I knew it was bad (I mean, I do this for a living) but was still kind of surprised when Media Matters put it all in one piece like this. (This is only half of the article.) Yep, your librul media! Media Matters:

There were no claims that Romney's possible run was rooted in an endless grab for power and fame. That kind of nonsense seems reserved exclusively for Clinton.

Is it really that bad? It is.

Here is a small sample of what readers of Times columns have learned about Hillary Clinton this year: She gives off an "atmosphere of hostility," "exploit[s] our better angels and our desire," is guilty of "shakedowns," remains "suffused with paranoia and pre-emptive defensiveness," and boasts "self-destructive instincts."

Times columnists have noted Clinton recently wore a "forced smile, which was practically cemented in place," she seems "like an annoyed queen, radiating irritation at anyone who tries to hold you accountable," and she "doesn't sparkle with honesty and openness." Clinton, a flip-flopping "shapeshifter," has been around so long the electorate "has known her since the Mesozoic era," "she looked as if she was getting sucked into the past," and to she wants become "grandmother of our country."

Worse, Clinton's surrounded by the "usual hatchets," is known for her "lordly appetites and her queenly prerogatives," "cannot emulate the wholesale allure of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama," and there's a "paranoid/legalese perspective that permeates" her.

More? Clinton's "still idling on the runway, but we're already jet-lagged." She's too often "hunkered down, steely, scornful and secretive." She has a "reputation for flouting rules and operating in secrecy" and may have "a political death wish."

And oh yeah, "she can't figure out how to campaign as a woman." That from Dowd, who has spent her career at the Times personally attacking Clinton.

There have been moments of praise -- notes that Clinton could present "serious change," has "unquestioned smarts," and has made "remarkable and audacious" moves. But the vitriol is drowning out the glimmers of support.

The Times' institutional antagonism towards the Clintons goes back decades. During Bill Clinton's first term,Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. once told Clinton that paper had adopted a "tough love" policy towards his presidency. "I've seen the tough," Clinton quipped. "Where's the love?"

As she reads Times columnists, Hillary might be asking the same thing.

This is the kind of thing we mean when we talk about the media narrative around Hillary Clinton. People can't help but be influenced, at least a little bit, when they're barraged by this nonsense.