These calculations often involve such parsing of words and careful phrasing, that politicians seem to have developed an art of saying nothing while appearing to be saying something. Most politicians practice this art and that’s why people say “they’re all the same.”

Then along comes someone like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, both of whom APPEAR NOT to be playing the Game. I say the APPEAR NOT to play the Game—time will tell if they are.

Yet the two men are different. Trump doesn’t appear to be ABLE to play the Game of calculated response because he is so impulsive that he has to say out loud whatever comes to his head. Yet his lack of calculation has been part of his appeal. Some voters support him in spite of the outrageous quality of his remarks, his inconsistencies and his lack of specifics.

Bernie Sanders appears to be driven by issues he thinks are important—income inequality and poverty. One gets the sense that he says what he thinks, but that it is not about him or his electoral success.
Hillary Clinton has sincere, long held and articulated policy views. Nonetheless, many get the feeling that what she says and HOW SHE SAYS IT betray too much reliance on calculation.

Does a politician have to play the “Campaign Game” in order to win? Apparently, most politicians think so. I hope they are wrong!

This is a big news story. But you wouldn’t know it listening to NPR.

As of May 5th, NPR had aired a grand total of four reports on Sanders’ candidacy. Contrast this with upwards of 30 reports on Hillary Clinton’s campaign since she announced her candidacy last month.

Can you say “playing favorites?” Sure you can.

The first brief mention of Sanders’ announcement was buried in a story on union opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a report that was skewed toward Mrs. Clinton, despite her warm embrace of the trade deal.

Subsequent reports fared no better. Ailsa Chang’s story on Morning Edition simply re-purposed an interview with Mr. Sanders from last summer. This is lazy reporting, plain and simple.

Then there’s Mara Liasson’s story on All Things Considered. Headlined “Why Hillary Clinton is Just Fine with Bernie Sanders’ Candidacy,” Liasson’s “report” sounds more like a Clinton press release than substantive political analysis.

All of which begs the question: Will NPR cover the Democratic race in a fair and accurate fashion, or is the news organization content to propagate the narrative of inevitability that Mrs. Clinton enjoys, but certainly doesn’t deserve?

After all, Hillary was a sure thing in 2008; but things change. Here’s hoping NPR’s coverage of the 2016 campaign does so as well.

Sources

Chang, A. (29 April 2015). “Seeking Presidency, ‘Socialist’ Sanders Looks to Elevate Less-Talked About Issues.” Morning Edition.

Gonyea, D. & Montanaro, D. (28 April 2015). “Union Head Presses Candidates, Clinton, on Trade.” All Things Considered.

Liasson, M. (30 April 2015). “Why Hillary Clinton is Just Fine with Bernie Sanders’s Candidacy.” All Things Considered.

The main criticism is that the Clintons have been trading personal or political favors for contributions to the foundation. The Washington Post, for example, claimed that Bill Clinton drew large speaking fees from foundation donors. Likewise, The New York Times reported that as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton helped a company run by a big contributor to acquire American uranium mines. The large amount of funds provided by foreign governments and the fact that the foundation spends much more on salaries, fund-raising events and travel than on grants have also raised eyebrows.

Chelsea Clinton and other foundation spokesmen deny any illegality and point out that its finances are more open to public scrutiny than those of most charities, who are not required to disclose the names of their donors. They also argue that the Clinton Foundation’s global reach and staff-intensive programs explain why just ten per cent of its budget goes to the organizations with which it works.

How much harm this latest controversy will do to Mrs. Clinton’s political ambitions depends on the voters. But unfortunately, facing collateral damage are the nation’s charities, which have been seeing declining public trust in how well they are using donations. The attention being given to the practices of the Clinton Foundation will do them no good.

Sources:

Rosalind S. Helderman, “For Clintons, speech income shows how their wealth is intertwined with charity,” The Washington Post.

Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation amid Russian uranium deal,” The New York Times.

James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Foreign government gifts to Clinton Foundation on the rise,” The Wall Street Journal.

IRS Form 990 (2013), Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Jesse Byrnes, “Chelsea Clinton defends family’s foundation,” The Hill.