The media is failing to observe one of its ground rules in coverage of the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Writers are taught that a dog biting a man, or a woman, is not news.
Yet Jeb Bush and other would-be presidents who want to send us back to war in Iraq are treated like they are the Clinton Avengers. Wait until Hillary bites them _ that will be news.
On the other there were exaggerated reports of a guaranteed Clinton victory that could be compared to a premature ejaculation.
The New York Times said: “Hillary Clinton, whose widely expected presidential bid was announced on Sunday, enters the fray with a better chance to win without a serious contest than any of her predecessors.” That would only be true if the definition of predecessor was a woman like Hillary who had been First Lady and Secretary of State and so on. There never has been one. If predecessor meant any presidential candidate it would be Titanic-like hubris by the writers and their editors.
Will the opposition campaign be built on Clinton’s emails? Talk about something people hate and will sign up for numerous programs to vet them, or just not read them.
Will it be based on President Obama’s legacy, a dramatically improving economy, a dead Osama Bin Laden, and affordable health care, if only for a fraction more than had any at all.
Political writers are predicting Clinton will focus on the ever-expanding rate of income inequality. Franklin Roosevelt proved that the rich can care for the poor and middle class, making the argument of the Clinton’s wealth not necessarily potent.
Few major candidates are not wealthy.
Perhaps the most accurate coverage came on Saturday Night Live the night before she announced. It showed her as a U.S. version of Britain’s “Iron Lady,” also a grandmother, and another lady “not for turning.”
Obama said, "I think she would make an excellent president."