As the American political system negotiated its way through Richard Clarke Week, there is one overarching political lesson: The national media monolith manufactures the "news" any way it desires, a crude daily sculpting of political Silly Putty. It can make someone a household name. It can leave someone utterly unknown in Idaho.
Richard Clarke Week was the latest widget of propaganda from the liberal-media assembly line, designed with an extremely partisan purpose -- destroying whatever polling advantage George W. Bush enjoys on protecting the nation from terrorism.
Ask this question: If this previously obscure Richard Clarke had come out with a book in March of 2000 arguing that the Clinton administration was soft on terrorism, would he have received a similar parade of encomiums (and soon, honorariums)? Would his remarks have been received as a refreshingly independent voice raising serious questions that must be seriously answered by a negligent President Clinton?
Answer: No stinking way.
Why not? Because the liberal-media establishment, starting with the New York publishing houses and then trickling onward to the networks and national print kings, never had any interest in books that could prove damaging to President Clinton. Richard Clarke couldn?t count on "60 Minutes" or Simon & Schuster to make him a millionaire back then. (Simon & Schuster is well-known as the long-time publishing home of Hillary Clinton, as well as James Carville.)
Any Clinton administration insider who pondered a tell-all book knew that the probable reception at the end of the tunnel was at worst, complete obscurity with all your bridges burned. At best, you?d get a serious media beating as a disloyal snake, with all your bridges burned.
The exception to this rule was George Stephanopoulos, but he was far too famous to be relegated to obscurity when his memoir "All Too Human" came out in March of 1999. If his long stint as a paid liar for President Clinton hadn?t made him famous, ABC News certainly had already invested several years into making him "Objective" News Man. But he still was hammered as a disloyal fink. In her interview, Katie Couric suggested he was "creepy," a "Linda Tripp type," who was betraying those people who made him, which is "sorta gross."
Clinton Foundation: Oh, We Made Additional $12-26 Million From Speeches Given By the Former First Family | Matt Vespa