Here's a revealing blog entry from New York Times reporter Katharine Q. Seelye:"The negative coverage of Bill Clinton over the past couple of weeks seems to have hurt his standing with the public. A new survey finds that fewer voters these days like the idea of the former president being back in the White House.
Forty one percent of registered voters told the latest Pew Research Center survey that they disliked the idea of Mr. Clinton back at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, which could happen if his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, is elected president. In October, 34 percent of voters disliked the idea."
Why does Seelye attribute Mr. Clinton's declining popularity to "negative coverage" rather than to his own off-putting behavior? More to the point, can you imagine a New York Times reporter beginning a story, "The negative coverage of George W. Bush over the past few years seems to have hurt his standing with the public"?
(James Taranto, WSJ's Best of the Web)
