Donald Trump has just completed a 17-day “working vacation” during which he, among other things, brought us to the precipice of nuclear war and explicitly praised white supremacists and the Confederacy. On his first day back, Trump is using momentous military decisions as a smokescreen for his disastrous presidency.
All of this has had many folks observing that Hillary Clinton tried like hell to warn us about Trump but was ignored by the media.
One particular target of this criticism has been the New York Times, which spearheaded the deranged coverage of the email story. It's obviously a touchy subject for the outlet because one three-word comment from a Hillary Clinton supporter sent reporter Glenn Thrush on an extended Twitter rant against Hillary Clinton that kinda proved the point.
In response to a story about Trump's bankrupting of the Secret Service budget, a Clinton supporter with less than 2,000 followers tweeted this at Thrush:
In case you missed it, the Clinton email story was covered every day for nearly two years, even though she was cleared of wrongdoing by the FBI but only after the FBI director repeatedly smeared her over it. The New York Times drove that story, even as it shied away from the Russia story.
In response to this very valid and relatively mild criticism, Thrush let loose a litany of attacks on Hillary Clinton that were supposed to make it all OK, and they were seconded by his colleague, Maggie Haberman:
I'm not sure exactly what the purpose of this exercise was, but this list of Clinton's “crimes” serves only to prove the point that the narratives they promoted against Hillary were, at best, stupid and, at worst, lies.
For example, Clinton did do a listening tour, at least according to some rag called The New York Times, and her “self-enriching” (seriously, do you hear yourself?) book tour took place a year before her campaign began, according to some rando named Maggie Haberman.
Thrush's criticism of the email server seems to implicate his own paper in “the right-wing-conspiracy,” and I really don't know what to make of his criticism of “hour-long speeches that should have been 10 minutes.” Was Hillary being “too prepared” again? Has any other candidate in history given, or been advised to give, a 10-minute stump speech?
And what the hell is “But... sexism” supposed to mean? Did we all imagine that Donald Trump bragged openly about sexual assault?
But even if these five whole tweets were entirely valid and true, they serve only to prove the point that there is absolutely no justification for a graph like this:
You could stack up every one of Thrush's hits on Hillary, and they wouldn't amount to what Trump did on the first day of his candidacy when he declared that Mexican immigrants were rapists invading our country.
Former Clinton adviser Peter Daou pushed back at Thrush, only to be told he was choosing his own reality:
Full disclosure: I used to work for Peter, but before that, he and I used to argue on Twitter all the time about Hillary Clinton. I was, and still am, the first person to point out Democrats' political shortcomings (being “too prepared” was never one of them), but whatever its flaws, Hillary Clinton did not run a bad campaign in 2016. I watched her run a bad campaign in 2008, and this wasn't that.
I'm also the first person to admit that of the many obstacles Clinton faced in beating Trump by 3 million votes — the Russian interference, James Comey's multiple interventions, the apathy that was fueled by the obsessive media smearing of Hillary — the most serious is the fact that so many millions of people were willing to vote for an overtly bigoted, misogynistic, and manifestly unqualified opponent.
But any one of those other factors could have tipped things so that 77,000 votes in three states didn't overturn the will of the people and leave us with this monstrosity of a presidency.
To top it all off, Thrush was later asked if he ever wonders whether his paper paid too much attention to the email story, and despite his tweetstorm in defense of it, he offered this reply:
Doesn't sound like it to us.