Michael Savage read my mind. I’ve been ruminating on the visceral hatred the liberal media harbor for Hillary Clinton, and have come to Savage’s excellent conclusion: “It’s because they want Elizabeth Warren to run. To them, Hillary isn’t liberal enough.”
“Savage added ominously, ‘If you think Hillary is bad, Elizabeth Warren is even worse.'”
To this I would add only that the media took the same tack with Barack Obama, once they anointed him as their man. The exact dynamics were at play, showcasing that while there was a “red/blue split in the Democratic Party that had become a gash”; there is no such schism in the media.
This from the June, 2008 column, “Mindless Monolith: Media Pick Obama”:
The top Democratic dogs finally got their way: Senator Clinton, who lost her party’s delegates but won the people, will concede the Democratic nomination. Media pack animals are also on top of the world.
From the AP’s Charles Babington to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews to Wolf Blitzer and his “best political team on television”: They had all worked their hearts out for Obama. …
… By now the red/blue split in the Democratic Party had become a gash. Clinton was getting the red, Reagan Democrats—seniors, whites, blue collar and rural voters. “Barack Obama,” in the words of another veteran news guy, the always-edifying William Schneider, “was winning the blue Democrats: young voters, upscale urban professionals, well-educated liberals and African-Americans.”
Red versus blue meant left versus right. Those who own guns voted for Hillary; those who don’t, and think you should not, voted for Obama. One more thing: Because they’re older, more blue collar, and more conservative …
Also via Kathy Shaidle’s WND, TALK RADIO WATCH column comes an overview of the rest of what the talkers on the right said this week. Kathy, no doubt, mined the best of the week. Other than Savage, there is nothing new, interesting or important in anything said by this lot. See for yourself.
Savage’s thoughts on Obama’s Selma speech are also insightful, contrast as they do with the milquetoast assessment at National Review. OK, not milquetoast, but fawning. If anything, NR writer Quin Hillyer—who echoes Chris Cillizza’s sentiments on the Selma speech—is the fine writer he claims Obama is. The paragraph Hillyer excerpts is vintage Obama in its hackneyed simplicity.
Back to Savage on Selma and on a soulless man (courtesy of Kathy): “’Obama’s Selma speech was a new low point in the American presidency,’ Savage said at the top of the week. Comparing it to ‘classic Soviet propaganda,’ he went on to say, ‘I’ve diagnosed what’s wrong with this man and his presidency: Obama doesn’t have a scintilla of forgiveness in his soul.’”