In a previous life, I was a political reporter in the rough-and-tumble world of Bronx politics. Truth be told, I was rolled a time or two (done in by inexperience, at the time) by candidates floating theories about their opponent's strength and weaknesses. But never in a decade of political reporting at one of America's great weekly newspapers did I ever file a story - front page, no less - as weakly reported and so clearly manipulated by the institutional hatred of a single politician as The Times ran today.
There it was this morning, just out of the blue wrapper: Vulnerable Democrats See Fates Tied to Clinton by Carl Hulse.
Wow, thought I for a second. Perhaps the whisper campaigns of the Obama and Edwards campaigns were true after all? A front page story! Let's get to all those Democrats and their worries about Hillary Clinton....
So how many Democrats to my wondering I should apear in Carl Hulse's "story" talking on the record (or even not for atribution) about the palpable Clinton drag on Conressional Democrats?
NONE!!!
Zip. Nada. Zilch. The Null Set. Zero. Bupkis.
Not a single Democrat is quoted negatively on Clinton in the story. Indeed, the one at-risk incumbent in a swing district - the candidate Hulse made the focus of his story - was Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas. And she had this to say about the grand trend Hulse "identified" and his Clinton-hating editors promoted to the front page of The New York Times:
“It is something I have no control over, quite honestly. They will demonize any Democrat who becomes the nominee. I just put my head down and work.”
Yeah, she's terrified of Hillary Clinton. What a shock Boyda is running to the center in red Kansas to try and win re-election, though, eh?
The other quotes "proving" Hulse's theory that all swing district Democrats are scared to death of a Clinton nominaton come from Republicans. Let me restate that. Hulse and the Times ran a piece saying Democrats were at risk and only quoted Republicans to prove it.
Here's the money quote in this embarassment to the long history of political reporting at the paper:
“The people I talk to, they just cannot imagine a worse scenario,” said [Tom] Doperalski, a Republican who heads the county commission. “They just don’t think she can be trusted.”
I'm sure they don't. But you can't trust Carl Hulse and Times national editor Suzanne Daley to keep their personal antipathy toward Hillary Clinton from putting under-reported, opposition-fed "news" on the front page, either.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum adds to the growing outrage over this non-story and its massive play on the front page:
They will demonize any Democrat who becomes the nominee. Smart woman. So who is worried about Hillary's anti-coattails? Answer: Kansas Republicans, who claim that a Clinton nomination will help them out. An entirely impartial assessment, I'm sure. Who else? "House Democrats" who are "privately nervous" about Hillary's reverse coattails. No names, of course.
And Taylor Marsh sees the hand of John Edwards in this.
UPDATE II: MediaMatters jumps on it.
