In today's New York Times, Jim Rutenberg reports on the synergy between the Clinton campaign and Matt Drudge's eponymous Report. The article is a great way of introducing the public to the vagaries of this seemingly strange-bedfellows relationship--or it would be, if this relationship hadn't been previously made clear in the press in abundance.
More to the point, Rutenberg notes: "In April, Mr. Drudge scored exclusive access to a first round of Clinton fund-raising figures." But he fails to mention that Drudge was fed deceptive information and promoted an entirely misleading headline -- "AMERICA LOVES HILLARY -- TOP FUNDRAISER FOR ROUND ONE: $36 MILLION" - when in fact the big news of the first quarter fundraising was that Obama actually beat Hillary in the only number that mattered: primary donations. The $36 million figure was gallingly misleading - it included ten million dollars that the campaign transferred over from Clinton's Senate campaign, plus $6.9 million that was raised for the general election.
All of that was left out by Drudge, and Hillary ended up benefiting from the siren's red glare as it birthed a spate of favorable and erroneous press. For Rutenberg to omit mention of this completely glosses over the true nature of the relationship between Clinton and Matt Drudge, who's been more of an official campaign stenographer than an observer - impartial or otherwise. As Andrew Sullivan noted weeks ago: "He helps her win the primary. She potentially doubles his traffic for at least four years. Win-win."