While the media is dragging out the insensitive, possibly racist comments of Harry Reid and Bill Clinton, let me throw a few hypotheticals out there because a journalistic ethical line may have been crossed, and was done so with biased intent by New York Magazine’s John Heilemann and Time magazine’s Mark Halperin.

A pre-arranged agreement probably took place here between the reporters and interviewees, but we all know what contracts and pre-nuptial agreements are worth nowadays.

Hypothetical #1
Harry Reid made his

“light-skinned”, “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”

comments during the 2008 presidential primaries.


Had the reporters (and I use that title intentionally) reported what they heard, that may or may not have had an effect on the outcome. Some voters might have been so disgusted with Reid, they may have taken it out on Obama’s opponents at the time, or stayed home altogether.

Hypothetical #2
Had the comments about the Edwardses come out earlier,

What the world saw in Elizabeth: A valiant, determined, heroic every-woman. What the Edwards insiders saw: An abusive, intrusive, paranoid, condescending crazy-woman.

that may have had an effect on fundraising, as people might have stopped wasting their money on John, not wanting to risk another Teresa Heinz Kerry drama, and diverted money to other candidates. Edwards may have been long gone earlier.

Hypothetical #3
Had it been revealed in a timely matter that Senator Ted Kennedy was at odds with Bill Clinton because he said of Barack Obama,

… a few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee.

along with reports of Bill ‘ridin’ dirty’ again during the campaign, Hillary’s campaign may have been sunk early on.

bill_clinton_yeahihitit

Now, here’s were the media bias angle kicks in — remember, we heard nothing about this during the campaign.

Hypothetical #4
What if any of the insensitive, possibly racist comments were said by John McCain? Do you honestly think New York Magazine’s John Heilemann and Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin would have sat on it because they were writing a book to be published later, or would they consider incendiary quotes like the ones attributed to Harry Reid uber-newsworthy?

Had any disparaging remarks quotes been attributed to John McCain early on, it could’ve cleared the path for Mitt Romney.  Would Romney have been robbed of the nomination because of the selective omission by two well-placed reporters? The case could be made.

The problem is the ethical line that’s been crossed by Halperin and Heilemann.

Had it not been for their being writers for New York and Time (two publications not particularly known for fairness to Republicans and/or conservatives), they would never have been granted that kind of access to presidential candidates to gather notes for a book.

During the campaign we heard all about the infighting within the McCain-Palin camp, thus the revelations in the book aren’t new news. Almost all the juicy stuff coming out now via “Game Change” is about Democrats and (under the umbrella of being book authors who apparently whored themselves out) none of it came out until a year and a half after the 2008 presidential election.

If anything, Halperin and Heilemann are guilty of double-dipping as they got paid to cover the campaign and write an “independent” book at the same time. I will give them the same benefit of the doubt I gave Harry Reid as I don’t know what’s in the hearts of any of those involved, but this sure smells like these two reporters chose what they would release, and saved the good stuff for another paying gig.

I find it very hard to believe they’d be so silent about the bombshell contents of an upcoming book if they were privy to quotes that could have sunk a Republican, but maybe that’s the cynic biased journalism has turned us into.