Site Meter

Friday, May 02, 2014

A Ten Minute Hate of Chait

Jon Chait wrote a post entitled "Why the Clintons Can’t Handle the Media". He concedes that "It is probably true that the Clintons have suffered more than most at the hands of vacuous pack journalism. " but presents evidence that the Clintons suffer from a "pathology". I hereby quote all of the evidence which he presents 1. "“Look, she hates you. Period,” a Clintonite tells Thrush and Haberman. “That’s never going to change.”" 2."Those of us who remember the 1990s recall that Clinton used to elaborately desconstruct the psyche of Howell Raines, then–New York Times editor. Clinton believed that Raines somehow resented him as a fellow white Southerner who had succeeded." 3. "Former Clinton adviser Philippe Reines ...(Reines responded to questions from BuzzFeed like so: “Thank you for the opportunity to answer BuLLfeed’s inane questions. I typically don’t respond to BuLLfeed inquiries, but given the extra special inanity BuLLfeed put into today’s inquiry, I’ve answered each of BuLLfeed’s inane questions with as much specificity as possible.”)" In my enraged comment, I didn't respond to his point 2 . I think that Reines's pathological hatred of Clinton is obvious to anyone familiar with the case. In any case, Chait doesn't provide an alternative explanation for Raines's conduct or, for that matter, discuss it at all.

My comment.

You base your conclusion on one quote of an anonymous source and on something rude which someone named "Reines" wrote. Let me check. Hmm an R is not a C. Furthermore an "e" is not an "l". It seems to me that you have drawn a conclusion about "Clintons" based on the behavior of someone who is not a Clinton.

Note you identify Reines as a *former* aid. Hillary is responsible for every e-mail written by anyone who ever worked for her.

She may or may not be paranoid, but if this post were read by anyone unfamiliar with the Clintons that person would undoubtably conclude that you are out to get her.

I seriously propose that you replace the name of the Clintons with say the names of the Obamas. Then read it as an essay which purports to look at the evidence related tot he question of why the Obamas can't handle the press. I think your own post will seem absurdly unrair to you if it is detached from the assumption that everyone knows that the Clintons can't handle the press. I stress again, the evidence you present consists entirely of a quotation of one former aid who doesn't even work for them any more.

I think you are incapable of thinking rationally about the relationship of the Clintons and the press. I think that an open minded assessment is inconsistent with being a top journalist in good standing. The conduct of the press was so dishonest that it can't be even considered without the assumption that simple descriptions of the events of the 90s are paranoid fantasies.

Again and tiresomely I beg you to try to read this post with an open mind and consider whether you would ever take anything this Chait guy writes seriously given the gross contempt for journalistic standards, open mindedness, rationality and sanity which is obvious who doesn't assume that, when there is conflict between Clintons and the press, the Clintons must by definition be in the wrong.


São Canhões? Sabem mesmo a manteiga... said...

clinton's? press? old definitions in a berlusconi world

carthago delenda est...

the new carthago dont have clinton's or obamas but some yellow ones oh marco polo

lag phase lag not log... said...

► 2013 (156)

► 2012 (334)

► 2011 (202)

► 2010 (260)

► 2009 (301)

► 2008 (502)

► 2007 (593)

► 2006 (359)

► 2005 (482)

► 2004 (547