  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Clintons vs. the MediaPosted on Feb 15, 2008WASHINGTON—Are the news media being beastly to Hillary Clinton? Are political reporters and commentators—as Bill Clinton suggested but didn’t quite come out and say in a radio interview Tuesday—basically in the tank for Barack Obama? “The political press has avowedly played a role in this election. I’ve never seen this before,” the former president said. “They’ve been active participants in this election. ... But I don’t want to talk about the press. I want to talk about the people. That’s what’s wrong with this election, people trying to take this election away from the people.” Somewhere in there, if I’m not mistaken, he acknowledged that journalists are people, too, so I guess I should be thankful for that. And I should note that throughout the interview with Washington’s WMAL, Bill Clinton was back in loose-cannon mode. He said Hillary Clinton “has been the underdog ever since Iowa,” which is not true. To support that unsupportable assertion, he implied that the political establishment is opposed to his wife’s candidacy, which is not true. And he claimed that “we’ve gotten plenty of delegates on a shoestring,” which is true only if you don’t count the more than $100 million the Clinton campaign has raised (and mostly spent). The former president also explained some of the campaign’s embarrassing losses by saying that caucuses “disproportionately favor upper-income voters,” and said of those rich folks that they “don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” I don’t recall traffic jams of chauffeured limousines around the caucus sites in Iowa, Maine and the other caucus states Clinton lost. The theme of press bias, however, is woven through the Clinton campaign’s narrative of the story thus far. There are two basic allegations: that journalists look at Obama uncritically while subjecting Hillary Clinton to microscopic scrutiny; and that we react with hair-trigger reflexes when attacks on Obama have the slightest whiff of racism, but don’t seem to notice, or care, when Clinton is subjected to rank sexism. The first charge is just bogus, in my view. Like Clinton, Obama has developed position papers on all the major issues. Clinton has been able to highlight the differences between her proposals and Obama’s—for example, the fact that her plan for universal health insurance includes a mandate, whereas Obama’s does not. In debates, she has had the chance to challenge his approach and defend her own. It is not the media’s fault if voters fail to agree with Clinton that nominating Obama would be a “leap of faith.” It is true that the candidates’ stump speeches are markedly different: Clinton’s is about competence and diligence, Obama’s about hope and change. But journalists didn’t write those speeches, campaign speechwriters did. And any reporter or commentator who failed to note that Obama is an exceptional public speaker would be guilty of journalistic malpractice. Reporters are busy combing through Obama’s personal, professional and financial history, just as they have examined the lives of the Clintons. Obama has facilitated this process by releasing his tax returns, which Clinton has declined to do. It is not unfair to point this out. The contention about racism versus sexism is harder to dismiss out of hand. Being unapologetically racist or sexist is no longer acceptable in this country, at least in most settings. The social censure for being publicly racist, though, is well codified; the perpetrator must recant and repent, and may never completely eliminate the taint. There’s also pretty solid consensus on what’s racist and what isn’t. The views on sexism are less settled. When John Edwards, in one of the early ensemble-cast debates, mentioned Hillary Clinton’s attire, I think everyone agreed he had made a mistake. Yet it’s not always out of bounds to comment on a presidential candidate’s wardrobe and appearance, or else we wouldn’t have chuckled at Edwards’ $400 haircut or Mitt Romney’s game-show-host mien. When people refer to Hillary Clinton as strident, is that a sexist code word? I think it probably is. But when her speaking voice is described unfavorably, is that blaming her unfairly for physiology that’s obviously beyond her control? Are male journalists just not used to hearing a woman’s voice speak with presidential authority? Or are they making a valid observation about dynamics and tone, which are within her power to modulate? Is sexism in the coverage of the Clinton campaign excusable? No, and we deserve to be called on it. But it wasn’t the media that decided she should take for granted all those states Barack Obama has been winning. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: The Candidate of the Permanent Will Next item: The Experience Fight Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
1
»
By Conservative Yankee, February 21 at 5:46 am # Cyrena “So, if many Americans actually DO have better memories than others, how can we ‘fault’ them for it?” Actually your memory may be slipping or you might have pointed out to Maani that “LUCK” played a large part in Hill-the-business-shill’s ass making it to the New York Senate chair. If Rudy had not gotten cancer, and dropped out of the race, she would have had to run against SOMEBODY rather than a little known state rep from Podunk!
By Conservative Yankee, February 22 at 6:33 am # Not the way I remember it,BUT like Obama in Illinois, we’ll never know. My point was that Hill-the-business-shill had her fair share of “luck” CONFLICT!
By Karen Webb, February 18 at 5:35 pm # Clinton vs ObamaBuzzFlash started returning my posts today. I have had a lot of posts on there, but the editor has put the hex on me. He was still accepting, but not printing my posts until today. I went from having several a day on the site to none about a month ago when I called him on not being impartial. He said he was, but has really gone negative on Clinton. I am not a huge fan of Clinton, but it should be even coverage if you claim to be not endorsing a candidate. I miss you Marjorie. Did you just stop posting or did he deny you entrance as well?
By Karen Webb, February 18 at 5:10 pm # Marjorie L SwansonI have been trying to find Marjorie. I miss her from BuzzFlash and wonder if she was excommunicated as well. Until today they were accepting my posts, but not printing any, even if they were just about Republicans. Today I started getting everything back. I was wondering if that is why I haven’t seen anything from Marjorie in a long time. Missed your posts Marjorie.
By Bullshit Slayer, February 18 at 3:49 pm # Part TwoNow I’m telling you all of this not to suggest that we deserved some brownie points from the campaign or something, but to show you that we were pretty damn nice to her campaign privately and when we didn’t have to be. And we got pretty much nothing in return other than “you hate us, now go away” the first time we wrote anything critical of her. After something like that happens, it changes your view of the campaign and eventually the candidate. There is a definite sense that you’re dealing with people who don’t appreciate you, who think you owe them something, and who think that they’re so much better than you that you should be happy that they let you help them at all. It’s not a good thing, and it suggests something about them that is rather not good. Subseqeuntly, I’ve talked to other journalists I know, people who were not around in the 90s and weren’t part of the get-Bill posse, and they’ve had the same experience with the campaign. Strong-arming to the point of creating resentment. And, interestingly, they did not have the same experience with the other campaigns. Neither have we. So that’s the part of the story that I can tell. Some of you may think that we’ve been mean to Hillary of late, but you don’t know the whole story of how much we tried to help and go treated pretty crappy as a result. That was a window into the soul of her campaign, and it wasn’t real pretty.
By Bullshit Slayer, February 18 at 3:48 pm # Grudge Pundits Will Decide Who Is RightThis is the reason John Avarois is so “mean” to Hillary;;;;;In his own words. Doozy, unfortunately it was an off the record lunch with the campaign that I can’t recount because, even though they really ticked us off, if things are off-the-record they have to be kept that way. But, I can tell about aspects of our relationship with the campaign that were not off-the-record. Joe and I reached out to Hillary’s people two years ago. Sat down with them, told them we were agnostic on her and her campaign - didn’t love her, didn’t hater her. But that we were concerned that a lot of folks online, the blogosphere, the Netroots, etc., seemed to really really really not like Hillary, and that didn’t seem helpful to the party, especially since at that time she was the shoo-in to win the nomination anyway. So, we sat down for 2 hours and gave them lots of suggestions as to how they could better improve relations out there. In return, a number of bloggers did get invited to a lunch with bill, and that was great. But since that time, and we’re talking 18 months ago, the campaign’s relations with a lot of us were nonexistent. I mean, I received only 2 emails from their outreach person in 6 months. Nothing else. In the meantime, I’d go on Paula Zahn’s show and Howie Kurtz’s show, sometimes 3 times in a month, and be asked to defend Hillary and I would. I never got a call, never got an email, never got anything from the campaign thanking me. I didn’t say a thing, it didn’t piss me off, but I did think it weird that no one even said thanks, but whatever. And again, remember, at this point, we were one of the only blogs that hadn’t turned against her (this is a good year ago). I wasn’t particularly angry that they never reached out, but it does give you a window into what critics raise - this sense that somehow they were doing me a favor by letting me publicly defend her, so there was no need to say thanks. So, then the controversy over Hillary’s Iraq war authorization vote comes up. Do we join in the call for her to apologize? No. I did, however, write a few posts, maybe 3, about Hillary’s comments about having lived through 9/11 and that’s why she feels the way she does about Iraq. As a result of those handful of posts, I learned that apparently this meant that I had written Hillary off, had decided to support another candidate, and that’s why the campaign was no longer talking to me (of course in the previous 6 months, as I said, I’d been contacted twice by their outreach person, so the not talking had begun a half year earlier, but whatever). Basically, we went out of our way to try to help her for free, and I repeatedly defender her on TV, because she’s a powerhouse in the party and the level of hate and/or visceral dislike for her didn’t strike as very healthy (especially since, at the time, she was THE shoo-in for the nomination). In return, since we didn’t drink the Kool-aid 100% of the time, but only 97% of the time, we were written off as the enemy. Oh, there’s another story too. A year ago at the DNC winter meeting Joe and I were trying to get an interview with Hillary. Again, keep in mind that we’re the only top blog that wasn’t openly antagonistic to her. A top staffer of hers tells us that he can likely bring her down to the blogger area of the conference and that we’ll get first dibs at her. Joe, my coblogger, tells Hillary’s person “no.” Joe says “turn around.” It was someone who may have publicly eviscerated Hillary and caused quite a scene, something she really really really didn’t need. Her staffer thanked us, and Hillary never appeared. This was before the handful of posts I wrote criticizing her.
By tyler, February 18 at 6:01 pm # Re: Re: Media bias?i agree. does anyone not see anything fishy about bush, clinton, bush, clinton? doesn’t anyone remeber how to play connect the dots?
By Luther Brixton, February 18 at 7:54 am # “The USA needs the touch of a woman to salve the wounds it has gone through and is still going through.” I find it interesting that this sentiment is considered acceptable in our political dialogue, since I’ve heard it more times than I can recall, and yet it’s patently sexist. Any time one sex is singled out as being exceptionally better (particularly when it comes to their humanity), by it’s very nature it is a sexist statement. And for those of you who think it’s being realistic to believe that women are more caring or nuturing than men, explain the following: Barbara Bush, Ann Coulter, Andrea Yates, Margret Thatcher, Susan Smith, Imelda Marcos, Joan Crawford, Leona Helmsley, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Erzsebet Bathory, Marie Antionette, Phyllis Schlafly, Eva Braun, Lizzie Borden, etc. And it would be just as easy to make a list of men that included Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., The Dalai Lama, Albert Schweitzer, Desmond Tutu, Jesus of Nazareth, etc. I’m one of those who thinks there’s no contest between Barack Obama’s abilities to “salve the wounds” of this nation over Hillary Clinton’s abilities.
By Synagogue Of Satan, February 18 at 7:33 am # _Greg Bacon : This particular cartoon proves beyond a doubt that Jews are fearless and wantonly explicit in their hatred of our European-American heritage and our people and they are not scared in the least to say it openly because there will NEVER be consequences for them. Of course if this cartoon taught someone how to cook a Jew, careers would end, death threats would commence and fines or imprisonment would follow. Jews are the most hateful people on the face of the earth. The magazine was not bought at a Zionist meeting or AIPAC meeting, no, far more insidiously it’s sold openly on the shelves of Barnes and Noble. A pdf of the cartoon has been uploaded here, check it out, be outraged, these Jews have some serious explaining to do as to what makes this “funny.” More trash passing off as Jewish entertainment can be seen at Heeb Magazines website. How to contact Barnes and Noble and get this garbage off of store shelves? Contact customer support and share a piece of your mind. http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2008/02/jewish-mag azine-shows-how-to-cook.html Think CNN’s Wolf Blitzer will cover this story? Or maybe FOX’s Britt Hume will give it some air time. Don’t hold your breath for this atrocious cartoon to ever see the light of day in the Zionist owned MSM. In that Never-Never Land of disinformation and propaganda, news anchors get a pat on the back and pay raises anytime they slander, malign or distort anything Muslim/Arabic. But woe to the fool who dare question anything about Israel/Zionism, for their reward is to be fired, threatened with violence, possibly even tossed in prison, all for asking honest questions about the descendants of the Khazars. Here’s a link to the original story in Heeb Magazine http://www.heebmagazine.com/articles/view/125 _POTASSIUM : DOESN’T come as a surprise to me coz a certain montreal dweller called Mr Kosher explained certain things to me and since that day i avoid zionists like the disease it is and like the disease they are. greg bacon, thanx and the advantage of such a forum is that all bring something to here and hence i just get the headlines easy instead of sifting through 90 pages per day
By Lil'Buddy, February 19 at 4:40 am # Re: Synagogue of SatanAre you serious? Do you know anything about history? Its a joke, satire. Jews have been accused of cooking and eating gentiles for millenia, because they formed a culture outside the norm. The cartoonist is just making fun of that. You take things too seriously.
By Verla Mae, February 18 at 5:30 am # Re:Honey, where are you from? Your rant is truly banana republican.
By Conservative Yankee, February 18 at 5:37 am # 'cuse me?You say Obama is “unelectable” then you say “if he gets to run the country...” thus and so. You say Hill-the-business-shill “… for all her faults surely has a better grasp of what is happening on our planet and has shown that she can walk and think;” You ask “what about opposition to an administration that has no real opposition yet” Since the business shill has been in the Senate for almost 8 years, and the administration (admittedly) has no opposition, why should any thinking voter who opposes this administration’s track record vote for her? She’s already the “one” the undemocratic, Democrats have “decided” like the other “decider” they don’t give a rats ass about votes or opinion. If she can’t “win” honestly, the “party” is prepared to seat Michigan, Florida, and give her a lion’s share of “super delegates. But to be fair to the business shill, I believe this country of once strong, and opinionated people is voting for a Mommy or Daddy who will keep them warm and safe. They sure don’t have the guts or fortitude to question this Pakistani type process. Frankly, I’m disgusted!
By abiodun, February 17 at 12:34 pm # Robinson!Robinson is one of those in the main street media who cannot hide their disdain for the Clintons. He seems to discount the fact of the absolute hatred that has been shown over the years and demonstarted day in day out on MSNBC by him and his cohorts:Matthews, Buchanan, Tucker, etc.
By Ray II, February 17 at 11:36 am # Eugene… In their view the upstart senator from IL would have a bit of fun and excitement with his win in Iowa, but New Hampshire solidified the inevitability of her candidacy. Winning there sealed the deal and all would fall into place. As many pundits have said over and over again during this campaign...do not underestimate the Clintons. Accordingly...no one could have predicted that the man bestowed the title of ‘first black president’ by Toni Morrison, would become the focus of the all sealed up nomination process as the campaigns headed to South Carolina. From beginning to end of that primary Bill Clinton was the galvanizing personna that had unexpectedness written all over it! If in the end Barack Obama does win the Democratic nomination, political pundits and historic campaign types will point to South Carolina as the beginning of the end for the Clintons. Now...since the loses of Hillary in MD, DC and especially in Virginia, the word is that the failed Gulianni Firewall approach to campaigning is now underway. Ohio & TX loom as do or die. Word is circulating that the campaign has essentially written off the African-American vote and will focus on uneducated white women and Latinos to somehow stop the ship from capsizing. So...No Plan ‘B’ was ever talked about by the Clintons because of the certainty of her ascendency to the head of her party and what in her and Bill’s eyes was a vision of returning to what is rightfully theirs. The package deal that is the Clinton political story sees itself cleaning up the Bush dynasty disaster with it’s own dynasty. Why would the electorate ever consider anyone else? Bottom line is they can’t stand losing and will do whatever it takes to win, even if it splits the party or means writing off a solid constituency and spinning some outlanish idea, i.e., caucus participants in the end just really don’t matter and aren’t really people reflective of needing a president in the first place. Get over it...you lost the caucuses because you didn’t fore see any importance of them in your assured nomination process. How much more insulting to the 80 % of caucus goers in places like Idaho or 70 % in Kansas can they be?! This whole situation shows very clearly that if a campaign such as hers has no plan ‘B’ scenario worked out prior to the ship springing leaks then what kind of President would she make? We’ve spent the last 7 years dealing with a man in the White House whose cowboy arrogance clearly shows his non-administrative understanding of the importance of having plan ‘B’s. We can’t afford not to have plan ‘B’s. The nation is ready for change, the media isn’t on Obama’s side, and the Clintons are grasping at straws. It could get uglier yet and I for one hope it doesn’t, but I think we all know that it may be the only thing they have left and when you have no Plan ‘B’ and never had the common sense to plan for a Plan ‘B’...well it’s all they have left to spew and that will certainly spell the end for Bill and Hillary Clinton and their vision of restorating the 1990’s in the 21st century; that was then and this is now. Ultimately, the Clintons are now being seen as purveyors of the past and standing in the way of a nationwide movement of inspirational change for all Americans. In 2008 Hope is not just a place on a map of a small southern state...it’s becoming a reality.
By CyclingLeft, February 17 at 10:38 am # Media On Media BiasSeems to me that it is Mr. Robinson who cannot take criticism. His very use of his column to rationalize the media treatment is an example of what Bill Clinton is talking about. As for “investigative” journalism treating all candidates the same, I would note that the Edwards haircut was front page and Hsu who bundled contributions for Clinton was on the front page when the stories broke. Yet, the Obama-Rezko story was on the back pages. I do call it media bias when unfavorable coverage of one candidate makes front page news whereas a similar story about the other candidate gets buried in the back pages.
By ernest d, February 19 at 11:25 am # Re: Media On Media BiasIt surely would behoove all of us to recognize a biased opinion of a news ‘talking head’ OR a legitimate journalist should be able to leave his bias out of his work. How can anyone truly trust or respect ones work if they can be fair to ONLY one candidate? After years of feeling lied to by cnn,abc,msnbc,etc,etc, I was starved for truthfulness and started my search for the REAL THING and started digging for the news on the internet. I happened to invest in satelite tv around the same time and discovered Link tv and Democracy Now, with Amy Goodman. That was one of the luckiest days of my adult life because I finally found people that told both sides of the story on every issue. I discovered Dahr Jamail, investigative reporter, who has been all over the middle east since this damnable illegal & unnecessary invasion/occupation began. Now I know the truth on a much grander scale than I did before and only watch the MSM to catch them on their lies,desceptions and omissions. I am so grateful for Direct TV and the opportunity to finally hear/see programs with REAL integrity!
By Alice, February 16 at 8:44 am # Me Too.Have to say that I perceive the situation the same way that Bill Clinton said he did. I believe that there are far more disparaging sounding headlines for Hillary than I have seen for Obama. Come to think of it, I can’t think of one that I have yet seen for Obama!
By ernest kight, February 17 at 4:45 pm # Re: Me Too. CHECK MATEFor several years now I have noticed CNN, MSNBC, and all what is referred to as ‘mainstream’ talking heads in the so-called news rooms have drooled all over themselves with disparaging remarks about Hillary Clinton! First of all; it’s unprofessional, rude, ungentlemanly, unladylike and, last but not least, DISCRIMINATING! Just once it would be so nice to get real, truthful, informative, honest news instead of the manure they pass off as news. Chris Mathews, the little prissy jerk with the bow-tie, oh yes - Tucker Carlson, those made- up- to- the-teeth aging hidollar looking prostitutes, Wolf Blitzer,etc.,etc., are such a far cry from journalistic professional reporting of the news that I could vomit. Will someone direct me to the so-called ‘LIBERAL MEDIA’ stations that evidently don’t really exist. I am so sick of these people that are afraid of smart, strong and intelligent women that they put them down anyway they can. It’s not like every man that has been the President has done such a bang-up job. This country is suffering on so many levels that I am ashamed of mankind and their stupid, greedy, control-freaky fascist attitudes and actions! Give me a damned break!
By Interested citizen, February 16 at 6:17 am # Skip Gender and Race - Press still notSetting aside race and gender for a second—start REALLY listening to the news.... every step that Obama makes is met with giddiness by the press.... yet with respect to Hillary, the press seems to be only looking for stories that give a negative slant.... Even a Tim Russert who I always thought I respected falls into this… I’ve seen him act gleeful and giddy at the prospect of another Obama win. If I am disgusted with one thing in this whole exercise of primaries, it is the press… and by the way, when was the last time we saw them this giddy...? when they they were sitting in HumVees with the troops invading Iraq.
By right on, February 17 at 9:07 am # Re: Skip Gender and Race - Press stillI also seem to remember they (the press) was (were)quite giddy when GWB ran in 2000 & 2004. Why would anyone listen to them again?
By hettie, February 16 at 5:13 am # If you don’t think the press is giving Obama a pass in ignoring the story of his association with the indicted Rezko, then as a “newsman” what would you call it? Every time a fundraiser for the Clintons has been arrested it is front page news. Rezko is not just a fundraiser for Obama. He has had a long association with Obama since college. He helped Obama buy his million dollar mansion and Obama helped him get $14 million of Illinois taxpayer funds for his schemes. The tender care the press is giving Obama is just like what the press did for Bush. The American peope are going to have to decide if they want the juvenile press to decide who will be president or will intelligent voters decide our fate. As we all know from the disaster of the press-loving of Bush, the consequences are great.
By cathy schulbaum, February 16 at 3:05 am # Like LemmingsThe powers that be have already succeeded. In an election following 8 years of the worst president in history, when a Democrat victory was ripe for the picking, the party is so divided that we will be conquered in the fall. While you all are all in-fighting and diverted from the real issues by religion, gay marriage (is that really the most important issue of our time?), morality, race and gender issues, the Republicans are quietly preparing to march in lock step to victory. You are playing right into their hands… Are we incapable of learning? I will work for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be, and that should be the stance of anyone who does not want to see a continuation of the disastruous Bush policies. Fact: Hillary has been brutalized by the press Obama has gotten a pass that will not serve Edwards received 1/3 of the press coverage The other candidates were ruled out before a The “Super Delegates” have historically voted So, like lemmings to the sea manipulated by the powers that be, including the press, off the cliff we go… I never voted for Bill, I was never a Hillary fan, but this is all leaving a lasting, bitter taste in my mouth. Is that how you want almost half of Democrats to feel in November? If not, stop the in-fighting! Any Democrat is better than any Republican, and that should be our mantra, otherwise, instead of saying “Yes We Can” we might be saying “I guess we couldn’t”. Add Your Comment |
UN Envoy Heads to Burma with Urgent Relief Message
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article