It was discouraging enough for the [tag]New York Times[/tag] to run a 2,000-word, front-page article this week with salacious speculation about the [tag]Clintons[/tag]’ love life, but for the WaPo’s [tag]David Broder[/tag], the “dean” of the Washington press corps, to follow up on this nonsense is mystifying.
The article, by [tag]Patrick Healy[/tag], was anything but unsympathetic. It touched only lightly on the former president’s friendship with Canadian politician Belinda Stronach. It documented that despite their busy separate schedules, the Clintons had managed to spend two-thirds of their weekends together during the past 18 months.
The closing anecdote concerned a December fundraiser where [tag]Clinton[/tag] praised his wife and bestowed a kiss on her forehead, after which she recalled their 30 years together and said, “I’m so grateful to you, Bill.”
But for all the delicacy of the treatment, the very fact that the Times had sent a reporter out to interview 50 people about the state of the Clintons’ marriage and placed the story on the top of Page One was a clear signal — if any was needed — that the drama of the Clintons’ [tag]personal life[/tag] would be a hot topic if she runs for president.
This is entirely self-fulfilling. The NYT wrote a pointless story based on gossip from the Clintons’ alleged “friends,” David [tag]Broder[/tag] is mentioning it in his nationally-syndicated column, and therefore the issue of their love life is “a hot topic.” Why? Because the Times and Broder say so.
Broder went on to note that Sen. Clinton gave a substantive speech on energy policy at the National Press Club on Tuesday, but her personal relationship with her husband was “the [tag]elephant in the room[/tag].” Broder knows this because no one in the audience mentioned the issue — but it was on his mind.
It’s more than a little disappointing to see Broder stoop to such an unserious level. Surely he knows better, but has decided to play a foolish, puerile game anyway.
Three days ago, the Clintons’ love life was not on the political world’s radar screen. It was, and has been for several years, a non-issue. The NYT’s Patrick Healy may have gone to great lengths to tell readers exactly how many weekends of the last 73 the couple spent together (the answer: 51), but this doesn’t make the personal relationship a “hot topic” or an “elephant in the room” whenever one of the Clintons speaks publicly on a policy issue.
The press corps is manufacturing an issue where one doesn’t exist. The public isn’t clamoring for more details about how often [tag]Bill[/tag] and [tag]Hillary[/tag] have dinner with one another — [tag]media[/tag] personalities are.
It’s almost as if media elites decided it was a slow news time and baseless speculation about the Clintons is always entertaining — for them.
This seemed to summarize the problem quite well.
Here’s how it starts: plant a seed in the NYTimes, and then allow [tag]Chris Matthews[/tag] to provide a little rain to get things going on Hardball. The next thing you know, all the kool kidz are talking about it around the corporate media water cooler. Then the Dean of All Things Acceptable in Washington Journalism comes out to watch it blossom as a rumor weed that we can all cherish from now until 2008, spreading its tendrils among the corporate press in print and on the teevee. And thus, the discussion of the Clinton bedding rituals begins, until this malarkey is cemented as a given fact for all the world to know — whether or not it’s true, or even worth discussion at all.
Except for one thing: who the hell cares? I mean really, who cares? Except for the inside, gossip queens of the Beltway, how exactly does this put gas in someone’s tank, keep their kid safe on the battlefield, stop their job from being downsized, or help them pay the balloon payment on their already-ballooning mortgage? What in the hell are these people doing calling this crap “reporting?”
It’s a fair question. Maybe Broder can answer it in his next column.