It Was 20 Years Ago Today

Twenty years ago today Matt Drudge released a blockbuster story about a White House intern and her sexual affair with then President Bill Clinton. The story was investigated and filed by Michael Isikoff at Newsweek but that publication quashed the story allegedly because it could not confirm some of what Monica Lewinsky was heard saying on recordings of phone conversations and because some of her words led them to question her credibility.

Drudge had no such worries when he released the story to his then 85,000 subscribers. In no time flat that story was the talk of the town and Drudge’s page received so many visitors that it could not be accessed by some who wanted to read the story. It is quite possible that story jump started what is now the most formidable news aggregating website.

Newsweek decided not to run with the story and the rest of the MSM ignored it until it got too big to dismiss. All must have decided that the then 23 year old intern was not as credible and a man known to be a serial philanderer. His initial run for the presidency was clouded with sexual exploits (sexploits?) including a long term affair with Gennifer Flowers. Clinton denied the affair and his wife set up a war room to handle so called bimbo eruptions. As the world would later find out, not only was Lewinsky telling the truth but so was Flowers.

Clinton lied about everything until he was cornered with a DNA stained dress. He was impeached for committing perjury but found not guilty by a Congress we now know has a slush fund of taxpayer dollars to quash sexual allegations levied against its members.

Clinton was never held accountable for the sexual misconduct and the rapes reported by other credible victims. To this day he is a free man and cherished by many liberal women who quickly react when others are accused of the same things.

It looks like Lewinsky, Flowers and others were all #metoo before it was the in thing.

Twenty years! Can you believe that? They grow up so fast. It seems like it was just yesterday Monica was crawling around the Oval Office putting things in her mouth.

The government has needed an enema for a long time.


Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Sign of the Times, Drudge Unburies the News

Last week Barack Obama had a piece published in the terrorist daily brief known as the New York Times. Senator John McCain sent the NYT his response to the Obama piece and it was promptly rejected by the NYT Editorial Board. In an email exchange, David Shipley (who served in the Clinton Administration), told Michael Goldfarb of McCain’s campaign, that they would like to work with the Senator to get the piece published but had to reject it at this time. Then, a few suggestions were offered to make it more Times friendly:

Dear Mr. Goldfarb,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page.

However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach.

The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out
how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. …

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.


David Shipley NYT

Assuming Shipley really wants to publish something from McCain rather than bury his article (and without Drudge this might have been buried forever) we need to look at what he expects. Shipley wants McCain to refine his piece so that it mirrors Obama’s. One might think he meant that it should follow the same format and he certainly outlined it that way by indicating that it should explain how McCain defines victory, troop levels, and timetables for measuring success. That might be a reasonable request in the liberal world.

The problem is, it is more likely that Shipley really wants McCain to mirror Obama’s plan for defeat. Nowhere in Obama’s piece did the young Senator define victory. Nowhere did he discuss troop levels and nowhere did he describe a timetable for success. Obama states he will remove all of our troops (leaving a small contingent) within 16 months. Let me reiterate, OBAMA DID NOT DISCUSS WHAT VICTORY WOULD BE. He is vested in defeat and this is why the NYT had no problem publishing his article. Obama’s piece discussed his plan in vague terms and left it open to revision depending on the situation on the ground.

Obama says that he would redeploy our troops and that he would be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. This is the same mantra he has been saying for over a year. In all reality, most of the stuff in his piece is from his stump speeches. The NYT might be accurate that the piece appeared before a particular Obama speech but the content has been part of his speeches for quite some time. Therefore, contrary to Shipley’s claims, the Obama piece did not offer new information.

The 16 month withdraw and leaving troops behind are not new plans. The only thing that is recent is that Obama would now like to have a surge in Afghanistan. He wants to put more troops in Afghanistan despite his objections to doing that in Iraq and despite his assertions that the surge has not worked. He gave credit to the troops but he was quick to point out that Iraq’s government has not held up its end of the bargain. Senator Obama is criticizing the Iraqi government for being slow when our own government has been non existent this year (and for many years). Nothing substantive has been accomplished by our do absolutely nothing Congress and we are not fighting a war on our soil.

The New York Times has demonstrated its liberal bias just as the major broadcast media did when it decided to follow Obama all over the world. When McCain made trips to the war zones, did all the anchors follow him around? It is obvious that the Times does not want to print McCain’s piece because it runs contrary to their opinions and it paints Obama in a poor light because it points out that Obama has never mentioned victory. The reality is that the Times will print any liberal tripe sent to it by left wing celebrities and Democrats in Congress. This is their definition of unbiased reporting. The amazing thing is that liberals who mock Fox for its Fair and Balanced slogan look at the Times as acting fairly.

Is it any wonder that the Times’ circulation is down and that the once great paper is being run into the ground? While I won’t lose any sleep if they go belly up, a lot of people will be out of jobs if they do not right that ship. The last thing we need is one more thing for them to blame on George Bush.

In any event, the McCain Op-Ed was printed in full on Drudge. At least we can count on Drudge to publish things.

Big Dog

The Hillary Attack Machine

I wrote a post about the fear the Clintons have struck in the media. Most places are afraid of saying anything negative or writing one word that might be offensive. I certainly do not have that fear but that is a different story. It looks like the attack machine is in full swing preparing for the next debate which will be moderated by Wolf Blitzer. Drudge has a developing story that indicates the campaign has warned Blitzer not to make the debate about Hillary:

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday’s Dem debate on Hillary. ‘This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,’ top Clinton insider explains. ‘Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull ‘a Russert.” Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux… Blitzer says he is not being pressured by any campaign: ‘No one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me’… Drudge

Blitzer is saying that no one tried to intimidate him but the words from the campaign tell a different story. If I were the moderator the first question I would ask is if she thinks it is appropriate for a campaign to threaten debate moderators.

She will be out for blood in this next debate but the guys who are chasing her have closed the gap significantly (3 points separate all three of them according to a new poll that will be released) and they will be looking to jump on her for recent planted questions and other gaffes. I might actually watch this one just to see if she gets a smack down.

Why is the Media Good to Hillary?

When a politician is named Clinton he can usually be assured of good press, or no press at all if there is something bad going on. The same press that can’t wait to run to press with our nation’s secrets is much more respecting of the wishes of the Clintons. The press does not want to do anything that will upset the darling couple. The MSM sat on the Monica/Bill story and only released it after Drudge had made it public. I believe that the liberals in the MSM will do anything to get the Clintons elected but I also now think they are afraid of Hillary. She does not like them and has treated them badly in the past. Additionally, she has alienated them since about 1993 but they do not seem to go after her and the reason boils down to one word; FEAR.

Members of the media are afraid of Hillary and her mean spirited ways. They are afraid of being left out, should her majesty be elected. Hillary was able to stop a recent GQ article by threatening an unrelated article that dealt with Bill. It is easy, play ball the way the Clintons want or you do not get to play.

If grumbling about a basketball story seems excessive, it’s also typical of the Clinton media machine. Reporters who have covered the hyper-vigilant campaign say that no detail or editorial spin is too minor to draw a rebuke. Even seasoned political journalists describe reporting on Hillary as a torturous experience. Though few dare offer specifics for the record–“They’re too smart,” one furtively confides. “They’ll figure out who I am”–privately, they recount excruciating battles to secure basic facts. Innocent queries are met with deep suspicion. Only surgically precise questioning yields relevant answers. Hillary’s aides don’t hesitate to use access as a blunt instrument, as when they killed off a negative GQ story on the campaign by threatening to stop cooperating with a separate Bill Clinton story the magazine had in the works. Reporters’ jabs and errors are long remembered, and no hour is too odd for an angry phone call. Clinton aides are especially swift to bypass reporters and complain to top editors. “They’re frightening!” says one reporter who has covered Clinton. “They don’t see [reporting] as a healthy part of the process. They view this as a ruthless kill-or-be-killed game.” The New Republic

The Clinton camp does not view it as healthy and Hillary has a disdain for the media after the way they treated her husband in 1992. Evidently, Hillary took exception to the fact that her husband was treated just like any other skirt chasing, sex abusing rapist. It is obvious that the media is lacking in the tenacity required to go after someone like the Hildabeast. it is just amazing to me that a person like Hillary could inspire fear in anyone especially reporters. In the real world it is the politicians who should be afraid of the media but the MSM of today has sat back and had Obama and Edwards do the attacking for them. I am certain that if Obama or Edwards had broken campaign laws and it was caught on tape they would have been attacked relentlessly in order to prop up the Hill. If it were a Republican they would be calling for a head on a platter.

Do we want a person as president who has so much control over the media? The Clintons got away with quite a bit of crime the last time they were in the WH. Imagine what they could do with the media covering for them even more than it did back then.

Say no to Satan.

Big Dog

Others posting similar items:
Outside the Beltway, Blog @, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pet’s Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, DragonLady’s World, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wake Up America, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.