In her latest column for the New York Daily News, which came out today, S.E. Cupp poses the question: Will Hilary Clinton receive the same treatment as Chris Christie did, for their similar comments on Israel?
In her soon to be released book Hard Choices,Hillary Clinton makes comments on Israel which are similar to comments made by Governor Chris Christie, recently: “I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories across and just felt personally how extraordinary that was to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day,” said Christie.
“When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted,” says Clinton in her book, Hard Choices.
There’s more in there that will likely ruffle pro-Israel feathers. It’s hard to imagine someone as politically savvy as Clinton not anticipating the incendiary nature of her language, but I’ll bet her description – which wasn’t part of a bigger pro-Israel message but instead an attempt to explain the “hard choice” of envisioning a Palestinian equivalency – doesn’t get nearly the same attention from the media.
That’s not just because Sheldon Adelson isn’t likely to donate to Hillary 2016. It’s also because Hillary’s supporters, many of them in the media, agree that “occupied” is the right word.
But Clinton will certainly face scrutiny from pro-Israel groups about her positions. Unlike Christie, who clearly made a gaffe, one has to assume Hillary meant what she wrote. The question is whether the media gives her the same attention it gave Christie, especially considering she has taken to touting her strong relationship with Israel in recent months.
Cupp is asserting that despite the similarity of their comments, on Israel, and the fact that Christie’s comments were most likely a slip up, whereas Clinton’s were recorded in a published book, and thus most likely intentional, Clinton will not receive the same scrutiny from the media, that Christie did.
Cupp points out that the media was quick to criticize Christie for his remarks as he is a potential candidate for the 2016 presidential election, as is Hillary. Thus, Christie could be a potential opponent of Hilary in the 2016 presidential, race, which contributes to the media’s criticism of him, and the fact that they will not likely scrutinize Hillary in the same way.
I agree with Cupp’s prediction that Hillary will not likely receive the same treatment from the media, for her comments as did Christie. This is partly due to political affiliations; Clinton is democrat whereas Christie is a Republican. Also, while neither have officially declared that they are running, it seems likely that Clinton will run and is the Democratic favorite for the presidential race.
This is just another example of media bias, and playing the double standard. I encourage you to read the entirety of Cupp’s column on the New York Daily News.