Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Exactly why the Washington press clique has always had it in for Hillary Clinton has never been entirely clear. Only that their collective sneer has been the single constant in her political career ever since she and Bill Clinton descended upon the capital from darkest Arkansas more than 20 years ago.

That and her own dislike and mistrust of the press, which she makes only a perfunctory effort to hide. And boy, has she earned it.

Legend has it that Mrs. Clinton’s problems began after the arriviste First Lady turned down an invitation from Sally Quinn—wife of legendary Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee and czarina of the city’s cocktail party circuit.

Maybe so, maybe not. Then after Hillary’s husband got caught with his pants down, the Post published Quinn’s condemnation of his lowdown ways — an article so smugly righteous as to make one almost sympathize with the big dope.

“He came in here and he trashed the place, and it’s not his place,” sniffed the late David Broder, expressing “Establishment Washington’s” outrage.

Everybody pretended to forget the author’s own history as a successful Monica Lewinsky. Bradlee’s disarmingly frank autobiography tells how his and Sally Quinn’s office romance ended his previous marriage.

All hick towns work that way. Everybody knows what nobody says.

Possibly you also recall the great Whitewater “scandal,” a manufactured hoax from the get-go. The shoddy reporting was a product not of Fox News, which didn’t yet exist, but of the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News, NBC News, Time magazine, etc.

I’ve never asked, but I doubt Clinton’s forgotten the December 1995 episode when ABC’s Nightline all but accused her of perjury on the basis of a shamelessly doctored video clip. She’d actually said almost the opposite of what the clip implied. Even so, damn near every big-time Washington pundit cited the phony quote repeatedly—some to predict her forthcoming indictment.

The story’s told in Joe Conason’s and my book The Hunting of the President. Anyway, how “Establishment Washington” also works is that if the media organization falsifying the evidence outranks its critics, corrections and apologies will never come.

That’s pretty much how the U.S. ended up invading Iraq.

But let’s get back to the latest spate of Hillary gossip, shall we?

The current political situation looks like this: As long as Clinton sits tight, insisting that she hasn’t decided if she’s running for president, potential Democratic challengers are checkmated. So dominant is her lead in opinion polls that nobody else can raise money.

With the electoral map trending strongly Democratic in 2016 and Republican infighting making it appear that the party will nominate a either a right-wing crank or a non-entity masquerading as one, the presidency appears to be hers for the asking. Unless she decides not to run, which I doubt.

That may not be good for the country. But it’d be terrible for anybody selling political melodrama as infotainment. Hence the unprecedentedly early rollout of what my friend Bob Somerby calls “The Narrative” a full 29 months before the election, i.e. a media-dictated “conceptual framework through which a presidential campaign will be discussed.”

Never mind that 29 months is several eternities in politics, and that everything could turn completely upside-down by 2016. The Washington Post in particular has set the terms. As Somerby summarizes in his Daily Howler blog: “Hillary Clinton is too damn rich to be running for president!”

Following ABC’s Diane Sawyer, a celebrity journalist earning more money than LeBron James — a reported $20 million a year — the Post spent last week belaboring Bill and Hillary Clinton’s lofty income, often without doing the most basic kinds of due diligence.

“Clinton’s rarefied life could be a liability in campaign,” was the headline above Philip Rucker’s June 23 report. It expressed concern that the former Secretary of State’s Washington home is “appointed like an ambassador’s mansion.”

Which, um, is precisely what it used to be.

A few days later came “How the Clintons went from ‘dead broke’ to rich.” Rucker’s third effort complained about the “grotesque” and “obscene” amounts Hillary earns giving speeches — money which, the Post neglected to point out, most often goes directly to The Clinton Foundation, the family’s widely praised charitable endeavor.

Indeed, if you visit the organization’s website, you’ll learn that President and Secretary Clinton are currently matching all gifts, “dollar for dollar.”

Nevertheless, columnist Ruth Marcus demanded that Hillary “Just. Stop. Speaking. For. Pay.”

“You don’t need any more [money],” she explained.

If you go on TV, you can see multi-millionaire pundits — some of whom inherited their jobs from famous parents — explaining that Hillary Clinton can’t relate to somebody like you.

But did she say that she wasn’t “truly well off” with all this loot?

No, what she said was that unlike a lot of fat cats she wouldn’t name, the Clintons do pay ordinary income taxes.

AFP Photo/Brendan Smialowski

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo
  • Dominick Vila

    Contrary to what FOX News, Limbaugh, Coulter and the rest of the gang would like people to believe, the media does not like Hillary Clinton for a very simple reason: she tells it like it is. Without ambiguity and without fear of a backlash. Instead of the typical tap dancing that politicians use when they are asked the difficult or controversial questions the media loves to ask to spend weeks or months talking of potential nefarious plots, Hillary gives them straight answers that people understand and accept (with the exception of the GOP-TP, who loathes facts or the truth), leaving the media no wiggle room to invent Benghazi, IRS, and other pseudo plots.
    Having said this, let’s not forget that the only reason the GOP and the “liberal” media is after Hillary is because she is the first woman with the credentials and vision to be a viable candidate for President. If she decided not to run, and Elizabeth Warren or any other woman decided to run, they would become the new lightning rod. There may be exceptions, however. If the candidate was someone with the intellectual acumen of Sarah Palin, or a white supremacist like the Governor of Arizona, they may elicit enough support from certain groups of our population to get enough votes to come close to what Mitt Romney managed to pull off.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    The “Media” also gang up on Elizabeth Warren. Common denominator? Both are women. The women FOX News, Murdoch, Turner and the rest of the autocratic bulls like are harpies like Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Michele Malkin. THESE 4 women are adored. Why? They also “tell it like it is” (according to their narrow minded biased ideology).

    It’s two faced for the media to glorify the GOP Come Get Me Girls who can’t compare in education, intelligence or experience to women like Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or Wendy Davis.

    The media hates anything that is “Governing while Obama” and anything more liberal than the eye of a needle.

    • orrsra

      You have forgotten the GOP women that were snubbed like Rice, Palin was attacked by the media but fought back so even though I did not vote for her I respect her for standing up not crying. So to just take one side is grossly wrong. I though Barbara Jordan & Shirley Chisholm were great in my day. I do not like Hillary, Palin, Coulter, Warren or Davis for various reasons. I do respect some of these women but would not as a Democrat of 57 yrs vote for Hillary or Palin & I did not. However, I supported Hillary in 2008 until she caved. The media is slap happy for Hillary, so I believe you are over reacting The media is Left far Left, so if Hillary is bad mouthed it is because she makes asinine statements. If we want a woman for President we need to find a more Moderate one not the Extremes like Hillary or Palin. This country is too far left (Socialism) & we need someone to bring us back to the Middle. I did not vote for BO because he was Black or White but because he was too far Left. I would not vote for just any woman because she is a woman but because she was too far Left/Right. I did not see BO as a leader and I will use that same tool to measure my next vote be it man or woman. I have a wife of 57 yrs, 5 daughters & 7 granddaughters. I worked for several (6) women bosses most of whom I respect & love to this day. One of which, when she did not get a Superintendent’s position I decided to retire early in protest. America was swayed to vote Black just because it was time for a Black & since BO is B/W he got the nod. We can not make this same mistake because it is time for a woman. It is time for a LEADER Just saying, but again I respect you for standing up, My daughters were taught, that I assure you, just call one of them. I will even give you their numbers. Our next President should be a fresh face, a Governor (not Palin) because I believe in States rights. Keep up being involved in this debate America needs to educate themselves and VOTE intelligently. Thanks

      • TZToronto

        A president may be for states’ rights, but the president is the Chief Executive of the entire country and isn’t in a position to govern any one of the states. The job is to run the federal government, and the Constitution restricts what the powers of the federal government are vis-a-vis the states.
        This socialism you mention, just what is that? Are you referring to the federal income tax? Are you referring to the Affordable Care Act, which actually uses private insurers to provide care? Are you referring to the Supreme Court, which appears to be anything but socialistic? Are you referring to unemployment insurance or welfare? Just what is this socialism?

        • Dominick Vila

          For a Tea Party supporter, anything that differs from their party’s orthodoxy is automatically socialism. Lacking logical arguments, and devoid of a vision, GOP-TP members have no choice but to call progress socialism…while fighting tooth and nail to preserve Reagan’s ER government freebies.

      • charleo1

        What a liar!!!!!!!!

      • Eleanore Whitaker

        I’ve forgotten nothing in my 67 years or my 33 years as a Republican. I do recall what men in the US political savage arena did to Geraldine Ferraro for daring to run as VP.

        Now, as to your FAR LEFT BS…You are too far right. Had your CONS been allowed their way, slavery would still be the law of the land, women would still not have the right to vote, own property or make their own financial decisions.

        You bois had 235+ years in the White House. It’s time you right wingers stopped trying to control others with you behind the scenes strategies that have sabotaged 2 twice elected presidents. American women today, in case you missed it or forgot, earn 71 cents for every $! you earn and pay taxes equal to those you pay. Did you think American women will just play cute lil flowers of womanhood who back off from leadership roles after 4 decades of education, working harder and smarter than men and still not getting a fair hand?

        Sorry, if you men can’t learn that 52% of the US population is women who no longer give a fat rat’s patoot which domineering old coots of the right wing think they can impose their needle brains on the rest of us.

        • orrsra

          It is grossly unfair of you to label all men as anti women. You did not read my full statement or you chose to Ignore it. I am more of a conservative on some issues but moderate in general. I negotiated many IN teacher Contracts and worked for same pay. I negotiated higher female coaches salaries (I was assist coach under a female) I picketed the IN Democratic Convention for Eugene McCarthy as a progressive. I supported Walter & Geraldine. The press attacked her husband’s business dealings, that happens to any National candidate. She was waylaid by her fellow NY Democrats during primaries for Senate, I am not a NY lover any how. The 71 cent thing is somewhat misleading because you are wrong in most cases. I was a proponent of pay for mothers (stay at home) but never could find a good way of writing it. This old coot resents your needle brain crap as hysteria something the women I know & respect would never say about me. I have a Black son in law, an American Indian son in law & a Japanese daughter in law that I love & they have given me 5 wonderful grandchildren. If you ever watch Glee one of my female bosses is depicted as the PE teacher & one of the producers is one of my ex students. I negotiated MLK day as a Holiday in my school district before it became a State holiday. So instead of attacking this old coot you might want to get to know him before you Generalize men. I do not generalize women. Thanks for sharing your opinions/emotions, I am sorry some prick mistreated you and as I told 2 of my son in laws once when they were picking on one of my daughters “guys I have a 9mm and I will stick it up your arses if you ever mistreat her again” That’s what I would say to any man for mistreating a woman but not for refusing to vote for a woman unless it was just because she was one. I will vote for a Leader; sex/color is nothing Leadership & Positions are. Good day Mame

          • Susan Dean

            Touched a nerve, didn’t she?

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            I don’t know who you think you are fooling with your patronization. But, it’s not me. There are two types of men in this world: The bullies who are overt and the “gentlemen” who patronize covertly. Try again. I notice you ignored the reference to Geraldine Ferrara. And please..don’t try to tell me about the “women you know and respect.” Patronizing women just to make it appear you are not an emotional male supremacist doesn’t obliterate facts.

            There is NO woman who has been dragged through the mud by men in the US but Hillary Clinton. Thanks to US bullies, women avoid taking political jobs. As a former Republican for 33 years, I left when I got fed up with the so-called males who were the ONLY voice ever heard at party meetings.

          • charleo1

            Exactly! Thanks for calling this fraud out for what he is! He comes on here, and just assumes everyone is as gullible as the bi-racial Grandkids he claims to have. And can’t name a single politician he endorses that gives a wit about the equal pay he claims to have
            lobbied so earnestly promoting. Thinks BO and HC are these flaming Liberals. But names no one that best fits his self described, “moderatism.” Thinks
            G. Ferraro was unfairly maligned over her husband’s
            business doings, then has no problem smearing Hillary over the actions of her husband. Forgetting in
            the next post what he had written in the last. The thing about the truth being, if one is telling it, they don’t need a good memory.

          • orrsra

            You and EW are meant for each other, closed minded, uninformed and negative. Thanks I will pray for you.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            With a mind like yours, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would have chewed you up and spit you out. Pray for yourself. You are the one who needs a Novena to the Patron Saint of Contrarians.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            The worst nightmare for the most narrow minds in the US is when others call it as they see it. Your vision and what you see in front of your face cannot be denied. This is where their problems begin. They want to twist and contort what you know you see and hear.

            If that isn’t an attempt at mind control, I don’t know how much closer it has to come.

            Not all men in the US are narrow minded, patently control freaks or unmitigated greedheads out for themselves and ONLY themselves.

            But, enough of them are today to represent an inherent psychosis of the real quest: mind control of others. If this is not true, you’d have to figure out why they become so militant, belligerent and insistent only THEY have all the answers.

            Which wouldn’t be so bad if those answers were of any benefit to the nation as a whole. But, their objective isn’t the nation as a whole. It’s inwardly self-directed.

            This is why the growing number of women in politics represents to them a huge dilemma. They have all too accustomed to ruling the roost. A woman in authority is to them anathema. But let’s face it, their entire ideology is predicated upon hate with death mentalities as a solid second.

          • orrsra

            Well there is no hope for you I did mention GF and this is a waste of time. I pray for you and damn the men who created this hate in you. I will rest at ease because I tried but you hate all men shame However, I do respect women. Thanks

      • Sand_Cat

        Sorry, but the media is about as “left far left” as Ronald Reagan’s right hand. If you don’t understand that, not much else in your post is worth much, and what I read of the remainder tends to confirm that judgment.

    • nana4gj

      orrsra: Palin cannot begin to be compared or put in the same category of Shirley Chisolm or Hillary Clinton, Wendy Davis, or Elizabeth Warren. Palin was useful for sensationalism, her anatomy, and her rabid mouth, but, she was lacking in experience, accomplishment, information, and intelligence. She was simply a persona who also ended up making a lot of money for the only reason of her notorious celebrity with nothing else to offer. And she has contributed nothing of significant good with her notoriety other than to herself

  • charleo1

    I’ve always gotten the impression the Washington Press Corp is a bunch of frustrated, jealous, entitled, elitists. That secretly abhor their subjects, the politicians. Primarily because, be they good or bad, intelligent, or thick as a board, those political animals, possess the courage the press types lack, to climb into the political ring, and stare down the wall flower wanna bees, such as themselves. Over the last few decades, “The watchdog of the American electorate”, on every matter of import, be it the buildup for war in Iraq, the roots of the financial crisis, or the conditions in Central America that has driven thousands of refugees to our Southern Border. Have seemed to learn the subject matter, right along with the rest of us. Which begs the question, just how much time are they spending in the various Washington hangouts? And how much time gathering the facts to inform an American public that’s about as short on hard information as I can remember? What did the press know, and when did they know it? The answer is too often, not a whole lot, and only found out by watching Al Jezzera on Current Tee Vee, down at the bar. So now they are all sure Hillary Clinton’s wealth is going to be a big problem for her. That’s all of them. I’ve heard it at least 50 gazillion times from all sectors of the mainstream press. One, “expert pundit,” after former campaign/ political, insider after the next said so. Because the Left, who all agree with the Republicans, when it counts, say the Left hates all rich people with a mindless passion! Didn’t know that about Democrats? Sure, we’re all just a bunch of gov. loving Che Guevara hugging, Maoists, Communististas, here on the Left. Hating on the success of the Bourgeoise. So Hillary should, “Just stop speaking for money?” Pleeze, stop with the bull shit! It’s a good thing the Liberal press is covering for Obama, isn’t it? Else everyone would know what a lawless failure his Presidency has become, and Right Wingers, and the corporate fed press would get their Real America back.

    • ganderdavis

      You can tell the kool aid drinkers here who are so lame they ignore the facts about HC which is she lies time and time again and is nothing more then a snake slithering after her prey.Vote for Hillary and show just how DUMB you really are.Oh wait if you voted for Obama then your already DUMB so voting for HC can only slide you further into STUPID so go ahead and show the world just how far down the sewer you’ll go just.Pretty sad when you have to depend on your cheating husband to cover for you when you insert your foot into your mouth time and time again.

      • charleo1

        So you say. Which is supposed to mean exactly what to me?
        What did you say? Hillary is blah, blah. Bill is blah, blah. I’m stupid? Well, back at ya Einstein! How many Google searches did it take you to write that anyway?

        • Sand_Cat

          Are you sure he knows how to do a Google Search?

      • latebloomingrandma

        Paulyz, is that you?

        • charleo1

          Forgive me. But they all sound exactly alike, do they not? This one spent 9 lines in absolutely nonsensical name calling mode. Expressing his vacuous disdain for Hillary Clinton. And his opinion,( as if I care,) of the possible supporters of the frontrunner for President, following Obama. For whom he has equal or greater disdain. And probably believes himself to be a genius of extraordinary insight. My question is, based on what facts exactly, am I to agree with his assertions?
          He does sound like many of the so called, leaders of the T-Party, though.

          • Dominick Vila

            That’s classic Republican modus operandi. Talk, talk, talk, and say nothing of substance, especially verifiable facts.

          • FT66

            So long as they have Fox News leading their battalion, they think they can sway everyone to come long. NO and NO thanks, not with people who are using brains to sieve out their talks.

      • FT66

        Oh boy! you must be one of the most ignorant person who is not aware what a genuine discussion is all about. You came here to spit out your venom on Clintons without elaborating what facts you have found out. Even if Bill was a cheating husband, how do you know that he is not a good man in other things? Does the functional marriage means you just sit there , get fed and not taking any responsibility so long as you are a faithful man? Can you please take a bit of time and educate yourself on this issue?

        • Paul Bass

          True education requires you to have an open mind, something ganderdavis is likely not capable of achieving.

  • FT66

    I would urge Hillary not to go after the Media. Thats the way they survive. Just ignore them like Pres. Obama has been doing. They didn’t go after him when he was a candidate, BUT as soon as he was elected and re-elected they doubled their attack on him. Hillary should understand nowadays there is no genuine reporting and no News Outlet is reliable and trusted, NOT like those time when I was growing up, my father had to switch on BBC to get the reliable and trustworthy News. Not anymore!

  • orrsra

    Hillary needs to start thinking about the issue before she opens her mouth & puts her foot in it. This is not my definition of a Leader Example: Hillary denounces Hobby Lobby ruling as Sharia law

    • charleo1

      Again, who’s not thinking? I think the Taliban would be darn proud of the Hobby Lobby decision. Except it doesn’t allow for a beheading, if a woman is caught using contraception. The Taliban is old, the T Party hasn’t been around all that long. But, they’re getting there.

    • Sand_Cat

      Of course, all the right-wing ranting about “Sharia Law” – does even one in a thousand of them know anything about it – is fine.
      No Republican has ever been guilty of rhetorical hyperbole, nor have you, right?

  • nana4gj

    Washington Establishment and the media had issues with The Clintons entering that White House. Describing how they “trashed that place”, how the next President had to “disinfect it”, and calling them “trailer trash”, looking for any and all possibility of trash behavior, including murder. They didn’t have enough money and position then to meet the norms of acceptability.

    Then, she really challenged their ability because she was a smart, hard working, articulate First Lady, unlike any since Eleanor Roosevelt, not even aware that she had always been that way, an activist, since her time in the Girl Scouts. A Valedictorian from Vassar was too much to deal with. And he surprised everyone because he was smart, too, even if he was not so smart with the other “brain”, just the same as every other man who was passing judgment on him.

    Yes, they left the WH with a lot of debt, and had not owned a house, anywhere. Book sales broke the record and offers of speaking engagements started pouring in, and they bought a home in New York for less than 2 million dollars. She ran for the US Senate and won and they bought a “modest” home in DC, “modest” by standards of the elite. He started his Clinton Global Foundation. They were making money. They had been made into colorful figures, controversial, with a lot of notoriety because the media, and others, had so many sensational narratives about them, and, because they had ideas, had accomplished a lot, and survived, and now, were thriving.

    The “trailer trash” knew how to interact with all levels of society and position. Now, they are unacceptable because they have money when they were not supposed to have money. Only some can have money, but these two are not the kind who is entitled to have money; it’s “unseemly” how they earned it; and she is not allowed to remember when they had nothing, according to the same Washington elite and media. They have blown the narrative.

    Get over it.

  • TZToronto

    I fear for the country if Ms. Clinton does NOT run for president. I think that Warren would be a very good alternative, but many people don’t know her. Let’s look at the post-election scenario, though. If the Republicans have control of either the House or Senate (or, both–OMG), we’ll be back into the obstructionism we’re seeing now. (Replacing retiring SC justices on the left will be all but impossible. I don’t see the GOP working with a Democratic president ever, at all, but especially if there’s a Democratic woman in the White House. . . . Too bad Anita Hill didn’t have enough clout to derail Thomas’ appointment to the SC.) The election itself could be problematic, though. There are probably a lot of women who wouldn’t want to see a female president and even more men. There may be some intelligent, cooperative Republicans out there, but they’d be foolish to try to win the nomination; without someone who’d work with the Democrats, there’s no way a Republican will be elected president. Ms. Clinton is probably the best hope for the country if we don’t want to become complete slaves to corporations and the religious right.

  • sigrid28

    Pundits don’t run for office because they cannot afford it–and many do not have the requisite taste for the fight. I don’t see them so much as failed politicians but as the kind of folk who seek out the honorary role of observer, like Nick in “The Great Gatsby,” astute enough to see that Jay is a hoax, Buchanan is a fascist, and Daisy has a voice that “sounds like money.” Like Nick, however, they lack the power–but more importantly, the motivation–to intervene when the elite, with what Fitzgerald calls their “vast carelessness,” make a mess and leave it for the rest of us to clean up (think of the war in Iraq, for example). The press corps denizens see themselves as better than the rest of the bystanders rubber-necking at a car wreck, what with their press passes and invitations to parties where politicians and the elite rub elbows, the way Nick attends one of the fabulous parties at Gatsby’s. From his vantage point as an invited insider, Nick sees how destructive Gatsby and the Buchanans are, but he cannot see what is coming, because by joining their social circle, he becomes complicit with the elite and their values. It’s this complicity that assures that he would not intervene, even if he could, to prevent their worse excesses–though he does allow Gatsby to utilize their friendship to renew his acquaintance with Daisy. Likewise in Washington, the press corps cultivates the kind of social impotence that allows them to get close enough to the players to comment, sort of like a Greek chorus, but does not give them the obligation to intervene. They are too close to our modern tragedies to see them coming.

    • Sand_Cat

      One of the best and most insightful posts I’ve read in a LONG time.

      • sigrid28

        From you, that’s a complement, indeed.

  • DAK27

    I hope she does run and gets elected. I trust her more than any Republican I can think of (except maybe Huntsman, but he won’t run again) and she is certainly qualified for the position. I also hope she picks Warren as VP and then appoints an all-female cabinet and replaces every “leadership” position she can under the Constitution with women. Then in the mid-terms, I hope more females run and we not only have a Congress controlled by the Dems but the majority of both houses are women no matter the politial party. That would be GREAT!

    • Dominick Vila

      I hope she runs too, and I would love it if she picks Warren as her running mate, not because Elizabeth is a woman, but because she has shown a level of courage and determination that are rarities for most Washington politicians. If she runs, and she is elected, I hope she does not choose an all female Cabinet. She is too smart and pragmatic to do something like that. She will select the best for each Cabinet position, regardless of gender, and she will be as successful, or more so, than her husband and President Obama.

      • DAK27

        She probably will base her selection on merit, but it would be cool if it were an all female cabinet. Everyone from VP to the city dog catcher… if they are appointed by the President, then it will be a woman. Oh, and fire every single Republican in any position of power and then bring up all the current and past sitting memeber of Congress since 2008 (esp Bush, Cheney, Rhumsfeld, and those assholes) and charge them with treason, sedation and any other crime she can think of. Oh, and drag in Newt, Santorum, Perry, Limbaugh, Beck, Rupert and all of those assholes as well… make 2016 the year of LAW and bring every single person who has spent the last 6 years (8 by then) doing everything they possible can to make sure this country fails.

        (If you’re gonna dream, dream big!)

  • Katela

    Sally Quinn as a social arbiter is a sick joke. Ben Bradlee was married when she targeted him. And now she’s a big ‘Faith’ maven. What she is is a spiteful hypocrite.

    • DAK27

      And an adulteress

  • KarenSez

    Headline: “WaPo’s crappy reporting could be a liability in journalism”

  • Kim Martin

    Author calls Sally Quinn “wife of legendary Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee and czarina of the city’s cocktail party circuit.” And does not mention that she is an author in her own right. The National Memo isn’t the only journalism outfit that diminishes women’s accomplishments, relying instead on women’s relationships with men to define them. Think that might be sexism? Think that maybe Hillary has seen this before? Could that contribute to her mistrust of the press?

  • jnap

    Either you like the Clinton’s or you don’t. The same is true for Hillary herself.