MSNBC hits number one in cable news ratings while Fox News flirts with the number three spot.

Courtesy of Variety:  

For the first time in its history, MSNBC ranked number one in both total viewers and the key adults 25-54 demographic during primetime for a full week among the big three cable news networks, according to Nielsen data. 

For the week of May 15, MSNBC averaged 2.44 million viewers with 611,000 in the key demo from 8 p.m.-11 p.m., beating out CNN and Fox News in both measures. In total day viewership for the week, CNN has ranked number one in cable news among adults 25-54 for six straight days (May 14-19), marking the network’s longest winning streak in that measure in six years. Fox News finished first in total viewers with 1.5 million and second in the demo with 321,000. MSNBC was second in total viewers with 1.2 million total viewers and third in the demo with 281,000. CNN finished third in total viewers with 1.05 million but first in the demo with 353,000. 

In addition, Fox News ranked number three in primetime in the key demographic for five straight days with 497,000 viewers, the longest streak at number three the network has had in that measure in 17 years, since June 2000. CNN finished second in the demo with 588,000. Fox was second in total viewers, however, with 2.41 million, beating out CNN’s 1.65 million.

This is just more bad news for Fox News who was hit with three new claims of discrimination this week, as well as an op-ed by Monica Lewisnky who specifically called them out for building their reputation by trashing hers.

I really am starting to believe that we are seeing the end of Fox News.

Or at least the end of Fox News as we have known it.

Which cannot be a bad thing in my mind.

New Clinton ad uses Donald Trump's debacle in Mexico against him, while her advisers prepare for a landslide victory.

You don't have to be a political pundit to have known this was coming.

In other Clinton news the FBI took the unprecedented step of releasing the notes from her interview over the private server.

Here is a tweet from the New York Times in response.

Hillary Clinton's comments to the F.B.I. were largely consistent with what she has said publicly in recent weeks https://t.co/eKF0YYSuzn

— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) September 2, 2016

As expected there is no smoking gun, but of course the Right Wing is already sifting through it to find some molehill they can blow up into a mountain to use against her.

In spite of that her top advisers are optimistically predicting that this election will be a landslide for Hillary, and are preparing for that eventuality: 

Advisers to Hillary Clinton’s campaign have identified so many paths to an Election Day victory they are now focusing not only on the one or two battlegrounds that would ensure a win but on opening up the possibility of an Electoral College landslide. 

“Hillary Clinton has many paths to 270 electoral votes, more than any candidate in a generation,” said Jeff Berman, a paid consultant to her campaign. 

Revealing a level of confidence Clinton’s inner circle has been eager to squash for weeks, outside advisers have now identified victories in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire as the path of least resistance, delivering for the Democratic nominee more than the 270 electoral votes needed to take the White House. And they are projecting increased confidence about her chances in Republican-leaning North Carolina, a state that could prove as critical as Ohio or Pennsylvania. 

If I were one of these advisers I would be cautioning against counting unhatched eggs and telling everybody concerned to stay focused on the finish line.

We have all seen what can happen when you start celebrating early.

Oh yeah, that could happen.

Having said that I think that the campaign is making some very smart decisions.

On Monday there will be a Hillary Clinton documentary broadcast which will feature her addressing the Monica Lewinsky scandal head on:

"It was really hard. It was painful. And I was so supported by my friends. My friends just rallied around," the Democratic nominee told CNN's Pamela Brown in a clip from a forthcoming documentary set to air Monday night. 

Speaking of her friends, Clinton said they would visit and "try to make me laugh, they would recommend books to read, we'd go for long walks, we'd hang out, you know eat bad food." 

"Just the kinds of things you do with your friends, and it was something that you just had to get up every day and try to deal with while still carrying on a public set of responsibilities," Clinton said. "So it was very, very challenging." 

I have been waiting for the campaign to do something like this as it will help defuse one of the Republican attack strategies as well as to help humanize her, which is something apparently that she still needs to do.

I think a lot of both female and male voters can commiserate with her over feeling betrayed by a significant other. And that will help them to see her as a person rather than the monster the conservatives have created and sold to the media.

Hillary Clinton's debate prep includes weathering attacks about Monical Lewinsky, her e-mail server, and the death of Vince Foster. Donald Trump's preparation includes advice from that troll who used to run Fox News..

Courtesy of Politico:

It’s one of the most uncomfortable and important jobs in Democratic politics: trying to embarrass the woman who could be the next president. 

The person picked to be Hillary Clinton's sparring partner in her upcoming debate prep sessions is expected to confront her about the death of Vincent Foster, label her as a rapist's enabler, and invoke the personally painful memories of Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers. 

Clinton’s team is beginning its preparation ahead of the first general election debate scheduled for Sept. 26 at Hofstra University. And one of the key components of that prep, campaign allies said, is finding a person who can stand in as Donald Trump during mock debates and launch personal attacks on the former secretary of state that will make the real Trump look tame by comparison. 

“It needs to be someone who is naturally smart, glib and utterly irreverent,” said Democratic strategist Bob Shrum, who oversaw debate prep for Al Gore. “You can’t learn to be utterly irreverent.” 

When I first read this I thought that Hillary has already seen how low Trump can go, so she is probably already prepared. That is unless he has Beelzebub, the Prince of Darkness in his corner.

And then I read this:

Roger Ailes, the former Fox News chairman ousted last month over charges of sexual harassment, is advising Donald J. Trump as he begins to prepare for the all-important presidential debates this fall. 

Mr. Ailes is aiding Mr. Trump’s team as it turns its attention to the first debate with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, on Sept. 26 on Long Island, according to three people briefed on the move, who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter. 

Two of them said that Mr. Ailes’s role could extend beyond the debates, which Mr. Trump’s advisers see as crucial to vaulting him back into strong contention for the presidency after a series of self-inflicted wounds that have eroded his standing in public opinion polls.

So the man who would defeat the Clintons is being aided by the man who created an entire cable news outlet to do just that.

If I were Hillary I would use that against Trump, like so:

"So did that incredibly misogynistic and ugly question come from one of your many alter egos, John Miller of John Barron perhaps, or from that serial sexual abuser who is now advising you?"

I actually heard one of Trump's surrogates suggesting that Hillary will try to find some way out of these debates. But I disagree, I think she is chomping at the bit to rip this idiot a new asshole in front of the American people.

And I would imagine that no matter on which day or time it is scheduled that very few people are going to miss it.

I know I won't.

Bernie Sanders to appear on Fox News in town hall debate, alone. Update: Hillary will appear.

Courtesy of the Washington Post:  

Fox News is not usually the destination of choice for Democratic candidates seeking to spread their message, but Bernie Sanders has agreed to participate in an hour-long town hall hosted by the network here on Monday. 

Anchor Bret Baier announced Thursday that the presidential hopeful would appear with him and said that Hillary Clinton had also been invited but declined because of “a scheduling conflict.”

I have to say that I can understand why Bernie sees this as a good opportunity.

I do.

After all he gets an audience all to himself, that would very likely NEVER listen to anything positive that he had to say.

But I still feel that it's wrong.

First off the chances of even a handful of Fox News viewers casting their vote for a Democratic socialist in the general election is negligible.

But secondly, and more importantly, this is a cable news outlet who has been attacking the liberals, the Democrats, and especially the Clintons since the minute they came on the air.

They made their bones reporting on the Monica Lewinsky scandal, helped to steal the 2000 election away from Al Gore, and have attacked President Obama non-stop since even before his inauguration.

Fox News is not inviting Bernie Sanders on because they are "fair and balanced," and want to host candidates from both sides of the aisle, they are inviting him on because he is a threat to Hillary Clinton and that makes him their ally.

And any ally of Fox News.......

Update: Courtesy of Mediaite:   

And now tonight, Fox News has confirmed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be joining her Democratic rival in the Detroit event, just one night after the two square off in a CNN debate from Flint, Michigan.

Oh.

Never mind. 

(Still think it's a bad idea for her to give Fox News any credibility though.)

According to Nicolle Wallace she would not be surprised to see either Monica Lewinsky or Sarah Palin showing up as hosts for The View.

Nicolle Wallace is currently pimping her new book "Madam President" and during an interview with People Magazine was asked about the prospect of having Lewinsky or Palin assuming hosting duties on The View:  

People: Is there anything to the buzz about Monica Lewinsky being considered as a View co-host? 

Wallace: I've heard her name and I've talked about her. I watched her TED talk three times. So I would love to have her on. No idea if she's on anyone's radar as a host. 

People: What about Palin, who was once pretty open about wanting the job? 

Wallace: (Laughs.) I think I'm all the Republican they can handle right now. I've never heard Sarah Palin's name, but I would not be surprised to see her there one morning. This process is sort of like a Republican White House – it's shrouded in secrecy and there are no leaks. 

Yeah the day that Nicolle Wallace shows up and sees Sarah Palin seated on the couch is the day she runs screaming from the studio. 

Besides as we know Palin does not want to actually work for her money, so the idea of her taking the job is a non-starter.

As for Lewinsky, I could see her wanting a gig like this.

I think either one of these choices would be nothing more than a casting gimmick, but I imagine that once Lewinsky got past all of the questions about Bill, and stained dresses, she might have something to contribute.

And let's face it if this were to take place during the 2016 election cycle, with Hillary running for President, it would certainly attract viewers just waiting to hear what Monica had to say about Hil.

Hillary Clinton deletes her e-mails, all of her e-mails, from her private server. Quick somebody fire up the GOP outrage machine!

All of the e-mails were deleted? Oops my bad.

Courtesy of CNN:  

Hillary Clinton permanently deleted all the emails on the private server she used to do official business as secretary of state, the Republican lawmaker who subpoenaed the emails said late Friday. 

Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, chairman of the House committee investigating the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, said Clinton's lawyer informed him of the news. 

"Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server," Gowdy said in a statement. 

Gowdy had also asked that Clinton turn over her server to the State Department inspector general for an independent review. 

Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, said no. In his letter to Gowdy, Kendall said the former secretary of state "chose not to keep her non-record personal emails." 

"Thus, there are no ... e-mails from Secretary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state on the server for any review, even if such review were appropriate or legally authorized," he wrote.

Clinton's lawyer further maintained that all of work related, or potentially work related e-mails had all been turned over to the state department last year.  Which in no way is going to satisfy the Republicans who are convinced that Clinton is hiding something from them.

Once again I find myself understanding both sides.

On the one side it seems perfectly reasonable for people to assume that if Clinton had nothing to hide she would have no problem turning over her private server to a trusted third party to have it examined for anything that might be of use to the House investigating committee.

On the other hand this is like the third committee to investigate Clinton over Benghazi and there is really little doubt that they would have found something, no matter how small, to use against her in 2016, eve if it had NOTHING to do with Benghazi or their investigation.

Hillary remembers all too well that it was the Whitewater investigation, which led to Monica Lewinsky, a stained blue dress, and the impeachment of her husband.

Let's face it Gowdy is under enormous pressure to find something, and it is almost certain that he would have. Whether it was really there or not.

I have to say that as much as this leaves a sour taste in my mouth I am not sure that Hillary had much of a choice.

Benghazi explained for the politically naive.

This comic is perfect as is the description of the GOP's hopes for their Benghazi fishing expedition as explained by journalist David Horsey: 

The various partisan inquiries into the deadly 2012 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi have looked like fishing expeditions chasing minnows. Republicans seem to be hoping that, like special prosecutor Ken Starr in his exhaustive investigation of President Clinton in the 1990s, they will be lucky enough to turn up something -- anything! -- that implicates President Obama or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in nefarious deeds. 

Starr found nothing incriminating concerning Whitewater, Paula Jones or the firing of White House Travel agents. But he did find Monica Lewinsky. Once the president lied about getting oral sex from the young intern, it was off to the races. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives impeached the president -- and promptly lost seats in the 1988 congressional elections, the first time since 1822 that the party out of the White House had seen its numbers in Congress go down in the middle of a president’s second term. 

Now, in 2014, facing another midterm election in a Democratic president’s final years in office, Republicans had hoped to bludgeon Democratic candidates with the failed and unpopular new healthcare law. Unfortunately for them, that law has not failed and is becoming more popular by the day. As a result, “Remember Benghazi,” not “Stop Obamacare,” has become the rallying cry they are employing to rev up their base.

I have been saying this for some time now, and it looks like most of the MSM are reaching similar conclusions.

I actually believe that the American people are pretty much on the same page as well. Unless of course they are receiving all of their information concerning Benghazi from Fox News.

Fortunately that demographic is shrinking day by day.

Karl Rove tells Rand Paul that bringing up Monica Lewinsky to hurt Hillary Clinton is a waste of time.

Courtesy of TPM:  

Bashing former President Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky scandal isn't a good strategy to use if Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) wants to position himself as a presidential contender in 2016, according to election oracle Karl Rove. 

The veteran Republican strategist said Tuesday in an appearance on Fox News that Paul needs to shelve personal ambition and focus on a bigger message if he wants to field a viable campaign. 

"Frankly, Rand Paul spending a lot of time talking about the mistakes of Bill Clinton does not look like a big agenda for the future of the country," he said. 

Paul has lobbed a series of attacks at Clinton in recent weeks, ranging from calling him a "serial philanderer" to suggesting Democrats return money they raised with his help. 

Rove said the Kentucky Republican ought to focus on strengthening his "skills" as a candidate, rather than on a White House affair that's already 15 years old. 

"I'm not certain again that beating up on Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky is a particularly good thing to strengthen your skills for the 2016 contest," he said.

Okay I don't trust Karl Rove as far as I can roll him, so I am not sure if he is really trying to help Paul here, or if he doesn't like him for a candidate so he is undermining him publicly.

Whatever the reason, Rove is right. (Did I just write that?)

Trying to defeat Hillary by bringing up Bill's dalliances is going to be about as effective as calling Obama a Kenyan socialist was to stopping his reelection.

I wonder if this means that Rove is giving up on 2016, or that he has something he considers much more effective up his sleeve to use against Hillary?

Like I said, I don't trust ole Turdblossom.

Right Wing going through recently published correspondence between Hillary Clinton and her close friend looking for dirt. May find less to hurt her with, and more that supporters will find admirable.

So the Washington Free Beacon published these personal papers that belonged to Diane Blair, a political science professor, and now deceased close friend of Hillary's.

This caused the conservatives to start going over the correspondence with a fine tooth comb looking for something, ANYTHING, they could use as opposition research against Hillary in 2016.

The found a few exchanges that they have been able to characterize as "ruthless" but overall there is really not much "there" there.

One of the portions that I personally found rather interesting was when Hillary finally admitted that Bill had had and inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky: 

When Clinton finally admitted to the relationship after repeated denials, Hillary Clinton defended her husband in a phone call with Blair. She said her husband had made a mistake by fooling around with the “narcissistic loony toon” Lewinsky, but was driven to it in part by his political adversaries, the loneliness of the presidency, and her own failures as a wife. 

She told Blair that the affair did not include sex “within any real meaning” of the term and noted President Clinton “tried to manage” Monica after they broke up but things spiraled “beyond control.” 

Blair described the contents of the Sept. 9, 1998, phone call in a journal entry. 

“[Hillary] is not trying to excuse [Bill Clinton]; it was a huge personal lapse. And she is not taking responsibility for it,” Blair wrote. 

“But, she does say this to put his actions in context. Ever since he took office they’ve been going thru personal tragedy ([the death of] Vince [Foster], her dad, his mom) and immediately all the ugly forces started making up hateful things about them, pounding on them.” 

“They adopted strategy, public strategy, of acting as tho it didn’t bother them; had to. [Hillary] didn’t realize toll it was taking on him,” Blair continued. “She thinks she was not smart enough, not sensitive enough, not free enough of her own concerns and struggles to realize the price he was paying.”

Now remember this is a private conversation between Hillary and one of her best friends. And yet rather than to rant about what a bastard her husband was, or what a whore Monica was, she takes some of the responsibility for not being there for her husband and identifies Lewinsky as a "narcissistic looney toon," which I think most of us would find fairly accurate.

Now I am personally not a fan of women excusing their husband's infidelities and accepting the blame, but this does speak to someone who did indeed love her husband, and someone whose instinct was to protect rather than condemn.

I have said before that I do not see Bill's actions hurting Hillary in 2016, but with this revelation it may serve as the perfect rejoinder to the conservative attacks if they choose to go this route.

Rand Paul is still really hung up on Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Courtesy of the Washington Post:

 During a taped interview set to run Sunday on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul hit Bill Clinton for his sexual indiscretions. Again. 

Here's the critical piece of what Paul told C-SPAN's Steve Scully: 

"The Democrats can't say, 'We're the great defenders of women's rights in the workplace and we will defend you against some kind of abusive boss that uses their position of authority to take advantage of a young women' when the leader of their party, the leading fundraiser in the country, is Bill Clinton, who was a perpetrator of that kind of sexual harassment. Anybody who wants to take money from Bill Clinton or have a fundraiser has a lot of explaining to do."

Yeah, anybody really buying that Paul is all bent out of shape because Bill let Monica Lewinsky play the skin flute?

Yeah me either.

And while I cannot really defend Clinton's actions, he was not exactly taking advantage of an innocent school girl.

Monica knew exactly what she was doing, she flirted with him outrageously, did naughty things with his cigars, and even had the presence of mind to hang onto that blue dress. THOSE are not exactly the actions of a victim. 

And the real problem here is that Rand Paul is conflating one man's sexual impropriety, with an entire political party's oppressive and insensitive anti-woman policies.

Hell, by all accounts Bill Clinton did not even screw that woman, but there is ample evidence that the Republican party has been screwing women in America for decades. 

Senator Claire McCaskill slaps the toupee right off Rand Paul's head after he dredged up Monica Lewinsky to attack Hillary.

Courtesy of TPM:

 "I think I can speak for most women to say that I found what he said infuriating. I think most women understand they should not be held accountable for the behavior of their husbands," McCaskill told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. "You know, frankly, it was a long time ago. Our country did very well under the leadership of Bill Clinton." 

Paul accused former President Clinton on Sunday of engaging in "predatory behavior" with Lewinsky and, pointing to the successful female members of his family, argued that there is no such thing as a "war on women." 

McCaskill swatted down Paul's bit of mansplaining. 

"I think Rand Paul is grasping, trying to show that he can be tough and win the presidential nomination," she said. 

"It was a political posturing and, frankly, what Rand Paul doesn't get is that women want birth control. What Rand Paul doesn't get is that women don't want to be marginalized in the workplace, that we are not yet at the point we need to be in terms of our country and around the world."

I think that this will be the response from virtually everybody who is not a card carrying Republican. 

I will admit that I worried about it a little, but after considering it further I think that this will have just about the same impact on Hillary's chances in 2016 that the so-called IRS scandal, Benghazi, and Fast and Furious are going to have.

In other words, none.

More bad news for the Republicans.

Courtesy of MSNBC:  

Just 19% of Americans have confidence in Republicans, while a whopping 80% do not. 

A new poll that found Americans with serious doubts about all their elected officials, but Republicans scored particularly badly—even with their own voters. 

Just 36% of self-identified Republican voters say they have faith that their lawmakers will make good decisions. 

They’re damning numbers for a party that’s hoping to retake the Senate in 2014, hold onto the House of Representatives, and locate a promising candidate capable of beating the Democratic matriarch Hillary Clinton. 

In contrast, Congressional Democrats had the support of their own party—a majority support them—but just 27% of Americans overall.

As if that were not enough there is another new poll out that finds that Americans see the Republican party as too extreme: Americans view Democrats as more willing to work across party lines and Republicans as more extreme in their beliefs, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center. Asked to chose which party was more extreme in its positions, 54 percent of Americans picked the GOP, while 35 percent selected the Democrats. On the question of who was more willing to work with the other party, 52 percent pegged the Democrats, and 27 percent deemed Republicans more bipartisan.

But have no fear Republicans. I mean after all you still have Obamacare, Benghazi, and Monica Lewinsky to use against the Democrats. Right?

Well maybe they should have a little fear.

For those who have wondered if the Republicans are planning to use Bill Clinton's scandals against Hillary when she runs in 2016, Rand Paul made it pretty clear they will.

Click bad hairpiece to play video

Courtesy of New York Magazine:  

On Sunday morning's Meet the Press, David Gregory asked Paul about the possibility of Hillary Clinton running for president. He also asked about a statement Rand's wife, Kelley, made to Vogue, where she said that Bill Clinton's return to the White House in any capacity should be "complicated" by his affair Monica Lewinsky. 

"The Democrats — one of their big issues is they've concocted this, 'Republicans are committing a war on women,'" Paul replied. "One of the work place laws and rules that I think are good is that bosses shouldn't prey on young interns in their office. I think really the media seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this. He took advantage of a girl that was 20-years-old and an intern in his office. There is no excuse for that and that is predatory behavior." 

When Gregory asked Paul if he thought that Hillary's husband's decision to cheat on her with a much younger employee is something she "should be judged on if she were a candidate in 2016," Paul said "no." But, he added, "This was with regard to the Clintons. It's hard enough to separate one from the other." So, basically, don't blame him if he somehow manages to bring this one up again. 

You know the problem with this is that Paul is not completely wrong about Bill's behavior.

The only question is will it have a negative impact on Hilary's campaign? 

Because besides Benghazi this is about all the Republicans have to work with, so you KNOW they are going to go all out.