Although not as much of a groupie as Mark, I’m an Obama supporter. So theoretically, I should have no problem with the press attacks on Clinton. But I do. And Chris Matthews encapsulated why on Morning Joe:
Asked why he believed Clinton had gone negative, Matthews again struck an antagonistic chord about the campaign’s media operation.
“The kneecapping hasn’t worked. Her press relations are lousy,” he said. “If all you do is intimidate and punish and claim you’ll get even relentlessly, people of all kinds of politicians — and in all fairness, the press — human reaction to intimidation is screw you. That’s the human reaction. Don’t tell me what to say, and that has been their whole policy. We’re going to win this thing. Get out of the way.”
Let’s go over this very slowly, Chris:
1) You make a very large salary and have massive influence. Your job is report the news and offer thoughtful analysis, not to distort someone’s record, make strange accusations about her marriage, carry on with sexist comments, and develop man-crushes on John McCain. You’re a professional: act like one.
2) For any member of the press, which has consistently rolled over during 8 years of Bush Administration abuse, to claim that their hatred of Hillary is based on her media people, is just laughable. I’ve heard Ari Fleischer called many things, but warm and fuzzy are not two of them.
It’s fine to hate Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, Mandy Grunwald etc., but that’s no excuse for the press not to do its job. And it certainly doesn’t explain their bizarre hatred of all things Clinton.
Author: Jonathan Zasloff
Jonathan Zasloff teaches Torts, Land Use, Environmental Law, Comparative Urban Planning Law, Legal History, and Public Policy Clinic - Land Use, the Environment and Local Government. He grew up and still lives in the San Fernando Valley, about which he remains immensely proud (to the mystification of his friends and colleagues). After graduating from Yale Law School, and while clerking for a federal appeals court judge in Boston, he decided to return to Los Angeles shortly after the January 1994 Northridge earthquake, reasoning that he would gladly risk tremors in order to avoid the average New England wind chill temperature of negative 55 degrees.
Professor Zasloff has a keen interest in world politics; he holds a PhD in the history of American foreign policy from Harvard and an M.Phil. in International Relations from Cambridge University. Much of his recent work concerns the influence of lawyers and legalism in US external relations, and has published articles on these subjects in the New York University Law Review and the Yale Law Journal. More generally, his recent interests focus on the response of public institutions to social problems, and the role of ideology in framing policy responses.
Professor Zasloff has long been active in state and local politics and policy. He recently co-authored an article discussing the relationship of Proposition 13 (California's landmark tax limitation initiative) and school finance reform, and served for several years as a senior policy advisor to the Speaker of California Assembly. His practice background reflects these interests: for two years, he represented welfare recipients attempting to obtain child care benefits and microbusinesses in low income areas. He then practiced for two more years at one of Los Angeles' leading public interest environmental and land use firms, challenging poorly planned development and working to expand the network of the city's urban park system. He currently serves as a member of the boards of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (a state agency charged with purchasing and protecting open space), the Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice (the leading legal service firm for low-income clients in east Los Angeles), and Friends of Israel's Environment. Professor Zasloff's other major activity consists in explaining the Triangle Offense to his very patient wife, Kathy.
View all posts by Jonathan Zasloff