I know there aren't a lot of Hillary fans here, and I myself don't really want to see her run for president because I don't think she can win and yet, by running, she could potentially ruin a stronger candidate's chances of getting the Democratic nomination. However, I think most people here will agree with the sentiment expressed in the excerpts below from a recent, and excellent, Media Matters essay (some excerpts from which were already posted in a diary a couple of weeks ago). And if you agree with Media Matters' sentiments, I think you'll also agree that a blog of the kind I describe below has no place on one of the most influential, supposedly liberal sites in the blogosphere -- namely, The Huffington Post.
First, the excerpts from Media Matters:
The New York Times -- the same newspaper that couldn't be bothered to report a single word about new evidence suggesting that George W. Bush possessed insider information when he dumped his Harken stock -- this week devoted 2,000 words and a portion of its front page to examining the state of the Clintons' marriage, tallying the days they spend together and rehashing long-forgotten baseless tabloid rumors of a relationship between former President Bill Clinton and Canadian politician Belinda Stronach.
Rather than ignore or denounce the Times' decision to interview 50 people for a story about the Clintons' private lives, the Washington media elite embraced it, turning the pages of the nation's most influential newspapers into glorified supermarket tabloids. And television, predictably, was worse.
The Washington Post's David Broder -- the "dean" of the nation's political journalists -- quickly jumped in, suggesting that the Times might have explored the purported Clinton-Stronach relationship in greater detail and declaring the Clintons' private lives a "hot topic" if Sen. Clinton runs for president. As Media Matters detailed, Broder has previously argued that journalists delve too far into the private lives of political figures. [snip] But Broder apparently no longer cares about the damage done to the credibility of the press; not when there is ransacking of personal histories to be done. He and his fellow Serious Journalists leapt in feet-first, gleefully speculating about the state of the Clinton marriage, all the while pretending their obsessive focus is something other than puerile window-peering.
We do not endorse the decision by The New York Times and David Broder and Tim Russert to take the Globe's lead. We don't endorse their decision to focus on Hillary Clinton's marriage rather than her energy policy. We don't endorse media figures deciding for the rest of us that private lives, rather than public policy, should and will be the "hot topic" of the next presidential election. We think that is childish, irresponsible, and foolish.
But as things currently stand, it's something else: It's grossly unfair. There seems to be one set of rules the media uses in covering the Clintons...and another for conservatives.
We've previously denounced "sexual innuendo" about political figures and the "frivolity" of questions about politicians' personal lives. We've argued that the media focuses far too much on these matters, at the expense of serious issues. Put simply, we don't think personal lives are the business of anybody but the people involved. [end of Media Matters excerpts]
If you agree with the above, then I think you'll agree also that a recent blog that The Huffington Post saw fit to put on its front page should never have been published -- especially on a supposedly liberal site. I stumbled across the blog yesterday. The blog is by Russell Shaw and is entitled, "For Hillary, Everything Is A Political Calculation." If you didn't know better, the title alone would make you think you were on Instapundit.com or Michelle Malkin's site; but it gets much worse.
Here are the most incendiary excerpts:
"On Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton released a new guide for parents. The guide gives parents tips on how to keep their kids safe online, ensure the video games they play and the tv they watch are appropriate.
"The fact that there's games, content and tv shows that are inappropriate for children is not in dispute. But to me, the timing of this report's release - and the reasons she released this report - should not be in dispute either.
"That's because from her marriage to her support for the Iraq war to this latest do-goodism, Hillary has always been about political calculation."
Yes, you read that right. A supposed liberal blogger, on a supposed liberal site, wrote that everything in Hillary Clinton's life, including her marriage, is all about political calculation. Set aside the fact that, true or not, this is just an ugly thing to say about someone -- especially someone who is supposedly on the same "side" as you -- set that aside and instead consider how utterly baseless such an allegation necessarily is. There is no possible way anyone except the most intimate friends and relatives of Hillary Clinton's could POSSIBLY know -- or even reasonably SPECULATE about -- something like this. But that doesn't keep Shaw from saying it. And, much more importantly, IT DIDN'T KEEP THE HUFFINGTON POST FROM PUTTING IT ON THEIR FRONT PAGE!
Some more excerpts:
"I can envision the momentum for this report coming from a meeting between Hillary and her political consultants and pollsters. Pollsters who advised Hillary that she needed an issue to appeal to families with young children. A demographic, incidentally, that tilted rather noticeably toward the Republicans in 2004.
"What better way to approach these folks than to tell them you have information that will keep their children away from all the shoot-em-up video games with explosions and blood, the tv shows that depict a male character's face in simulated ecstasy while with a woman who is not his wife, the fact that maybe you shouldn't indicate the name of your elementary school on MySpace?"
Notice what the writer of this despicable piece does here. He apparently has no basis for his claim that Clinton's report is motivated purely by politics, so what does he do? He "envisions" a basis. He "envisions" the report coming from a meeting between Clinton and pollsters. He "envisions" the pollsters advising her that she needed to appeal to families with young children. And he gets a lot of mileage out of such wholly imaginary scenarios -- two full paragraphs, in fact -- all of it based on nothing but the imaginings of his own fevered brain.
And there's more:
"Then, there's the whole matter of her marriage. True, the parameters of her marriage really is no one's business, but she had to have known, or at least sense, of the times Bill has cheated on her - if indeed all the cheating has ceased. I mean, the meth-taking biker broad with the tenth grade education can tell when her husband's been cheating. Did not Hillary know, but stick with Bill because early on she figured he was brilliant, and it was better to stick with him than be a divorcee running for office in Arkansas, Illinois, New York - or nationally?
"Do you sense a pattern here?"
Yeah, I sense a pattern alright. The pattern is Russell Shaw doesn't like Hillary Clinton and wants to say something negative about her. But he doesn't have any basis to do so, so he just wildly speculates and mind-reads about things he has no way of knowing anything about, questioning her motives about everything in her life -- public and private. And can you believe he says this? Go ahead and try, just TRY to believe he says this: "the parameters of her marriage really is no one's business."
Can you believe it? He says her marriage is no one's business -- AND THEN HE IMMEDIATELY STICKS HIS LITTLE SPECULATIVE, VOYEURISTIC NOSE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT!!
This type of baseless hate-mongering is the very thing the Right does all the time. It's bad enough we have to put up with it from them, but when it comes from our own "side" it is all the more outrageous and should not be tolerated. If we are going to take issue with the Right when they say stuff like this, we should be even more vigilant about shouting it down when one of our own does so -- and when one our major blogs publishes it!
I think it is absolutely intolerable that Arianna Huffington and the other editors at The Huffington Post put this on one of the most highly visited and influential liberal sites in the blogosphere. Can you imagine the Right engaging in a personal attack like this against a major Republican figure? Can you imagine, say, Sean Hannity accusing Bill Frist's marriage of being a total sham, based purely on political calculation? It would never happen. We should show at least as much decency and solidarity as they do.
So, I wrote an angry critique of Shaw's blog and The Huffington Post and tried posting it in the comments section, and get this: a site that will post such a reprehensible blog as the one above, CENSORED my critique. I tried posting it Saturday afternoon and it never showed up.
So I sent an even angrier e-mail to Huff. Post and said "Fuck You." We liberals/Dems should not be "eating our own" -- especially in such a hateful and personal way.
(Actually, IMO, baseless speculation on a political site about ANYONE'S personal life like this -- whatever the person's politics -- should not be tolerated.)
If, like me, you were among the people outraged over the recent comments in the mainstream press (New York Times, Washington Post, Hardball, etc.) about the Clintons' marriage, and think this kind of thing should stop, please drop The Huffington Post a note and let them know how you feel. You can go to HuffingtonPost.com and scroll down to the very bottom where you'll find a "Contact Us" link. Thanks.