Lemme pull up a chair and get comfy. RT @JohnEkdahl: 1000 ccs of popcorn, STAT! https://t.co/5GzNwkHzSB
— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) June 4, 2014
Ruh-roh … here comes Joan!
On the heels of a Daily Beast article claiming that when the possibility of a Taliban-Bergdahl swap arose a few years ago, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was “not a fan of the idea,” Salon’s Walsh is dutifully running interference for Obama:
The right’s latest dirty Bergdahl trick: Pitting Clinton against Obama http://t.co/0WXmFKShs0 via @Salon
— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) June 4, 2014
Who knew The Daily Beast was such a thought hub for the Right?
Reports that Clinton favored a tougher Bergdahl deal in 2012 say nothing about what she'd have done in 2014 http://t.co/0WXmFKShs0
— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) June 4, 2014
If Clinton thinks undermining Obama, and being more hawkish, wins the WH, she learned nothing from 2008 http://t.co/0WXmFKShs0
— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) June 4, 2014
For the record, Walsh says she hopes Hillary’s standing firmly behind The One:
I’ll admit I’m slightly dismayed by the mixed signals coming from Camp Clinton. At best – assuming she supports the president’s Bergdahl decision – she’s still plagued by supporters who see political gain in undermining Obama. Assuming she’s running for president again, I’d like to see more discipline in the ranks this time around.
And that’s the best-case scenario. The worst is that she is, as some suggest, authorizing these anonymous accounts of her tougher stance in 2012 to at least sow confusion about whether she support’s Obama’s controversial “hard choice.” That would be tragic. If Clinton still thinks her path to the White House involves being more hawkish than Barack Obama, as well as undermining our first black president, she didn’t learn anything from 2008. And she won’t get there this time, either.
I happen to think she’s smarter than that, and gremlins in the media and on the right are sowing this dissent. I hope I’m right.
And, well, if it turns out that Hillary is indeed trying to undermine Obama, then there’s only one logical conclusion that can be drawn:
@DrewMTips @JohnEkdahl Hillary’s racist
— Allahpundit (@allahpundit) June 4, 2014
She's racist, right? RT @joanwalsh If Clinton thinks undermining Obama, and being more hawkish, wins the WH, she learned nothing from 2008
— RBe (@RBPundit) June 4, 2014
Clinton is obviously racist.
— Morbidly Shiny (@NatcyLugosi) June 4, 2014
https://twitter.com/RobProvince/status/474219766736248832
Walsh evidently wants to keep that possibility on the table:
@allahpundit @DrewMTips @JohnEkdahl You joke… pic.twitter.com/mYCbl8nr4F
— Christian Vanderbrouk (@UrbanAchievr) June 4, 2014
Some writers get paid by the word. Joan Walsh gets paid by the race card. pic.twitter.com/PgcR00qTS4
— Christian Vanderbrouk (@UrbanAchievr) June 4, 2014
It’s all she knows.
@JohnEkdahl Let it be known that Joan Walsh is hopelessly devoted to a man and not standing in solidarity with a woman.
— Joe Cunningham (@JoePCunningham) June 4, 2014
It must be a difficult line for someone like @joanwalsh to walk. Stand with strong white woman or devote self to weaker black man.
— Joe Cunningham (@JoePCunningham) June 4, 2014
Decisions, decisions!
In any event, there’s a lesson to be learned here:
https://twitter.com/GOPMommy/status/474223438693814273
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member