Hillary Clinton has no right to complain that her friends and flatterers in the media are rough on her. But when the Clintons hit rough passages on the road to victory, this is what the Clintons do: complain. That's too meek: They whine.
But she obviously feels wronged by the news media when her polls begin to slip and she looks at her Barack Obama's worshipful press clips. In fairy-tale terms, Obama is Snow White and Hillary is the vain and wicked queen peering into the mirror and demanding to know, "Who is the fairest one ofall?"
She can easily come to a boil over Time's Obama cover on the Dec. 10 issue, where Obama stands in a heroic pose with arms folded, surrounded by a glow that makes him look like a saintly icon. She can wince as he's cast as both a greater force for idealism and target of discrimination while she's merely part of "machine" politics. On ABC, morning anchor Chris "Son of Mario" Cuomo asked Obama, "What do you think the bigger obstacle is for you in becoming president, the Clinton campaign machine or America's inherent racism?"
In other words, America doesn't deserve glowing Saint Barack -- unless, of course, we all vote for him to demonstrate eagerly and apologetically that we reject our inherent prejudices. But this is where we go back to the underlying silliness of Hillary's whining that any Democrat would complain that they face a fierce media stuffed with Cuomos, Russerts, Stephanopouloses and other former Democratic aides and family members.
Hillary's complain of a harsh media microscope appeared in The Washington Post on Dec. 19. Media reporter Howard Kurtz used Time editor-at-large Mark Halperin to act as Hillary's unofficial press secretary. "She's just held to a different standard in every respect," sulked Halperin. "The press rooted for Obama to go negative, and when he did, he was applauded. When she does it, it's treated as this huge violation of propriety." While Clinton's mistakes deserve full coverage, Halperin says, "the press's flaws -- wild swings, accentuating the negative -- are magnified 50 times when it comes to her. It's not a level playing field."
When conservatives make a case for media bias to a liberal, it's important (in fact, it's absolutely imperative) that they deliver factual evidence examples -- quotes, studies, surveys, you name it. (And it's never enough in the eyes of the press.) But if you're a liberal, particularly a liberal in the media, and you want to accuse the press of tacking left, it's acceptable just to pull wild figures out of the air. Her flaws are "magnified 50 times"? What media outlet is he following? Or is he reading someone else's talking points?