Collins and Chozick start up: We’ll admit it. We can’t quite believe that Hillary Clinton could win in 2016.
We’re not saying she can’t win, since she certainly can. We’re saying we have our nagging doubts.
If you watch MSNBC, you’re being propagandized differently. A few weeks ago, the children filled your heads with sugarplums about how far Clinton is ahead of leading Republicans.
Joy Reid pleasured us rubes while guest hosting at Hardball. We were struck by how small Clinton’s margins were:
REID (4/16/14): We’ve got new polling on possible presidential matchups for 2016. Let’s check the Hardball scoreboard.Other GOP hopefuls were farther behind.
According to a new McClatchy/Marist poll, Hillary Clinton leads Paul Ryan nationally by 8 points. It’s Clinton 51, Ryan 44. No other Republican is even within single digits. New Jersey governor Chris Christie trails by 11 points. It’s Clinton 53, Christie 42.
Despite the cheerful propaganda, those margins didn’t look huge to us. In the spring of 1999, Gore trailed Bush in national polls by as many as twenty points. He ended up winning the popular vote. Early margins can change.
We’re not saying Clinton can’t win, since she certainly can. On the other hand, the natives may be getting restless. We noticed two examples today.
First, Gail Collins enjoyed some standard snark in the New York Times:
COLLINS (5/1/14): A million dollars will get you Jeb Bush’s advice. Also, it will buy a visit from Hillary Clinton. Four, in fact—she gets around $250,000 per appearance. When someone in the audience threw a shoe at her recently, she was speaking at the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries.Collins indulged two favorite themes: (1) snobbishness about her lessers, including the déclassé types in the (gasp) scrap recycling trade. (Don't miss her typical closing line about pols who hail from “East Cupcake.”)
Hillary dodged the stiletto with quite a bit of dexterity and grace. But you had to ask: Why is this woman giving a paid talk to the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries? The Clintons came out of the White House with very little cash, but there’s got to be a point when you stop making up for lost time.
(2) She also pushed the pleasing notion that Bill and Hillary are shameless money-grubbers.
Our view? The pundits could return to their Clinton-hating in roughly no seconds flat. And please understand—they’re happy to invent fictional themes around which they build our elections.
We were reminded of this impulse when we read the Times front page, where Amy Chozick was playing the snide about the way Clinton and Clinton are famous tools of big money.
Alas! These people have invented so many silly tales down through the years that they may have trouble keeping them straight. Late in her piece, Chozick offered this recollection:
CHOZICK (5/1/14): If she runs in 2016, Mrs. Clinton would confront the inequality issue from a very different place than her husband did in 1992, when he made $35,000 a year as governor of Arkansas. Back then, Mr. Clinton seemed to have a natural connection to people of modest means while his opponent, the elder President George Bush, struggled to say how much a gallon of milk cost.Snarking nicely, Chozick remembered the way President Bush was the out-of-touch royal back then, much the way Hillary Clinton might be this time around.
In 1992, President Bush wasn’t even sure how much a gallon of milk cost! Chozick pleasured Times readers with the recollection.
That said, did it actually happen?
Journalists love to torment selected pols with the old price-of-milk-and-eggs question. Candidates Tsongas and Quayle were hit with the question from voters in early 1992. Candidate Clinton handled the question in October 1992.
In 1996, the question and its crazed aftermath may have cost Lamar Alexander the GOP nomination. For a recollection, click here.
It’s just that we can’t remember Candidate Bush being hit with the famous old price-of-milk question in 1992. Nor do the Nexis archives seem to record such an incident.
(We do find this BBC piece saying that Bush was hit with this question during one of that year’s debates. But we find no sign in the transcripts that this actually happened.)
Whatever! The mainstream “press corps” simply loves these utterly silly frameworks. They love to invent and employ such frameworks to advance their own dimwitted views of our election choices.
We know of no election where they misbehaved as much as they did during Campaign 2000, when they spent two years inventing “lies” by Candidate Gore. But if you think these petulant beings couldn’t turn against Hillary Clinton again, we think you’re out of touch with life as it’s lived on this planet.
Lady Collins was snarking today about the Clintons’ love of big bucks. Offering a slightly dark warning, Chozick remembered something which may or may not have occurred.
These hopeless life forms are charter members in the world’s most irresponsible guild. We’re giving Reid and her channel’s propaganda machine this early emergency warning.