Back in 1992, as Bill Clinton was surging to the front in the Democratic primary for President, the mainstream press was handed serious allegations regarding Mr. Clinton’s sexual misconduct. The Clinton campaign went to red-alert. Surrogates were dispatched to parry the accusations. Bill and Hillary gave 60 Minutes her famous “stand by your man” and “baking cookies” interview, accompanied by a swift stiff-arm and that, my friends, was that. Game over. Issue resolved. Only it wasn’t.

   Had the media dug deeper they would have found a lot more than sex. (Sorry liberal Democrats) They would have unearthed cloak and dagger intimidation of women, sexual harassment and an accusation of rape and more. If you don’t believe me, read Candace Jackson’s carefully researched Their Lives, The Women Targeted By The Clinton Machine. Remember, all this was emanating from a man desiring to lead the party of “equal rights for women.” As Paul Harvey would say, now we all know the rest of the story. The MSM’s neglect led at least partially to the following: lying to a grand jury, an $850,000 check stroked to Paula Jones, impeachment and Bill Clinton banned from practicing law in Arkansas. To say nothing of eight years of international neglect as the nation enjoyed its “holiday from history.”

   But what has this got to do with Hillary Clinton running for president? Quite a lot, actually. She has still never come clean about her lying in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. While orchestrating the White House defense of her husband against “the vast right-wing conspiracy” starting in February of 1996, she told America the whopper that she believed accusations against her husband were false, until Bill sat by her bedside in August on Martha’s Vineyard and told her the truth. Hillary knew all along. Liberals will tell us none of this matters because “it was all about sex.” I’m surprised the left has never accused the Iraq War of being “all about sex,” since the mainstream media has let them get away with this red herring for so long.

   However, let’s not miss the larger point. The MSM is giving the Clintons another pass in 2007, just as in 1992. They yawn at her whoppers, missteps and flip-flops, while ginning up headlines of Romney and Giuliani “attacking each other.” Why is this? Could it be that because she has such a large lead that they are keeping their powder dry until the general election? Perhaps. Is it because she has endured her victim status with such resolve that the media secretly admire her. Probably. (We already know most will vote for her if nominated.) But for most Americans the clock is ticking on MSM coverage of the Clintons and they better take the gloves off soon.

   Just consider for a moment how many fat pitches she has served up to the media in the last week. She has proposed a $5000 baby bonus for all, an inflation-adjusted proposal first announced by one of her heroes, George McGovern in 1972. In rapid succession, another one appears: a government-sponsored “personal 401k” of $1000 per year, an almost exact replica of President Bush’s private accounts, so despised by the Democrats. Has anyone pointed out the hypocrisy here? In the wake of the attack on Rush Limbaugh, Mrs. Clinton has denied a specific connection with Media Matters, even though she previously bragged that she helped “to start and support it.” She has breathtakingly claimed that “social security is not in trouble,” contradicting almost everyone in both parties.

   Senator Clinton’s entitlement to hold every position on every issue with impunity is remarkable, given the MSM’s much ballyhooed claim to be equal-opportunity attack-dogs. She recently criticized Barak Obama’s idea of sitting down with Iran, calling it “disgraceful.” Then she proposed the idea herself. She said she did not know who Norman Schu was, even though her campaign chairman and a bunch of underlings went to Las Vegas with him. Is that possible? And I’m just getting warmed up. Here is the bottom line: there is enough fodder here to bring Senator Clinton down a few pegs, but no one seems interested in doing it. Unlike David Ortiz who hits everything, the MSM won’t take the bat off their shoulders, no matter how fat the pitch.

   Here are two reasons why this may be happening now. First, the MSM has decided, along with most of the country, that Hillary has the primary sewn up. Polls aren’t changing much, so the MSM, being lazy by nature, has said, “we’ll get back to you later on this.” Maybe they will and maybe they won’t. The other reason harping on Hillary will do no good in the minds of the press is that Democrats don’t care what she says. They honestly don’t. Democrats have co-opted the words of the Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis. “Just win baby.” (Oops, there’s another 5k for a well-deserving American.)

   Perhaps we should hire illegals to do the job the MSM “just won’t do.” But if they don’t “get back to us” on Hillary, if they don’t give us what they didn’t give us in 1992, a full and accurate picture of the Clintons for all to see, then talk radio and the blogosphere will have really taken over the only thing that matters, giving the American people the truth. Many Democrats may have ventured beyond truth-talk when it comes to the Clintons. But there are some swing voters out there who have not made up their minds yet. In a 50-50 nation, they will surely count come November 2008.

   Memo to the MSM from the alternative media: If you don’t start telling the truth about the Clintons, whether or not you “get back to us later”, we’ll be getting back to you. If you blow it this time, there may not be another shot.

John Pendleton