Two possible presidential candidates. Although there's no evidence of it on the record, some have accused the first of closing bridge-access lanes for political purposes. The other failed to respond to pleas for help, four Americans died in Benghazi, and her response was a petulant "what difference does it make?"
So where do those two candidates stand as we look to 2016? In the case of Chris Christie, his candidacy is "over" and he "doesn't belong in the conversation." Hillary Clinton? Her biggest problem is fighting an air of "inevitability." Such was the collective wisdom of today's Morning Joe panel. But to what degree have the fates and status of the two candidates been shaped by the MSM? Where would Hillary be, for example, if she were a former Republican Secretary of State with the Benghazi catastrophe on her record? View the video after the jump.
Consider how the MSM has managed to keep Dem presidential candidacies alive under circumstances—think Obama's Rev. Wright/Bill Ayers or Bill Clinton's Gennifer Flowers/draft dodging—that surely would have sunk Republican contenders.
EUGENE ROBINSON: It's a different time and I think inevitability eight years ago was a terrible strategy, a terrible place to be. This time, it might be a better place to be. It certainly seems to be scaring a lot of Democrats out. Martin O'Malley is, frankly, running for vice president at this point if she gets in.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: So is it, Chuck Todd, I'm going to ask you to chime in real quick here and then we're going to read Gene's column. Is it too soon to be talking about inevitability or lack thereof on Chris Christie's side or not, and what did you think of his radio call-in yesterday? Real quick.
CHUCK TODD: Again, you know, I'm of the -- we should stop talking about 2016 with Chris Christie. I think it's sort of over right now. Maybe he can come back, but he's got to fight his way back to belonging in the 2016 conversation. He doesn't belong there anymore.