Just the adjectives give it away. Hillary's Twitter launch on April 12 was received with words like "sleek," "savvy," "trending," "electrifying," and "approachable" She was packaged by the press exactly as she wanted it: a humble "champion of everyday Americans."
Compare that to the Ted Cruz launch on March 23. These words framed the introduction: "scary," "dangerous," "slimy," "firebrand," "rigid," "uncompromising," "hardline," "extremist," "flamethrower."
Media elites identify their own ultraliberal spot on the political spectrum when they choose to ascribe labels to candidates and causes. Most Republicans are routinely identified as "conservative," which is fair, and often presented as radical beyond belief, which is predictable. But Hillary is almost never identified as "liberal." Instead, journalists point out that she's been pressed to sound notes of "fiery populism" (read: socialism) to attract "more progressive" Democrats who admire Elizabeth Warren.
Let's not forget: In the first six months of 2007, the CBS and NBC evening news shows offered zero liberal labels for Barack Obama. ABC mustered one.
How about the issues? While ABC insisted Ted Cruz was extreme, favoring "no abortions, no gun control," there was no mention of Hillary's comparably "rigid" or "hardline" views on those issues. What abortion has Hillary Clinton ever found distasteful? She is no different than Obama or most Democratic leaders who support any abortion at any time for any reason.
There has been no focus by the networks on Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz proclaiming (in response to a Rand Paul dare) that there were zero abortion restrictions she favored. "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
That's exactly where Hillary stands, a 100-percent supporter of the abortion industry. And like so many pro-aborts they're dishonest. They want government involved -- paying the bills. She could have kicked off her campaign at Planned Parenthood.
Where's the beef? The pro-Hillary media are also betraying their bias by including almost no mention of her scandals since her announcement. Scandals are presented as merely something the Republicans will try to exploit -- implying that journalists have no interest in government ethics or, for that matter, investigative reporting. The Clinton era was marked by the "news" media's refusal to get to the bottom of a single Clinton scandal. Why change now?
They've all promoted her road trip to Iowa as a charming tour to meet those "everyday Americans," never noting that she's failing to grant interviews or hold press conferences. While her opponents subject themselves to hostile interviews with liberal networks, Hillary demonstrates she's still a raging egomaniac seeking to be coronated by stiff-arming any and all questions the press might have.
Instead, the pro-Hillary media explain that all this "humble" activity makes so much sense. As USA Today's Susan Page said on CBS, "Clearly, Hillary Clinton doesn't need to do a big rally in order to get our attention, right. We do nothing but pay attention to Hillary Clinton." Any strategy she attempts is all right with them. They'll sell her in any way she wants.
The media also avoid any focus on Hillary's startling lack of accomplishments in her public life, unless they cite something lame like her globetrotting travels as secretary of state. Her sorry handling of security at the consulate in Benghazi is largely dismissed, forgotten. They all walked away when she asked, "What difference does it make?"
As in every other modern presidential election, the Republicans will be pounded and pressed and caricatured by a hostile media. Hillary Clinton, by comparison, will have her public image carefully managed and massaged for maximum appeal. With the media, she exemplifies the phrase -- to borrow from liberal lingo about the wealthy -- "born on third base and thought she hit a triple."