By Dave Andrusko
This is the last post of the week and I am taking the liberty of talking about 2016 presidential politics. If this sounds outlandishly premature, please remember that we are less than five and a half weeks away from the mid-term elections after which we will read a gabillion articles about who is up and who is down.
Every political reporter obsesses on the minutiae, looking for the slightest clue that would provide new insight into a candidate, or at least a reason to revisit him or her. That’s why the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza’s excuse for writing about Hillary and Bill Clinton is built into the headline: “The Clinton team is following reporters to the bathroom. Here’s why that matters.”
What would you think he is talking about and why would it matter? Exactly what most of our readers came up with: some low level munchkin followed a reporter into a bathroom to keep tabs on her lest she wander off somewhere the Clintons would rather she not be or talk to an unapproved source. Cillizza writes
“Yes, this may be an extreme example. And, yes, the press strictures at the Clinton Global Initiative [where this took place] are the stuff of legend. But, the episode also reflects the dark and, frankly, paranoid view the Clintons have toward the national media. Put simply: Neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton likes the media or, increasingly, sees any positive use for them.”
Cillizza talks about the ill-starred history of Hillary Clinton’s encounters with the press. He focuses on her ill-fated 2008 run for her party’s presidential nomination which she lost to an obscure U.S. Senator from Illinois who went on to win the first of two terms as President.
“[A]ny objective analysis of the 2008 primary campaign would conclude that the remarkably adversarial relationship between the Clinton campaign and the media hurt her chances. To be clear: The media and its relationship with Clinton was far from determinative in the nomination fight. Barack Obama’s superior understanding of delegate allocation was the determining factor. But, it’s hard to deny that the friction between Clinton, her campaign and the media didn’t help.”
His point was that the Clintons promised to do better this time around, but “The early returns on those pledges don’t look promising.”
It’s just one column so Cillizza couldn’t cover everything. But it would have been helpful to provide a word or two about Mrs. Clinton’s god-awful rollout of her new book in which she described how she and Bill left the White House as poor as church mice.
The Clintons are to arrogance what Planned Parenthood is to abortion. They don’t suffer fools gladly and just about everybody who is not attached to them, body and soul, qualifies.
Hillary Clinton believes she has been treated very unfairly by the “political press.” She believes that is partly because they are not the sharpest knives in the drawer (as opposed to, say, the reporters who covered her when she was Secretary of State). With that kind of condescension layered over paranoia, it’s difficult to imagine coverage would be as universally adulatory as Clinton believes she deserves.
But having said that, in the final analysis, her disputes with the political press are “all in the family.” While they may test her patience, even hit her fairly hard on occasion, they will never do to “one of their own” what they have and will do to any Republican who wins the GOP presidential nomination, let alone to any pro-life Republican.
“Those people” are fair game and no attack is far enough below the belt to be disqualified.
So, Clintonian complaints aside, media bias against the pro-life Republican standard-bearer is as predictable as spring rains. It’s up to us, using our ever-growing social media network, to make sure the truth gets out.