Hillary used as bait to vilify Republicans?
Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she was running for president took no one by surprise. As has come to be expected, the liberal media not only rejoiced, but rapidly unleashed its plan to protect her from scrutiny and criticism.
Three weeks after the announcement of her campaign, it was fairly obvious to see through the biased actions of the liberal media. The pattern is simple enough to be clearly identifiable: turn any statement made by any GOP candidate into an artifact of vilification.
Can’t say anything against Hillary!
The National Review recently ran a piece titled “Snarking Hillary Clinton Is Not the Way to the White House,” yet attacking and destroying the integrity of any GOP candidate seems to be just the thing.
“Bashing Hillary is only going to make the Republican Party look mean-spirited and snarky. It’s no road to the White House,” writes Larry Kudrow. The current Clinton scandals are being used as “bait” to get the GOP candidates to comment and criticize on. Yet, as soon as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul or Jeb Bush open their mouth, the media undoubtedly will jump on them calling the criticism unfair, unbalance and, at worst, “sexist.”
Liberal bias evident
The first concrete evidence of liberal bias in favor of Hillary Clinton came the day after her campaign announcement when GOP candidate Marco Rubio (who had also entered the race the same day as Hillary) went on nearly every network news show to answer questions on an “exclusive one-on-one” format. Similarly, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul have given “exclusive one-on-one” interviews. Even Jeb Bush, who is yet to officially announce he is running, has given interviews outlining his stance on issues such as immigration reform and the economy.
Three weeks after her announcement, Hillary Clinton has not yet answered a single question about her stance on issues or her campaign. This coming Monday, May 4, 2015, former President Bill Clinton, is scheduled to go on NBC Today show for an “exclusive one-on-one” interview with Matt Lauer.
There is no doubt that Bill Clinton will be acting as a shield to answer questions about the Clinton Foundation funding controversy. Tactically speaking, this works wonders for Hillary. Bill Clinton is known for his charisma, for his talent to turn a question around on its own substance and subject and making it the question he wants to answer, not the question you asked. Again, this is a brilliant move by the Hillary Clinton campaign, and NBC is all too ready to oblige.
Why is Hillary Clinton not sitting down with outlets such as NBC, ABC, CBS or MSNBC where she is adored and protected? The truth is Hillary Clinton’s campaign has taken a page right out of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. The closer Barack Obama inched toward the inevitable nomination for the Democratic Party, the rarer his interviews in personal, intimate “one-on-one” settings became.
A novelty- riding the crest of Obama’s wave
Valerie Jarrett admitted that part of the strategy was to keep Obama “protected” from the media, saying as little as possible on any specific issue. How did Obama then get elected (and reelected)? The liberal media and the “novelty” of the first African-American president are fairly good notions to take as reasons for his success.
Similarly, Hillary Clinton is riding the wave of “novelty” all the way to the White House, as she declared on March 3, 2015 while speaking at the “Emily’s List” convention, “Don’t you someday want to see a woman president?” With the liberal media not pressing Hillary Clinton to go on “exclusive one-on-one” interviews, the Clinton campaign’s adaptation of the Jarrett/Obama model on how to get to the White House seems almost complete.
Scandals galore- superficial coverage
The electronic mail/private server debacle and the Clinton Foundation funding controversy have been superficially covered by the media. All the coverage done by NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC and MSNBC has been on a micro-managed level, indicating perhaps a “talking-points” Clinton-sourced flow of details.
By comparison, the “Bridge-gate” scandal in New Jersey was reported on vastly, and continues to be brought up as recently as May 1, 2015. Those same aforementioned networks had “continuing coverage” on “Bridge-gate” for over two weeks, with NBC Nightly News leading the way (covering it as the lead story on 8 out of 12 days the news item was in the headlines).
Detractors would no doubt point to the fact that the networks have covered both Clinton’s scandals and questions have repeatedly been asked about the issues surrounding them. The fault, of course, is not in the coverage but in the substance of that coverage. Would a GOP candidate get the same treatment if he/she had destroyed information subpoenaed by Congress?
Instead, the liberal media’s “battle cry” became the fact that “she had broken no laws, as other Secretaries of State have used personal e-mail accounts prior to the rules being changed.” In addition, they were quick to point out how Jeb Bush also used a personal e-mail account while governor of Florida.
Putting the facts quietly away
No one gets to decide what information to turn in when subpoenaed by a Federal or State level judicial institution; no one, of course, unless you are a Clinton. If one of the central issues of the Clinton campaign is gender (social, professional and economic) equality, one would have expected the media to cover Hillary Clinton’s stance on her foundation receiving donations from Saudi Arabia and other countries where women’s rights are non-existent. Nevertheless, the issue was superficially brought up, not pressed in inquiry to Hillary Clinton personally, and eventually put quietly away by the media.
She’s not being held accountable
Without the pressure of an “exclusive one-on-one” interview on the horizon, Hillary Clinton can go fund-raising for her campaign with the goal of a billion dollars in one month and not be held accountable to the inconsistency of her message.
If “economic inequality” is in fact the central issue of her campaign, how would she be able to reconcile that in her message to the voters? Yet the liberal inconsistency allows for such transgressions; campaign money from the Koch brothers is “Satan’s gold,” but contributions from George Soros, Harvey Weinstein, Warren Buffet, or the entire corporate staff of Google are as ‘clean and pure’ as all liberal intentions.
The terrifying thought of another Clinton in the WH
It is down-right frightening to see this biased pattern by the media and not be troubled at the very real possibility of another Clinton in the White House. It is, in fact, the perfect plan—to take and interpret any criticism of Hillary Clinton as a personal attack with misogynist undertones is certainly a sure way to win the presidency.
This is how the liberal media is using Hillary Clinton as “bait.” Just like with Barack Obama, say a word in opposition and you face the wrath of a media intent on building his legacy for him. If the GOP has any chance of gaining the White House in 2016, this liberal media bias needs to be exposed—not just reprimanded but exposed and fought at every turn.
If we fail to do this, we might as well start printing White House letterhead with Hillary Clinton’s name already on it.