Hillary’s Hostility
In the days of the Clinton War Room, they were known for attacking relentlessly anything that caught their attention. Make no mistakes about it: alot of reports caught their attention. If you thought that the 1992 campaign tried manipulating the press, I just have one word of caution: You ain’t seen nothing yet. Here’s how TNR’s Michael Crowley describes Hillary’s War Room:
On June 1, The New York Times published a front-page article titled, ONE PLACE WHERE OBAMA GOES ELBOW TO ELBOW. The feature detailed Barack Obama’s love for pickup basketball, his jersey-tugging style, even the time he hit a long game-winning shot after getting fouled.
The Obama camp clearly welcomed the humanizing glimpse at Obama’s life; his rivals, probably not so much. In an ordinary campaign, that might have been it. But this is no ordinary campaign, not when Hillary Clinton is a candidate. And so, the Clinton team let Times reporter Patrick Healy, who covers the Hillary beat, know about their “annoyance” with the story, as Healy later put it.
If grumbling about a basketball story seems excessive, it’s also typical of the Clinton media machine. Reporters who have covered the hyper-vigilant campaign say that no detail or editorial spin is too minor to draw a rebuke. Even seasoned political journalists describe reporting on Hillary as a torturous experience. Though few dare offer specifics for the record, “They’re too smart,” one furtively confides. “They’ll figure out who I am”, privately, they recount excruciating battles to secure basic facts. Innocent queries are met with deep suspicion. Only surgically precise questioning yields relevant answers. Hillary’s aides don’t hesitate to use access as a blunt instrument, as when they killed off a negative GQ story on the campaign by threatening to stop cooperating with a separate Bill Clinton story the magazine had in the works. Reporters’ jabs and errors are long remembered, and no hour is too odd for an angry phone call. Clinton aides are especially swift to bypass reporters and complain to top editors. “They’re frightening!” says one reporter who has covered Clinton. “They don’t see [reporting] as a healthy part of the process. They view this as a ruthless kill-or-be-killed game.”
Isn’t it time that we told Mrs. Clinton that We The People demand straight talk from her? Isn’t it time that We The People demanded that she answer questions directly? Isn’t it time that We The People said that we wouldn’t tolerate her attempt to speak out of both sides of her mouth?
The answer to those questions is an emphatic yes. It’s time…let me rephrase…it’s long past time to tell Sen. Clinton that she needs to play by We The People’s rules. It’s long past time to tell Sen. Clinton that We The People set the parameters for what we want to know. It’s long past time to tell Sen. Clinton that she doesn’t set the parameters for what she’ll reveal about her beliefs.
Simply put, there’ll be hell to pay if she won’t start telling us what we want to know.
The Clintons have set the rules of engagement for far too long. If Hillary won’t give us straight answers, especially on things as important as issuing drivers licenses, then she can’t earn our trust.
Here’s the most important question for voters to answer: Why vote for someone who refuses to tell us what she believes?
Technorati Tags: Hillary, Bill Clinton, Clinton War Room, Media, We The People, Media Maipulation, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
November 12th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
As opposed to, say, a nutjob who can’t be bothered to tell us much of anything about his positions, as current CalCon boy-toy Frederick of Hollywood? Or, would it be Rudy, what’s your position on _________ (fill in the blank) is, “9/11, on that fateful day, blah, blah, blah…”? Or, perhaps it’s Mittens who is spending tens of millions of his own money trying to explain away his bizarre religious beliefs?
And you’re flummoxed by nuance.
Not that it would matter; I doubt anyone who spends so much time trying to debunk all things liberal and progressive would vote for Hillary, anyway.
The interesting topic here is that the Clintons are being called out, once again, on defending themselves against the republican slime machine. Speaking too broadly, and the machine slimes her as “speak[ing] out of both sides of her mouth”; seek too specific of information, and she’s met with “Only surgically precise questioning yields relevant answers.” Wow. What a surprise. Which is it? Is Hillary too general, or too vague?
Here’s a reason to vote for Hillary: she can manipulate the story successfully, and repeatedly. You’ve certainly proved that point, or is it just coincidence that 3 out of today’s 6 posts were about Hillary?
November 13th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Rocky, Gary is beating around the bush.
Hillary is a bit of a bitch. She’s abrasive and polarizing. That’s baggage she left the White House with, and baggage she’s gong to bring back in.
Much as I dislike Bill’s politics, the guy is an astute shmoozer. Thats meant as a compliment. He can read the public, and he knows enough to go their way when he needs to, and how do do it in a way that doesn’t compromise his end goals. Does the name Reagan ring a bell here? He could tell you to go to hell and make it seem like a nice trip. Bill the same ability in a different way. Hillary could tell me the same thing and Id go just get away from her!
Hillary sure as hell isn’t Reagan, and she’s not even another Bill.
She couldn’t sell the last financial disaster she tried with health care and she’d have another hard time with his one that would burn up whatever good will she might have from the git go.