Liar

Hillary Clinton gives new meaning to the word chutzpa when she and her campaign call Donald Trump a liar. In the first debate, she bragged about a page on her web site that recounts all of Trump's "lies." That page was a reprise of a campaign press release that listed the Trump "lies" and was turned immediately into lead stories by her trained media hamsters at the NYT, WaPo, the LAT, and Politico. The main stream media has a visceral dislike for Donald Trump, has jettisoned any objectivity about the man, and has now all but admitted that it will both shield Clinton from legitimate investigation into her dishonesty and corruption and shill for her regularly.

Since the debate, Trump has been castigated based on a 20 year-old charge that he called a beauty contestant "fat." Oh—the humanity! (BTW, it looks like this innocent beauty contestant might have a rather lurid past). Hillary said far worse (think; accusations by surrogates of "trailer park trash") about the many women who claim to have been sexually abused by her husband, but the NYT, WaPo, the LAT, and Politico would never introduce that inconvenient truth to counterbalance Hillary's charge. Recall that Hillary, who would like her base to believe she's an uber-feminist, has stated that the accusations of the accuser (a woman) are to be given significant weight when compared to the defense offered by the accused (a man). The media reaction to her double standard? Crickets (almost*).

Hillary suggests that Trump stiffed more than a few small contractors as he conducted his businesses. I'm sure that's true, but does it measure up to Hillary's corrupt activities as a high government official granting favors via the Clinton Foundation and enriching herself at the same time? Of course it doesn't, at least for the NYT, WaPo, the LAT, and Politico.

Hillary accuses Trump of supporting the war in Iraq, using three words, "I guess so" uttered in a 2002 radio interview, rather than literally hundreds of recorded instances from 2003 to 2016 where Trump said he opposed the war. Do three words measure up to the fact that Hillary is on record supporting the conflict, until she decided not to -- years after Trump expressed his concern? Even more important, do three words compare to the irrefutable fact that she and Barack Obama scuttled the surge and a titular victory and turned Iraq into a nightmare (and incubator for ISIS) by precipitously withdrawing troops? Only Trump's three words to Howard Stern in 2002 matter, at at least for the NYT, WaPo, the LAT, and Politico.

Hillary states that Donald Trump's promise to reduce taxes to spur economic growth beyond the pathetic 1.2% per year under the democrats will cost us $3.5 trillion (or whatever) and then gives the impression that "respected economists" agree in that assessment. Does no one mention that those same economists are loyal Democrats and that there are an equal number who refute their claims? Nope, only Hillary's claims are taken as fact, at least for the NYT, WaPo, the LAT, and Politico.

Hillary suggests that Donald Trump does not have the "temperament" to be president. It might be worth considering the "temperament' of a woman who can stare a gold star mother in the face and lie about the death of her son in Benghazi as the casket is being unloaded from the plane, and then suggest that the same mother was "confused" in her recollection of the conversation. Does the media investigate the many reports of Hillary's questionable temperament while first lady, Senator and Secretary of State. Nope, no point in doing that, at least for the NYT, WaPo, the LAT, and Politico.

Clinton (and the Democrats) greatest weapon is a compliant media. Clinton's lies and/or incompetence associated with Benghazi? No story there. Clinton's lies about her private email server? Old news. A string of Clinton aides granted immunity from prosecution or talking a fifth amendment stand? It's just politics. A clear pattern of lies and corruption that begins in 1993 (with travelgate) and ends in 2016 (with the email scandal)? What pattern? The manner in which Clinton went from "broke" to a $100 million net worth in 15 years with no job other than government, no business to generate revenue (except the Clinton Foundation, ahem), and giving speeches to fat cats? Not worth a second look. Clinton's utter incompetence as Secretary of State in numerous instances (think: the thoughtless withdrawal from Iraq)? Not her fault. Clinton's lack of any meaningful legislative accomplishments as senator? She was very busy saving the world's children. Foreign donations to The Clinton Foundation (from unsavory locales and people) tied to State Department decisions benefiting the "charitable" giver?" Sheer coincidence. It goes on and on and on, but why bother.

Hillary lies, and about half of the electorate knows it. The media lies and obfuscates, misleads and protects one candidate from thorough scrutiny, and far more than half of the population cringes with distaste.

Michael Goodwin writes:

The [public] anger [against the media] has grown more pronounced since Trump, the ultimate outsider, crashed the party to win the nomination. With media bias blatant on a daily basis, it is far more than a sideshow ...

A recent Gallup survey found a new low in public trust of the media, with only 32 percent of Americans saying they have a great deal or some trust in newspapers, TV and radio “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly.” Trust fell eight points in one year alone and is only 14 percent among Republicans.

In a change election where both candidates have historically high negative ratings, many voters could make their choice for secondary reasons.

Voting against the other candidate is the most likely option, while voting against the media as a proxy for voting against the establishment is emerging as another.

In that case, the news media could be more than part of the story. They could be the story.

The blatant bias of media sources like the NYT, WaPo, the LAT, and Politico (to name only a few) might actually work to Trump's advantage. If that comes to pass, the irony would be delicious.

The harsh truth is that Hillary Clinton is (in the words of the military) a "target rich environment." Donald Trump does not have the quickness of mind or the depth of thought to exploit that reality, but that in no way changes Clinton's long history of dishonesty and corruption. The main stream media does not treat Hillary Clinton as a target (as it does Trump) but rather as an asset to be protected. Therein lies a problem for our democracy.

FOOTNOTE:
---------------------
* In what can only be called a shocking display of actual journalism, the WaPo addressed this issue in today's edition. However, the overall tone of the piece is protective (of Hillary) arguing that she was just "standing by her man." Not surprising.

UPDATE:
----------------
Kathryn Blackhurst comments:

The media jumped on the opportunity to bash Trump for something he said [about beauty contestant, Alicia Machado] decades earlier and help paint Clinton as a feminist defender.

But what about Juanita Broaddrick? Or Paula Jones? Or Kathleen Willey? Or Gennifer Flowers? You won’t see Anderson Cooper bring these women on and ask how they felt when they were humiliated and maligned by Hillary Clinton or assaulted by her husband...

"Hillary likes to call Donald out for shaming women, calling them names, repeating the names he's called them. But let's remember one thing: Hillary Clinton has called me a bimbo for the last 19 years," Willey said Wednesday on "The Laura Ingraham Show." "It started years ago in Arkansas. So she doesn't have a whole lot of room to talk about who's calling women names."

Willey, a former White House volunteer, claimed that former President Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her in a private study in the Oval Office in 1993. As the author of the 2007 book, "Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton," Willey represents one of the so-called "bimbo eruptions" that the Clintons and their surrogates tried to suppress and discredit.

"They all called us bimbos. They called us sluts. They called us whores," Willey said. "If you ask somebody a word comparison, you put our names up there and you ask somebody a word to describe us, it's probably going to be, unfortunately, 'bimbos' — instead of we're victims of Bill Clinton's. And [Hillary Clinton's] OK with that. She just hasn't called off her dogs when it comes to that."

The media, of course, seems to have forgotten about Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky and the way the Clinton treated them. I have to believe that most women would prefer to be characterized as "fat" or even "Ms. Piggy" as opposed to being called a "bimbo" a "slut" or a "whore." But the Clintons are protected, so their hypocrisy goes unmentioned and unpunished.