CNN’s recent Democratic debate has been rightly attacked by those on all sides of the political spectrum for its blatant bias in choosing to believe without question the cowardly Elizabeth Warren campaign “leak” of her “interpretation” of a conversation she had with Bernie Sanders, claiming that he told her that a woman could not beat Donald Trump in 2020. This is just another example of both CNN’s and Warren’s bag of what the Boston Herald called “dirty tricks” to boost her campaign at the expense of her friend and supporter, Sanders; for Sanders, better the enemy you know than a faithless “friend.”
First off, we ought to remember that
the “Clinton News Network” made a desperate effort to sink the Obama campaign in
2008 with what one suspects was a Clinton campaign “leak” that would devolve
into the so-called Rev. Wright “scandal,” which CNN almost alone kept afloat
every hour for weeks until Obama felt compelled to make a speech to rebut it.
In 2016, before CNN ironically contributed to Trump’s victory by providing full
coverage of his campaign rallies and disseminating his lies and falsehoods to a
wider audience, it was deliberately blocking coverage of Sanders’s primary
campaign events and limiting his surrogates appearances and air time.
And now, CNN “broke” a story fed
to it by the Warren camp meant to harm her friend Sanders with more of Warren’s
“gender victim” claims. In order to save her sinking campaign, Warren’s camp’s “leak”
was apparently timed to coincide with the last debate hosted by Warren-friendly
CNN before the Iowa primary. The CNN “moderator,” Abby Phillip, ignored
Sanders’ flat denial of Warren’s claim, treating it as a “fact” when she
immediately passed the question to Warren. This blatant act of bias was not
lost on many in the audience, who responded with audible disgust. It is clear
that CNN “blames” Sanders for Hillary Clinton’s defeat, despite the plain fact
that Clinton’s personality and ethical defects that cost her in 2008 were also
present in 2016, and it still has a grudge to settle with Sanders.
Phillip and Warren’s CNN
supporters seem to overlook the fact that Warren not only has a history of
being a compulsive liar (like Clinton), but has misrepresented herself in order
to gain employment at the expense of underrepresented minorities. Warren
represents Massachusetts, and this is what is being said in the Boston Herald: (Joe Batttenfield) “It’s
the classic political dirty trick from a desperate candidate — leak a damaging
tidbit about your opponent to a friendly media outlet, wait for the fireworks
to explode, then act like you’re the one who’s been wronged.” (Michael Graham) “compare
Bernie’s unvarnished truth telling to Liz Warren’s record: According to
Warren’s past statements, she’s a Native American who was fired for being
pregnant and only sent her children to public schools. According to the facts,
all of those claims are false…Why did Warren do it? Simple: Because she’s
losing.” (Hillary Chabot) “From the moment I detailed Elizabeth Warren’s claim
of Native American heritage — and Harvard University’s claim that she was a
minority hire — Warren evaded, misled and, yes, lied when hit with questions on
the issue.”
Chabot noted that Warren lied
when she claimed ignorance about why Harvard and other former employers would
list her as a “minority” hire. In fact, Warren repeatedly wrote on job applications
that she was a “Native American.” The recent DNA test to “prove” her claim came
crashing down like a lead ball, and she has since “apologized”—but too late for
all the underrepresented minority job applicants whose positions she “filled.”
Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Julian Castro can rightly claim that Warren in obviously
being white is the reason why she is still on a debate stage; claiming to be a “minority” to help her get employment was despicable on its face, and why the
media hasn’t taken her to task on that issue is just another reason why her
media supporters shouldn’t be trusted when they tell us she is morally or
ethically fit to be president.
Gender advocates in the media can
call men all the vile names they want; they can’t control what male voters do
in the privacy of a polling station. Warren’s whole “progressive” shtick seems
to be really only a cover story for her gender victim politics and egomania. Playing
the gender victim card might add a few more votes in liberal-leaning states,
but as a national strategy it is a loser, as Clinton found out but won’t admit.
Barack Obama had broad appeal (outside those who could not see beyond his skin
color) because he avoided making his race an issue; he didn’t need to, because
support from black voters was a given. But like Clinton, Warren doesn’t “trust”
white female voters to vote “right,” so she throws them some red meat to get
their minds’ “right.”
Clinton played the race card in
2008, but she couldn’t make it “stick” because Obama wasn’t playing along.
Clinton then tried to play the gender card in 2016, but it didn’t work because
it was just seen as part of a left-wing agenda that ignored the issues facing
working class people; had she spent more time in Wisconsin, Michigan and
Pennsylvania showing interest in their concerns instead of her own megalomania,
she would be president now. Sure, she won the “Left Coast” and New York by
almost 7 million votes, but she lost the rest of the country by 4 million
votes. And now you have Elizabeth Warren
trying to resuscitate her flagging campaign by what filmmaker Michael Moore saw
as her stabbing Sanders in the back at a time when Democrats need to be putting
all their efforts into defeating Trump and justifying why they had the “best”
plan to do so. Warren claims to be Sanders “friend,” and Sanders lent his
support to her in the past, giving her the “credibility” that her constant and
shameless lying didn’t deserve. But Warren is desperate, and in desperation she
would stab a friend in the back and call him a “liar” when her own record of
lying is a proven fact.
Of course, Hillary Clinton had a
problem with telling the truth, and has been doing that in public since at
least 1993; voters thought both Clinton and Trump were “untrustworthy,” although
Clinton had the disadvantage of having a longer public record of it. People
hadn’t yet seen the depths that Trump would sink to. What we don’t need now is someone
with ethical issues that can be thrown back in his or her own face. Warren blaming
her failures on “sexism” as Clinton did is a loser because it not only
alienates voters in the same way Clinton’s “deplorables” comment did, and it is
as much a divider as Trump’s white nationalist agenda is, but because it is too
obviously a self-serving gambit to avoid the real issues. I’m getting to the
point where I just want Warren to “go away.”
No comments:
Post a Comment