Labor Day weekend was a banner holiday for Hillary Clinton haters, who got to pounce all over her endorsement of a new media platform called Verrit, aimed at “the 65.8 million” who voted for the former secretary of state instead of helping Donald Trump become president.
The weekend also saw the circulation of new pages from Hillary's upcoming book, “What Happened,” and those pages did not sit well with one Trump enabler in particular.
The New York Times occupies a special place in Trump's ascension to the White House, and some of its reporters can get pretty defensive about it. One of those reporters, Maggie Haberman, went on offense with a couple of outraged tweets centered around Hillary's criticism of Vermont Senator and 2016 Democratic presidential primary loser Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
One of the pages in question featured a fair bit of praise for Sanders, whom Clinton said was “right that Democrats needed to strengthen our focus on working families, and that there's always a danger of spending too much time courting donors because of our insane campaign finance system,” adding that Sanders “engaged a lot of young people in the political process for the first time, which is extremely important.”
But she also noted, correctly, that Sanders is not a Democrat and said she thought he was “wrong about the Democratic Party — the party that brought us Social Security under Roosevelt; Medicare and Medicaid under Johnson; peace between Israel and Egypt under Carter; broad-based prosperity and a balanced budget under Clinton; and rescued the auto industry, passed health care reform, and imposed tough new rules on Wall Street under Obama. I am Proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie were, too.”
Haberman, concerned for Bernie Sanders's 2020 electoral prospects for some reason, was not pleased:
I'm not sure what the “meanwhile” refers to, unless it's the Donald Trump presidency that Haberman and her paper helped enable by smearing Hillary obsessively over emails while Trump was openly fomenting racial resentment and promoting sexual assault.
But I'm even less clear on the premise. Is a New York Times reporter suggesting that Hillary Clinton lacks standing to criticize Sanders, or is it that Sanders's potential as a presidential candidate immunizes him from any criticism?
In another tweeted page, Hillary relates an analogy that one of her advisers made, comparing Sanders's approach to policy debates with a character from “There's Something About Mary”:
A deranged hitchhiker says he's come up with a brilliant plan. Instead of the famous “eight-minute abs” exercise routine, he's going to market “seven-minute abs.” It's the same, just quicker. Then the driver, played by Ben Stiller, says, “Well, why not six-minute abs?”
That's what it was like in policy debates with Bernie. We would propose a bold infrastructure investment plan or an ambitious new apprenticeship program for young people, and then Bernie would announce basically the same thing, but bigger. On issue after issue, it was like he kept proposing four-minute abs, or even no-minute abs. Magic abs!
Now, I would argue that one of the positive impacts of Bernie's run was to push Democrats, including Hillary, into the sweet spot on a number of issues, but on others, this is a valid and funny critique.
To Haberman, it was Hillary calling Bernie a serial killer:
On its own, these attacks make very little sense, but when you consider that Donald Trump is about to consign 800,000 DREAMers to misery, and you recognize the roles that Bernie Sanders and The New York Times each played in putting him in power, everything becomes a whole lot clearer.