No matter what the election outcome next week, the media will be big losers. This campaign season has seen much of the media rip off their veneer of objectivity, too often acting instead as an unofficial campaign arm working to elect Hillary Clinton.
The latest revelation — that the town hall moderator overseeing a Democratic primary debate gave CNN contributor Donna Brazile a peak at expected questions, and Brazile then fed Hillary Clinton's campaign staff a question expected to come up in the primary debate against Bernie Sanders — confirms the too cozy relationships between the politicians and the so-called journalists and officials who are supposed to be helping Americans get unbiased information about candidates.
Bernie Sanders supporters should be outraged: We've seen time and again how the DNC was never going to allow their guy a fair shot at the nomination.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had to resign from her post at the DNC after emails revealed she was favoring Clinton and working against Sanders. Now we know that, at the same time, Brazile at CNN was proving her Clinton loyalist bona fides by abusing the system and rigging the game to bolster Clinton over Sanders.
The DNC must have been laughing themselves silly over the fast one they were pulling to elevate Brazile, who was putatively objective when it came to Democratic primary contenders, to dispose of Wasserman-Schultz’s double dealing. Instead we now learn what insiders already knew: that Brazile was a corrupt Clinton partisan herself. Meanwhile, Wasserman-Schultz went to … Clinton campaign staff.
BREAKING: DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz announces resignation, effective at end of this week's DNC Convention pic.twitter.com/8CGijaHCyt
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) July 24, 2016
Oh the small incestuous little world of Washington.
Americans now have reason to wonder about the other debates and who else in the so-called unbiased media world was seeking to assist the Clinton campaign by sneaking her a preview of questions or tilting the news in her favor. Such thinking is no longer cynical; it's just realistic as we've seen just how widespread the corruption and bias goes.
And if people are willing to cheat in the debates, what else wouldn’t they justify cheating on to accomplish their ends?
It is precisely the repeated revelations that of cheating at debates, inciting violence at rallies, and collusion between the DNC and their dirty tricksters, that lead many Americans to believe — not unreasonably — that, given just a whiff of deniability, these same people would unhesitatingly attempt to rig the election.
Count on Hillary Clinton to respond as she always does: Deny any knowledge of the wrong doing, (because you see, you can’t actually prove that she actually saw fill-in-the-blank), blame someone else, (the Russians have become the Democrat’s iteration of “the dog ate my homework”), and distract the American people with the idea that there is a vast conspiracy out to get her (projection, anyone?)
When first caught, Brazile followed the same playbook, deflecting from the veracity of the emails and distracting with claims of persecution.
She wanted voters to think it's nothing but a dirty political trick to expose the ugly truth of such back-dealing, but in a different era this was called whistle-blowing and celebrated.
There is a whole cohort of politically powerful or connected people in Clinton’s orbit who apparently think rules and boundaries are for other people, not for them. Wikileaks, among others, is hoisting them on their own petard.
The American people have quite had it with this privileged, hypocritical crew. In one week, to paraphrase Michael Moore, watch many of them lob in a legal molatov cocktail called Donald J. Trump to blow up entire stinking the swamp.
Higgins is President and CEO of Independent Women’s Voice.