If Hillary Clinton becomes the next Secretary of State we will have learned it first from the Guardian, rather than the New York Times.
The Times this morning is gnashing its teeth over Bill Clinton’s post-presidential financial and foreign exploits, implying that they could easily disqualify her, while the Guardian is dismissing those reports and saying the deal is done.
Part of the backstory here is that the Times continues to regard Bill Clinton sourly and the Guardian, like most Europeans, loves him unequivocally.
A further backstory nuance is the evidence that the British paper is now—given its Internet ubiquity—a perfectly reasonable place to leak a big one. (If, however, the Guardian is wrong, this would mean that it remains a foreign paper, tone deaf to the real nuances of American politics—i.e. the Clintons are complicated.)
But the ultimate backstory of a Hillary selection may be that these Obama guys are bent on outsmarting the American media. The choice of Hillary has been managed with such charm and theatricality that the media has had little opportunity to become a negative voice.
It’s pure happy ending: The Obama administration is the big tent and the Clintons are eager to join it.
(AP Image)
The
Times’ sour note, which it
began to voice yesterday, and which made it to the front page today, about the Clintons' Clintonness, is now eclipsed by the Obama-Clinton people giving the
Guardian the real scoop.
The rest of the American media will now have to rush (and grovel a bit) to catch up.
