“Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton.”
Attributed as Greener's Law
As someone who has said I will vote for whomever the Democratic Party nominates, I want to say something. I know what I am going to say may piss off a lot of Clinton supporters.
I know about Clinton Derangement Syndrome. I understand why her campaign is trying very hard to control the campaign message. Richard Mellon Scaife
is the man who started the very lucrative industry of creating Clinton Conspiracies.
He was a major underwriter of the American Spectator magazine’s Arkansas Project to find evidence of financial and personal misdeeds by the Clintons in the 1990s. The effort included David Brock’s magazine story containing allegations from four Arkansas state troopers that they helped procure women for then-Gov. Bill Clinton.
Brock said he was suspicious of the troopers’ stories but supported their publication anyway, once telling The Washington Post, “I did what was politically useful. [Clinton] was a Democrat, therefore he was a target.”
Having said that, it is understandable that there is a Clinton PAC led by David Brock to coordinate controlling that message
It's not a bad idea to have this, considering our 24/7 social media driven environment that makes 2008 look Luddite in comparison. Perhaps every candidate should have a fact-checking site to correct the record.
Anyway, getting back to my point, SoS Clinton is probably the most qualified candidate we have running for president. She is vetted and people recognize her name. She has overcome scandal and trials and tribulations. Right or wrong, she is a strong capable person.
Yet, partially for the reasons listed above, she does not trust the press. The press itself is not happy about that
Journalist Joan Walsh has a different (and more sympathetic, perhaps) take
The grievances discussed at the private gathering, which was held at the Los Angeles Times/Tribune Washington offices, go beyond Clinton’s unwillingness so far to substantively engage with the press, a topic that has already been discussed publicly on cable news and social media. Attendees of the meeting, who were not authorized by their news organizations to speak on the record, charge the Clinton campaign with keeping an excessively tight grip on information, even when it comes to logistical details that don't seem particularly sensitive or revelatory.
Among the problems discussed were the campaign's failure to provide adequate notice prior to events, the lack of a clear standard for whether fundraisers are open or closed press and the reflexive tendency to opt to speak anonymously. The complaints mirror concerns that a number of political journalists have also raised in recent conversations with The Huffington Post.
While the White House Correspondents' Association has worked for greater media access for over a century and elects representatives to present the group's concerns to the administration, there isn't any comparable, established body working on behalf of the campaign press. Monday's meeting, which included about 17 journalists from outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, Time and McClatchy, was an attempt not only to discuss such concerns, but eventually to present them to the campaign in a unified way.
of this particular meeting that is causing much consternation.
Media covering the media’s complaints about the way media is treated; what could be more Beltway-centric inside baseball? But as long as people are writing about it, it’s clear the briefing scandal illuminates the increasingly toxic relationship between the press and the Clintons. So I’ll share what I saw, since now the event has become news in itself.
Let me shock you up front: I actually came away from it marginally more sympathetic to the Clinton beat reporters than before I went in. Essentially, they’re a bunch of people trying to do their jobs. Some are well-paid and pampered; many are not. A lot of reporters had schlepped up from a Clinton event in South Carolina earlier that day. They carried luggage and laptop bags and looked tired and bedraggled, resentful at having a command event scheduled that afternoon but unwilling to miss it. What if it did break news?
...I could see the very different styles of individual “senior campaign officials,” and learn who suffers fools, or questions they consider foolish, better than others – although Harwood’s right, I can’t tell you about them specifically, by name.
The Clinton folks, for their part, stayed relentlessly on message – which is their job — but I learned some interesting things anyway. I saw the way they’re determined to frame Clinton as laser-focused on the four early primary and caucus states – Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. She doesn’t take anything for granted, they said many times. Sure, that’s become a cliché. But there was a rueful joke about how, this time around, they’re paying attention to the actual delegates who will pick the nominee. It would be funnier if I could put it in direct quotes, but it was salty, and it acknowledged the 2008 campaign’s many stumbles when it came to actually winning delegates, especially in caucus states.
Here is Harwood's
article that Walsh referred to. It's titled: How's Hillary doing? Wish we could tell you
Her last campaign was managed terribly. Even Clinton has come to terms with that. It's understandable that she wants to have things go differently this time. Treating a press corp — many who may not have been born when her husband was president -- like the enemy is not going to help her in this campaign. This is 2015, not 2008, 1994 or 1998. She is still a Clinton and treating the press like it was 8 or even twenty years ago is problematic in my personal opinion. I know we are early in the campaign process, so I understand not answering every question at every public or private appearance. I know that she might be gun shy, but I don't think seeing things like this are going to help her in this campaign
. That's not the press out to get her, this image came from her campaign:
I don't think Hilary Clinton can run as a victim of the press and expect sympathy when it comes to needing media coverage. One thing has never changed, politicians need to dance with the press, be it pen and ink or digital media.
I know there is a different standard when it comes to how the press treats the lunatics on the right as reasonable people (they aren't) but, I would like to believe that we are better than treating the press the way the right wing does, and for now, I am not seeing that.