"I would start by recognizing that my plans during the 2000 campaign were premised on what I thought we could do with a Democratic administration to continue the work that had been done in the prior eight years by my husband using every tool: the new market tax credit, empowerment zones, but generally continue the robust growth in the economy. We all know George W. Bush came in with very different economic policies and began to implement them."
This is complete and total nonsense. The 2001 recession was totally baked into the cards because of the policies of her husband. If the Daily News editors were treating her like they did Sanders, they would have pressed her at this point. For example, they could have said:
"what policies were you expecting a Democratic president do that would have prevented the recession caused by the collapse of the stock bubble?" "Do you think new market tax credits and empowerment zones would have prevented the recession or offset its impact? Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?"
If the media treated Clinton in the same way as Sanders, she would be a national laughing stock for this answer. But in all probability no one will pay attention. Anyhow, you can blame Sanders for not recognizing that he would be held to a much higher standard, but it is hard to be on your toes all the time.
In terms of the effect on his campaign, I think it undoubtedly hurt. Many people will read the media accounts and think that Sanders is a blustering buffoon who does not know what he is talking about. Of course it does help that there were some very good accounts by knowledgeable reporters in the Washington Post and New York Times and Huffington Post that pointed out that Sanders was very much on the mark in many of his key points about the financial sector.
At the end of the day, this is a very educational episode. Most of the media really hate a candidate like Sanders who actually does want to challenge the status quo. They are not going to play fair and this was an excellent example that demonstrates the point. In this way, the public education from this incident may be worth the harm to the Sanders campaign.
JB: We'll just have to wait to see, won't we? Anything you want to add before we wrap this up?
DB: I would just reemphasize the point about the media. There are some very good reporters working at outlets like the NYT, Washington Post, and Huffington Post who try to be fair in their coverage and really think things through. But there also are many who are completely ideological in their approach.
I should point out that I think very few were consciously thinking "what can we do to screw Sanders?" Rather, they believe that Sanders is a know nothing blowhard, because that is what they have heard. And, they see it as their job to show the public that Bernie Sanders is a know nothing blowhard.
On the other hand, they have heard that Hillary Clinton is a super-smart policy wonk. Therefore they don't ever question her mastery of the issues. The problem is that these reporters and editorial staff have totally internalized these views so they are sure to interpret events to confirm them. They don't understand hat this leads to horrible bias in reporting. The fact that the bias is large unconscious makes it far more effective and much more difficult to combat, but the first step is being clear on what we are confronting.
JB: Thanks so much for talking with me and laying this all out so clearly, Dean. It's always a pleasure.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
