Clinton Camp Goes to War with New York Times

Longtime Clinton hit man David Brock and his Lloyd-Bridges-sniffed-the-glue hair have unleashed hell on The New York Times. According to Politico on Thursday, “Brock’s war against the New York Times just went nuclear – and the paper is responding with equal fury.”

What happened to touch off this atomic exchange? Brock has a new book coming out, which will be eagerly read by everyone who utilized Hillary Clinton’s private server and George Soros’ lubrication experts at Media Matters. The riveting title: Killing The Messenger: The Right-Wing Plot to Derail Hillary Clinton and Hijack Your Government. The book says that former Times Washington bureau chief Carolyn Ryan used the Times as a “megaphone for conservative propaganda” – an argument likely to be taken seriously by the illiterate and those with IQs one standard deviation below the national average.

For the record, The New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama in 2008. But that doesn’t stop Brock’s sweaty-faced assault on the paper: “As it concerns Clinton coverage, the Times will have a special place in hell.” A hell presumably occupied by those forced to read and review Brock’s works.

Brock himself admits that his career as a leftist has been bankrolled by the Clintons. It’s thus unsurprising for him to target Ryan, quoting unnamed sources: “She has a hard-on for Hillary. She wants that coonskin nailed to the wall.”

The New York Times promptly blasted Brock personally, with spokeswoman Eileen Murphy stating:

David Brock is an opportunist and a partisan who specializes in personal attacks. We’ve seen him lash out at some of our aggressive coverage of important political figures and it’s unsurprising that he has now turned personal. He’s wrong on all counts.

Brock isn’t the only Clinton apparatchik targeting the Times. The Daily Beast recently quoted Clinton hit squad leader Joe Conason, again relying on unnamed sources to rip the Times’ coverage of Clinton as a vendetta-driven assault.

Here’s the question: why would Democrats want to nominate a woman who targets the leading media sponsor of leftism in America for the past six decades – or who is targeted by that newspaper? Without The New York Times, there is no Jimmy Carter, no Bill Clinton, no Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. The New York Times has been the single most influential media outlet using the cover of objective journalism to skew its coverage in favor of Democrats – and now Democrats want to nominate a woman who will force them off the party bus? That means wasted money, wasted time, and wasted effort pushing leftist messages the Times would normally push for free. Warfare between the Clinton camp and the media who sponsor them is a disaster for the Democratic elites.

Perhaps upper echelon Democratic thinkers believe that the Times’ coverage of Hillary will turn positive once she becomes the nominee, and the Times editors are faced with the prospect of a general election. Like the Republican establishment taking for granted that the base will turn out to stop Hillary Clinton, the Democratic camp thinks that the media will turn out for Hillary to stop Donald Trump or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz or whomever the Republicans nominate.

That’s probably right. But why wouldn’t Democrats at least make an effort at finding an alternative to Hillary who isn’t in the Times’ crosshairs?

Or perhaps that effort is already underway, fostered by The New York Times. Today, the Times reported on “Big-Name Plan B’s for Democrats Concerned About Hillary Clinton”:

Several Democrats said that Mr. Biden and Mr. Kerry were especially well positioned to enter the race late, given their experience, party support, fund-raising networks, and name recognition.

There’s no doubt that Hillary’s desperation has set in this early. Her campaign is now glitching like the T-1000 at the end of the extended edition of Terminator 2. With Hillary now trailing in Iowa and New Hampshire, her team has re-re-relaunched her campaign, attempting to dredge up whatever scraps of humanity can be found in her soulless, ambition-laden heart. It took until the New Hampshire primaries for Clinton to cry in 2008; she’s breaking out the waterworks four months before the first primaries and three months before the first Democratic debate. And now she’s punching at the media that created her.

The question isn’t why Hillary lashes out – her software was never updated after the “vast right-wing conspiracy” iteration, and she’s stuck in an infinite loop. The question is why Democrats don’t turn to someone else.

Unless, of course, they have nowhere else to turn.

 

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.


Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.