Part 3—"What, us worry?" career liberal pundits declare: Will Candidate Clinton beat Candidate Trump if they square off in November?
We don't feel certain about that at all. Among a wide array of concerns, consider one line from Patrick Healy's news report in yesterday's New York Times.
As we noted yesterday, Healy described the types of attacks on Candidate Clinton which are likely to come from Candidate Trump. The New York Times headline says this:
"Little Is Off Limits as Donald Trump Plans Attacks on Hillary Clinton’s Character"
Almost surely, that is true. But will attacks of the type in question gain purchase?
We can't answer that question. Along the way, though, we were concerned when Healy tossed off the highlighted statement:
HEALY (5/17/16): Mrs. Clinton has often flourished in the wake of boorish behavior: her husband’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth W. Starr’s investigation of her husband, the congressional impeachment proceedings. Women rallied to her side during her 2000 Senate race after her Republican opponent, Representative Rick A. Lazio, invaded her personal space during one debate, and they helped her win the 2008 New Hampshire primary shortly after Barack Obama dismissively said she was “likable enough.”Say what? "People close to the Clintons have said Hillary Clinton was involved in efforts to discredit the women" involved in her husband's (alleged) affairs?
Yet Mr. Trump said he was determined not to fall into those traps.
In a telephone interview, he noted that women did not like seeing Mrs. Clinton insulted or bullied by men. He said he wanted to be more strategic, by calling into question Mrs. Clinton’s judgment in her reaction to Mr. Clinton’s affairs—people close to the couple have said she was involved in efforts to discredit the women—and in her response to crises like Benghazi.
Which people close to the Clintons have said this? Which women is Candidate Clinton said to have "discredited," presumably in the type of vile way which could help Candidate Trump?
Yesterday morning, we were reading Healy's report in hard copy. We rushed back to our sprawling campus, eager to check the inevitable link which would help us see who and what Healy was talking about.
Alas! In its on-line form, Healy's report features a panoply of links, designed to shed light on a variety of subjects. But there is no link to help us know what Healy meant by that highlighted statement, a factual claim the journalist made in his own glorious voice.
Which people close to the Clintons have said these things about Candidate Clinton? What were they talking about? There's no way to know from Healy's report. But in a remarkably casual way, he dropped that highly unflattering claim into the current Trump mix.
Alas! As Candidate Trump assembles his attacks on Clinton's character, he has twenty-four years of demonology on which he can draw.
Some of that demonology has come from forces on the right. But a lot of that demonology has come from the New York Times, and from the Washington Post.
Last Monday, we watched Anderson Cooper hem and haw and chew his nails as reams of this demonology were spewed all over his "cable news" air. The recitations came from the ardent Kayleigh McEnany, along with a cast of thousands.
For details, see yesterday's report.
In fairness to Cooper, he's been busy creating the current two-hour movie about his enthralling relationship with his famous mother. We stumbled upon it two Fridays ago when it aired on CNN "with limited commercial interruption." We were amazed by its length, and by the glorious cable star's degree of self-involvement.
It's also possible that Cooper has been prepping for his appearance on last night's Jeopardy. According to published reports, it produced a highly spirited contest, a contest he lost to fellow celebrity Lara Logan.
At any rate, Cooper seemed completely unprepared for the profusion of claims which spewed forth from the true-believing McEnany last Monday night—from his panel's unofficial supporter of Trump, who was seconded by the official Trump spokesman in Cooper's balanced group.
Simple story: there's a profusion of demonology on which Candidate Trump can draw! There's also a profusion of people like Cooper and Healy who will perhaps be less than meticulous in the ways they handle these charges, assertions, fairy tales, dreams, inventions and claims.
There are very few Paul Begalas, who actually provided the actual facts about one of McEnany's demonological claims that night. Within the next week, we'll help you see how inane some of her other claims were, which doesn't mean that her heartfelt claims weren't also convincingly ardent.
Preview! McEnany's claim about Hillary Clinton's mistreatment of Juanita Broaddrick was highly inane that night. But alas! The befuddled Cooper seemed disinclined to police the demonology his "cable news" program was spewing.
Cooper has played it this way for a very long time, as have many others. As he does, the liberal world sits and stares.
Dearest darlings! Cooper is Gloria Vanderbilt's son! Beyond that, he's a "made man" cable news god. Within the guild, you simply don't notice, or complain, about the way his glorious "cable news" program is run.
Within the guild, it isn't done! That said, let's get down to brass tacks:
At some point, Candidate Trump is going to start spewing stories, stories of a type many people have heard for the past twenty-four years.
Some of these demonological tales have come from "the right-wing noise machine." But many of these demon tales have come from the New York Times.
Cooper isn't going to challenge the Times, and our corporate liberal stars aren't going to challenge Cooper. In our view, this is one of several obvious concerns as we look to November.
(Other concerns: How many people in the thrall of Candidate Sanders or Black Lives Matter will take a walk on Clinton this year? This isn't a question about the validity of those movements' global concerns. It's a question about who is going to win the November election.)
For ourselves, we aren't sure about November at all. In our view, it's possible that Candidate Clinton will end up winning big. We think it's also possible that the demonized hopeful will lose.
In the face of that possibility, what are our top liberal pundits now saying? "What, us worry?" we keep thinking we hear them declare.
Tomorrow, we'll look at our latest liberal predictions, some of which strike us as strikingly clueless. We'll also look at the denigrations we liberals reliably churn as we stumble ahead in our usual feckless manner.
Tomorrow: Encountered in this link from Drum:
"Clinton has been the target of more oppo research over 30 years than Jack the Ripper, with trivial results."