She said what?
The pull quote from a recent interview former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did with The Hollywood Reporter was her candid revelation about 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont — that "nobody likes him" and "nobody wants to work with him."
But what was glossed over were her words in answer to a question about how Democrats combat Fox News. Essentially, she answered as if the left didn't have almost exclusive control of the media.
"It's really a shame that all the people who support progressive politics and policies haven't understood that that's exactly the right question to ask," Clinton said. "We do have some well-off people who support Democratic candidates, there's no doubt about that, but they've never bought a TV station. They've never gobbled up radio stations. They've never created newspapers in local communities to put out propaganda. That's all been done not just by Murdoch and Fox, but by Sinclair and by the Koch brothers and by so many others who have played a long game about how we really influence the thinking of Americans."
We're not sure what rock she's been living under, but the left has done all of the above. They control the top newspapers in the country, the three main networks, cable channels and the majority of other media in the country. Only in recent years has conservative media even made a dent. And yet she persists.
How low can they go?
A left-wing video posted on Twitter last week suggested Great Britain's Prince Charles snubbed U.S. Vice President Mike Pence at the recent World Holocaust Forum in Jerusalem. It showed the prince greeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but intimated he had skipped over the veep, who was standing nearby. The implication, of course, was that Charles wanted nothing to do with the foul Trump administration.
It was just another attempt at fake news.
No, Pence's spokeswoman said, "Vice President Pence and the Second Lady spoke with Prince Charles for five minutes in the pre-program before they entered the hall. Also they shook hands at the end of his remarks."
The spokeswoman also shared a video of the two second-in-lines chatting and a video of them exchanging a laugh at another point.
Physician, heal thyself
Perhaps she thought it was so far from her home state that no one would notice, but failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams told Democrats at the University of New England in Maine last week that the party must move on from past elections.
It'll be interesting to see if she takes her own advice. Since her 2018 loss, she has not stopped dwelling on the race and has yet to formally concede it, saying to do so would admit the "process was fair." She even has gone so far as to say she won the election that was captured by Republican Brian Kemp.
"Now, I cannot say that everybody who tried to cast a ballot would've voted for me," she said in April 2019. "But if you look at the totality of the information, it is sufficient to demonstrate that so many people were disenfranchised and disengaged by the very act of the person who won the election that I feel comfortable now saying, 'I won.'"
No evidence has been shown that would back up her claims.
"We have to stop re-litigating past elections," she told the Maine crowd of 900, "and [we] have to start planning for future elections."
Professor Smith, D-Anthropology
A new National Association of Scholars study has proven — again — the disparity in political ideology among professors in higher education.
Professors who register as Democrats outnumber those who register as Republicans nearly 9-1, and professors who give to Democratic candidates outpace those who give to Republicans 95-1, the study says. The "partisan affiliation" is widest, researchers say, at the country's highest-ranked schools.
Of the nine disciplines they studied — anthropology, biology, chemistry, economics, English, mathematics, philosophy, psychology and sociology — all were partisan in registration toward Democrats, but professors of the natural sciences were the least partisan. The most partisan were professors of anthropology.
Not surprisingly, among regions of the country, professors in the Northeast were the most partisan in registration, but their cohorts in the West beat them in partisan donation rate. Also, the donation ratio for women is higher than it is for men, and of those women, that ratio is lowest in the Midwest.
"The D:R donation ratio and the D:R registration ratio tell a story that is broadly consistent," the researchers concluded.