What a stupid article. Referring to the release of emails from Scott Walker's time as Milwaukee County Executive (the #1 post in the county), Politico says:

No crotch shots. No mistress in Argentina. And no political vendettas featuring a bridge.

Scott Walker is one lucky guy.

Lucky? The implication is that he was just lucky that he wasn't caught with all of the call girls, p*?n, and drugs that he was so obviously doing! That's what at least half the article deals with: look at all these pols brought down by their shenanigans with the ladies. Gosh! isn't Walker lucky he wasn't caught like that! They then go on to compare him to Christie's bridge scandal before finally dealing with the only thing that is really a problem in the emails, the racist comments made by his assistants. That's it, 19 paragraphs down, after saying it was too bad Walker wasn't like those other pols, they get to the only thing that is actually a problem with the emails.

If I were the editor...

This anti-Hillary piece is from a couple of weeks ago. You can't tell me the pic that was on the front page of the New York Times Magazine was meant to be flattering.



The ground is being laid for anybody but Hillary.

I don't think Hillary is inevitable; in large part because I don't think any of Washington actually wants her. The media are already writing critical articles, and I don't think the current crop of Dems want the Clinton machine back on top. I think they have an anybody by Hillary attitude, and are just looking for anyone else who is viable--that's what they did last time, even though Obama didn't even seem viable when he threw his hat in the ring.

Here's an insider's anti-Hillary story, taking the line that she's too old to run. Notice this in a a left-leaning publication, and written by the liberal Charlie Cook.

Clinton turns 67 this October. At that age, she will likely be making her candidacy decision, and if nominated Clinton would turn 69 two weeks before the 2016 general election, notably the same age Ronald Reagan was when he was first elected in 1980. The choice to run for president is effectively a nine-year commitment: one year to run, another four years if she wins a first term—finishing up that term at age 73—and then, assuming she runs for reelection and wins, serving four more years to end a second term at 77 years of age. None of this is to say that the age issue could successfully be used against her. After all, Reagan won the presidency at the same age. But how many 67-year-olds make nine-year commitments, and what concerns have to be addressed if they do?