By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media
While Republicans are preparing for their second debate on Wednesday night, with most of the attention focused on the surprising, continuing strength of the Donald Trump campaign, the Democrats are facing an identity crisis of their own. It could prove far more chaotic than the one that the Republicans are facing.
After years of assuming Hillary Clinton would be nominated by the Democrats and swept into office by the American people, the party doesn’t know which way to turn. With the radical, left-wing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) now leading in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, and Hillary, facing possible indictment for mishandling classified information, the party is looking for help. The names that emerge are Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and even former VP Al Gore. If the Obama Justice Department greenlights an indictment for Hillary, there would be open warfare between the Obama and Clinton forces, creating havoc and a deeply divided party for whoever the eventual nominee would be. And if they don’t indict, they are risking having her as a badly tarnished candidate, since she is rapidly losing the support and trust of a large percentage of the American people, including her natural constituency.
The liberal media are finally admitting Hillary Clinton’s political weakness, even if they refuse to recognize the underlying deception that has undermined her candidacy. The Washington Post devoted a September 15 front page article to a poll showing that Hillary’s overall support among Democratic-leaning voters has declined by over 20 points since July.
Her appeal among female Democratic leaning voters has dropped further, a full 29 points in just eight short weeks, the Post reports.
No longer can Mrs. Clinton be called the woman’s candidate, a historic force destined to take the White House. “Her numbers among women have declined to the point where they are about even with her share among men,” reports the Post.
“The poll suggests that the historic significance of Clinton’s campaign is being overtaken by other forces,” it states.
The idea that Mrs. Clinton should become heir apparent to the presidential throne was a narrative perpetuated by the liberal media, akin to the demographic demagoguery used to hasten President Obama’s ascendance. Whereas the media were largely derelict in their duty to investigate candidate Barack Obama’s radical background, they have been unable to avoid exposing many of Mrs. Clinton’s pervasive lies.
“All the information we have is that the server wasn’t wiped,” Platte River Networks spokesman Andy Boian told The Washington Post on September 12.
If Mrs. Clinton’s email server was not actually wiped, then her deleted emails could possibly be retrieved. It would then be possible to determine what she withheld from the State Department, and, ultimately, the public.
“The revelation that Clinton never ordered the server wiped could bolster her statements that her actions have been aboveboard, suggesting that she did not take active steps to hide her e-mails,” contends the Post.
If no deception was intended, why would Mrs. Clinton have altered some emails she turned over and withheld other work-related correspondence with Sidney Blumenthal?
In addition, the State Department does not have “any emails Clinton sent between her first day in office in Jan. 2009 to April 12 of that year,” nor anything she “received between Jan. and March 2009,” nor sent during “her final month in office,” according to The Washington Examiner. The State Department only denied “the gap from Dec. 2012 to Feb. 2013,” according to the Examiner. These latest revelations came as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information requests, announced at a conference they held on Monday of this week. As many of the speakers stated at the conference, Judicial Watch has been doing much of the heavy lifting that both the media and the Justice Department should have been doing.
It strains credulity to presume that Mrs. Clinton did not send or receive a single work email for months, much less that nothing she knowingly sent or received during her four years as Secretary of State was classified. Yet this is what she has expected the public to believe.
“Now is precisely the time for Clinton and her team to wet the bed—indeed, they may already be doing so,” commented Matthew Continetti for National Review on September 12. He notes that “many of the campaign bundlers who donated to Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 haven’t written checks this time around” and that donors’ loyalties depend on perceptions of who can win, not who should win.
However, if Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy has been harmed, it has been by her own lack of integrity—not the liberal media’s desire to undermine her. Indeed, as werecently reported, journalists have repeatedly gone to great lengths to avoid damaging her campaign. One of the latest examples was during Mrs. Clinton’s recent, disingenuous apology tour, when NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, during an interview with Mrs. Clinton on MSNBC, ended her questions about the email arrangement out of fear that further inquiry might sabotage her access to this candidate.
In 2008, notes Continetti, Clinton’s “political and personal future did not depend on the outcome of decisions made at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC.” The question is, if the FBI says there is enough evidence to indict, would the Justice Department go along with it? My guess is that they wouldn’t, for the reasons stated above.
As National Review Senior Editor Jonah Goldberg notes, there is not one—but an “arsenal” of smoking guns implicating Hillary. “The problem is that the standards for what counts as a smoking gun keep changing,” he writes, from minor lies about wanting to use a single device to lies about Clinton’s relationship with confidant Blumenthal.
The cumulative weight of these lies has already been sufficient to seriously damage Mrs. Clinton’s credibility with voters.
“The Washington Times reports that Clinton’s unsecured emails contained spy satellite information about North Korea’s movement of its nuclear assets,” Goldberg writes. “This sort of information is universally recognized as top secret and is normally subjected to draconian safeguards. There is no way Clinton didn’t know this.”
“All of these—and many other—facts would have counted as ‘smoking guns’ if they were divulged immediately after Clinton’s U.N. press conference,” writes Goldberg. “But Clinton, with the help of her praetorian defenders in the media, keeps moving the goalposts.”
It becomes clearer by the day that no matter how many times the media move the goalposts in order to aid Mrs. Clinton and maintain the viability of her candidacy, voters will continue to recognize the dishonesty of both. That, in essence, is the Democratic Party’s dilemma.