In keeping with my allegation that the Clinton-Obama race, like the entire race for President, is actually extraordinarily more boring than the Press is willing to admit, I denounce the efforts by particularly highminded members of the MSM to insist that anyone trying to pop this bubble is an irresponsible and unprofessional hack. And I despise the putative highbrows who maintain that the most egregious possible variety of such hackery is denying that Hillary Clinton has any sane hope of capturing the nomination without staging a bloody Denver coup.
Enter Jonathan Chait:
Eric Boehlert of Media Matters believes that Hillary Clinton "does have a chance to win." That's his right, though I think any close analysis that goes beyond magical thinking or mere assertion shows that this remains near-impossible. Rather than actually try to make the case for why Clinton has a good chance to win, though, Boehlert instead argues that opinion columnists like me have no right to argue otherwise [....]
I'm liberal, and I often write blog posts. I agree that this does not exactly make me a "liberal blogger," but why do they get a pundit license on this topic but not me? Would it be okay if, instead of publishing my columns about the state of the race in The New Republic, I emailed them to liberal bloggers for publication on their sites?
I realize that Media Matters is an authority on the subject of journalistic ethics, so I won't try to question Boehlert's impartial verdict. I would, however, appreciate a list of other opinions it would be unethical for me to advocate in print.
I for one support Mr. Chait's right to press freedom, and the right of all journalists to pronounce Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidential nomination of the Democratic party an act of information blindness and existentialist onanism. If anyone can design and supply a .jpg logo to this effect, I will proudly post it.