Today's front page of the Chicago Tribune carries the story "Vast army of 'Hillary haters' has claws out." Written by Tribune national correspondent Jill Zuckman, the article cites a handful of people and organizations opposed to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's White House ambitions:
Armed with new technologies and fueled by animus, they are bent on preventing "four more years" of Clintonism. Every old charge, it seems, is being repackaged and sold as new. Every rumor is given a new, blog-stoked currency.
Correspondent Zuckman writes of the "venomous opposition" to Mrs. Clinton:
Ever since she uttered those famous words about staying home, baking cookies and holding teas rather than fulfilling her professional goals, Clinton has been a magnet for passionate criticism.
Ms. Zuckman quotes an advisor of another Democratic presidential candidate:
"There's clearly a sliver of the right wing in the country that's unhinged over both of the Clintons. Their hatred is simply pathological," said Jim Jordan, who is advising Sen. Christopher Dodd's presidential bid. "I'm sure some of these kooks look back at the Clinton White House as the good ol' days - they were energized and relevant then."
Ah, the old dependable: Conservatives are nuts.
I wonder if mainstream media operatives like Ms. Zuckman ever consider the possibility that Mrs. Clinton's opponents despise her position on public policies, not necessarily her personally. Or are they merely satisfied to quote Democrats who view her critics as "simply pathological?"
Now that Ms. Zuckman has focused on "Hillary haters," perhaps we can anticipate similar reports on "Rudy haters," "Mitt haters," "Fred haters," etc. And how could the Tribune's national correspondent have overlooked for so many years the vast army of "Bush haters?" As we know, there's a considerable number of people who blame President Bush for willfully killing thousands of young Americans in Iraq for no reason, for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, and for practically every bad thing that's happened since his election or - as they prefer - his "selection."
Ms. Zuckman views a small number of people and organizations and sees a vast army. Perhaps she's confusing them with the millions of Americans who don't want Mrs. Clinton in the White House. They disagree with her belief that government knows best. They question her supposed "experience," which for the most part is nothing more than serving as First Lady. They dislike her use of the politics of personal destruction while at the same time she condemns the politics of personal destruction. They despise the sleaze of her husband's administration and her willingness to put up with anything just to stay close to power. They detest the shallowness and self-concern exhibited by her statement that another devastating terrorist attack could help Republicans.
Mrs. Clinton has successfully played the victim card before. It looks like some in the meainstream media think trying it again can help her.
