Latest Posts

By Dylan Gwinn | February 7, 2016 | 11:42 AM EST

Sunday may be for the Super Bowl, but Saturday was without question the day for shameless race-baiting and divisive agenda advancing.

By Tom Johnson | February 7, 2016 | 10:51 AM EST

In a Friday piece, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait delved into why he’d welcome seeing Donald Trump atop this year’s Republican ticket. For one thing, there's the possibility of permanently driving a wedge between the party’s masses and its financial elite. “The GOP is a machine that harnesses ethno-nationalistic fear…to win elections and then, once in office, caters to its wealthy donor base,” argued Chait. “If, like me, you think the Republican Party in its current incarnation needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt anew, Trump is the only one holding a match.” For another, Chait thinks that Trump would wind up governing as a sort of liberal, a la Arnold Schwarzenegger in California.

By Tim Graham | February 7, 2016 | 9:28 AM EST

People magazine interviewed Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton in the latest issue for a "Campaign Trail Scrapbook" and reporter Sandra Sobieraj Westfall brought the usual syrup. On the table of contents, over a picture of Chelsea resting her head on Hillary's shoulder, they aid "As voting begins, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton reveal the personal side to this year's raucous race to the White House."

Over a two-page photo of the two women, People's headline for the story was "On The Road: In an unexpectedly tough race, the former Secretary of State has her daughter and "blissful" playdates with granddaughter Charlotte to keep her going strong."

By Tim Graham | February 7, 2016 | 8:17 AM EST

When The Washington Post took up publicizing a priest coming out of the closet as gay – in Chicago – it strangely put it on the front of the Metro section on Monday. You can be sure someone wanted that on the front of the whole paper.

The headline was a quote: “I’m gay and I’m a priest, period.” The subhead was “Catholic clergy grapple with whether to come out in the Pope Francis era. The Post viewpoint was clearer from the headline on B-6, the back of the Metro section: “The Catholic priesthood one of the last remaining closets.”

By Ken Shepherd | February 7, 2016 | 12:36 AM EST

Chris Matthews and Brit Hume are, it's safe to say, probably rarely in agreement on much. Tonight, however, both compared Florida U.S. Senator Marco Rubio's handling of Chris Christie in tonight's New Hampshire primary debate to Dan Quayle poor debate performance in 1988 against Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas).

By Brad Wilmouth | February 6, 2016 | 11:56 PM EST

Appearing as a guest on Saturday's CNN Newsroom with Poppy Harlow, CNN political commentator Carl Bernstein declared that, after spending time talking to the White House about Hillary Clinton's paid speeches to Goldman-Sachs, that they are "horrified" that Clinton is "blowing up her own campaign," and invoked President Richard Nixon's tapes as possibly comparable to the transcripts of her speeches.

As he described apparent panic at the White House, Bernstein used words and phrases like "terrified," "dumbfounded," "tied up in knots," and "beside themselves" to describe reaction to Clinton's "unfathomable" behavior that "has endangered President Obama's legacy."

By Ken Shepherd | February 6, 2016 | 11:35 PM EST

Catching up with Donald Trump in the "spin room" after Saturday's GOP debate, NBC's Hallie Jackson attempted to get Donald Trump to say who he thought "lost" the GOP debate, hoping, perhaps, to get the New Hampshire frontrunner to attack Sen. Marco Rubio. For his part, Trump refused to take the bait.

By Jack Coleman | February 6, 2016 | 7:42 PM EST

While providing a post-mortem on the results of the Iowa caucuses, Rachel Maddow could not resist resorting to kneejerk sarcasm, which she found immensely hilarious, making it all the more satisfying when Maddow was forced to backpedal soon thereafter.

The target of her snark? Sen. Marco Rubio's unexpectedly strong showing in Iowa, which was one of the major stories to emerge from this cycle's caucuses.

By Tom Blumer | February 6, 2016 | 7:25 PM EST

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin referred to Madeline Albright's somewhat well-known saying, found on a Starbucks coffee cup, that "There's a special place in Hell for women who don't help other women." At the time, Albright, who served as Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, huffed: "Though I am flattered that Governor Palin has chosen to cite me as a source of wisdom, what I said had nothing to do with politics." She naturally followed that statement with an intense political attack on Palin and GOP presidential nominee John McCain.

Now that Democrat Hillary Clinton is running for president and is in danger of losing the New Hampshire primary by a substantial margin, Albright has decided that her statement has everything to do with politics, and that women who don't support Mrs. Clinton's candidacy and vote for her deserve that "special place in Hell."

By Tom Blumer | February 6, 2016 | 5:23 PM EST

Folks who get their news from a wide variety of sources likely know by now that there is enough concern about the electability of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders that a prominent Democratic Party donor has "emailed dozens of fans of Vice President Joe Biden on Friday, urging them to remain prepared to donate if Biden jumps into the (presidential) race." But two outlets which have become de facto palace guards for Hillary Clinton's candidacy have either ignored or downplayed it.

The Reuters story went out shortly after 8 p.m. Friday. The Associated Press has not posted a related story at its national site. Though the New York Times is carrying Reuters story at its web site, the paper did not include the story in Saturday's print edition, and Biden's last name isn't even present on its home page.

By Tim Graham | February 6, 2016 | 5:07 PM EST

The Washington Post is dragging out one of the oldest and phoniest arguments against the charge of liberal bias, an argument that has all the freshness of four-month-old milk.  To sum up in a headline: “The media’s biggest bias isn’t partisan — it’s for a juicy story.”

If this claim hadn’t been completely obliterated by every juicy thing Bill Clinton did with women he hadn’t married, we can apply it to nearly every Obama scandal – especially when journalists try to claim Obama has been “scandal-free.”

By Mike Ciandella | February 6, 2016 | 3:46 PM EST

While almost everyone else in America is talking about the Super Bowl, the three network evening news broadcasts have spent more time using the Super Bowl as a segue to talk about other topics than they have discussing the game itself. 

This year, a total of 30 minutes 15 seconds were spent on the general topic of the Super Bowl, but only 12 minutes of that we're spent on the actual game, or either of the teams involved.

By Jeffrey Lord | February 6, 2016 | 3:19 PM EST

You were waiting to settle in for Super Bowl 50. Can Peyton Manning pull it off? Can Cam Newton play under Super Bowl pressure? These and the usual other Super Bowl conversations are waiting to be had  -- the thumbs up or down on the halftime show, who had the best commercial. Nothing unusual there.

So amid all the usual Super Bowl hype, a welcome hype that momentarily distracts from the intensity of the presidential campaign, why not play the race card?

By Brad Wilmouth | February 6, 2016 | 1:21 PM EST

On Friday's Real Time show on HBO, host Bill Maher repeatedly used crude name-calling to go after GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz. After calling both Cruz and fellow candidate Donald Trump "two a******s" in the opening monologue, Cruz was implied to be a "slimy, burrowing, repulsive animal" during a joke campaign ad attacking famous groundhog Punxsutawney Phil. And, in the regular "New Rule" segment near the show's end, Maher lambasted Cruz for the way he kissed his wife, comparing the Texas Senator to a space alien reptile.

By Matthew Balan | February 6, 2016 | 11:33 AM EST

Washingtonian magazine hyped how "the Catholic Church is selling Northeast DC to developers" in a story in its February 2016 issue. Jeffrey Anderson played up how "Church organizations have been profiting by developing or selling their properties" in the area near the Catholic University of America over the past several years. However, Anderson failed to give any background regarding the Church buildings that are being redeveloped, and oddly included a property that hasn't been owned by a Catholic organization since 1984.