Supplemental: People don’t know how the press corps works!

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2014

But then, we never tell them: On September 25, the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza discussed an important topic.

He discussed the relationship between Hillary Clinton and the national press. This could become an important topic if Clinton runs for president, and especially if she becomes the Democratic nominee.

In truth, Cillizza discussed the attitudes of Clinton World more than he discussed the attitude of his own guild. He was quite frank about all the hate directed at him and his kind.

As he started, Cillizza described “the dark and, frankly, paranoid view the Clintons have toward the national media.

“Put simply: Neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton likes the media or, increasingly, sees any positive use for them,” the scribe paranoiacally said.

Soon after, Cillizza described “a candidate and an operation that always assumes the worst of the press horde and acts accordingly.”

“The Clintons have as dim a view of the political press as any modern politicians,” he gloomily said as he closed. “So you can imagine what a Clinton 2016 campaign will think of those tasked with covering it.”

In Cillizza’s view, Clinton and Clinton pretty much hate the mainstream press. But in accordance with his guild’s heavily mandated codes of silence, he had little to say about what the press corps thinks of the Clintons.

At one point, he did refer to “the remarkably adversarial relationship between the Clinton campaign and the media” during the 2008 campaign. He also said this:

“Regardless of who was to blame, by the end of the campaign, reporters—including me—and the Clinton operation were at each others’ throats daily and often more than daily.”

In those passages, he did cop to adversarial relations. But in our view, he made it sound like the Clinton operation was much more at fault than the press.

In truth, the insider press corps has behaved in egregious ways, down through the decades, toward both Clintons and toward Al Gore. In Campaign 2000, they waged a twenty-month against Candidate Gore. Their conduct in Campaign 2008 was often egregious toward Candidate Clinton.

There's some horrible history there. But for various reasons, many voters have no idea that any such conduct or any such animus has ever existed.

Why are people so clueless? Easy! The press corps never discusses its own attitudes or its own behavior. And major liberals have played along with the press corps’ code of silence with regard to this long, low-grade war.

This leaves many voters utterly clueless about the lay of the land. As an example of this cluelessness, you need only scroll through the comments to Cillizza’s self-pitying post.

Some commenters did allude to the press corps’ long war against the Clintons and Gore. But good lord! Many more wrote from the imaginary realm of Liberal Biasylvania:

COMMENT: Most of the media wants Hillary to succeed and win the presidency. They relish the opportunity to once again help to create an historic first, this time the first female president.

COMMENT: The Clintons don't need you any more. But you guys will support them anyway, you'll lick their boots again regardless of what they do to you or the country. And the best part is that the Clintons know it!

COMMENT: Hillary is a liar and a money-grubber and defended her husband while he was sexually assaulting women. And thanks to the mainstream media, she'll probably be the next president.

COMMENT: Chris Cillizza will be in the tank for Hillary, in any event, because a rigid extremist Left philosophy contaminates and putrefies his columns. As if he'd divert for a second from the approved, official Democrat Party narrative.

COMMENT: These fools in the newsfotainment media have absolutely no problem with the Clinton "team’s" Soviet-style tactics. In fact, they'll even vote for them, fools they are.

COMMENT: The press will still blindly support Hillary so what difference does it make?

COMMENT: The media will carry water for the Clintons long past the time when the Clintons have use for the media.

COMMENT: Is this story an effort to convince the "masses" that liberal media will not be in Clinton's corner? Feeble effort, but some people might buy into that.

COMMENT: This part is a hoot: “Her distaste for and apprehension of a rapacious, shallow and sometimes outright sexist national political press corps acting as enablers for her enemies on the right.” Yep, those sexist MSM press corps people that are so anxious to enable the right. That's right up there with her "vast right wing conspiracy" meme as a real knee slapper.

COMMENT: The Clintons don't like the media or see any use for them? Who do you think you are kidding? The media are 100% Clinton propaganda drones.

COMMENT: For a long time now the media has allowed cretins like Bill and Hillary, Barry, the Gores, and the rest of the Democratic cabal to control the message. The media is so far in the tank, has abandoned even the perception of independent investigative journalism.

COMMENT: The media will fawn all over a Hillary candidacy, forgetting all the abuses and restrictions of the current administration and the past history with Hillary.

COMMENT: And when the time comes if it not already here, the WaPo will carry the water for the Clintons. It's as predictable as the sun rising…They don't call WaPo “Pravda on the Potomac” for nuttin'.

COMMENT: How the woman Clinton treats the press now is but the iceberg tip of what she will do once her coronation happens. You leftist fools will never grasp what tools you are to her in your slavish sycophancy.

COMMENT: This is a bizarre story. The press and the left are practically living together. Whatever "disagreements" they may have are petty and trivial, not substantive.

COMMENT: "Put simply: Neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton likes the media or, increasingly, sees any positive use for them.” Yet you, the media, will do everything possible to get her elected.

COMMENT: But none of you in the establishment media is going to challenge them. Are you?

COMMENT: “The remarkably adversarial relationship” between Clinton and the media? Come on, Washington Post, don't make me laugh. You carry her bags, fluff her and her pillows at night.

COMMENT: I really doubt that there is any meaningful friction, unless intended of course, between the Clintons and any WaPo or NYT reporters. More like a kooky love affair.

It’s easy to dismiss these commenters, and quite a few others, as dim-witted ditto-head wing-nuts.

In our view, these commenters seem to be totally clueless about the antagonisms which have roiled the insider press corps over the past quarter century. But this must also be said:

These people are repeating the things they constantly hear from Rush and from Fox. They’ve never heard the truth about these matters because our liberal “leaders” have persistently agreed not to state it.

Darlings, it simply isn’t done! It’s terribly bad for careers!

Back in 1996, our liberal leaders buried Fools for Scandal. For fifteen years, they’ve refused to discuss the war against Candidate Gore. They won’t discuss the horrible conduct exhibited by many media stars during Campaign 2008. Some of the biggest misogynists from that campaign are now our exalted leaders!

Our side has never told the public the truth. We then sit back and roll our eyes at how little the public knows!

“What a bunch of wing nuts,” we say. What instinctive losers we are!