MoJo Blogs and Articles | Mother Jones Mother Jones logo en Republicans Still Holding Up Virtually All Obama Appointments <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Jonathan Bernstein notes today that although filibuster reform has technically given Democrats the ability to confirm any executive branch appointment, in practice Republicans can still tie up the Senate by insisting on lengthy parliamentary delays for every nominee. <a href="" target="_blank">And that's what they're doing:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Senate Republicans continue to impose an across-the-board virtual hold on every executive branch nomination....Republican foot-dragging has created a backlog of more than 100 nominees, almost none of whom are controversial, and some of whom have been waiting since January for Senate floor action.</p> <p>....I understand that Republicans are upset about the Democrats' filibuster reform. It has robbed them of leverage over nominations &mdash; even if it's entirely their own fault for having abused that leverage. But Republicans aren&rsquo;t harming Senate majority leader Harry Reid by blocking nominations. They&rsquo;re harming the functioning of the U.S. government. (Perhaps it might be nice to have ambassadors appointed in a few important nations?) And they are needlessly, cruelly, messing with people&rsquo;s lives. On top of all that, they&rsquo;re eliminating the leverage of individual Senators. As Ted Cruz (maybe) just learned, there&rsquo;s no point putting an individual hold on a nomination that is already being held up by the entire Republican caucus.</p> <p><strong>And why? For the sake, as far as I can tell, of a tantrum.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Pretty much. But this is what they've been doing all along. The point of filibustering everything and everyone has never been just to prevent a few objectionable candidates from being confirmed. It's been to tie up Senate floor time and disrupt even the routine functioning of a federal government that's under Democratic control. Even with filibuster reform they can still do that, so why should they stop now? A broken government is nothing but good news for Republicans.</p> <p>Bernstein says in another post today that he's tired of hearing about political polarization. It's not really anything new, after all. That's true enough, and this is a good example. It's not a case of polarization, it's just a straightforward case of assholery. There's no principle or ideology behind this, they're merely causing dysfunction for the sake of causing dysfunction. Welcome to the modern GOP.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Congress Wed, 30 Jul 2014 05:52:51 +0000 Kevin Drum 257306 at My Ten-Dollar Offer to the Halbig Truthers <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>There's no question that the statutory text of Obamacare contains a mistake. In one of its sections, it authorizes federal subsidies only for taxpayers who enroll through a state-based exchange, not for those who enroll through the federal <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_ten_dollar_bill_again_again.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">exchange. But was it <em>really</em> a mistake? <a href="" target="_blank">Brian Beutler comments:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Right-wing activists have spent the last several months fabricating a rival narrative<span class="em">&mdash;</span>a ludicrous theory of intent, in which leading Democrats meant to condition the subsidies, but decided to keep the inducement a secret from reporters, back bench members, governors, budget analysts, and health care reform advocates. This kind of deceptive argumentation is perhaps to be expected from activists. <strong>What's become incredibly frustrating to me about the <em>Halbig </em>brouhaha in the last few days is watching the conservative health care writers who were in the same trenches watching the same debate unfold<span class="em">&mdash;</span>attempting, from a very skeptical vantage point, to explain the bill correctly<span class="em">&mdash;</span>suddenly turn around and vouchsafe the Halbig Truthers.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>That suggests something to me. As far as I know, not a single reporter who covered the Obamacare battle believes that Congress intended to restrict subsidies to state exchanges. As Beutler says, "To the extent that the question wasn&rsquo;t probed widely, if at all, it's because that would've been almost like asking whether the subsidies were intended to be denominated in Rubles." <a href="" target="_blank">Sarah Kliff agrees:</a> "It was never a question, during the five years I've spent writing about Obamacare, whether this would be case." Nobody in Congress questioned the universality of subsidies. Nobody in the executive branch questioned it. No governors questioned it. None of the bureaucrats tasked with building the exchanges questioned it. And nobody in the press questioned it.</p> <p>And that brings me to my suggestion: Is it really true that no one in the press questioned it? For the moment, let's forget about liberals. Hell, everyone knows we're in the bag for Obamacare, and by now we've probably scrubbed all our old posts of damning evidence. Ditto for the mainstream media. They're just shills for Obama anyway. But how about <em>conservatives</em>? They covered the Obamacare battle pretty obsessively too. Here's my guess: every single article written by conservatives between January 2009 and March 2010 (a) assumed that subsidies were universal and (b) never so much as mentioned the possibility that they weren't. In other words, they all believed in universal subsidies too because there was never any reason in their reporting to believe otherwise. Not one single reason.</p> <p>But maybe I'm wrong! So here's my offer: I will send a crisp, new ten-dollar bill to anyone who can point out a conservative who so much as suspected that subsidies were limited to state exchanges prior to March 2010. Surely that's incentive enough? Let's start digging up evidence, people.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Health Care Wed, 30 Jul 2014 00:31:45 +0000 Kevin Drum 257286 at "Confused Cats Against Feminism" Is the Purrfect Response to "Women Against Feminism" <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>The Tumblr <a href="" target="_blank">Women Against Feminism</a> has inspired <a href="" target="_blank">scores</a> <a href="" target="_blank">of</a> <a href="" target="_blank">think</a> <a href="" target="_blank">pieces</a> decrying its misuse of the term "feminist." Yet when David Futrelle saw the collection of photos of women holding handwritten signs like "<a href="" target="_blank">I don't need feminism because I am not a victim,</a>" it reminded him of his cats.</p> <p>"It just seems like cats never know what's going on," Futrelle says. "If anyone would get really confused about feminism and announce their opposition to it, it would be cats. They have the right combination of myopicness and solipsism."</p> <p>So last Thursday, Futrelle posed his felines next to Women Against Feminism-style signs, snapped a picture, and launched his own Tumblr: <a href="" target="_blank">Confused Cats Against Feminism</a>. The cats, he said, were reluctant participants. "They did not want to cooperate at all when I started coming at them with this little sign that I'd drawn on with a very smelly Sharpie."</p> <p>Almost immediately, readers began sending Futrelle photos of their own cats. Now the Tumblr has 11,000 followers, and as of Tuesday morning, Futrelle was sorting through hundred of submissions.</p> <div class="inline inline-left" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="Cats against equal pay" class="image" src="/files/huggingcats_0.jpg"><div class="caption"><strong>Cats against equal pay. </strong><a href="" target="_blank"></a></div> </div> <p>The Chicago resident thinks his project taps a deep vein of exasperation among feminists that goes beyond the outrage over Women Against Feminism. "A lot of women and feminists are frustrated at trying to respond to arguments that are disingenuous or just weird and silly," he says. "Part of what's fun about the blog is to say, Look, we're just gonna respond with cats."</p> <p>The most successful posts, he says, "manage to tap into cat logic" or "capture the cats' desire to be pampered and protected, which is the complaint that some people have about the Women Against Feminism blog." His favorite submission so far is a cat sprawling on its back, exposing a patch of fur the size and color of a chocolate chip cookie on its stomach. "I DON'T NEED FEMINISM BECAUSE...COOKIE BELLY," <a href="" target="_blank">the text reads</a>.</p> <p>Futrelle says the joke wouldn't be as funny if it were Confused Dogs Against Feminism, because cats tend to be culturally coded as female. Also, "Dogs aren't as self-absorbed as cats. If you tried to do it with a dog I think the only thing you could go with is they're too stupid."</p> <div class="inline inline-left" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="Another confused cat" class="image" src="/files/indooroutdoor.jpg"><div class="caption"><strong>"I don't need feminism because I like it when a man opens the door for me to enter a room. And then leave it again. And enter. And leave. And&hellip; enter. No wait, leave, definitely leave. Wait, I mean enter&hellip;" </strong><a href="" target="_blank"></a></div> </div> <p>This isn't Futrelle's first attempt to push back against antifeminist rhetoric. On his other blog, <a href="" target="_blank">We Hunted the Mammoth</a>, he's been chronicling the foibles of the men's rights movement for four years. Over time he's shifted from seeing the movement as merely misguided to realizing that it's driven by misogyny, he says. He hopes his blogging will encourage other people to respond to antifeminist overtures with humor.</p> <p>"Men's rights activists have a quote that's supposedly from Gandhi that they like to recite constantly: 'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win,'" Futrelle says. "As they see it, they've gotten to the point where people are fighting them. I'd like to knock them back to the point where people are laughing at them."</p> <p>&nbsp;</p></body></html> Mixed Media Interview Sex and Gender Tue, 29 Jul 2014 22:26:59 +0000 Rebecca Cohen 257211 at Why You Should Appreciate the Humble Beaver <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><em>This <a href="" target="_blank">story</a> first appeared on the </em><a href="" target="_blank">TomDispatch</a><em> website.</em></p> <p><a href="" target="_blank"><span class="inline inline-left"><img alt="" class="image image-preview" height="33" src="" title="" width="100"></span></a></p> <p>The great novelist Wallace Stegner sorted the conflicting impulses in his beloved American West into two camps. There were the "boomers" who saw the frontier as an opportunity to get rich quick and move on: the conquistadors, the gold miners, the buffalo hunters, the land scalpers, and the dam-building good ol' boys. They are still with us, trying to drill and frack their way to Easy Street across our public lands. Then there were those Stegner called the "nesters" or "stickers" who came to stay and struggled to understand the land and its needs. Their quest was to become native.</p> <p>That division between boomers and nesters is, of course, too simple. All of us have the urge to consume and move on, as well as the urge to nest, so our choices are rarely clear or final. Today, that old struggle in the American West is intensifying as <a href="" target="_blank">heat-parched</a>, beetle-gnawed forests ignite in annual epic firestorms, <a href="" target="_blank">reservoirs dry up</a>, and Rocky Mountain snow is <a href="" target="_blank">ever more stained</a> with blowing desert dust.</p> <p>The modern version of nesters are the conservationists who try to partner with the ecosystems where they live. Wounded landscapes, for example, can often be restored by unleashing nature's own self-healing powers. The new nesters understand that you cannot steer and control an ecosystem but you might be able to dance with one. Sage Sorensen dances with beavers.</p></body></html> <p style="font-size: 1.083em;"><a href="/environment/2014/07/beavers-might-save-american-west"><strong><em>Continue Reading &raquo;</em></strong></a></p> Environment Animals Climate Change Tom Dispatch Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:52:09 +0000 Chip Ward 257171 at The Forgotten Murder Trial of the NRA's Top Lawyer <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Robert J. Dowlut is the NRA's top lawyer, a "human encyclopedia" on the subject of state gun laws and the man responsible for much of the gun lobby's success in a series of court cases that have steadily eroded restrictions on gun ownership in the United States. "He is a really <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_nra_murder_mystery.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 27px 0px 15px 30px;">reliable and exhaustive source for legal input on the issue," says one admirer.</p> <p>But 50 years ago, according to a pile of court documents MoJo's Dave Gilson uncovered for <a href="" target="_blank">"The NRA's Murder Mystery,"</a> a teenage Dowlut had a rather different relationship with guns:</p> <blockquote> <p>Shortly before dark on the evening of April 17, 1963, Robert J. Dowlut went looking for a gun inside the city cemetery in South Bend, Indiana. Making his way through the headstones, he stopped in front of the abandoned Studebaker family mausoleum. He knelt by the front right corner of the blocky gray monument and lifted a stone from the damp ground. Then, as one of the two police detectives accompanying him later testified, the 17-year-old "used his hands and did some digging." He unearthed a revolver and ammunition. As Dowlut would later tell a judge, the detectives then took the gun, "jammed it in my hand," and photographed him. "They were real happy."</p> <p>Two days earlier, a woman named Anna Marie Yocum had been murdered in her South Bend home. An autopsy determined she had been shot three times, once through the chest and twice in the back, likely at close range as she'd either fled or fallen down the stairs from her apartment. Two .45-caliber bullets had pierced her heart.</p> <p>....The following morning, Dowlut was charged with first-degree murder. A year and a half later, a jury found him guilty of second-degree murder. Before the judge handed down a life sentence, he asked the defendant if there was any reason why he shouldn't be put away. Dowlut replied, "I am not guilty." A day later, the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City registered Dowlut, now 19, as prisoner number 33848.</p> <p>Less than six years later, Robert Dowlut would be a free man&mdash;his murder conviction thrown out by the Indiana Supreme Court because of a flawed police investigation. The court ordered a new trial, but one never took place. Dowlut would return to the Army and go on to earn college and law degrees. Then he would embark on a career that put him at the epicenter of the movement to transform America's gun laws.</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="" target="_blank">Click the link</a> to read the whole story.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Guns Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:48:08 +0000 Kevin Drum 257221 at Jim Carrey Movies, Ranked <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><em>The Mask</em> came out on July 29 1994. It was Jim Carrey's second blockbuster. (<em>Ace Ventura: Pet Detective </em>had hit theaters that February.<em>)</em> But where does it stand in the Jim Carrey canon? Here are all the Jim Carrey films*, ranked.</p> <p>1.<em> Liar Liar</em><br> 2. <em>The Truman Show</em><br> 3. <em>Man on the Moon</em><br> 4.<em> Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind</em><br> 5. <em>Yes Man</em><br> 6. <em>Bruce Almighty</em><br> 7. <em>Fun With Dick And Jane</em><br> 8. <em>Dumb &amp; Dumber</em><br> 9. <em>The Mask</em><br> 10. <em>A Christmas Carol</em><br> 11. <em>I Love You Philip Morris</em><br> 12. <em>Kick-Ass 2</em><br> 13. <em>Simon Birch</em><br> 14. <em>Me, Myself, &amp; Irene</em><br> 15. <em>Batman Forever</em><br> 16. <em>Ace Ventura: Pet Detective</em><br> 17. <em>Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events</em><br> 18. <em>The Cable Guy</em><br> 19. <em>Mr. Popper&rsquo;s Penguins</em><br> 20. <em>How The Grinch Stole Christmas</em><br> 21. <em>The Incredible Burt Wonderstone</em><br> 22. <em>The Number 23</em><br> 23. <em>Anchorman 2</em><br> 24.<em> Horton Hears a Who!</em><br> 25. <em>The Majestic</em><br> 26. <em>Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls</em></p> <p>(*Note: This is a ranking of "Jim Carrey movies," <em>a la </em>feature-length movies in which Jim Carrey appears beginning with <em>Ace Ventura: Pet Detective</em>. Movies that feature Jim Carrey from before <em>Ace Ventura: Pet Detective</em> are not "Jim Carrey movies." They are just movies that Jim Carrey happened to appear in.)</p></body></html> Mixed Media Film and TV Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:45:23 +0000 Ben Dreyfuss 257216 at Mississippi's Last Abortion Clinic Will Remain Open—For Now <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>The last abortion clinic in Mississippi has been on the brink of closure for nearly two years. But the fight to shutter the&nbsp;Jackson Women's Health Organization may have ended Tuesday, when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals <a href="" target="_blank">struck down </a>the strict anti-abortion measure that would have closed its doors forever.</p> <p>The court fight to save the clinic began in 2012, after state lawmakers passed a bill requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital&mdash;or else face criminal charges. Restrictive anti-abortion bills had already closed several clinics in the state, and, had the Fifth Circuit not ruled against the state, Mississippi was <a href="" target="_blank">poised to become</a> the first state since <em>Roe v. Wade</em> without a single abortion provider.</p> <p>Attorneys for the Jackson Women's Health Organization argued that admitting privileges were unconstitutional and not medically necessary for the safety of its clients. (The clinic, after all, <a href="" target="_blank">already had a patient-transfer agreement</a> with a local hospital for rare cases in which a patient required hospitalization.) A federal judge was receptive to this argument and <a href="" target="_blank">blocked</a> <a href="" target="_blank">the law</a> from going into effect; in response, the state of Mississippi appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit.</p> <div class="inline inline-right" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="" class="image" src="/files/roy-mcmillan_0_1_0.jpg"><div class="caption"><strong><a href="" target="_blank">Take a look</a> inside Mississippi's last abortion clinic. </strong></div> </div> <p>Amid the legal wrangling, the Jackson Women's Health Organization attempted to obtain admitting privileges to comply with the law. As <em>Mother Jones</em> <a href="" target="_blank">has reported</a>, all seven hospitals where the Jackson Women's Health Organization was eligible for admitting privileges turned the clinic down. This was partly because its providers travel to Mississippi from out of state, and partly because hospitals refused to be associated with abortion.</p> <p>As <a href="" target="_blank"><em>Mother Jones </em>reported</a> in 2012:</p> <blockquote> <p>The doctors' applications have been rejected by every hospital they've approached. Two hospitals wouldn't let them apply at all. Five others denied the applications for "administrative" reasons, before even completely reviewing the doctors' qualifications. Their rejection letters cited their policies regarding abortion and "concern about disruption to the hospital's business within the community." The clinic wrote follow-up letters to make sure the hospitals understood that the doctors were only seeking privileges to comply with the new law and wouldn't actually be providing abortions at the hospital, but no dice.</p> </blockquote> <p>Abortion rights advocates feared that the Fifth Circuit would be hostile to such claims. A three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit <a href="" target="_blank">upheld a very similar Texas law</a> in March. Appeals courts in the Fourth and Eighth Circuits have also <a href="" target="_blank">upheld admitting privilege laws</a>.</p> <p>But on Tuesday, the appeals court ruled, "Mississippi may not shift its obligation to respect the established constitutional rights of its citizens to another state." It is not yet clear if the state will appeal to the US Supreme Court. But the decision&mdash;short of intervention from high court&mdash;means the clinic will remain open for the foreseeable future.</p></body></html> MoJo Reproductive Rights Top Stories Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:47:04 +0000 Molly Redden 257191 at White House: Ignoring Climate Change Will Cost America Billions <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><em>This <a href="" target="_blank">story</a> was originally published at the</em> <a href="" target="_blank">Guardian</a>.</p> <p>The White House has warned that delaying action on climate change would carry a heavy price, racking up an additional 40% in economic losses from climate impacts and other costs over the course of 10 years.</p> <p>White House officials said the stark finding from the president's council of economic advisers underlined the urgency of Barack Obama's efforts to cut carbon pollution.</p> <p>In addition to <a href="">a new report</a> on the economic cost of delay, the White House is poised to launch two new initiatives on Tuesday dealing with fast-rising methane emissions from the natural gas industry, and buffering food security against future climate change.</p></body></html> <p style="font-size: 1.083em;"><a href="/environment/2014/07/white-house-ignoring-climate-change-billions"><strong><em>Continue Reading &raquo;</em></strong></a></p> Environment Climate Change Climate Desk Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:13:17 +0000 Suzanne Goldenberg 257176 at Guns and Doctors: A Follow-Up <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Aaron Carroll responds to my skeptical take on doctors asking patients about their gun ownership:</p> <blockquote> <p>I think you ask legitimate questions, but these are consensus things that pediatricians ask about. You&rsquo;re thinking like an adult, and not as a parent.</p> <p>I don&rsquo;t know if internists ask adults about guns. I doubt they do. But pediatricians do ask parents. They also ask if parents have talked about street safety. They ask if they keep chemicals out of reach of their children. They ask if they&rsquo;ve checked the temperature of the hot water heater. They ask about water safety, bathtubs, and talk about drowning. Fire safety. Bike safety. Car safety (including airbags). I could go on and on and on.</p> <p>This is what pediatricians do. You may be too far removed from that to remember, but it is! Read <a href="" target="_blank"><em>Bright Futures</em></a>. It&rsquo;s hundreds of pages long.</p> </blockquote> <p>In my post, I was mostly thinking about adult doctors, not pediatricians, though I suppose both were on my mind. In any case, this is an obvious distinction, and I thought it was worth passing along.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Guns Health Care Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:05:54 +0000 Kevin Drum 257201 at Quote of the Day: "The Press Loves to Cover Her Hard" <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_hillary_clinton_speech.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;">Dave Weigel notes that the media is <em>still</em> obsessed with Hillary Clinton's comment about being <a href="" target="_blank">"dead broke" when she and Bill left the White House:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>They've got to be sick of this by now. Maggie Haberman had it nailed three weeks ago: Hillary Clinton was "still raw over the partisan wars that hindered her husband&rsquo;s legacy and left the couple with millions of dollars in legal debt." Her answer, as she told Ramos, was accurate, and it's baffling to her that this became a "gaffe." As she continued her tour, HarperCollins was printing up copies of <em>Clinton, Inc.</em>, a tell-all by the <em>Weekly Standard's</em> Daniel Halper. <strong>On Page 18, Halper recalls that in 2001 "the Clintons were broke, owing a fortune in legal fees from the many investigations into their personal lives," and that they had to be loaned $1.3 by Terry McAuliffe.</strong> Until just a month ago, that was how even conservatives remembered the Clintons' departure from the White House.</p> </blockquote> <p>What's the deal with this? Sure, Hillary could have responded to questions about her wealth a little better. She's not the natural politician Bill is. But really, there's not much else here. So why does it continue to be news a full month later? Uber-insider Mark Halperin explains:</p> <blockquote> <p>She has a lot of positive attributes that are currently just being overwhelmed by all this negative coverage. And it&rsquo;s going to keep going. The momentum&mdash;there&rsquo;s, there&rsquo;s&mdash; <strong>The press loves to cover her hard.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>This comes courtesy of Bob Somerby, who's been following this ever since the initial flood-the-zone coverage of Hillary's "gaffe" in the <em>Washington Post</em>. <a href="" target="_blank">Somerby tells the rest of the story:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Multimillionaire TV stars asked if voters would support a person as wealthy as Clinton. In response to Clinton&rsquo;s answers, some of the nation&rsquo;s most famous pundits launched their famous &ldquo;gaffe culture.&rdquo;</p> <p>The <em>Washington Post</em> even launched a front-page jihad concerning the size of Clinton&rsquo;s speaking fees. In the <em>New York Times</em>, Maureen Dowd assailed Clinton for her &ldquo;rapacious&rdquo; behavior and her &ldquo;wanton acquisitiveness,&rdquo; which she was said to be passing along to her daughter.</p> <p>....Halperin made a starting suggestion&mdash;he suggested the press corps&rsquo; coverage of a major candidate could determine the outcome of our next White House campaign.</p> <p>Plainly, that&rsquo;s what happened in Campaign 2000, when a twenty-month war against Candidate Gore let George Bush reach the White House. In the main, that war was conducted by the mainstream press corps, <em>not</em> by the RNC.</p> <p>The press corps&rsquo; poisonous war against Gore let Bush reach the White House. But it&rsquo;s a basic law of the guild: Major journalists <em>never</em> suggest that the behavior of their own guild could have such startling effects.</p> </blockquote> <p>The media's preoccupation with the Clintons' wealth won't last forever. Even for the Washington press corps, it's too transparently silly to pretend that it's somehow surprising that a presidential candidate is wealthy. But Somerby and Halperin are right: it's a sign of things to come. The press has never liked Hillary, and she's never liked them, and that's that. If she decides to run for president, this is going to be one of her biggest problems&mdash;or maybe her biggest, period. She's just never going to catch a break.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Hillary Clinton Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:49:09 +0000 Kevin Drum 257196 at