The extent to which this man is willing to flack for the Clintons is amazing, operatic in its denial, majestic in its sheer devotion. Almost as majestic as Brock’s hair, which let’s face it, gets more spectacular every time I see it.
Earlier this week, we learned Brock’s new book charges the New York Times with being a right-wing organ destined for a “special place in hell” because it is not in the practice of publishing entire responses from other Clinton flacks.
I am perfectly willing — heck, eager! — to concede that the Times is unfair to politicians sometimes (though it’s hard for me to see how anyone not on crack would think they’re more unfair to Democrats). But how often does it let campaign spokesmen run their full responses? Brock’s complaint boils down to the fact that the Clintons are special, they deserve special treatment, and when they don’t get it, journalistic ethics have somehow been violated. Oh and not just journalistic ethics, but deep and serious moral precepts are at play.
Which brings me to my favorite line from the Politico piece:
“As it concerns Clinton coverage, the Times will have a special place in hell,” he writes, claiming that interviews with current Times employees prove his case.
Yeah, yeah, I understand it’s just an expression. But, still: I love the idea that people — or in this case a newspaper — will be sent to hell for not covering the Clintons reverentially enough. But not just the Stygian gen pop, where the run-of-the-mill pedophiles, murderers, amd rapists and the executives who canceled Firefly mill about. They will get a special place in hell, because few things are more threatening to your eternal soul than covering Whitewater too much or failing to put Lanny Davis’s quotes above the fold.
Now, look on this performance, ye Lanny Davis, and weep:
A bunch of media outlets are bound for their special place in hell this week if these headlines are any indication:
At least someone’s still standing behind her. She’s loading up on winners this week: