LOL! There is some truth to that. I do think the media is as tired of her as the voters are, especially when she's not giving them anything to write about because of her refusal to talk to the media.
What is the appeal of HRC? Obviously she has substantive experience in government but it seems like there are so many questions relating to honesty and integrity with her and Bill going way back. Maybe it's just the overall dearth of viable candidates in the field.
I like that she's a Wellesley College alum and helped with the Senate Watergate Hearings as a young lawyer and has the strength to keep a public face even as her husband embarrassed(s) her and critics have gone after her hammer and tong. The one thing I can't reconcile is keeping Secretary of State email on a private server.
As a Center-Left voter, there isn't much I like about Hillary Clinton. I'd agree with Crockett but I don't think that's near enough to be President. She's imply not Presidential material. With that said, were she to be running against a Fringe right (Cruz) or Crazy right (Trump) I'd have to hold my nose and vote for HRC. If Kasich were the nominee I'd likely vote for him over HRC. Clearly, she has the female thing going for her and the left would love to put a woman in the White House. I don't feel compelled to vote for her simply to get a woman into the lead chair though HRC may be the most qualified woman for the role to date.
She hasn't been the same since the concussion. Sort of like Mackovic after his collision on the sidelines. Been in a fog ever since.
I'd say she hasn't been the same since she voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq. That blew her credibility with the liberal base of the Democratic Party, and by becoming a self-serving fundraising machine, she has only aggravated that problem. Prior to that vote, liberals mostly adored HRC, whom they viewed as the ideological half of the Clinton partnership. Bill was the practical guy who said what he needed to say to win and was pretty much in politics for the money and the chicks.
The Clinton's have a long and dubious track record of accusations and scandals. Ask any media / journalist type or investigator and they will tell you proving wrongdoing or corruption by any political figure is extremely difficult. Many times investigators have to look at patterns of behavior or history. In the case of the Clinton's, there is a history, there are patterns of behavior (old & new) and there is some recent evidence, accusations, for the press or investigators to choose to pursue or ignore. I think the media and many Americans have generally moved on or don't much care about past Clinton scandals. However, the Clinton's more recent foundation fundraising practices, many of them questionable, while Mrs. Clinton was Madame Secretary and her email server scandal have gotten the serious attention of the media and many Americans. The fact that HRC has chosen to ignore / distance herself from questions about these issues only raises more concerns and fear there is fire behind the smoke. She is not helping herself and it appears some in her party are sensing a potential train wreck ahead with her being the Democratic candidate for POTUS.
The article does have an element of truth to it, but it's largely absurd. The media does distrust the Clintons a lot, but I would argue that they have reason to distrust them. When accusations of wrongdoing fly, the Clintons almost always act guilty. They viciously attack their accusers and aren't promptly forthcoming. When they don't get caught (which is most of the time), it's almost always because of the "no-evidence" defense, not an actual exoneration. This stupid private e-mail server issue is a good example. Even if nothing incriminating is found, you'll never know for sure, because you'll never know if she actually turned everything over. You have to take her word for it. Honest people usually don't operate like that. They thrive on accountability, while the Clintons thrive on "plausible deniability." Also, at least with respect to HRC, she won't take tough question or talk to media people who aren't going to go light on her, and that doesn't help her case with the media. When she was the bra-burning feminist First Lady, the media didn't mind fawning over her and tolerating her BS, but when she became the corporate sellout running for office herself, they weren't going to tolerate that. It insults them. Nevertheless, she only gets tough treatment for a Democrat and only after such treatment was earned over a period of 25 years. If a Republican behaved as she does and said the stuff she has said, they'd be MUCH tougher on him. For example, if a GOP presidential candidate made the "hardworking white people" statement, he would never hear the end of it. Every time he appeared before the press, he'd be asked about it in depth, and it would be a big topic in the news and on political talk shows. Furthermore, every prominent Republican would be asked about to see if they'd sufficiently distance themselves from it. It would be like the Todd Akin rape comment and would be a resounding career-destroyer.
" When they don't get caught (which is most of the time), it's almost always because of the "no-evidence" defense, not an actual exoneration." NO KIDDING Mr D That is one of if not the most amazing thing about Club Clinton. That takes some level of planning foresight or incredible ability to twist even facts your way. Some would see that as admirable.
