Last week, much of the political bloggysphere was
ranting about discussing the NY Times’ erroneous reporting which claimed Hillary Clinton was the subject of a request for a criminal inquiry into her email practices while she was secretary of state (and that was before Maureen Dowd’s Sunday ghoulish op-ed column–no, I’m not linking to it).
What’s really sad about this and other supposed scandals is, despite the political press corps’ belief that they reveal something about Clinton (or other candidates), they deny attention to other stories that would suggest how candidates would govern. Consider Obama: during his first presidential campaign, Republicans floated two talking points that the political press corps slurped up. First, he was accused of being part of a Chicago machine, which was supposed to imply that he was corrupt, perhaps even mobbed up (like, let’s say, Donald Trump). In that case, Obama’s career in Chicago, namely his ties to the Pritzker family and their causes, would have told you a lot, both about his education policy and his antipathy towards labor (the Pritzker family built the Hyatt hotel chain, and that chain has had lots of labor issues–which didn’t stop Obama from nominating her to be Commerce Secretary). The other Republican vomitus that was lapped up was the whole Indonesian thing. There were good questions to be asked there, but instead we got the whole Muslimanian Marxist thing.
There are important stories about Clinton that are also being neglected. Someone might want to commit some journalism and ask why, as she claims to stand with Black Lives Matter, two of her biggest campaign contribution bundlers are lobbyists for the prison-industrial complex. Or maybe she should be asked why she’s out of step with her party on deficit reduction and possibly Social Security.
Those might be germane to how she would govern. But the de facto editorial board of the Republican Party isn’t smart enough to point you at those stories. Might be a lesson in there for the NY Times.