Open Letter to Ezra Klein (Ezra Klein)

TL;DR:

In Understanding Hillary — where Ezra kindly explains that Hillary governs like a woman which is, unfortunately, not as effective as governing like a man and previously in It’s time to admit Hillary Clinton is an Extraordinarily Talented Politician — where Ezra kindly explains that Hillary runs like a woman which makes her, unfortunately, a less than charismatic candidate, Ezra Klein struggles with the disconnect he sees between Hillary’s winning the nomination and her bad press.

May I say that I am sick and tired of elite, liberal, smug, largely male, political analysts explaining why, no matter how hard, really, how so very hard they try to give her the benefit of the doubt, Hillary is responsible for her bad media.

Dear Ezra:

“There are none so blind as those who will not see”.

You think the media is fair in its treatment of Hillary, or no more unfair than to any other politician. You are positive you are not being sexist. You are wrong on both counts, very wrong.

You deny that Hillary gets any worse press than any other candidate in spite of your admitting that the “scandals” the media has spent forests of newsprint and thousands of TV hours on have turned out to be nothing, that almost all were set up by Scaife and his successors specifically to harm the Clintons, and that various media studies have concluded coverage is biased against her. (e. g., http://www.mediaite.com/online/harvard-study-says-media-coverage-built-up-trump-tore-down-hillary/). Start devoting that kind of coverage to Mother Teresa and see what happens.

Nobody in the media, including you, has ever, not once, admitted to any culpability in promoting these Right Wing slander campaigns. (The recent Washington Post editorial in her favor actually called her “greedy” for being paid what other famous people get paid for speeches*) You are, indeed, every bit as defensive about the media coverage as you assert Hillary is. Your conclusion is always the same: she is totally responsible for the media’s attitude. If she weren’t who she is, didn’t act the way she acts, all would be well. You didn’t, by the way, notice that your counterexamples were all male? Or that Obama has been defended tooth-and-nail against all Right Wing charges by his liberal media supporters who, however, like you, eagerly jump on the bandwagon against her?

You praise Bernie Sanders as the better public speaker. Those yuuuuge crowds. Good grief. For 40 years, he’s been giving the same speech in interviews, on the floor of the House and Senate, to those crowds. He endlessly repeats a bunch of populist statements that resonate, just like Trump’s, and to you that makes him a great speaker. Hillary’s speeches do not rely solely on canned phrases, often discuss policy. But you, great wonky Ezra Klein, over and over and over again call them dull, laundry lists, written by committee, designed not to offend key constituencies. How could any reasonable person like, let alone vote for, a person who gives those kinds of speeches? Demagogues for the win.

At the same time you assert that she shouldn’t have spoken to Goldman Sachs, should have known she would run for President again and that those particular speeches would be problematical. So, at the one and the same time, she is both too cautious about what she says and to whom and not cautious enough. She must be faithful, virtuous Penelope but, if she is indeed faithful, virtuous Penelope, she is not authentic. She, quite literally, cannot win.

One would think that winning an election, getting more votes than the other person, would be proof of one’s skill, at the very least, as a campaigner. That votes are more important than crowds. Obama — masterful politician and speaker — won the barest of victories over her. She beat Sanders by 3 million votes. She got more votes than Trump. But those simple, factual numbers barely enter into your overall critique. Try as hard as you can to be objective, it just doesn’t make sense to you that Democrats almost chose Hillary over Obama or that they did prefer her to Sanders. (To be fair, you have grudgingly admitted that she is an “extraordinarily talented politician” just not the kind you can, you know, really praise or like).

The 18 million of us who voted for her in 2008 (about the same number who voted for Obama), the 16 million of us who voted for her this year like her and like her speeches. Maybe, just maybe, you should look deep inside at your own prejudices. Because, so far, you haven’t even scratched the surface of your elite male privilege.

*http://zfacts.com/2016/02/clinton-speaking-fees/
http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/searchfee.php?fee=6
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590#1