The press represents nobody but the press on this topic. Meaning, the press has no political cover on this story because there's no partisan angle to the SoS story [and CDS]...

He's right, insofar as the press isn't currently taking their talking points directly from the GOP. However, I trust that Boehlert isn't suggesting that we have a free press, acting autonomously, without regard to any third party interests.

Boehlert knows, as we all do: the press is entirely beholden to corporate interests. That was true before, during, and after this election.

My biggest disappointment is Maddow.  She too, seems to think she has to play along to get along.  She had  on the other day, Tipping Point author Malcom Gladwell, and allowed him to discuss the positives of  blending experience and change and said he thought Hillary as SoS was a positive choice.
Afterward she says nothing....no discussion of "perhaps there is a different way to look at things when it comes to Hillary".  Instead she was back to the same old "whining" about how evil Hillary is a warmongering hawk so how can Obama have her there?  No those were not her words, but it is the message of MSNBC.  I guess I should give kudos to Maddow for NOT having Hitchens on (the rest of MSNBC was salivating over his lies and inuendo).

It's sad that the only stories running this week was Palin sideshow and manufactured Clinton drama.

Basically just goes to show that the MSM has nothing to report so they're making all these stories that basically don't exist.

I mean seriously, I watched Matthews this week; he and his guests (more his guests than him) were trying to drive this ridiculous story that she's going to go all cavalier and pursue her own diplomacy with her own government run out of State.

The Big Dog is an unclassy Arkansas hick from the wrong side of the tracks who 'got himself elected' a

I remember all along back in the 90s thinking.....the media is filled with sanctimonious, snobby liars.  Despite all the spin about admiring those who "rise above their circumstances" the good old white boys club really resented Clinton.  They saw him as "white trash."  
Broder, Matthews....all these guys.

These are men who admired an alcoholic, ne'er do well, frat boy who abandoned his military post; covered for him; and openly trashed those who were trying to call W on his past.  Seriously, Rather has been pretty much blackballed by these guys; Matthews says on air "the only people who don't like W are whackos" and literally describes the dufus as having a "sunny nobility".  Yet he called Clinton, a successful president, "Al Gore's bathtub ring."

Here's Bill, flawed to be sure, who rose above an alcoholic abusive stepfather, a poor family to become a Rhodes scholar, a governor and a president.  Matthews for all his anti war phoniness, somehow sees Bill daring to protest Vietnam as a bad thing.  But sees Bush avoiding serving as worthy of cover up?

I would love for the likes of Broder, Matthews, and friends to be called on their sanctimonious hypocrisy in a public arena.  George W had every advantage a human being could have: wealth, the best schools, jobs, and still needed his father's cronies to rescue him over and over and over.

And when you thought you'd ridden yourself of her completely--no VP spot for her!  She showed you. And Obama tapped her for an even better job--the face of America to the rest of the world.

I can dislike Hillary and not have CDS; I can't, however, say that she's not fit for public service, or is planning a shadow government, or anything else similarly ridiculous, without proving I have CDS.