How the Clintons went from "dead broke" to rich (WaPo)

[RogueBeaver]

Bubba has earned $105M in speaking fees since leaving the WH.

[Mr. Morden]

If she wins, does she become the wealthiest sitting president since JFK?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I believe all the negative attention Hillary's comments have generated has finally disproved the myth of the liberal media.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I believe all the negative attention Hillary's comments have generated has finally disproved the myth of the liberal media.

It disproved the myth that the media is liberal or moderate. The myth of the liberal media was certainly disproven when the entire media was banging the drums of war against Iraq, and moderates like Hillary voted for it.

[Donerail]

I believe all the negative attention Hillary's comments have generated has finally disproved the myth of the liberal media.

It disproves the myth that the media holds any particular ideological standpoint apart from enhancing the media's profits. If it benefits particular segments of the media to pander to a particular ideology as a way to increase their revenues then they will do so.

[IceSpear]

Okay media, it's time to move on. The comment was not that big of a deal.

[Bull Moose Base]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/06/27/what-bills-speaking-fees-say-about-a-hillary-presidency/

That's a good question responding to the original story.

I believe all the negative attention Hillary's comments have generated has finally disproved the myth of the liberal media.

It disproves the myth that the media holds any particular ideological standpoint apart from enhancing the media's profits. If it benefits particular segments of the media to pander to a particular ideology as a way to increase their revenues then they will do so.

That's true, but also guys like Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes are also true believers. FOX ignored Bridgegate the day of the big break, sacrificing ratings- or clickbait in the service of their larger agenda. Whether it's for profit or politics, the sum of it seems to be more conservative-skewing sources than not. Bad polls for Obama, Obamacare troubles, a potential scandal for Obama get far more overall media coverage than polls showing him rebound, news about Obamacare succeeding or revelations that undercut the narrative of a scandal.

As far as Hillary Clinton, whether the manipulation was because someone had it in for her or wanted clicks I don't know but the headline that she claimed not to be truly well-off was pretty egregiously dishonest; her point in the quote reads that she is truly well-off, just pays a normal tax rate unlike others who do not.

EDIT: I do think Diane Sawyer's original question that Hillary botched was a good one. If the 2008 primary had not been as close as it was, Hillary wouldn't be the presumptive nominee now. Even if she'd still been Secretary of State.

[Paul Kemp]

Okay media, it's time to move on. The comment was not that big of a deal.

Yea, sure, not that big of a deal in the sense that Romney calling himself "unemployed" was "not that big of a deal" or McCain forgetting how many homes he owns was "not that big of a deal."

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Okay media, it's time to move on. The comment was not that big of a deal.

Yea, sure, not that big of a deal in the sense that Romney calling himself "unemployed" was "not that big of a deal" or McCain forgetting how many homes he owns was "not that big of a deal."

Those comments weren't more than two years before an election. Actually, this much attention given to the comments now will probably make them old news by the time 2016 rolls around. Hillary wins again.

[Paul Kemp]

Okay media, it's time to move on. The comment was not that big of a deal.

Yea, sure, not that big of a deal in the sense that Romney calling himself "unemployed" was "not that big of a deal" or McCain forgetting how many homes he owns was "not that big of a deal."

Those comments weren't more than two years before an election. Actually, this much attention given to the comments now will probably make them old news by the time 2016 rolls around. Hillary wins again.

The issue here isn't the coverage of the comments rather as much as the sentiment.

[IceSpear]

Okay media, it's time to move on. The comment was not that big of a deal.

Yea, sure, not that big of a deal in the sense that Romney calling himself "unemployed" was "not that big of a deal" or McCain forgetting how many homes he owns was "not that big of a deal."

I like how people try to draw a false equivalence between this single out of touch gaffe and the dozens that Mitt Romney had. Nor did the media harp on any of Romney's gaffes for weeks (except 47%, which was obviously an entirely different beast). They even let him get away with not releasing his tax returns.

[Paul Kemp]

Okay media, it's time to move on. The comment was not that big of a deal.

Yea, sure, not that big of a deal in the sense that Romney calling himself "unemployed" was "not that big of a deal" or McCain forgetting how many homes he owns was "not that big of a deal."

I like how people try to draw a false equivalence between this single out of touch gaffe and the dozens that Mitt Romney had. Nor did the media harp on any of Romney's gaffes for weeks (except 47%, which was obviously an entirely different beast). They even let him get away with not releasing his tax returns.

Your grasp on reality is not great.

[IceSpear]

Okay media, it's time to move on. The comment was not that big of a deal.

Yea, sure, not that big of a deal in the sense that Romney calling himself "unemployed" was "not that big of a deal" or McCain forgetting how many homes he owns was "not that big of a deal."

I like how people try to draw a false equivalence between this single out of touch gaffe and the dozens that Mitt Romney had. Nor did the media harp on any of Romney's gaffes for weeks (except 47%, which was obviously an entirely different beast). They even let him get away with not releasing his tax returns.

Your grasp on reality is not great.

In other words, you have no rebuttal. Thanks for playing.

[Paul Kemp]

Okay media, it's time to move on. The comment was not that big of a deal.

Yea, sure, not that big of a deal in the sense that Romney calling himself "unemployed" was "not that big of a deal" or McCain forgetting how many homes he owns was "not that big of a deal."

I like how people try to draw a false equivalence between this single out of touch gaffe and the dozens that Mitt Romney had. Nor did the media harp on any of Romney's gaffes for weeks (except 47%, which was obviously an entirely different beast). They even let him get away with not releasing his tax returns.

Your grasp on reality is not great.

In other words, you have no rebuttal. Thanks for playing.

The rebuttal is that you're simply wrong.

It being a "single out of touch gaffe" doesn't lessen the fact that it is an out of touch comment. If you should know anything about American politics, it's that singular moments can be defining (not that I necessarily believe this one to be).

Your assertion that the media didn't "harp" on Romney's gaffes is absolutely inaccurate, as is the idea that he "got away" with not releasing his tax returns - which was a story for months. These were all reasons why this guy lost the election and fed into the narrative of his candidacy... not exactly things that were glossed over. What you're saying is literally not how it happened in reality.

[IceSpear]

Okay media, it's time to move on. The comment was not that big of a deal.

Yea, sure, not that big of a deal in the sense that Romney calling himself "unemployed" was "not that big of a deal" or McCain forgetting how many homes he owns was "not that big of a deal."

I like how people try to draw a false equivalence between this single out of touch gaffe and the dozens that Mitt Romney had. Nor did the media harp on any of Romney's gaffes for weeks (except 47%, which was obviously an entirely different beast). They even let him get away with not releasing his tax returns.

Your grasp on reality is not great.

In other words, you have no rebuttal. Thanks for playing.

The rebuttal is that you're simply wrong.

It being a "single out of touch gaffe" doesn't lessen the fact that it is an out of touch comment. If you should know anything about American politics, it's that singular moments can be defining (not that I necessarily believe this one to be).

Your assertion that the media didn't "harp" on Romney's gaffes is absolutely inaccurate, as is the idea that he "got away" with not releasing his tax returns - which was a story for months. These were all reasons why this guy lost the election and fed into the narrative of his candidacy... not exactly things that were glossed over. What you're saying is literally not how it happened in reality.

When did I say it wasn't an out of touch comment? There's a pretty big difference between a single out of touch comment and a consistent trend of them like with Romney (corporations are people my friend, Ann drives a couple of cadillacs, I like being able to fire people, I'm middle class too, I'm unemployed, I bet you $10,000, etc. etc. etc.), which is why it's a false equivalence for the media to be labeling her as Mitt Romney 2.0 based off a single comment. Sure, maybe if she starts making more the comparison could be made, but at the moment it's just lazy journalism.