By Tom Quiner
He was anointed by a mob of slobbering journalists.
Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008 because the mainstream media anointed him at Hillary Clinton’s expense. They pointedly gave him a free pass by ignoring the man’s spotty, mysterious past.
Ms. Clinton had no such luxury.
Her sensational history was splattered across the mainstream media, tabloids, and cable television in copious quantity because, well, her scandals and public deceit has been so copious.
Mr. Obama enjoyed more support from the MSM in the 2012 election. In one of the most dramatic examples, CNN debate moderator, Candy Crowley, leapt to Obama’s defense when Mitt Romney said the president dithered in accurately depicting the Benghazi attack for what it was: terrorism.
“He did, in fact, sir, call it an act of terror,” interrupted Crowley, even though fact checkers later acknowledged he didn’t. In fact, a week after the attack, Mr. Obama was still avoiding calling the attack terrorism. Here’s what he said on the David Letterman Show on September 18th of 2012:
LETTERMAN: Now, I don’t understand, um, the ambassador to Libya killed in an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Is this an act of war? Are we at war now? What happens here?
OBAMA: Here’s what happened. … You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who — who made an extremely offensive video directed at — at Mohammed and Islam —
LETTERMAN: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed.
OBAMA: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened, extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya.
The media gave him a pass for this deceit, greasing the skids for his reelection.
Ms. Clinton may not get the kid gloves treatment that our affirmative-action president, Barack Obama, has enjoyed with the press.
First of all, that bastion of all things liberal, The New York Times, broke the story that Ms. Clinton violated protocol and sensible security by communicating by a private e-mail account as Secretary of State.
Then another liberal news outlet, CNN, broke the story that her e-mails were kept on private servers in her home.
And now the liberal Washington Post is hammering on her:
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON has served as first lady, a senator from New York and secretary of state. She is no newcomer to the corridors of power. Her decision to exclusively use a private e-mail account while secretary suggests she made a deliberate decision to shield her messages from scrutiny. It was a mistake that reflects poor judgment about a public trust.
Ms. Clinton is not the first high-ranking government official to write private e-mails about public business. But a host of questions arise from her decision to use private e-mail exclusively while serving as secretary. How secure was the private e-mail? What was her motive? Did anyone ask why the secretary of state was breaking with an announced administration policy? Why did she not turn over the e-mails promptly upon leaving office? Has she withheld anything?
It may be that Ms. Clinton used private e-mail because she anticipated Republicans would be on the prowl for scandal and wanted to control what part of her record might be scrutinized. Such fears would have had ample basis, but they do not excuse a penchant for control and secrecy that she has exhibited before — and that remains a worrying attribute as Ms. Clinton possibly enters a presidential campaign.Nor is fear of partisan criticism an even remotely valid excuse for using a private channel for official business.
If people aspire to public service, they should behave as stewards of a public trust, and that includes the records — all of them. Ms. Clinton’s use of private e-mail shows poor regard for that public trust.
It is refreshing to see signs of authentic journalism emanating from the MSM. We’ll see if it lasts.
For now, Hillary Clinton is in the cross hairs. Her coronation may be premature.