Roger Simon's anti-Clinton tirade reveals an Obama sycophant posing as columnist.

In a recent piece on Politico.com entitled "Bill Clinton is Out of Control" Roger Simon, revealed himself not as an objective political columnist reporting on the current political scene, but more of a shameless sycophant for Obama and the result is Simon's credibility is in tatters.

Simon decided he had real problems with Clinton's recent positive statements about Mitt Romney and his work at Bain Management, something the Obama campaign had been trying to use against Romney. Simon's biggest gripe was, he said, that  it undercuts Obama. And Simon clearly didn't like that.

One might ask, even if it did undercut Obama, what is that any of Simon's business?  Why is that, in Simon's view a reason to attack Clinton and to be critical of him,  instead of merely reporting it?

The answer is, when you are not an objective journalist but a sycophant, and are using your public platform to shill for a candidate under the guise of journalism,  that's what you do.

Simon quoted Clinton as saying, "I think he ( Romney) had a good business career,” and added that “a man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold.”

Simon was livid, as the title "Bill Clinton is Out of Control" indicates. But his next sentence was the most revealing:

"Obama does not need Clinton undercutting him."

Again, one might ask why is that any of Simon's business?  Simon caring about what Obama needs makes him sound more like an Obama political strategist not a columnist, and as such not only destroys his own credibility but also takes the credibility of Politico down a notch or two.

Simon's lack of journalistic ethics and integrity aside, what Simon also ignores is that a powerful argument could be made that the Democratic Party and progressives didn't need Obama undercutting them for four years. And the country didn't need a president without convictions or principles undercutting the Democratic agenda they voted for in 2008. But Simon shows his sycophancy for Obama by ignoring all that under the pretense of being an objective political observer in attacking Clinton for his remarks.

The second problem is, Simon's argument is so transparent in attacking Clinton to support Obama that it's laughable.

In trying to defend Obama by attacking Clinton, Simon wrote of Clinton:

"There are two things going on here. First, Clinton has always been cozier with Wall Street than Obama. In January 1999, I was at a very odd event for then-President Clinton on the 106th floor of the World Trade Center.

Richard Grasso, then-chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, stood up and said, 'In my little corner of southern Manhattan, the Dow Jones industrial average during the course of President Clinton’s tenure tripled. We have the lowest unemployment in 30 years, and 16 million jobs have been created!”. (italics mine).

Simon went on:

'The crowd, which included a number of financial titans, cheered. This was a year after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke and months after Clinton had been impeached, but Wall Street did not care. Bill Clinton had been good for The Street, and The Street liked him."

So in Roger Simon's world of bowing and scraping for Obama, the lowest unemployment in 30 years and 16 million jobs created is a Wall Street thing? It was good for Wall Street and therefore what? The lowest unemployment in 30 years and 16 million new jobs was a bad thing?

 For Simon, that's Clinton being "cozier with Wall Street than Obama".

Simon also takes Wall Street to task for not caring as much about Monica Lewinsky or the nonsensical, strictly partisan impeachment as he apparently did."It was a year after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke", and "months after Clinton had been impeached, but Wall Street did not care".  Those heathens.

Here is a belated 13 year old news flash for Simon. Wall Street wasn't the only place that didn't care about Lewinsky or Clinton's impeachment. Main Street wisely didn't care either. Three days after Clinton's impeachment by the Republican House, polls showed Clinton had a 66% job approval rating. And Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in America, released a photo of he and Bill Clinton sailing on Cronkite's boat  in Martha's Vineyard which said more than a thousand words about what Cronkite thought of the impeachment, the press coverage and the whole Lewinsky fiasco.  But nevertheless Simon wants to bring that up again in his defense of Obama. Which given Obama's political history shouldnt be a suprise.

Except it's backfired.

Because Bill Clinton's 66% job approval rating after his impeachment is something Roger Simon as a political columnist can only dream about. And so in the end,  it's Simon's credibility that has been impeached, not Clinton's.

NOTE: While Simon revealed himself to be a sycophant for Obama, another political reporter, Michael Duffy writing for CNN revealed himself to be either suffering from ADHD or terminal political ignorance. In an article appearing on the CNN web site in which Duffy muses on Bill Clinton's recent statements, Duffy writes:.." in the latest CNN poll Bill Clinton is pulling a 66% favorable rating among Americans ( suggesting that Clinton has the power to help or hurt Obama)..

Then Duffy goes on to say, "the poll is a reminder that Americans tend to be more forgiving of their presidents over time.."

As noted here above, Clinton received a 66% job approval rating back in 1998 and 1999 at the height of the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment. Again proving we are not exactly living in the golden age of  political reporting.