I don’t care that Rudy Giuliani is a thrice-married serial adulterer. I care that there’s one level of scrutiny for Democratic presidential candidates, and an easier one for Republicans, when it comes to personal lives.
Greg Sargent notes today that the Washington Post’s David Broder chatted with readers late last week, and there was a brief-but-interesting exchange.
New York: Will you and the media ever apply as much scrutiny to the Giuliani marriages as you have done to the single Clinton marriage?
David S. Broder: I plan to leave both subjects alone.
Is that so.
About a year ago, the NYT published a 2,000-word, front-page dissection of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s marriage. It contained no real news, few named sources, and plenty of gossip masquerading as political coverage. Observing that the Clintons typically spend 14 days of each month together — hardly unusual for a couple that includes a senator and a peripatetic former president — the Times opted for the half-empty conclusion that the two lead “largely separate lives.”
Just 48 hours later, it was none other than David Broder who devoted his column to the Clintons’ marriage. In fact, the day before his piece ran, Broder heard Hillary Clinton deliver a substance speech on energy policy. Broder said he was bored and wanted to hear more about the senator’s marriage. In fact, Broder concluded that the failure of reporters in the post-speech Q&A to grill Hillary about her personal relationship with her husband was the “elephant in the room.”
But now the Dean of the DC media establishment plans to leave both marriages alone. How big of him.
Greg added that Broder has devoted quite a bit of energy to the Clintons’ marriage, during Bill Clinton’s presidency and after.
As recently as two months ago — Sept 6, 2007 — Broder wrote that the Clintons’ marriage was the most important political fact about Hillary. “Her marriage is the central fact in her life, and this partnership of Bill and Hillary Clinton is indissoluble,” Broder wrote. “She cannot function without him, and he would not have been president without her. If she becomes president, he will play as central a role in her presidency as she did in his. And that is something the country will have to ponder.”
On May 25, 2006, Broder devoted nearly a whole column to that notorious front-page piece by Pat Healy in The Times that documented the state of their marriage in almost comically absurd detail. Broder was very sympathetic to the piece, saying that it showed that “the drama of the Clintons’ personal life would be a hot topic if she runs for president.” If Broder thought the Clinton wasn’t fair game here in any way — or disapproved of the level of attention The Times gave to the Clinton marriage in that piece — he certainly didn’t say so.
And back when it really counted — when the GOP tried to impeach Bill Clinton over his affair — Broder thought the Clinton marriage was completely fair game. He wrote multiple columns at the time arguing that his affair threw his entire character and even fitness for the Presidency into question.
Broder, like his colleagues, has analyzed and scrutinized the Clintons’ marriage for years, but now that a thrice-married serial adulterer who is a Republican is running for president, Broder has decided he’s above this sort of thing. The Democrat deserved the personal inspection, but the Republican deserves a free pass. The one who stayed with his wife should be dragged through the mud, while the one who flaunted his adultery and announced his divorce in a press conference (before telling his wife) should have his privacy respected.
The shameless hackery is breathtaking.