…
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel