Dana Bash just asked Rand Paul how he is going to take on

[applegrove]

Hillary when he already has a reputation for attacking women. LOL! It is sticking to him. I hope this is a sign CNN is going to dig into deeper truths this election season and not just be a stenographer.

[OKNancy]

1. LOL

[leftofcool]

2. Yeehaw!

[napi21]

3. Yea, I saw that.

He tried to explain himself, but IMO failed! I also saw his first interview when he was berating the interviewer. It sounded like he was trying to tell her how to do her job, and that she didn't know how to interview someone. I'd have smacked him if I were her.

[calimary]

6. Hey does anybody remember the bobbing and weaving and testiness he showed with Rachel Maddow?

Dancing all over her questions - mainly about one subject, after she couldn't get a straight answer out of the first time she asked the question - is it okay for businesses to discriminate and not serve people of color? And he tap-danced all over this whole - "government shouldn't be telling people what to do," and "well, I wouldn't eat there then." But if government wasn't there to tell people they couldn't discriminate? "Well, business is free to do whatever it wants. Government shouldn't be telling anybody they can't discriminate. But they shouldn't discriminate. So..."

It just went nowhere. She did what any REAL journalist should do: STAY ON HIS ASS. She threw out whatever else she was planning to ask him and tried to get to the bottom of THAT. And THAT starts to become the story. That flailing and tap-dancing and fancy-footing all over some pathetic non-answer to a simple question. Because you either don't want to answer the question or because you CAN'T answer the question - in a way that you know will keep you out of trouble with the most potential voters, that is. Don't just say "well, we'll have to leave it there" (because I have a list of questions I wanna get to on this-here piece of paper, and since he's not gonna answer me, I'm gonna be nice and move on to some other subject. Maybe that will keep giving me ACCESS!!!!!!!!). STAY ON IT AND NAIL HIM. Or else make THAT the story - that he just doesn't wanna tell the truth, his real feelings, he's trying to weasel out of answering this simple but key question. THAT becomes the story. And it did.

[leftieNanner]

9. That Rachel interview was EPIC!

Rand Paul is a complete fraud. A failure. A self-certified idiot! AKA - perfect for the Republicans. But he won't get very far in the primaries.

[napi21]

12. OH YEAH. He also blamed Rachel for underhanded questions for WEEKS

after that. It's well known that he will NEVER appear on HER show again.

[irisblue]

16. likely where he got his fear of women reporters

[calimary]

18. I strongly suspect this is what started it. She wasn't gonna take the talking points.

And she wouldn't give up on the question, either. Exhausted the entire 14-minute segment I think it was - trying to get a simple answer to that question of hers. And she wouldn't give up. She wouldn't move on and cut him a break. And he wouldn't give her a straight answer. He didn't have ANY answer that didn't convolute around itself like a mad drunken pretzel. He didn't have ANY answer that didn't in one way or other sound hypocritical, that didn't in one way or another completely undermine another assertion he was making in his flimsy attempt to tap-dance his way out of the hot seat. What he said did NOT make any sense, and did NOT fit any logic. Did not flow with the reality. Nothing. Total bullshit. As it dragged on, he just kept talking his way deeper and deeper into a hole. So THAT became the story. He couldn't make it fit because it WOULDN'T fit. She just exposed his shit like nobody's business.

[Duppers]

4. Bash is on her game today...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026494106

[AnAzulTexas]

5. don't get too optimistic

not only about cnn, but the rest of the lot

[calimary]

11. Welcome to DU, AnAzulTexas!

Good to have you with us! You're SPOT-ON. Too many reporters out there, male as well as female, are just fawning stenographers. They don't DARE wanna lose their precious frickin' ACCESS. And why should they even care? When that was the big problem during the run-up to the Iraq War, when ALL YOU HAD on the air were war-pushers and war-advocates and war-apologists. Virtually NOBODY from the other side got airtime or face time or very many column inches in the papers or opinion sections. For fear all that juicy wonderful four-star big-name ACCESS would be yanked away from them. Oh boo hoo. No more access to the liars and deceivers and cheaters and agenda monsters. Oh man, sure don't wanna be un-invited to all those chichi Georgetown cocktail parties, do we?

And it seems to me that when that happened, THAT became the story. And that SHOULD HAVE been the story. It wasn't as though we didn't have all kinds of people trying to push the anti-war message and all the evidence against it, who could have populated all those chat shows and panel discussions and Sunday "Meet the Press" type affairs. We DID. There were legions of them. Powerful writers, many with marquee names. Big celebrities. Famous faces from the movies and TV, and from government service and academia and research and think tanks and even some from the military.

And the media passed on it. Just lemming'd their way along, panting at the heels of wolfowitz and rummy and cheney, fawning and bowing and scraping. It was nauseating. Kelly Wallace used to be out there on CNN all the time - actually through some of the Clinton years, too, taking all her talking points and suggested "questions" from RNC faxes and talking all the time about "BOTH sides..." "BOTH sides..." "BOTH sides..." Used to make me wanna tear my hair!

[Gothmog]

7. Rand Paul is not suited for a Presidential campaign

The man is too thin skinned to do well

[gregcrawford]

8. Hey Gothmog!

Take a quick peek at my new 'toon in Good Reads called "Petulant Child!"

[calimary]

19. That is one SWEET cartoon!

Sums up the Kentucky Pipsqueak perfectly - down to the Brillo pad on the top of his head.

[LittleBlue]

10. He won't be the nominee and the media know it. It's a smokescreen

They're setting the table for a more "moderate" corporatist like they did for Rmoney in 2012 with Herman Cain and co. My guess is Bush.

Then the media can portray the Bush family as "reasonable, moderate, centrist" by comparison because Paul is a whackjob.

[onethatcares]

13. my guess

bush the third and rubio.

I'm gonna check the vegas odds on this in just a minute

[LittleBlue]

14. Yep. The media can say Republicans aren't racist

cuz Bush and Rubio are Hispanic

[onethatcares]

15. I was thinking along the same lines and

marco has that "educated" look about him and that will be pushed.

time to gear up

[calimary]

20. Oh no. That "educated" look belongs to former governor OOOPS!

He's wearing eyeglasses all the time now, if you'll notice. I'm sure he hopes one result of that, besides perhaps being able to see better and not fiddling with contact lenses (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here - maybe he really does need glasses), it will make him seem smart. Give him that nerdy egghead look. And after that whole "Ooops" thing, he could use some help there. He always comes off like an overgrown five-year-old.

[lastlib]

17. "Bush the Turd"

(oh, wait, that's ALL of 'em!)

[marym625]

21. It's a surprise, for sure

But I suspect it is actually an agenda to further a certain candidate for the republicans.