In an analysis of the impact of the clear debate win by Hillary Clinton today, the New York Times seems to suffer some severe amnesia. The article describes how the Clinton campaign has the sense that any bump she might get from the debate could be fleeting. According to the Times, "After all, the solid bump Mrs. Clinton received after the Democratic National Convention in July evaporated after she emerged from an August packed with private fund-raisers. By September, national polling averages showed a marked narrowing of the race." So, apparently Clinton frittered away her post-nomination bump by spending her time fund-raising. My recollection is somewhat different. I remember the New York Times running multiple stories about the "clouds" hanging over the Clinton Foundation because of purported potential conflicts of interest that none of those articles could ever find. I also remember Hillary's health becoming a big issue when she basically collapsed at the 9/11 memorial service because she had pneumonia. I don't remember people or the press criticizing her for too many private fund-raisers. And the idea that her post-nomination bounce would evaporate is hardly surprising - they always do. In 2008, President Obama lost his bounce within two weeks - the convention ended August 27 and it had all gone by September 7. In fact, Hillary's bounce has lasted far, far longer than most and it hasn't entirely dissipated either.
The article continues, "Even Mrs. Clinton, who often says she always expected the race to be close, has appeared confounded by the tight polls. 'Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?' an animated Mrs. Clinton asked last week in a video address to the Laborers’ International Union of North America meeting in Las Vegas." I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure that is clearly a joke. Yet the article treats it in all seriousness. With reporting like this, it's pretty hard to take this article seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment