Hillary Clinton is running for president, but she keeps pushing back the formal announcement of her campaign in order to avoid the public spotlight and earn as much easy money as she possibly can on the corporate speaking circuit. When she decides to stop kneeling the ball three times and then punting, and finally gets into the fray, here are some questions we’d like to ask her.
News comes today that Harvey Weinstein is finally playing the rainbow card in this year’s Oscar race. Here’s the Hollywood Reporter:
Many you enjoyed Volume 1 of our ongoing series “Hillary Clinton: A Life in Pictures,” in which we catalog some of the most colorful moments in a prominent homeowner’s long and extraordinary life in politics. In our latest installment, we explore some of Clinton’s most colorful and controversial associates. Enjoy!
I was really looking forward to Jonathan Chait’s essay in New York magazine about the inanity of social media outrage culture and the danger of letting angry name-calling and base grievance-mongering settle debates. And Chait, that cuddly old reactionary, hit it out of the park. The reaction on social media was, how do you say, “not at all surprising.”
UPDATE, 2:30 P.M.: Last night a guest on The O’Reilly Factor reported that the Army had decided to charge Bowe Bergdahl with desertion. This morning, NBC confirmed this report on the air, citing “senior defense officials.” Since then, the Army has pushed back against these reports. A spokesman for the command responsible for prosecuting Bergdahl told the Military Times that “no decision’s been made.”
Last night a guest on the O’Reilly Factor, retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer, broke the story that the Army had decided to charge Bowe Bergdahl with desertion. He also said that there was a “titanic struggle” shaping up behind the scenes, because the White House opposed the decision. This didn’t make a great deal of sense, inasmuch as the fact that the decision to charge Bergdahl had been made indicated that any such “titanic struggle” was not “shaping up” but was over. Indeed, NBC confirmed this morning that Bergdahl has been charged.
So it appears that whatever struggle there was has been lost by the White House. Shaffer fingered the execrable Ben Rhodes as the “point man” for squelching the Bergdahl prosecution, an assertion that should surprise no one. (Discussion question: Has anyone done more harm to American national security in the past seven years than Ben Rhodes?)
At the Freedom Partners forum in California on Sunday, ABC News reporter Jon Karl dusted off a familiar question for potential GOP presidential contenders Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul: “Would you accept a deal that included…$10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases?”
It’s a stupid question, and the prospective candidates did a fair enough job explaining why it is without looking ridiculous, which is precisely how the question is designed to make them look. It would be nice if Democrats got asked questions like this more often.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission—a U.K.-based human rights group whose “inspiration derives from the Qur’anic injunctions that command believers to rise up in defence of the oppressed”—last week announced the nominees for its “Islamophobia Awards 2015.” The point of this gala is to “subvert Islamophobia through comedy and revue.”
At first, I wondered how many cartoonists would be in attendance; there’s a real deficit of them at the moment in France, for some reason. But then I started looking at the list of films nominated for their terrible, no-good, very-bad oppression of Muslims. And it contained a couple of notable titles. Notable and bizarre. So bizarre, in fact, that one can’t help but wonder if the people nominating these pictures had actually, you know, seen the works in question.