All of which brings us back to the discussion of Politico's coverage in and of itself. Their treatment of the entire matter (or, specifically, Smith's) could best be described as fair and even-handed a gross oversimplification. Put another way, if the story were adapted into a major motion picture screenplay, the part of the Clintons would most likely be played by a fascist dictator (or his equally freedom of the press averse understudy, Vladimir Putin) and the role of GQ re-envisioned as the second-coming of the Cowardly Lion.

Putting aside his brusque treatment of GQ (who, admittedly, seems to have cowered unimpressively in the face of extreme pressure) let's focus instead on Smith's characterization of the Clintons.

Although Smith does, eventually, acknowledge that "[t]here’s nothing unusual about providing extra access to candidates to reporters seen as sympathetic, and cutting off those seen as hostile to a campaign," he places far more emphasis on the Clintons' unparalleled influence over the media and "unusually aggressive" stance against "potentially damaging storylines."

Take, for instance, this paragraph:

The Clinton campaign is unique in its ability to provide cash value to the media, and particularly the celebrity-driven precincts of television and magazines…It’s a fact that gives the Clintons’ press aides a leverage more familiar to Hollywood publicists than even to her political rivals — less Mitt Romney and more Tom Cruise, whose publicists once required interviewers to sign a statement pledging not to write anything “derogatory” about the star.

Here, with the aid of an unflattering comparison to the extremely image conscious Cruise, Smith once more asserts that Hillary's press representatives are both wary of negative attention and occasionally in a position to suppress potentially harmful stories from coming out about the campaign.

And while Smith makes his point very convincingly, we're not sure exactly what it is he's trying to prove.

If it's that the Clintons arguably have more leverage with the mainstream media then Romney, or, say, Dennis Kucinich, then mission accomplished. But if he's suggesting that any of the other candidates would, if given the opportunity, do otherwise, then let the record show we're far from convinced.

*Redundant?