First, Toles. This cartoon ran on Sunday:
Isn’t that nice? The whole e-mail episode, investigated by the FBI, raising issues of mishandling of classified information (which is a crime), destruction of evidence (which can be a crime, but is always unethical and suspicious) and competence (Hillary says the security implications of making sensitive communications on a private server never occurred to her!), and which Clinton continues to stonewall and lie about, is just an invention of the news media!
Poor Hillary! Look how frustrated she is! How can sending out paid spinners and liars to muddy the water and confuse the issues be a cover-up? How can destroying e-mails before they can be reviewed be a cover-up? How can the State Department employee that she paid to moonlight as her private e-mail tech taking the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying to Congress be part of a cover-up? How can an obvious cover-up be a cover-up?
This isn’t an ‘editorial cartoon.’ This is Spinning for Hillary, and for the Post to give it center page dominance on its editorial page is endorsing deception and partisan propaganda. Toles has always been a simplistic progressive hack; his cartoons make his predecessor Herb Block look even-handed. This goes beyond hackery, though, to misleading the public. Or do you believe this is his real opinion? If so, he is too naive and dim-witted to have an editorial voice.
Andrea Mitchell’s Hillary enabling is of a different sort: rank cowardice.
The MSNBC host interviewed Clinton last week, the equivalent of an audience with the Pope; after all, Clinton has deigned to grant just three nationally televised interviews since her campaign began. The topic was the e-mail mess, bu Mitchell said today that she didn’t ask the follow-up questions she felt needed to be asked because she was concerned the campaign would have cut off the interview.
“We were told we had a 15-minute interview,” Mitchell said. “I asked more than 12 minutes on emails before I felt, out of concern that they would cut it off, obviously, that I had to move on, so I couldn’t ask everything that I did want to ask, but I think we did get a good chance to ask a lot of questions and discover that she did not have an answer for why she did the personal server in the first place.”
In other words, Mitchell compromised the right of the public to know, either the truth or the fact that a candidate for President won’t tell the truth, because of threats from the candidate. She was intimidated, and didn’t have the guts or professionalism to call the bluff of a candidate trying to corrupt the news reporting function.
Why not dare Clinton to pull the plug after a tough question, Andrea? Why not let the public see how essentially totalitarian this candidate is? See if she walks out on you. Show her for the secretive, entitled , sinister character she is. That’s called doing your job.
But no. Andrea Mitchell regards the sensibilities of Hillary Clinton more important to serve than the needs of her audience.