A new book by New York Times reporter Amy Chozick, titled, Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling, is still making a few waves. We recently noted the revelation of another instance of Hillary Clinton’s pathetic entitlement mentality. But there are a couple of other key things to mention, each reflecting poorly on Clinton and The New York Times.

First, Clinton is a lousy feminist, at least by the current leftist measure. Despite Hillary’s effort to “break the glass ceiling” and become the first woman president, she couldn’t stand female journalists and vastly preferred male ones. Chozick writes, “The thing about a mostly female press corps was that Hillary likes men, preferably the damaged, witty, brilliant kind. She told aides she knew women reporters would be harder on her. We’d be jealous and catty and more spiteful than men. We’d be impervious to her flirting.”

Flirting? Hillary’s famously robotic attempts to appear human hardly qualify for that description.

Her campaign wasn’t any better. Chozick records multiple instances where Clinton campaign aides — both male and female — treated female journalists with either contempt or sexually crude innuendo. Any of the same comments directed at Clinton herself would, of course, have been condemned as misogynist.

Second, The New York Times is anything but objective. (But we already knew that.) One particularly damning example was Chozick’s account of the Times holding an unflattering-to-Hillary article on Libya until after the South Carolina polls closed on primary day, Feb. 27, 2016. Chozick explains it was because the paper was “afraid the story could affect the race.” Perhaps even worse, Chozick admits the Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting didn’t strike her or her editors as even worth covering, much less a true scandal. “In keeping with my inability to gauge Clinton scandals, I didn’t initially realize that a little tarmac small talk would become a major story,” she writes. “When I first ran it by my editors, they told me I could skip it.”

In a nutshell, Clinton was not who she claimed to be and even a grossly biased and sympathetic Leftmedia couldn’t help her across the finish line. In fact, it’s a remarkable testament to the extent of that bias that even as badly as the Clinton campaign treated the press, Leftmedia reporters kept defending a truly nasty woman. It’s as if they took a cue from Hillary’s own stand-by-your-man act of 1998.