Clinton Sleaze Tests the Liberal Press

The term “defining moment” is overused, but it seems appropriate to describe the news media’s quandary over what to do about Hillary Clinton. Will the Fourth Estate further its traditional role as watchdog and guardian of democracy by calling on her to abandon her quest for the White House? Or will they instead give Hillary a free pass, bending to the grandiose political ambitions of a woman whose dishonesty, hypocrisy and ethical lapses would be egregious even in comparison to the corruption of Tammany Hall?

We can quibble about whether Hillary’s accomplishments qualify her for the presidency, but how much scandal should it take to disqualify her? The New York Times, more than any other newspaper, will have to decide, since the Times is a crucial lever of liberal political power in America. The Grey Lady would surely prefer a liberal in the White House over virtually any Republican. But will Clinton sleaze prove too repugnant, even, for the left-tilting editors and owners of the Times? Whatever evolves, it will not be possible for the Times to straddle the fence, since they have been out front in reporting on the many scandals that have engulfed Hillary in recent weeks. Indeed, Times reporters have crossed a wide ideological divide lately, appearing on Fox News to help get the story out.

NYT Op-Ed Ignores Story

In stark contrast, the Times’ editorial page has barely taken notice of Hillary’s troubles. On Sunday, while Fox News was devoting an entire day to the stench emanating from the Clinton Foundation, the Times op-ed page trotted out liberal mouthpiece Albert Hunt to lecture candidates from both parties about the role of money and politics in 2016. How long will the Times continue to embarrass itself by withholding its editorial voice on the matter of Hillary? We shall see. But if the Times reporters who have been appearing on Fox have any courage, they’ll lay siege to their own editorial office until the higher-ups acknowledge the political story of the year.

  • Benjamin April 30, 2015, 5:01 am

    “But if the Times reporters who have been appearing on Fox have any courage, they’ll lay siege to their own editorial office until the higher-ups acknowledge the political story of the year.”

    Eunuchs can’t be unclipped, so I don’t think they’ll be doing that. While they probably won’t give the witch a pass, the NYT can keep playing their game of “Hillary who? Oh, right… her”. Neither a pass nor an endorsement. Besides, they need to save up their energy so they can go non-stop on the republican candidate, once the race shows the first sign of really taking off.

    But it doesn’t matter. This country is already done for. If that isn’t enough, Obama is going to stick around DC after he’s done! Since it could murder 10,000,000 babies on live TV without the media breathing one word about it, it’ll get away with acting as defacto president. Even if it doesn’t, there’s still the year and a half more of that [long string of swear words!].

  • Wayne April 29, 2015, 4:09 am

    Your title, “Clinton Sleaze Tests the Liberal Press” says it all really.

    I cannot believe that they have so far successfully buried and suppressed the uranium stock deal that this administration oversaw which gave Russian a 25% stake and control over strategic assets recently! Of course the Clintons were instrumental in the deal and were compensated for it. Just to show what pathetic glitterbugs they are and how cheap these whores are bought for, I believe BJ Clinton received a few million in speech money from the Russian capitalists involved for exchange for the facilitation of turning over our national security and independence.

    I am not sure I can stand 4 years of the lizard woman in office. :/

  • Jason S April 28, 2015, 4:37 pm

    I am not affiliated with either party because they are both corrupt and in favor of bigger government, regulation and less personal responsibility and freedom. But SRV’s comments signal that he is delusional, completely irrational. You can’t reason or debate with that. The only thing you can do is isolate it or destroy it. Irrationality is becoming a growing cancer in our society.

    &&&&&&

    The debate has become irrational because the stakes are so high. The country is just one left-tilting Supreme Court Justice from becoming unlivable. RA

  • SRV April 27, 2015, 9:28 pm

    Been beating on Hillary since the day she was the assumed front runner Rick (and the rest of the RW echo chamber)… but, other than accusations, not a shred of fact based evidence.

    You’re doing your “pay for play” model a disservice Rick… why would I pay good money to take advice from a Fox News loving RW nut job.

    Just sayin’

    &&&&&&

    You have no problem whatsoever with Hillary, and I’M the nut-job!? Now that’s funny! Beyond funny — Hinckley/Daumer/Son-of-Sam-crazy, actually — is your ‘not a shred of evidence’ defense. As to why anyone would pay good money for my service, thanks for asking. Here’s an actual post from “Warren” in my chat room this morning, 11:45 a.m.:

    “I also took the [GOLD] trade by buying JNUG this morning 3000 shares. Just sold for 5K profit. Paid this month’s mortgage on my house. Thanks Rick.”

    RA

  • John Jay April 27, 2015, 6:17 am

    Hillary seems to be a candidate for a Psychiatric Ward, very erratic behavior.
    She may not pan out this time around.

    And, I will engage in a little bit of Political Speculation here and say that, with the favorable MSM coverage Rand Paul is getting so far, it is a pretty good bet that he has already sold us out.

    Anyone not talking a Constitutional Convention to address getting the money out of Politics once and for all is either misguided or part of the problem.

    I do not see anyone in the lineup of POTUS candidates that is interested in Restoring the Republic.
    Not even a little bit.
    Not at all.