For the first six months of the Democratic primary, the media -- including the New York Times and Washington Post -- relished writing everything they could to hurt the Clinton campaign. The Times went so far as to report a non-existent criminal inquiry directed at her and had to back off when even their own Public Editor called them on it.
They succeeded in seeing Clinton's polling numbers begin to fall and everyone from the likes of Andrea Mitchell to anyone on FOX news appeared to take glee in reporting bad news about her campaign. It was difficult to remember Chuck Todd wasn't a FOX news reporter when listening to Meet the Press detail every negative story and lie about Clinton. They accurately reported every increase in Bernie Sanders' polling numbers and the huge crowds who came to see him. But unlike their reporting on Clinton they never felt it worthwhile to look at his record in detail; could be because they never believed he would really win the primary. But that isn't good reporting. Voters deserve to know the good and the bad, the total record of all candidates, to make a decision on who to vote for.
Then came October. Clinton's polling numbers were bouncing back. After the debate and Benghazi hearing people were again seeing what many like myself have always known: Clinton is a brilliant woman with a wealth of experience no other candidate comes close too and she will make a great president. But even with her polling numbers shooting up it didn't stop Chuck Todd from saying the first two Iowa polls showing her trouncing Sanders in the Caucuses were clearly outliers. Then a third poll came out showing she really did have a big lead.
Polls go up and down and most aren't worth the paper they are reported on. But if you gleefully report the bad ones then at least try to be fair when reporting the good ones. Instead Andrea Mitchell reported good news for Hillary in one poll and then added with apparent glee some bad news that Clinton was only tied or losing to Ben Carson in a national race. Never explaining to voters what she clearly knows, if national polling on hypothetical match-ups was accurate before each Party actually nominated their candidate, Mitt Romney would be president today. These hypothetical general election polls are a total waste of time.
As Hillary appears to be increasing her lead in the Democratic primary, some of the media are looking for another way to go after her. One column is headlined Clinton goes on the offense and questions why. Other columns accuse her of doing a smear campaign against Sanders when in reality she is simply calling him and his staff to account for what they said and running a smart campaign. She is defining the differences in how they see the world and their positions on the issues.
As of this week it is clear both the media and Bernie Sanders are realizing Clinton is leading and leading big. Sanders has done what he promised he wouldn't, attacking Clinton's character rather than sticking to the issues. He is becoming what he claimed he isn't -- just another politician.
Clinton has struck a chord with the electorate by going after the NRA, an area in which she clearly differs with Sanders. Fighting the NRA isn't new for Clinton, who fought them for years while Sanders voted against the Brady bill and against allowing people to sue gun manufacturers. That is fair campaigning just as it is fair for Sanders to point out the differences in their positions on the minimum wage, he being for a federal $15 minimum wage and Clinton being for a $12 one allowing states and localities to decide if they want to go higher depending on their individual economies. Or pointing out the differences in their positions on how to deal with the big banks and allowing voters to decide which they like best.
The media will now need to invent new stories about Clinton to keep up an interest in the Democratic primary and guaranteeing TV ratings and newspaper sales. First it was Benghazi and emails, then Sanders surging, then hyping Joe Biden hoping he would run. Since all that has failed to keep people from supporting Hillary, we must assume they will try to find something to fill the void. My prediction is neither the media nor the Sanders' campaign will be able to find a way to stop Hillary because the majority of people really want her to succeed.