I have no choice but to reiterate: if the media, if the press has been corrupted, has chosen a side in a democracy then that democracy is as a consequence perforce under threat - eventually a significant proportion of the electorate will come to not simply lose faith in the government that the media has anointed [we're already there basically] but more importantly will stop viewing the government as legitimate - and then you're in trouble - then you've put in motion a dangerous dynamic where the refusal of the press to act as an objective critical voice and hold the government's feet to the fire will lead to mistakes, will encourage bad behavior and eventually drive the embittered 'losers' not favored by the press to act out in ways that are not predictable - as I've said before the likelihood rises that the 'losers' will increasingly accept as true the sense that the country has fallen to a left wing coup enabled by a corrupt media - again it's about legitimacy - a democracy cannot survive if the losing side has decided the process is no longer legitimate - if you think about it, a democracy is defined in a sense more by the losers than by the winners since the system cannot work unless the losers accept the results as reflecting a legitimate process.
Anyway, anyway - it's this Hillary nonsense that drives me again into Cassandra's arms - she's obviously lying - the story they've put out is that she was ill, became extremely dehydrated and fainted, suffering a concussion - this is quite obviously bull shit - the highly paid, highly skilled doctors who treat and look after our royal court would never allow such a prized member of that court to become severely dehydrated - a physical state that can be quite dangerous, even lethal - but even if somehow such a malpractice did indeed happen there is absolutely no way that this miscarriage would then be made infinitely worse by not taking the concussed person to a hospital for a full array of tests to make sure there was no bleeding or swelling in that valuable brain since such things are often initially symptomless and if left untreated very definitely can lead to all kinds of bad stuff not the least of which is death.
So this story is obviously a lie - of course pretty hard to prove it a lie, but only a naive fool or a partisan hack would think otherwise. Now, don't get me wrong here, that the Obama administration would engage in such dishonest behavior does not surprise me at all - in fact it's what I expect from them - and, let's face it, like or not this is what politicians do - sure, it's a bit more galling coming from the Obama since this unseemly reality is at large so thoroughly ignored and thus it grates harshly against the grotesque hyperbole of the man's public persona - but, whatever, being shameless liars hardly makes he and his court unique.
What's disturbing here is that they're lying without repercussions, and apparently without any fear of there being repercussions - in other words such an obvious lie being ignored seems to strongly suggest that Obama et al are right to not bother themselves with a fear that the press is going to hold them accountable for their words or actions in any substantial way whatsoever - the press ignored Benghazi in order to get Obama elected, and now they're ignoring it in order to protect the credibility of the likely 2016 democratic nominee. This is corruption of the fourth estate, pure and simple - and hell, it's not like they can claim a plausible deniability here - the Obama clan wants Benghazi buried and the media is going, sure, why not. This is the kind of hand puppetry Mursi expects from the Egyptian press and Erdogan from the Turkish press and the the Magi of the Middle Kingdom from the Peoples Daily - this is not what we Westerners expect from a real democracy.
[and although I do not want to get into the sad story of Newtown, we can see the same pathology playing out there as well - liberal elites and their media cohorts want to implant in the gullible minds of the public the idea, the sense that those kids are dead because conservatives like guns - especially 'machine guns' - how else do you explain the deliberate attempt by liberal talking heads to confuse the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic rifle? I doubt very much it's because they're so stupid they don't understand the difference themselves - it's obviously a deliberate ploy and it amounts to propaganda in service of a specific political agenda - gun control is like ideological catnip for these people - nothing confirms more clearly for them their assumed superiority over conservatives than their contempt for guns - well, unless the gun is being waved about in a Scorcese film or being carried by some amped up Kansas farm boy in Seal Team 6 who probably grew up with guns and has just wasted Osama with one - that they manage somehow to celebrate without troubling their pretty little vacant heads over the hypocrisy of it all]
