The two sides of Hillary Rodham Clinton -- the opposites that make her potential presidential candidacy such a gamble -- came into sharp focus Tuesday morning at the National Press Club.
For the better part of an hour, the senator from New York held forth in a disquisition on energy policy that was as overwhelming in its detail as it was ambitious in its reach.
But the buzz in the room was not about her speech -- or her striking appearance in a lemon-yellow pantsuit -- but about the lengthy analysis of the state of her marriage to Bill Clinton that was on the front page of that morning's New York Times.
The article, by Patrick Healy, was anything but unsympathetic. It touched only lightly on the former president's friendship with Canadian politician Belinda Stronach. It documented that despite their busy separate schedules, the Clintons had managed to spend two-thirds of their weekends together during the past 18 months.
The closing anecdote concerned a December fundraiser where Clinton praised his wife and bestowed a kiss on her forehead, after which she recalled their 30 years together and said, "I'm so grateful to you, Bill."
But for all the delicacy of the treatment, the very fact that the Times had sent a reporter out to interview 50 people about the state of the Clintons' marriage and placed the story on the top of Page One was a clear signal -- if any was needed -- that the drama of the Clintons' personal life would be a hot topic if she runs for president.
You know, if Broder is truly the dean of Washington political pundits, as he is frequently billed, then perhaps he should step up and assumed a more distinguished mantle, and decry this tabloid nonsense. It was bad enough that the "legitimate" media got sidetracked into this crap when times were good; it is absolutely unacceptable now. This nation no longer has the luxury of lending attention to this busybody bullshit.
Whether or not Healy's stupid profile was "unsympathetic" is irrelevant; it could have been a glowing encomium of the Clintons' marriage and it would not matter one bit. Nobody with half a brain gives two shits about "the drama of the Clintons' personal life", and anyone who professes such an interest should immediately be reminded of what a moron they are. That goes double for members of the SCLM.
Enough is enough. This is no longer acceptable, and both the Times and the Post need to fucking grow up already. Then again, this is the true role of the corporate media -- the elites talking to each other, while the peons look in and wonder what the hell.
2 comments:
at one time i thought that ann coulter's wistful imagining of the new york times' offices being plane-bombed instead of the world trade center was the hallmark of a new, stupider breed of american fascism. just a few short years later, i find myself gagging on the notion that the pustulent harridan may actually [uck] have been on to something.
better still, may they lose enough readers that they get sold off to the same parent company that prints the supermarket tabloids they so aspire to be.
Yep. I think my real beef with the SCLM is their high-minded pretense. If they want to be the Weekly World News and hit us with Batboy updates, or be People magazine and regale us with Brangelina nonsense, then fine, do that.
But they need to decide, once and for all, which they want to be. They can no longer have it both ways, much as they'd like to.
Post a Comment