What is it about Hillary Clinton that makes political reporters show their stupid side? As Clinton prepares to announce a presidential run on Sunday, the
New York Times' Amy Chozick and Maggie Haberman step up with
the kind of coverage we can expect for the next 19 months:
Many factors played into the timing of Mrs. Clinton’s announcement. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, whom Mrs. Clinton’s advisers are watching closely as a potential opponent, staked a claim on Monday as his announcement date. Mrs. Clinton’s announcement on Sunday will certainly draw attention from Mr. Rubio’s entry into the race and could well eclipse it.
And while the move could invite criticism as unsportsmanlike, her campaign is betting that Democrats will applaud the show of force against a Republican. (Others involved insisted the date was selected before Mr. Rubio scheduled his event, but said that the juxtaposition was an added bonus.)
Unsportsmanlike? Trust a woman—or a Clinton—to hit below the belt, I guess. Although let's say Clinton did look at Rubio and think "Him. He, of all the Republicans, is the one whose announcement I need to bigfoot. I can let Rand Paul and Ted Cruz announce without interference, and I don't need to wait for Scott Walker or Jeb Bush. No, Rubio is the guy I must mess with." Even if she said that, we're talking less about a dirty hit that could injure someone or at least leave him cupping his balls and gasping for the breath he needs to scream and more about, say, beating him to the car door after he called shotgun.
There could be a Republican presidential announcement a week for months, but Clinton is supposed to avoid all of them lest she appear unsportsmanlike? Or is it just Marco Rubio who's a snowflake too special to be overshadowed? Also, let's talk about this phrasing: "the move could invite criticism as unsportsmanlike." Who, exactly, will be leveling that criticism? Average voters, out at a Friday happy hour after work, saying "well, you know, I really think Hillary should have waited since Marco had already called shotgun"? I don't think so. No, the people who're going to be criticizing this one are Republican operatives, who, duh, were going to find something to criticize no matter what, and the kind of political reporters who don't realize that their frothing pack mentality over Clinton looks worse for them than it does for her.
This kind of coverage is just unbelievably stupid—and it's not going to let up.