Wtf?!? Now the premise of this piece, that Hillary Clinton very well might win the nomination and that somehow that'll get decided by Kentucky shows that Eleanor Clift knows just as little about national politics as ever (and yet for some reason Newsweek's chosen to keep her in its employ for decades). And that she likes to fawn over the likes of destructive, but "debonair", right-wingers as Tony Blankley is similarly old hat. But beyond that - what's this piece about? That they hold grudges and that they'll hold big ones against much of the party and the media is not exactly an earth-shattering bit of "news". Now if Clift had actually decided to write on the policy implications of this, that'd be interesting. How would a President Clinton deal with Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy as president, and how would that affect such a presidency? That might actually tell her readers something useful. But to spend a whole column on vindicitiveness and grudges and comparing the Clintons to mobsters ... I'm no Hillary Clinton fan, but even I don't really see any value added to the national debate by that. Really it simply looks lazy - like she picked up some column from 15 years ago, changed the names (the targets of the Clintons' grudges), and published it as something provocative.
Posted by armand at April 26, 2008 04:40 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Media | PoliticsWithout commenting on Clift, I do think the general spirit of vindictiveness, dishonesty, and backstabbing that surrounds Clan Clinton deserves wider media play and discussion, because it's sure as bloody hell how she/they are going to govern.
Posted by: jacflash at April 26, 2008 05:03 PM | PERMALINKWell, that's the thing - why don't people actually write that story, the how it's going to affect how she'd govern story? B/c that'd really be meaningful and news. Much more so than simply point-out backstabbing and never engaging the political implications of it.
Posted by: Armand at April 26, 2008 05:12 PM | PERMALINKat this point, i'd like to know why the media, following pennsylvania, is painting this as a fair / close fight. how did we forget that the story hasn't changed in terms of delegates from the week before the pa. primary when the media seemed to be acknowledging that only a full blown insurrection of party insiders could net her the nom? the story's the same, but the coverage has seriously changed, and even the times has drunk the kool-aid, as every inch of its coverage in today's paper made abundantly clear.
she can't win. she can steal, or hijack. but she can't win, in any proper, democratic sense of that word. and that's an objective fact at this point that should never be omitted from the coverage.
at least it sounds close in indiana. obama needs to win the next two outright. and if that doesn't shut her down, then we know, well, what we already know. so depressing.
Posted by: moon at April 26, 2008 05:36 PM | PERMALINKArmand: because the major media figures who are in a position to do a story like that don't want to get hit by the career-limiting backstabbing/vindictiveness/etc if she manages to get herself elected?