This week's Washington Week.

[merrily]

As most of us know, PBS has not been the same since at least the Bush Administration. Among many other things:

In 2006, Washington Week made an agreement with National Journal which ensures that at least one National Journal reporter is on the show.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Week

Obviously, money changed hands for that plum. And it may or may not have come from the Kochs.

I was going to post something from wiki about National Journal (not to be confused with the conservative National Review) for those of you who may not be familiar with it. However, I carelessly clicked on the website itself after googling. Coincidentally, the top left corner of the page contained a cartoon that says it all.

http://cdn-media.nationaljournal.com/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=48745&format=nj2013_square_4_columns_large

The caption is, "Dear Democrats: populism will not save you." Yep, National Journal is RW publication.

IIRC, it used to be left-leaning, but was bought out. However, the current wiki, is much, much shorter when I first checked it a few years ago and now gives very little of the long history of the publication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Journal



On TV talking heads shows, including at PBS, Republicans and Kochites are overrepresented, including i the host's seat; New Democrat neoliberals (e.g., Brazile. Carville) and DINOs (e.g., Cokie Roberts) are a minority; and traditional Democrats are seldom, if ever seen, even at the once-revered PBS.

Anyway, Washington Week mentioned that Hillary's campaign advisors are being seen at the White House. Now, why is that?

Remember that secret meeting between Obama and Hillary at the end of the 2008 primary? Supposedly, the entire deal they struck was that he would help her fundraise to pay off her campaign debt. I was an Obama donor then. I got one, count it, one email from the Obama campaign asking me to donate to Hillary and I think he did one fundraiser.

After that, the Clintons worked hard for Obama's election; she became his Secretary of State; she did not challenge him in 2012; and he's been very supportive of her candidacy. (Compare the neutral joke he made about her at the White House Correspondent's dinner with the one he made about Bernie.)

And, now, her campaign advisors are meeting with the White House. Washington Week mentioned this in connection with a comment that the higher Obama's approvals are, the better it will be for Hillary. Turns out, they actually meant "for any Democratic candidate." However, I doubt the White House has been meeting with advisors from any other campaign.

IMO, the above encapsulates the salient points of the deal actually cut in 2008. Money to pay campaign debts was the last thing the Clintons had to worry about at the end of the primary of 2008. They themselves had assets of over $110 million, probably well over; and fundraising from their wealthy friends, including foreign nations, has never been an issue for them--the Clinton library and the foundation are examples.

The Washington Week panel threw slid of the now all too familiar digs at Bernie, but not that bad, this being PBS, after all. When they weren't palming off subtle digs, they did say some good things about him.

If you want to watch: http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/episode/victories-obama-help-fight-lame-duck-status-and-christie-webb-enter-2016-race

[Enthusiast]

1. The concept of media fairness has become laughable.

Too few people recognize that the New Democrat neo-liberals do not represent the left or even the center.

[merrily]

2. Yep. It's never really been broken down to the public that the Democratic

Party once Clinton took office was not the Democratic Party of FDR and LBJ. Then again, I am not sure that FDR and LBJ were not aberrations, each trying to stave off a revolution.