We've all known Hillary was going to run for the past few years. "I'm in it to win it." Really? You're not in it to spend a hundred million dollars and lose? That's not your plan?
And then there's drivel like this:
"If successful, Mrs. Clinton, 59, would be the first female nominee of a major American political party, and she would become the first spouse of a former president to seek a return to the White House."
Oh, so no gay-married spouses of former presidents have sought the White House? Good to know. Thanks for keeping us informed.
I'm dreading this election cycle. Each cycle the press gets stupider and stupider and more and more insipid. Between the "Obama is really a Muslim Terrorist in disguise" crap from the right, and the "Hillary Clinton's shit smells like pot pourri" spewings from the moderate left, well, there's not going to be a lot of honest or interesting discussion out there.
At least not in comparison to the piles of horse dung.
When I was in college I took a class on media and politics, and one of the themes of that class was that over the last quarter of the 20th century political coverage shifted from policy and substance to the "horse race" elements of who was raising more money, who was leading in the polls etc... Hours and hours of coverage are devoted to things that shouldn't really affect your decision, but do because they're made to seem important. While it's useful to know how much money Clinton and Obama have raised, it's sad to see that on the front page of nytimes.com the main story is their competition for donors, rather than their differences in terms of record and stances.