Newstradamus

Pat Bagley/Salt Lake Tribune

A Saturday New York Times story following up on the Iowa caucuses had this provocative paragraph:

Advisers said that both Clintons had miscalculated the endurance and depth of what they called “the Obama phenomenon.” They both believed that, in the final months of 2007, more voters would question whether Mr. Obama was ready to be president and more reporters would pick apart his political record and personal character. Now anger inside the campaign at the news media has hardened; Mr. Clinton, in particular, believes reporters will be complicit if Mr. Obama becomes the nominee and loses to a Republican.

Talk about chutzpah! Here is a candidate who rose to the top of the presidential pile back in '92 because of his appeal and coziness with the national press covering his campaign. Because of that, he coasted over his own "personal character" problems, the Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones sex accusations and the issue of his avoidance of the Vietnam war draft.

So now he and his wife's handlers are upset because the reporters aren't doing what the Clintons want them to do? Sounds like a vast improvement in media ethics in the past 15 years. Of course, reporters shouldn't lie down on the job of fully exploring the past foibles of Barack Obama (if there are any beyond what's already been dissected), or any other contender.

Seems like this is a general problem for politicians, government officials and business leaders: News organizations that don't do as they're told, and are unsatisfied by non-answers, half-answers, or outright lies. But they need to get used to it.