Did you ever see the movie Kramer Vs. Kramer? Terrific all the way around. Excellent story, great acting by two universally known, academy-award winning actors and an ending that got people to walk of the theater thinking about and discussing their opinions of it.
Well, we now have a new, updated version. New York Times vs. New York Times.
There are differences, however. In this version the story is disgraceful and exasperating, the actors are universally known, and the ending has yet to play out.
Here is part (most, actually) of a blog issued yesterday by Amy Chozick, the New York Times reporter given the job of following Hillary Clinton around and trying to get her to answer a question about something. Anything:
Since she declared her candidacy on April 12, Hillary Rodham Clinton has answered just seven questions from reporters. This is the first installment of a regular First Draft feature in which The Times will publish questions we would have asked Mrs. Clinton had we had the opportunity.
On Tuesday, at an event in Las Vegas, Mrs. Clinton laid out an extensive and ambitious plan to overhaul the nation\’s immigration system, including expanding the Dream Act, which defers deportation for the children of undocumented immigrants, to include their parents, a step President Obama has not taken. Our question for Mrs. Clinton would have been:
“President Obama said his executive action on immigration went as far as the law will allow. You say you would go beyond what he did. How could you stretch the law further than the president of your own party and his Justice Department says it can go?”
Good question, Amy. But lots of luck trying to get her answer. Until Hillary Clinton is sufficiently hounded and/or shamed into responding, you have about as much of a chance to get answers to your questions as a reporter waiting for Sisyphus at the top of the hill.
OK, that was yesterday. But as Scarlett O\’Hara famously said, “Tomorrow is another day”.
Today we have these excerpts from the lead editorial, which focuses on Ms. Clinton\’s speech about immigration – the same speech Amy Chozick lamented not being able to ask questions about – titled “Clinton Takes the Lead on Immigration”:
With her speech on immigration in Las Vegas on Tuesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton took a large step forward, up front and to the left of President Obama. That is a good place to be for a presidential candidate who proposes to get the stalled debate moving again, and to bring hope to the millions living here outside the law.
Mrs. Clinton defended a path to citizenship for those 11 million, and promised as president to take executive action – more broadly than Mr. Obama has – to defer the deportations of those who have strong bonds to the community through family and work. She also promised to make conditions “more humane” for immigrant detainees.
Mrs. Clinton noted that her call for a citizenship path sets her apart from any and all Republicans who are in, or likely to enter, the 2016 race.
There is a pressing need to lift the burden of fear and separation from families, to unshackle workers who are chained to exploitive jobs by fear of deportation. Mrs. Clinton has shown that she understands this. But meanwhile, the Republicans are stuck in the early 2000s, still talking of border security and illegal invaders. They forget that the 11 million are on this side of the border, and have children, and roots, and jobs, and dreams, and their plight needs to be confronted. Here is a tip: When you hear candidates talking about securing the border – a border that is as secure as it\’s ever going to get – that is the sign that they are not interested in a serious conversation.
That\’s just part of the editorial. But if you use the link provided above and read it all, you will not find the Times asking any question at all about how this would be implemented. And, while The Times laments that Ms. Clinton is not being specific enough on certain elements of her position (the timetable, whether what the Times considers minor criminals will be included…as it hopes they will, etc.), there is no specific demand that Ms. Clinton subject herself to reporters – like Times reporter Amy Chosick, for example, and explain herself in any way…in other words, ANSWER something.
To review: on Wednesday Times reporter Amy Chosick goes public with the fact that she cannot get an answer out of Hillary Clinton on her immigration stand. And on Thursday The Times publishes an editorial kissing the feet of Ms. Clinton on her immigration stand, acknowledging that there are questions to be answered, but not demanding that she give such answers to its reporter, Amy Chosick.
New York Times vs. New York Times.
I admit this is not exactly Mayweather vs. Pacquaio…yet. But if Ms. Chosick has the capacity (some might say the integrity) to be another Sharyl Attkisson, maybe it will grow. We\’ll see….
Oh, one other thing: the editorial board of the Times thinks that our border is “as secure as it\’s ever going to get”? You wish, guys.
