The Hillary Clinton juggernaut likes to try to run over every new threat, especially the ones it can call "old news." Every new book on her life, personal and political, is dismissed as "old news" -- unless the person retelling and reshaping the "old news" is Hillary. Her recounting of her life is minty-fresh. Every other book smells like a reopened casket.
Whenever -- if ever -- authors of Hillary books are introduced by the national media, the tone of the interviews focuses in on Hillary's talking point: "Why should anyone care?" From the start, the message is that these books belong in the garbage can, not in the library. The books that have come out this year have provided interesting new material that should in some way shape the media's understanding of Hillary. Yet, even liberals like Carl Bernstein or The New York Times duo of Jeff Gerth and Don van Natta have seen their books presented not as "news" but as pernicious attempts to change Hillary's narrative.
How is it that the wife of an impeached president, the policy architect of a 1,300-page left-wing health-care fiasco, and the document-shredding stonewaller of a welter of scandals can turn her controversial career and bizarre First Marriage into assets and not liabilities?
How is that Team Clinton, disgraced and disgraceful, is back for another presidential run?
Credit the national "news" media.
My colleague Tim Graham and I have spent a couple of years reviewing all of the national media's framing and promotion of Hillary Rodham Clinton since her national debut in 1992. Their often-gushy and gooey treatment of her political life and ethical fiascos can be summed up in one word (and one book): "Whitewash."
They are the stereotype of the aggressive watchdog, except the media elite are baring their teeth and growling and barking at conservative critics of Hillary -- while rolling over and playing the slobbery pooch for her. They have downplayed or ignored her every scandal, bizarrely suggesting to the public that they should hold her in high esteem for her honesty and integrity. A Time reporter just called her a "moral conservative." They have taken her stark black-and-white voting record that scores 95 percent or 100 percent rankings from liberal interest groups and implausibly painted it into a landscape of soft and comforting centrist pastels.
Clinton Loses The Washington Post: "Use of Private E-mail Shows Poor Regard For Public Trust" | Katie Pavlich