Kinja reply list

Read More
norbiznessJ.K. Trotter
2/09/16 1:16pm
Which song by the Circle Jerks best applies in this situation?
Reply
- Read More
  John Cooknorbizness
  2/09/16 1:22pm
  deny everything
  Reply
- Read More
  norbiznessJohn Cook
  2/09/16 1:25pm
  Go get ‘em Keith
  
  Reply
Read More
chickhaydenJ.K. Trotter
2/09/16 1:15pm
Talking points for replies on Gawker comments section: cynical {savvy} manipulation of media shows HRC equally capable of cynical {battle-tested} manipulation of Congress {fighter/gets things done/progressive agenda}
Reply
- Read More
  The Alvin Greene Dreamchickhayden
  2/09/16 1:20pm
  I project that not enough people will like this comment, so I just wanted to point out that you’re dead-on here.
  Reply
- Read More
  CaiteeCruelleThe Alvin Greene Dream
  2/09/16 1:27pm
  Except for the progressive agenda part. She’ll cynically throw progressive ideas and the people that hold them under the bus at the slightest sign of resistance. Lani Guinier, anyone? Peter Kostmayer? Single-payer?
  Reply
Read More
carpetboxerJ.K. Trotter
2/09/16 1:23pm
Now look at all of the other politicians’ emails.
Reply
- Read More
  RedBeansAndRiceDidMissHercarpetboxer
  2/09/16 1:38pm
  Don’t be silly. Dredging up 7 year old examples of fairly typical press email exchanges for candidates Gawker doesn’t have an agenda against would be a waste of their time.
  Reply
- Read More
  carpetboxerRedBeansAndRiceDidMissHer
  2/09/16 1:39pm
  I don’t support Clinton and I agree with you.
  Reply
Read More
Peter MoskowitzJ.K. Trotter
2/09/16 1:28pm
Question: has anything been found about how TV reporters interact with her? If this is the standard set by semi-well-respected print pubs, I can imagine CNN and MSNBC doing much much worse.
Reply
- Read More
  drgnrbrn316Peter Moskowitz
  2/09/16 2:11pm
  Most reporters reported their interactions with her as “muscular”
  Reply
- Read More
  colinrichardsonPeter Moskowitz
  2/09/16 2:27pm
  I listened to HRC’s interview with Rachel Maddow from last night and it seemed like there was a very delicate line that Rachel had agreed to not cross. Still a somewhat informative interview, but you can tell that there were some grounrules to finally get her on the show within the past year.
  Reply
Read More
J.K. TrotterJ.K. Trotter
2/09/16 1:44pm
Sara Morrison points out on Twitter that at least two additional reporters—Greg Sargent (then writing for WhoRunsGov.com) and Laura Rozen (then writing for Foreign Policy)—described Clinton’s 7/15/09 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations as “muscular.” (Rozen, it should be noted, attributed that adjective to an unnamed “administration official.”)

Reply
- Read More
  BreakerBakerJ.K. Trotter
  2/09/16 2:20pm
  I didn’t hear the speech, but I suspect muscular is a pretty terrible adjective to ask somebody to use to describe it.
  Reply
- Read More
  KingOfKongJ.K. Trotter
  2/09/16 3:26pm
  Rozen’s lede is perfectly fine imo, she’s basically attributing the quote to Reines without naming him. That’s a LOT different than presenting Reines’ words as your own.
  Reply
Read More
hawk81J.K. Trotter
2/09/16 1:15pm
How is this different than how any other political team works? Aside from the fact that no one else is being vetted to this extent?
Reply
- Read More
  Pink Skullhawk81
  2/09/16 1:26pm
  Indeed. How are reported examples of press manipulation different from unreported, possibly non-existent examples? By god there’s no telling what other unknown things may have happened. Best to completely ignore until all unknown things are known.
  Reply
- Read More
  YaBernthawk81
  2/09/16 1:31pm
  I think the less professional campaigns, the Sanders, Trumps and others may not be doing this. But the professional campaigns will try all this.
  Reply
Read More
J.K. TrotterJ.K. Trotter
2/09/16 2:20pm
Reply
- Read More
  RobertMadooJ.K. Trotter
  2/09/16 2:26pm
  But what about the muscularity of her words?
  Reply
- Read More
  StenchofaburnerRobertMadoo
  2/09/16 3:28pm
  WTF does “a muscular speech” even mean?! Does the speech run the risk of roid rage? Does it get cramps? I wonder about the thought process that led to picking that adjective. It’s dumb and I am sure some idiot thought it’d be associated with power and masculinity (in a dumb, stereotypical way, obvs).
  Reply
Read More
BobbySeriousJ.K. Trotter
2/09/16 1:16pm
This is good journalism Mr Trotter, but it’s also pretty typical quid pro quo conducted by any serious campaign.
Reply
- Read More
  RobertMadooBobbySerious
  2/09/16 1:19pm
  I guess that explains all the support for the ‘unserious’ campaign Clinton seems to have trouble with...
  Reply
- Read More
  TnuoccaBobbySerious
  2/09/16 1:21pm
  Sure it is, buddy. Sure it is.
  Reply
Read More
ScreenRantSucksJ.K. Trotter
2/09/16 2:14pm
“down to the very word that The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder used to describe an important policy speech.”

How ‘bout that. I’m sure it’s just coincidence that it was The Atlantic that wrote the lengthy article coining the term “Bernie Bro.”
Reply
- Read More
  You might be wrong.ScreenRantSucks
  2/09/16 2:57pm
  And “Obama Boys” (by the same writer!) in 2008.
  Reply
- Read More
  ScreenRantSucksYou might be wrong.
  2/09/16 3:07pm
  No shit?!? I did not know that.
  Reply
Read More
Andrew MochulskyJ.K. Trotter
2/09/16 1:38pm
I would legitimately respect HRC so much more if she would just embrace quid pro quo as a legitimate strategy. It’s not necessarily a bad thing! Every single political bugaboo—from lobbying influence to pork-belly spending—can absolutely be framed as a necessary part of shrewd politicking in the hands of a shrewd politicker. She could easily position herself as the Pragmatic Adult In The Room and dismiss literally every other candidate not named John Kasich out-of-hand: her supporters would still support her, and people that find both the Tea Party and college liberals distasteful would appreciate the attempt at (dare I say presidential) maturity.

Will people disagree with the virtues of that approach? Yep, from both sides of the aisle. But Hillary isn’t going to be successful running as a doctrinaire, but rather as a person that knows how the sausage is made. Every time she positions herself as an outsider or a political maverick, it will ring false for precisely her greatest asset: three decades of experience inside the Beltway.

The Hillary that wins people over? The one that ho-hums and eye-rolls her way through go-nowhere congressional inquiry. The one that can speak extemporaneously on foreign policy matters. The one that was in Washington for almost the entire course of any given millenial’s lifespan. The one that has been there and done that and then did another thing and then did an entirely different and more impressive other thing. She keeps running away from that shit, and it’s maddening.
Reply
- Read More
  madameboAndrew Mochulsky
  2/09/16 3:05pm
  I don't know how old you are or what CLINTON campaign history you've been following but CLINTON has Always positioned herself this way as has her husband.
  Reply
- Read More
  Doofenschmirtz, Inc.Andrew Mochulsky
  2/09/16 3:09pm
  The one that has been there and done that and then did another thing and then did an entirely different and more impressive other thing.
  
  This kind of nebulous bullshit narrative is probably exactly what goes on in her head.
  
  Yes indeed, why won’t the proles be impressed by all the stuff and the things! Just so long as they don’t ask for specifics, you’re good, Hillz.
  Reply