Emailgate brings a grudge match, as the American media fights for relevancy, making one political candidate their target, something Thomas Jefferson would never have believed possible.

Emailgate brings a grudge match, as the American media fights for relevancy, making one political candidate their target, above looking at anyone else vying for president.

Can voters look at Clinton as she appeared at her press conference–once more scrambling to explain the unexplainable–and see more future than past? After all, as the Clintons understood so well back at the beginning of their road, winning campaigns are about the future and start in that place called hope. [Time magazine]

ONE OF the most frightening things to happen to the U.S. elite media during the tenure of President Barack Obama was that he learned to go around the media to get his message out. This came after the American press gave candidate Barack Obama an easy time of it throughout his election process, because the talent and stature of the man who would be president was not only pretty awesome, but the way in which team Obama took down team Clinton made everyone take notice.

The real story of “emailgate” is the media, their ineffectiveness, the distrustfulness people feel about the state of journalism, but also that the indomitable Clintons represent the character of the American spirit, people who will not be bullied into giving up. Time magazine reveals the vulnerability of media and their helplessness today, because whatever “soap opera” the U.S. press sees, they don’t realize they’re the stars of this melodrama, even more so than the Clintons.

What doesn’t kill Team Clinton only makes it stronger. Will that be the lesson again? Hillary Clinton has a vast lead over any potential challenger for the Democratic nomination, and 86% of Democrats are ready to support her, according to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Though her poor handling of the email issue has left party insiders unsure whether she learned anything from her slow-footed and wooden 2008 campaign, insiders don’t control elections. Voters do.

“Party insiders,” don’t you love it? They must be part of the 14% of Democrats who worry about Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. The real problem for the media’s “Clinton way” narrative is the same thing that re-elected President Bill Clinton in 1998, which stunned Republicans, as well as the press, who did their best to take him out: Voters worry about their own plight first and vote that way.

According to the New York Times, 86% of Democrats are also “desperate” for Hillary.

They have little choice: As Mrs. Clinton prepares to begin her second presidential campaign amid a froth of criticism and outrage, Democrats are not just Ready for Hillary — as supporters named one pro-Clinton “super PAC” — they are desperate for her.

…“There is no one else — she’s the whole plan,” said Sarah Kovner, a leading Democratic donor and fund-raiser in New York. “She is by far the most experienced and qualified person we could possibly nominate. Not even on the horizon but on the far horizon.”

All of this followed by the “eggs in one basket” narrative.

It’s interesting that the email narrative has taken on hulk-like proportions, but when look back at history our politicians, and media, once let slide an arms for hostages deal, because Ronald Reagan’s near assassination made it unseemly to question a president, regardless of the fact that his mental faculties were in question.

Imagine if Hillary Clinton had a scandal as large as Iran-Contra in her wake, not the Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! tabloid titillation for right-wing wackos, but a real, honest to goodness, felonious and impeachable catastrophe.

William Jefferson Clinton was impeached for a consensual affair.

Ronald Wilson Reagan skated on an illegal foreign policy maneuver that should have never led to George Herbert Walker Bush being president, no matter what you think of Bush senior.

What’s unfolding now is a narrative, a meme, all too familiar. “The Clinton Way” has resurfaced, driven by forces who have lost their own control over shaping what they want the people to know, feel and believe about candidates whom they deem beyond their control to manipulate.

The establishment press, all of whom are struggling for relevancy and commercial viability in the new media age, find themselves up against Hillary Clinton 3.0 and her demeanor, power and reach, not to mention her confidence, is something they’ve never grappled with before.

Chuck Todd inadvertently reveals the larger media fear, while threatening Clinton with what can happen if she refuses to play by the D.C. to N.Y.C. elite media rules, people who once controlled campaign image and how the voters perceived presidential wannabes.

Folks, this is the Clinton Way. Secretive. Lawyerly. Dismissive of the press. And if there’s a big danger here, it’s looking like a candidate of the past instead of a candidate of the future when nearly 60% of American voters want change, per our most recent NBC/WSJ poll.

Todd truly believes the press role in politics, particularly during presidential battles, is sacrosanct. Thomas Jefferson backs this theory up, but what Todd and his colleagues won’t admit is that their own motives no longer represent what the American free press was supposed to be.

If you’re going to forward a narrative that is meant to castigate a particularly politician, as they are against Hillary Clinton, the media also has an obligation to do the same with other candidates. Fox News Channel has made a ratings juggernaut on “fair and balanced,” but there is a lot of truth to that slogan in what the free press is supposed to represent.

From Paul Waldman:

If this is the first Clinton controversy of the 2016 campaign, it has a meta quality about it: since no one knows if there’s anything problematic (let alone incriminating) of substance in her emails themselves, we’re left talking about how we talk about it.

If Thomas Jefferson were alive he’d see the establishment press’s antagonism towards one candidate, Hillary Clinton, above all others as a threat to our democratic republic.

Hillary Clinton isn’t worried about relevancy.

The establishment media is and so it’s war.

What Time magazine, the New York Times and many other journalists, including Chuck Todd, Chris Cillizza, Jake Tapper and media outlets are blind to is that their obsessive narrative spin is only making pertinent questions and issues that Hillary Clinton needs to address less likely to be debated openly.

We will all lose if this climate persists.

“I worry about whether or not we’re going to be well served by a beltway press corps that doesn’t know how to talk about either Bill or Hillary Clinton without treading into real nonsense.”Rachel Maddow