Email-gate is only the latest step on this long, winding road.
Consider just one brief, recent revelatory exchange with Charlie Rose,
in which Rose noted (correctly) that FBI Director James Comey had called
her “careless,” and Clinton replied with a flurry of non-responsive
words: “Well, I would hope that you like many others would also look at
what he said when he testified before Congress, because when he did, he
clarified much of what he had said in his press conference.”
“But he said it was sloppy,” Rose persisted.
“No,” Clinton insisted, “he did not.”
Yes, he did, too.
-- Todd S. Purdum's "Why Can't Hillary Stop Fudging The Truth?" (POLITICO).
Sunday, July 24, 2016
A note to our readers
Hey --
Sunday?
Yep.
Let's thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And what did we come up with?
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I
Sunday?
Yep.
Let's thank all who participated this edition which includes Dallas and the following:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
And what did we come up with?
Todd S. Purdum gets it.
How many innocents will be killed by the Iraqi government before the US government says enough.
Ava and C.I. cover ABC's Sunday night game shows.
Ava and C.I. reach into history to remind you of the time Hillary attempted to bring up another man's affairs -- 'sister' Hillary who had no concern for Barbara Bush's feelings.
We roundtable again.
Ava and C.I. explain why the past is present.
We won't miss you.
Do you not know when to go away, Keith?
WikiLeaks.
Liza Featherstone.
What we listened to while writing.
Tweets by Jill Stein.
Tweets by Gary Johnson.
Jerry White doesn't Tweet apparently. We also would have included Gloria La Riva but she hasn't Tweeted since July 19th.
Press release from Senator Tammy Baldwin's office.
Repost of UK Socialist Worker.
Mike and the gang wrote this. And we thank them for it.
Peace.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I
Editorial: Still no work done to heal Iraq
- Iraqi army crimes #warcrimes عاجل افضحوهم مجزرة الحشد الشيعي يقتل بالجملة اطفال عراقين سنه نازحين من #الشرقاط
#IRAQ شمرية العراق 
Why does the western media continue to ignore the murders carried out by the Barack Obama-backed government of Hayder al-Abadi?
In the name of defeating the Islamic State, is the US government willing to tolerate anything?
Apparently so.
But don't expect the Iraqi people to tolerate it.
The persecution of the Sunnis is what allowed the Islamic State to take root in Iraq to begin with.
If the government's persecuting you, you can take the attitude of any fight between it and the Islamic State is their battle and has nothing to do with you.
If that seems familiar, it's because many Iraqis have been quoted stating just over the last two years.
You can kill every current member of the Islamic State currently in Iraq and the problem still remains because you haven't addressed the persecution of the Sunni population.
Barack used to get that.
He used to say that Iraq required a political solution.
He used to say that there was no military answer.
But that was two years ago.
Everything he's done since has only focused on a military response.
TV: The wins (and losses) of game shows
After last summer's success with CELEBRITY FAMILY FEUD, ABC's built a whole night around game shows. And, for the most part, it's a success.
Steve Harvey kicks off the four hour bloc with a repeat of his CELEBRITY FAMILY FEUD which is followed by a new episode of CELEBRITY FAMILY FEUD. No need to offer much here, the show anchors the night and Harvey's doing what he does well. (In syndication, Steve hosts the regular FAMILY FEUD and has since 2010.)
The ratings for both the hour rerun and the hour of the new episode are strong.
So strong, someone might need to worry.
Not Michael Strahan.
He's hosting $100,000 PYRAMID and doing a strong job.
He's not a Steve Harvey clone, he's got his own style and he lets the guests shine -- civilians and entertainers.
He instinctively knows when to come in on a moment and when to let it build.
He's a professional and his show is a hit.
Regularly, the show comes closest to Harvey's ratings -- usually just a half million less viewers.
It's a fun show, it moves quickly.
And ABC wins the night with its game show block programming.
But before you pop open the champagne, there's one more show in the block.
MATCH GAME.
Yes, it's part of the block programming.
And, yes, it gets ratings.
Just not really good ones.
It's usually two to two and a half million viewers less than the numbers for Harvey's new hour of CELEBRITY FAMILY FEUD.
What's the problem?
We like Alec Baldwin but we never would have hired him as a host.
He should be a guest, for sure. He and his four brothers should be on CELEBRITY FAMILY FEUD.
But why would you hire him as a host?
He's gone after ex-wife Kim Basinger with verbal remarks, he's gone after the child they had together with hostile and mean voice mails that are public knowledge, TMZ broadcast his homophobic slur for all the world to see (Alec is not homophobic, he is someone who when he wants to be mean uses terms he hopes are offensive), he's had encounters with flight attendents, he's had . . .
Can we stop now?
We can continue, but can we please stop?
The point is that he has public problems.
A long history of them.
Why would you risk a show by hiring someone with this pattern to host?
And then?
Political issues.
It's not that he has political opinions, it's that he denounces those whose political opinions differ. Loudly and repeatedly.
This is a man who couldn't even keep afloat a weekly talk show on MSNBC.
No, we never would have hired him to be the host of the program.
And we would have been right not to.
Each episode is all about Alec.
Each episode is him stepping over -- excuse, us, clomping, clomping over a moment that needs to breathe but he has to interject.
Here's a thought, if a woman from wherever in America is a guest player on the program and asks for a kiss, give her a kiss. We don't need to hear that you're married, nobody is asking you to have sex with her, just a quick kiss on the cheek for one of the few women in America who's still attracted to you.
The woman must be a chubby chaser.
Every time Alec turns side ways to march around the set, we're reminded of the animated opening to THE PARTRIDGE FAMILY, that's what Alec's body shape best resembles now.
And when your suits are tailored, get them to add a little more in the back when your ass is so far that it's hiking up the back of your suit jacket by at least an inch and a half.
The only thing more ridiculous may be the one button buttoned in the front which does nothing to slim him down.
No woman would be allowed to host the show and look like that.
Obviously.
Because no one woman's hosting a game show on ABC's game show block night.
Why is that?
It's 2016 and ABC got four hours of game shows and not one is hosted by a woman.
Maybe next summer, ABC can hire a woman to host whatever they replace Alec's MATCH GAME with?
Steve Harvey kicks off the four hour bloc with a repeat of his CELEBRITY FAMILY FEUD which is followed by a new episode of CELEBRITY FAMILY FEUD. No need to offer much here, the show anchors the night and Harvey's doing what he does well. (In syndication, Steve hosts the regular FAMILY FEUD and has since 2010.)
The ratings for both the hour rerun and the hour of the new episode are strong.
So strong, someone might need to worry.
Not Michael Strahan.
He's hosting $100,000 PYRAMID and doing a strong job.
He's not a Steve Harvey clone, he's got his own style and he lets the guests shine -- civilians and entertainers.
He instinctively knows when to come in on a moment and when to let it build.
He's a professional and his show is a hit.
Regularly, the show comes closest to Harvey's ratings -- usually just a half million less viewers.
It's a fun show, it moves quickly.
And ABC wins the night with its game show block programming.
But before you pop open the champagne, there's one more show in the block.
MATCH GAME.
Yes, it's part of the block programming.
And, yes, it gets ratings.
Just not really good ones.
It's usually two to two and a half million viewers less than the numbers for Harvey's new hour of CELEBRITY FAMILY FEUD.
What's the problem?
We like Alec Baldwin but we never would have hired him as a host.
He should be a guest, for sure. He and his four brothers should be on CELEBRITY FAMILY FEUD.
But why would you hire him as a host?
He's gone after ex-wife Kim Basinger with verbal remarks, he's gone after the child they had together with hostile and mean voice mails that are public knowledge, TMZ broadcast his homophobic slur for all the world to see (Alec is not homophobic, he is someone who when he wants to be mean uses terms he hopes are offensive), he's had encounters with flight attendents, he's had . . .
Can we stop now?
We can continue, but can we please stop?
The point is that he has public problems.
A long history of them.
Why would you risk a show by hiring someone with this pattern to host?
And then?
Political issues.
It's not that he has political opinions, it's that he denounces those whose political opinions differ. Loudly and repeatedly.
This is a man who couldn't even keep afloat a weekly talk show on MSNBC.
No, we never would have hired him to be the host of the program.
And we would have been right not to.
Each episode is all about Alec.
Each episode is him stepping over -- excuse, us, clomping, clomping over a moment that needs to breathe but he has to interject.
Here's a thought, if a woman from wherever in America is a guest player on the program and asks for a kiss, give her a kiss. We don't need to hear that you're married, nobody is asking you to have sex with her, just a quick kiss on the cheek for one of the few women in America who's still attracted to you.
The woman must be a chubby chaser.
Every time Alec turns side ways to march around the set, we're reminded of the animated opening to THE PARTRIDGE FAMILY, that's what Alec's body shape best resembles now.
And when your suits are tailored, get them to add a little more in the back when your ass is so far that it's hiking up the back of your suit jacket by at least an inch and a half.
The only thing more ridiculous may be the one button buttoned in the front which does nothing to slim him down.
No woman would be allowed to host the show and look like that.
Obviously.
Because no one woman's hosting a game show on ABC's game show block night.
Why is that?
It's 2016 and ABC got four hours of game shows and not one is hosted by a woman.
Maybe next summer, ABC can hire a woman to host whatever they replace Alec's MATCH GAME with?
The myth of poor, wronged Hillary (Ava and C.I.)
Cynthia McKinney PhD
You'll see Hillary in the White House With My Vote—When Pigs Fly! Watch her pander to Blacks at the Convention.
We hear you, Cynthia, we hear you.
Sadly, so many are taken in by Hillary.
That's in part due to the myths repeated of Hillary.
For example, poor Hillary.
Poor Hillary, the one we need to be sympathetic too, is the woman whose husband cheated on her without her knowledge.
This myth obscures the testimony of women such as Juanita Broaddrick that Hillary knew what Bill was doing.
Ms. Broaddrick maintained in the 90s that Bill Clinton raped her -- she has stuck to that charge ever since. Bill Clinton has never responded to the charge nor has Hillary.
But Hillary's been the poor and pathetic wronged woman that we need to feel sorry for.
Bill made her suffer, after all.
And in the name of 'sisterhood,' we're supposed to be there for her too.
But Hillary's never been a feminist.
And, yes, we can question her feminism. Especially after her betrayal of Iraqi women.
But we can question the whole myth of Poor Hillary.
Poor Defenseless Hillary.
Put into a position that she'd never put another woman into.
Right?
Wrong.
Bill slept with Gennifer Flowers -- as he admitted under oath near the end of the 90s.
But in 1992, when Ms. Flowers was telling her tale, what did Hillary do?
Bob Somerby won't tell you.
He's too busy lying about Pauline Kale with 'facts' like she wrote for THE NEW YORK TIMES, "The mentality behind such works produced a famous moment in December 1972, when Times film critic Pauline Kael expressed surprise that Nixon had won the White House again."
It was THE NEW YORKER, you cultural idiot, she wrote for THE NEW YORKER, not THE NEW YORK TIMES.
And it wasn't poor Hillary in 1992.
Not in the pages of VANITY FAIR.
"Double standard."
Bob knows the term, he never quotes Hillary on it, nor does anyone else.
Her husband slept with Jennifer Flowers and she knew about it.
But the 'victim' Hillary chose to use Gail Sheehy's interview with her for VANITY FAIR to insist that it was a "double standard" because people knew about "Bush and his carrying on, all of which is apparently well known in Washington."
That's our 'feminist' Hillary.
Her cheating husband is getting questioned?
She tosses Barbara Bush under the bus.
Hillary's never been a victim.
She's always been involved.
She's always figured out how to go after Bill's various mistresses, she's always figured out how to present herself as innocent and wronged.
She's neither.
Roundtable
Jim: It's roundtable time again, last week's proved too popular. Remember our e-mail
address is thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com. Participating in our roundtable are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Ty, Jess, and me, Jim; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz); Ruth of Ruth's Report; Trina of Trina's Kitchen; Wally of The Daily Jot; Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ; Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends; and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. Betty's kids did the
illustration. You are reading a rush transcript.
Jim (Con't): Ava and C.I. are again not participating. That's because they want to be done with this edition and are busy writing three pieces for this edition with the hope that we will be done and posted by Sunday night.
Ty: Eleven p.m. something Pacific Time.
Jim: Yes.
Ty: And there are a lot of e-mails objecting to Ava and C.I. not participating in last week's "Roundtable," just FYI.
Dona: First question is what's being read. Anyone reading a book right now?
Jess: Ava and C.I. are reading Hannah Arendt's THE LIFE OF THE MIND. I know because Ava's got her copy in our bedroom.
Kat: And they're actually re-reading it. We were at bookstore last week and they bought a copy of that each. They're turning to pages at random and discussing them. Their argument there is they'd rather talk about something of value in their private conversations -- Arendt's philosophies -- than the Republican or Democratic party conventions.
Wally: I'm re-reading Joan Rivers' I HATE EVERYONE . . . STARTING WITH ME.
Stan: I am on record loving that book.
Wally: It's hilarious.
Jim; Betty, you read a lot of books and note them at your site. Anything coming up?
Betty: I'm finishing up a Shirley MacLaine book and, yes, I will be covering it at my site this week.
Jess: And Ruth, you just noted a book at your site in your post "Book to read this summer CIA & JFK: THE SECRET ASSASSINATION FILES."
Ruth: I love that book. My friend Treva recommended it. If you have any interest at all in the topic, you have to read this book by Jefferson Morely. It is so important, you really have to read it.
Jim: Anybody else?
Marcia: I'm reading Bernhard Hennen's THE ELVEN -- it's sci-fi, fantasy. It has multiple themes including the struggle with spite. It's a really challenging and strong piece of work. If you like the genre, please pick it up.
Ann: I'm reading a novel by Camilla Gibb's entitled SWEETNESS IN THE BELLY. I'm only on page 101 but I'm enjoying it.
Cedric: And I just finished a book that I'll advise everyone away from, Philip Norman's PAUL MCCARTNEY: THE LIFE. It is a huge book but it sweeps through way too quickly and never explores anything. It's more gossip than musical critique but it doesn't even do gossip well. Again, stay away from it unless you get it at the library, that way all you'll waste is your time. But I bought it on sale for $22.38 so I'm the idiot.
Jim: Alright. So there are some choices, some new, some older and look for Betty's post at her site later this week on the Shirley MacLaine book. So what about the politics of last week? Anybody catch the GOP convention?
Stan: Didn't even realize it was taking place until Tuesday. Wouldn't have watched it if I'd known.
Jim: And this week's Democratic Party convention?
Stan: No interest.
Jim: Anyone planning on watching?
Elaine: Nope.
Trina: I'm yawning at the thought of it.
Jim: Okay. What about the downfall of Debbie Wasserman Schultz? WikiLeaks leaked e-mails showing that the DNC, headed by Debbie, was showing favoritism to Hillary Clinton. They are supposed to be impartial. Today, Debbie resigned. Any thoughts?
Mike: Bernie Sanders is glad she's gone. You know what, Bernie Sanders? Not good enough. You should retract your endorsement of Hillary, you never should have made it. But now that you know for sure the system was rigged, you should retract your endorsement.
Marcia: I agree.
Trina: But he won't. He's useless. He stands for nothing. He's a blow hard who talks a lot but he won't take a stand. If he meant anything he said, he'd never had endorsed Hillary to begin with.
Rebecca: I can't believe how little has been made of this. They're talking about things like getting a friend in the press to ask Bernie Sanders if he believes in God because they think it will destroy support for him. I mean, this is disgusting stuff. It's Tricky Dick Nixon stuff. And it's being treated like, "Oh, okay, we'll move on." No. It's not move on from. This is disgusting and Hillary has not called it out.
Ty: I agree with Rebecca, it's disgusting. WikiLeaks did a rally strong thing when they released those e-mails. I would never have thought that would happen. That my party could have higher ups in it that were so disgusting. And I didn't think I could be shocked or put off anymore. Then came these e-mails.
Wally: And there's the issue of the journalistic exposures. To cite just one, Kenneth Vogel. Marcia wrote about it in "Fire Kenneth Vogel."
Dona: Marcia?
Marcia: He wrote a story about fundraising and he let the DNC see it before he turned it into his editors at POLITICO. That's a no-no.
Cedric: And instead of addressing it, HUFFINGTON POST dismisses it.
Stan: Let's be a little clearer, Michael Calderone -- Vogel's former writing partner -- dismisses it at HUFFINGTON POST. He writes:
Vogel, Politico’s chief investigative reporter and author of the 2014 book Big Money, is regarded as one of the top journalists on the politics and money beat. He’s reported critically on fundraising across party lines and the article in question wasn’t one the DNC or the Hillary Clinton campaign would have liked to see in print.
Elaine: He's a liar. He's distracting and he knows it. The point wasn't too allow the DNC to change Vogel's article. Vogel was giving the DNC a heads up so that they could plan and prepare their defense before the story broke. And, yes, this is a big deal.
Betty: As was CNN's Maria Cardonna sending a draft of her CNN column to the DNC before publishing it. Checking with them to make sure they approved. It's wrong.
Trina: As was the selling of favors to big donors. Donate this much, get to sit next to Barack, etc, etc. It was big money politics and no one in the press really seems interested in calling that out.
Kat: Or how about referring to Latinos as "target consumers"? The whole thing was slimy and corrupt.
Cedric: And Hillary has to make a statement condemning it or she has to accept that it's reflective of who she is.
Ruth: She really does need to make a statement. I mean, most of us saw Donna Brazile --
Dona: Interim Chair of the DNC.
Ruth: Right. Most of us saw her on CNN and she was saying this has to be investigated --
Betty: Agree!
Ruth: -- because there are more e-mails that will be released.
Rebecca: But remember, Donna Brazile's e-mails are being leaked as well. And I don't know that she's someone who can be trusted.
Jess: I don't know that any of them can be trusted. They are all so corrupt.
Jim: And on that note, we're going to wrap up.
Jim (Con't): Ava and C.I. are again not participating. That's because they want to be done with this edition and are busy writing three pieces for this edition with the hope that we will be done and posted by Sunday night.
Ty: Eleven p.m. something Pacific Time.
Jim: Yes.
Ty: And there are a lot of e-mails objecting to Ava and C.I. not participating in last week's "Roundtable," just FYI.
Dona: First question is what's being read. Anyone reading a book right now?
Jess: Ava and C.I. are reading Hannah Arendt's THE LIFE OF THE MIND. I know because Ava's got her copy in our bedroom.
Kat: And they're actually re-reading it. We were at bookstore last week and they bought a copy of that each. They're turning to pages at random and discussing them. Their argument there is they'd rather talk about something of value in their private conversations -- Arendt's philosophies -- than the Republican or Democratic party conventions.
Wally: I'm re-reading Joan Rivers' I HATE EVERYONE . . . STARTING WITH ME.
Stan: I am on record loving that book.
Wally: It's hilarious.
Jim; Betty, you read a lot of books and note them at your site. Anything coming up?
Betty: I'm finishing up a Shirley MacLaine book and, yes, I will be covering it at my site this week.
Jess: And Ruth, you just noted a book at your site in your post "Book to read this summer CIA & JFK: THE SECRET ASSASSINATION FILES."
Ruth: I love that book. My friend Treva recommended it. If you have any interest at all in the topic, you have to read this book by Jefferson Morely. It is so important, you really have to read it.
Jim: Anybody else?
Marcia: I'm reading Bernhard Hennen's THE ELVEN -- it's sci-fi, fantasy. It has multiple themes including the struggle with spite. It's a really challenging and strong piece of work. If you like the genre, please pick it up.
Ann: I'm reading a novel by Camilla Gibb's entitled SWEETNESS IN THE BELLY. I'm only on page 101 but I'm enjoying it.
Cedric: And I just finished a book that I'll advise everyone away from, Philip Norman's PAUL MCCARTNEY: THE LIFE. It is a huge book but it sweeps through way too quickly and never explores anything. It's more gossip than musical critique but it doesn't even do gossip well. Again, stay away from it unless you get it at the library, that way all you'll waste is your time. But I bought it on sale for $22.38 so I'm the idiot.
Jim: Alright. So there are some choices, some new, some older and look for Betty's post at her site later this week on the Shirley MacLaine book. So what about the politics of last week? Anybody catch the GOP convention?
Stan: Didn't even realize it was taking place until Tuesday. Wouldn't have watched it if I'd known.
Jim: And this week's Democratic Party convention?
Stan: No interest.
Jim: Anyone planning on watching?
Elaine: Nope.
Trina: I'm yawning at the thought of it.
Jim: Okay. What about the downfall of Debbie Wasserman Schultz? WikiLeaks leaked e-mails showing that the DNC, headed by Debbie, was showing favoritism to Hillary Clinton. They are supposed to be impartial. Today, Debbie resigned. Any thoughts?
Mike: Bernie Sanders is glad she's gone. You know what, Bernie Sanders? Not good enough. You should retract your endorsement of Hillary, you never should have made it. But now that you know for sure the system was rigged, you should retract your endorsement.
Marcia: I agree.
Trina: But he won't. He's useless. He stands for nothing. He's a blow hard who talks a lot but he won't take a stand. If he meant anything he said, he'd never had endorsed Hillary to begin with.
Rebecca: I can't believe how little has been made of this. They're talking about things like getting a friend in the press to ask Bernie Sanders if he believes in God because they think it will destroy support for him. I mean, this is disgusting stuff. It's Tricky Dick Nixon stuff. And it's being treated like, "Oh, okay, we'll move on." No. It's not move on from. This is disgusting and Hillary has not called it out.
Ty: I agree with Rebecca, it's disgusting. WikiLeaks did a rally strong thing when they released those e-mails. I would never have thought that would happen. That my party could have higher ups in it that were so disgusting. And I didn't think I could be shocked or put off anymore. Then came these e-mails.
Wally: And there's the issue of the journalistic exposures. To cite just one, Kenneth Vogel. Marcia wrote about it in "Fire Kenneth Vogel."
Dona: Marcia?
Marcia: He wrote a story about fundraising and he let the DNC see it before he turned it into his editors at POLITICO. That's a no-no.
Cedric: And instead of addressing it, HUFFINGTON POST dismisses it.
Stan: Let's be a little clearer, Michael Calderone -- Vogel's former writing partner -- dismisses it at HUFFINGTON POST. He writes:
Vogel, Politico’s chief investigative reporter and author of the 2014 book Big Money, is regarded as one of the top journalists on the politics and money beat. He’s reported critically on fundraising across party lines and the article in question wasn’t one the DNC or the Hillary Clinton campaign would have liked to see in print.
Elaine: He's a liar. He's distracting and he knows it. The point wasn't too allow the DNC to change Vogel's article. Vogel was giving the DNC a heads up so that they could plan and prepare their defense before the story broke. And, yes, this is a big deal.
Betty: As was CNN's Maria Cardonna sending a draft of her CNN column to the DNC before publishing it. Checking with them to make sure they approved. It's wrong.
Trina: As was the selling of favors to big donors. Donate this much, get to sit next to Barack, etc, etc. It was big money politics and no one in the press really seems interested in calling that out.
Kat: Or how about referring to Latinos as "target consumers"? The whole thing was slimy and corrupt.
Cedric: And Hillary has to make a statement condemning it or she has to accept that it's reflective of who she is.
Ruth: She really does need to make a statement. I mean, most of us saw Donna Brazile --
Dona: Interim Chair of the DNC.
Ruth: Right. Most of us saw her on CNN and she was saying this has to be investigated --
Betty: Agree!
Ruth: -- because there are more e-mails that will be released.
Rebecca: But remember, Donna Brazile's e-mails are being leaked as well. And I don't know that she's someone who can be trusted.
Jess: I don't know that any of them can be trusted. They are all so corrupt.
Jim: And on that note, we're going to wrap up.
Why Gloria Steinem's CIA past still matters (Ava and C.I.)
Gloria Steinem installed herself as the leader of the feminist movement in 1970.
Prior to that, she'd spent several years working for the CIA and then became a free lance journalist.
At some point, around 1968 or 1969, she was again working for the CIA.
She was listed as a board member of a CIA cut-out.
The cut-outs had been exposed by Congress at one point.
They were 'foundations' that existed solely to funnel CIA money in secret.
As Gloria -- and her media friends (some former CIA like Gloria herself) -- made her into the voice of feminism, she repeatedly watered down and weakened feminism.
Which is why Betty Friedan (the so-called mother of us all and of second wave feminism) publicly floated the charges about her CIA past and others suggested that she clarify when she left the CIA and whether or not she was a government tool who was being paid to destroy feminism?
Gloria knew not to tangle with Betty Friedan.
Friedan was more established than Gloria and had more supporters than Gloria in the press.
So she just ignored those remarks.
But the Restockings had started asking the questions.
And they demanded answers.
When they had a contract to publish an anthology with Random House, Gloria did what a sneaky CIA agent would do, she rounded up friends to threaten to sue.
The chapter was dropped.
Nancy Borman (VILLAGE VOICE) investigated the entire issue in 1976 and found that Gloria Steinem and her friends had no basis for crying "libel."
And, as Borman noted, the CIA issue had already been discussed by Gloria in the press:
In 1967 both the New York Times and the Washington Post carried interviews with Steinem in the wake of Ramparts' expose of CIA funding of the National Student Association and other organizations. Steinem was the founder and director of one of those groups, Independent Research Service, for which she had solicited and obtained CIA money to carry out covert operations at Communist youth festivals in Vienna and Helsinki in 1959 and 1952. Unlike most of the other principals in the scandal, who had repudiated their past work with the agency and turned over information to the press, Steinem defended her secret deal with the CIA, calling the undermining of the youth festivals "the CIA's finest hour."
All these years later, decades, Gloria still can't get honest.
The internet has only made the realities harder for her to run from. (Here's a 1975 PACIFICA RADIO interview with Redstocking Kathie Sarachild discussing Gloria and her CIA connections.)
Gloria Steinem was dishonest.
She was dishonest when she went to youth festivals to subvert them.
She was dishonest when she was confronted about this after she joined the feminist movement.
That's why her past still matters.
She might not have continued working for the CIA.
But she continued being dishonest.
Feminism was making huge strides before Gloria Steinem.
After she's crowned 'leader' by the media and takes up all the space, feminism is nothing but tiny steps.
And that's because of her.
See Veronica Geng's "Requiem for the women's movement," the November 1976 cover story of Harper's. And for a take on 1972 that paints Gloria as a sell-out to women, see Germaine Greer's "McGovern, the big tease" from the October 1972 issue of Harper's.
Is she capable of being honest?
Is she still lying for her own means?
Who knows?
But she's been a lousy self-appointed leader.
As Ellen Willis once wrote of Gloria, "A reformer can never lead a revolution."
Which is probably why -- intentionally or not -- Gloria's circumvented the movement repeatedly.
Prior to that, she'd spent several years working for the CIA and then became a free lance journalist.
At some point, around 1968 or 1969, she was again working for the CIA.
She was listed as a board member of a CIA cut-out.
The cut-outs had been exposed by Congress at one point.
They were 'foundations' that existed solely to funnel CIA money in secret.
As Gloria -- and her media friends (some former CIA like Gloria herself) -- made her into the voice of feminism, she repeatedly watered down and weakened feminism.
Which is why Betty Friedan (the so-called mother of us all and of second wave feminism) publicly floated the charges about her CIA past and others suggested that she clarify when she left the CIA and whether or not she was a government tool who was being paid to destroy feminism?
Gloria knew not to tangle with Betty Friedan.
Friedan was more established than Gloria and had more supporters than Gloria in the press.
So she just ignored those remarks.
But the Restockings had started asking the questions.
And they demanded answers.
When they had a contract to publish an anthology with Random House, Gloria did what a sneaky CIA agent would do, she rounded up friends to threaten to sue.
The chapter was dropped.
Nancy Borman (VILLAGE VOICE) investigated the entire issue in 1976 and found that Gloria Steinem and her friends had no basis for crying "libel."
And, as Borman noted, the CIA issue had already been discussed by Gloria in the press:
In 1967 both the New York Times and the Washington Post carried interviews with Steinem in the wake of Ramparts' expose of CIA funding of the National Student Association and other organizations. Steinem was the founder and director of one of those groups, Independent Research Service, for which she had solicited and obtained CIA money to carry out covert operations at Communist youth festivals in Vienna and Helsinki in 1959 and 1952. Unlike most of the other principals in the scandal, who had repudiated their past work with the agency and turned over information to the press, Steinem defended her secret deal with the CIA, calling the undermining of the youth festivals "the CIA's finest hour."
All these years later, decades, Gloria still can't get honest.
The internet has only made the realities harder for her to run from. (Here's a 1975 PACIFICA RADIO interview with Redstocking Kathie Sarachild discussing Gloria and her CIA connections.)
Gloria Steinem was dishonest.
She was dishonest when she went to youth festivals to subvert them.
She was dishonest when she was confronted about this after she joined the feminist movement.
That's why her past still matters.
She might not have continued working for the CIA.
But she continued being dishonest.
Feminism was making huge strides before Gloria Steinem.
After she's crowned 'leader' by the media and takes up all the space, feminism is nothing but tiny steps.
And that's because of her.
See Veronica Geng's "Requiem for the women's movement," the November 1976 cover story of Harper's. And for a take on 1972 that paints Gloria as a sell-out to women, see Germaine Greer's "McGovern, the big tease" from the October 1972 issue of Harper's.
Is she capable of being honest?
Is she still lying for her own means?
Who knows?
But she's been a lousy self-appointed leader.
As Ellen Willis once wrote of Gloria, "A reformer can never lead a revolution."
Which is probably why -- intentionally or not -- Gloria's circumvented the movement repeatedly.
Bye-bye, Debbie
She was so willing to offer help to the RNC last week with this mocking Tweet.
Today, she's out as DNC chair.
Oh, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, you were always trash.
Now do something about washing that oily face and greasy hair.
D Wasserman Schultz
Today, she's out as DNC chair.
Oh, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, you were always trash.
Now do something about washing that oily face and greasy hair.
Sexist Keith Olbermann
Keith Olbermann
.@DrJillStein Yes. You're a threat. You're a threat to help elect a would-be dictator in Trump. I admire your principles. Please withdraw.
Oh, Keith, how good of you to remind us all of just how much we don't miss you.
And never would.
On your overly praised MSNBC talk show, you could never leave your sexism behind.
Even on JOURNOLIST, Keith's sexism was noted.
He's the loser who was kicked off MSNBC in 2011,
CURRENT TV fired him in 2012.
Then he went to ESPN which fired him in 2015.
You're a loser Keith, always and forever, like Atlantic Starr used to sing.
What changed last week's conversation
WikiLeaks
RELEASE: 19,252 emails from the US Democratic National Committee https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/ #Hillary2016 #FeelTheBern
