Politico’s Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman have a long article about Hillary Clinton’s relationship with the press, and in the middle they drop this:
To this day she’s surrounded herself with media conspiracy theorists who remain some of her favorite confidants, urged wealthy allies to bankroll independent organizations tasked with knee-capping reporters perceived as unfriendly, withdrawn into a gilded shell when attacked and rolled her eyes at several generations of aides who suggested she reach out to journalists rather than just disdaining them.
In a sane world, this would prompt a lot of people to doubt they want this person in the Oval Office.
In a sane world, this would particularly prompt a lot of people in the media to doubt that they wanted this person in the Oval Office, both because it would mean their jobs would be particularly difficult and because it’s bad for the country to be led by an individual who entertains conspiracy theories, is paranoid, vindictive, unnecessarily secretive, and incapable of assessing criticism to see if it has any validity, and has a record of other deeply troubling behaviors.
In a sane world, a lot of people in the media would realize that for at least the past three presidencies, they have been complaining that the occupant is out of touch, vindictive, unnecessarily secretive, and incapable of assessing criticism, and has a record of other deeply troubling behaviors.
But we don’t live in a sane world.
“At this point, what difference does it make?”