MSNBC could have chosen to stay neutral, or even support a Democrat who is still in the game, but instead, the network has decided that it would back a failed politician with a habit of being wholly unlikeable.
The ongoing feud between failed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and 2020 primary candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard hasn’t slowed down ever since Clinton accused Gabbard of being a “Russian asset.” The two have exchanged fire since then, with even President Donald Trump stepping in to defend Gabbard.
Now, it would appear that the number one left-leaning cable news network is getting in on the deal as well. MSNBC has decided to step into the ring and is now running defense for Clinton.
According to Becket Adams of the Washington Examiner, contributors to the network are being given air time in order to support Clinton, but aren’t exactly offering up a cogent defense:
Embarrassingly enough, the timing and details of the Clinton vs. Gabbard feud have proven too complicated for certain NBC and MSNBC personalities to comprehend.
MSNBC contributor and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart, for example, claimed Saturday that Clinton did not “name names” when she alleged the Russians are “grooming” the Hawaii representative.
Yet, “Congresswoman Gabbard was like, ‘Me! Me! Me! Me!,'” he added, comically raising his hand like an overeager student.
Again: Clinton’s spokesman confirmed the Hawaii congresswoman was the target of the “grooming” remarks.
It’s not Capehart either. Two other contributors seem to be following the same mistaken timeline.
“When Hillary Clinton says there’s a Russian asset, doesn’t say anybody’s name, and Tulsi Gabbard goes, ‘How dare you call me a Russian asset?'” said NBC News’ Jonathan Allen.
“One thing that was interesting about Tulsi Gabbard’s response, I mean, she went after Hillary Clinton strong, she said she wasn’t going to run as a third party candidate, she never denied being a Russian asset,” said MSNBC contributor Kimberly Atkins. “That was the one aspect that was missing from her response, which you think that would be in the first line or two. It was not there.”
As my readers know, I’m not big on conspiracy theories, but I do pay attention to patterns. One MSNBC contributor mistaking the timeline would be one thing, but here we have three.
This looks more like a narrative creation than analysis.
The question is if they are creating a narrative, then why create the narrative for Clinton? She’s a useless entity in the Democratic party for all intents and purposes. Does she plan to run, or does MSNBC just have that big of a dislike of Gabbard?