Margaret Carlson's Anti Hillary Email

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 [e-mail]

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.

Comments

[mcfried]

The hypocrisy is astounding.

[VailBeach]

The premise of this column is completely ignorant of the roles of commentators. Commentators have the perfect right to be biased, and if they say negative things about a given candidate, you can assume that's the bias showing. It would be inane if M. Carlson had to preface each comment critical of the Clintons with a statement to the effect that she doesn't "like" them. It should be obvious, just as it is obvious that Rush Limbaugh doesn't like John McCain.

As I recall, Margaret Carlson carried a hell of a lot of water for the Clintons in the late 90s in her role as a pundit. She's probably just sick of it. As are many of us.

[CitizenDeux]

"There's no bias! The media is simply reporting the truth!" Common claim made by left of center folks while assailing right of center folks during their tenure in office.

The comments smack of whining on the Free Republic board over MSM biases against the present administration. To imagine that a collection of people (humans)of an almost overwhelmingly similar background can detach themselves from their deeply held beliefs in the performance of their job is simply ridiculous!

Media is driven by emotion and revenue. Both are not compatible with the delivery of the unvarnished, fact checked truth. There is no accountability within this industry and frankly, little consequence for unethical behavior. Why we are surprised to see these types of tactics in the DNC primary is beyond me.

[progresemulo]

Bottom line: Hillary can't beat the media, Obama can.

[Merg]

This may be the trueist statement yet. Obama still is largely (and willfully) unexamined by the media so in that sense he is definetely 'beating the media'. Much of the media has chosen to roll over and play dead when it comes to Obama.

[Novaseeker]

The reality is a lot of people really don't like the Clintons very much. That may suck, if you like them, or support Hillary, but it is a reality, and a reality that would adversely impact the Democrats' chances in November.

I mean, right now Lanny Davis is yakking away on CNN ... it just brings back -- actually they flood back -- these horrible memories of the 1990s. Margaret Carlson is right. We don't need that again.

[longislandlol]

They are human beings first-- they are great thinkers (or they wouldn't have gotten so far)--so give them both a break-- it's not biased thinking-- it's factual, informative news done with a dash of enthusiasm--

[ATLiberal]

You are doing exactly what you accuse Margaret Carlson of doing.

One difference: You are much more shrill and vicious.

Give the constant attacks a break. It's bad for your mental health. Why not post something in FAVOR of Hillary and not AGAINST enemies real and/ or imagined.

[BrooklynLager]

Can you source this any better than "a reader sent this to me?" I know as a blogger you don't have to, but it would make you much more credible - although printing it as a "hard copy" is a nice touch.

On to the substance: I haven't picked up on Margeret Carlson's bias for or against anyone, but that may be because I think blaming the media for my candidate's failings is a useless exercise.

I didn't complain when Taylor Marsh went on TV to complain about the unfair questions Hillary Clinton was being asked in the early debates without identifying herself as an arm of the Campaign to Elect Hillary Clinton for President. Hillary Rosen and Bill Press speak for the Clinton campaign and against the Obama campaign daily, and are only identified as "Democratic Strategists". So why should I care about this?

[Doofus]

'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.)'

If you're tired, you should probably take a break. We really, really, really, really, really, really get it. Really, we do. Some people just don't like the Clintons so much anymore.

[S1m0n]

I've had some trouble drafting a comment on this weird story. There's absolutely nothing wrong, shameful, unethical or embarrassing about that email.

Margaret Carlson doesn't like the Clintons. So what? Every political reporter I know has strong, frequently caustic opinions about the pols they cover. Get 'em off camera, and they'll regale you for hours about the stuff they'd never say on camera.

Their obligation to the public is to not allow their opinions to colour their coverage; they are under no obligation to have no opinions at all.

[TCassidy]

Thank you! How brave to see the blatant media bias mentioned in the MSM. I am a Republican so I am not as emotionally invested in the actual candidates, but the media bias has been so obvious that my family and friends have noticed and are all talking about it. I know that the media does have influence, though this obsessive Obama worship/Hillary hate has actually pushed a few co-workers over to vote for Hillary. Whether it is Obama love, Hillary hate, Mysogyny - it is telling that so many people do not recognize it at all! They deny it exists or dismiss any mention of it or blame Hillary, Hillary Supporters, or women. Lol. Being a Republican for this election is so much easier. My empathy to Democratic supporters of anyone other than Barack Obama - you are being threatened, insulted, and/or ignored. Do not worry. IF he is your nominee - we Republicans will ensure that the truth gets printed.

[ErinG]

Guess who has a woman crush on Hillary?

[YellerDawg]

What an intelligent response! I respect your political judgment completely.

[ErinG]

But you respect Taylor"s? Give me a break!

[Canaan]

The pro-Obama media bias and double standard is so obvious, anybody who denies it is just lying or dreaming. The question is how much resentment the double-standard stirs up in Hillary's base. We can't really know how much now, because of political correctness. I'll vote for Hillary first, McCain second, Obama never. And Hillary's base looks a lot like Reagan Democrats -- that is, McCain Democrats. So I'll be a Clinton Democrat or a McCain Democrat. You can keep Donna 'No-Win' Brazile, Obama and his 'shadow handlers.'

[BrooklynLager]

If you can't get a pro-war democrat, you'll vote for a pro-war republican. Got it.

[Rebelfriend]

I am not particularly a great fan of Hillary Clinton, but I must say the constant vicious attacks on her in the media now has taken on the impression of spousal abuse. Kick her when she's down. Kick her when she's down. It really is sick.

[Rebelfriend]

Sadly everything you say is true, and not just about Carlson and Robinson. Most "journalist" today have forgotten their responsibility as members of our Fourth Estate, and have sold their souls to the highest bidder. Their underhanded motives have become so blatant that when I read their words or see them on television, I cringe. Somewhere in their youthful beginnings they must have understood their responsibility as "journalists" but somewhere along the way they took a different path, and showed their lack of character in the doing. They apparently tell themselves everyone is doing it; if I don't follow the drumbeat of my masters, someone else will and I will be out. So they go about their destruction with smiling, always smiling faces. I am sure today that they rationalize the terrible harm they do, and that, to me, is the perfect definition of evil.