Ever since news broke about “Bridgegate,” (a political payback scheme involving the closure of the George Washington Bridge by aides and appointees of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie), it seems every political pundit and media organization has jumped at the chance to speculate just how much it would impact his predicted presidential run.  According to many, the situation looks dire.

“Christie’s staff shenanigans - which he says he did not know about - have raised enormous questions about his temperament and how he would run a White House,” wrote CNN’s Gloria Borgern.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow speculated “It seems today that Chris Christie announced he is not going to run for president in 2016.”  Even Jersey legend Bruce Springsteen performed a song skewering Christie on “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon” last week.

The jury is still out on whether or not Christie himself was involved in the scandal, and it may well be proven that he was, but it’s interesting to note that in the same week the media was busy eviscerating the governor, they featured Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton on the cover of “Time” with the headline: “Can Anyone Stop Hillary?”  Yes, it’s almost three years before the 2016 presidential election, and Clinton is already being declared unstoppable.

You may have missed it, but last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee — which is comprised mostly of Democrats — released a report on the Benghazi scandal, saying the attacks “were likely preventable” and laying most of the blame at the feet of the State Department, which Clinton headed at the time.

“The Committee believes the State Department should have recognized the need to increase security to a level commensurate with the threat, or suspend operations in Benghazi,” read the report. “However, operations continued with minimal improvements in security and personnel protections.” The report is a political bombshell, connecting Clinton’s mismanagement to the Benghazi attacks more definitively than ever, but was largely ignored by the national media.

While defenders of Christie and Clinton argue that they weren’t ultimately responsible for their respective scandals, it’s interesting to note the difference in the way the media has portrayed them.  Christie is being savaged, and declared “out” of a political race he hasn’t even joined yet.  Meanwhile, Clinton is being anointed as the “prohibitive frontrunner” in a race she hasn’t joined, either.

All of this isn’t to say that Bridgegate shouldn’t be talked about, or that it won’t have an effect on a Christie presidential run.  Whether it was simply bad management or something more sinister, Christie has a lot of questions to answer.

The scandal has certainly changed people’s perspectives on him, and it may well cast a shadow over his potential 2016 campaign. If at the end of the day both were found completely responsible for their political scandal, Christie would have caused a traffic jam, while Clinton would have caused the deaths of four people, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.  Now ask yourself: which one seems less presidential?