The Media Against Hillary Clinton?

By Big Tent Democrat

I know, I know - Duh. But David Kurtz of TPM seems shocked by the thought, when linking to TPM's Greg Sargent, who correctly writes:

[T]his reporter is generally sympathetic to the notion that the press treats Hillary unfairly on a regular basis. As Horse's Mouth has argued, there really is a different set of rules governing the media when it comes to the Clintons -- what Paul Krugman recently described as "the Clinton Rules."

Greg raises the more interesting question - does the Clinton campaign's pointing out this truth help? My thought is this - it can't hurt.

< Republicans Turning Out for Obama in Texas | Yes, Mark Penn Stinks But . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    When Stephen Colbert (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:09:08 PM EST
    told the truth at the annual press dinner a couple of years ago, the press did not get it.
    In my opinion, they are even more firmly convinced of their lack of bias now.
    It's really too bad.

    To add to my comment: (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:12:08 PM EST
    Colbert was referring to the media's giving President Bush a pass in the runup to the invasion of Iraq.
    The media didn't take off their blinders when Stephen performed--the reviews the morning after were all about how Colbert was "not funny".
    I don't see the media taking a hard look at itself now.
    Look at Chris Matthew's self pity when he was called out on his Clinton hatred, and the way his cohorts in the press rallied round.

    Huff Post has a link to the letter (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:11:31 PM EST
    from HRC campaign to NYT rebutting yesterday's NYT about the campaign sourced by unnamed HRC staffers.  NYT refused to print the letter.  But Huff Post did.  Yes, I think it doesn't hurt HRC to point out the discrepancy between how the media treats her campaign and that of Obama.  

    She should cite... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:38:45 PM EST
    The NY Times own poll provides the appearance of bias, or certainly the media has helped create that impression in the public's mind. In their poll released yesterday in which Hillary gets 38% support, the Times asked about media treatment.

    Hillary: 48% harder, 8% easier, 43% the same.
    Obama: 14% harder, 33% easier, 52% the same.

    Of course, like the Obama supporters online, they will just pivot their arguments to disparage all of Clinton's supporters -- as if only her voters make this complaint (when, in fact, 48% harder, vs. 38% support her in this poll).


    Citing such polls won't work. But SNL skits ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:56:37 PM EST
    ... are a lot more effective in making the point. What is Colbert doing now that the strike is over? Is he back on the air?  

    I meant... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:27:04 PM EST
    She could cite this to the Times.

    Of course, they already knows. It is filed under the Folder labeled, "Clinton Campaign - Post Mortem."

    Check back later for details and the front-page story...


    Think SNL will be a question in debate? (none / 0) (#186)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:25:45 PM EST
    I rather doubt it! But my point is ... (none / 0) (#197)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:00:56 PM EST
    ... that Hillary herself cannot, in a speech or a debate, directly make the point that "the media is biased against me," no matter how much evidence she might be able to cite for the truth of that statement. If she tried, it would be dismissed as "whining" that "it's not fair". The only way I can imagine her getting that point across is through a humorous and sarcastic response, along the lines of this: "With neutral moderators like you, who needs enemies?!" and that line would only work if the bias was so glaringly obvious as to be indisputable.

    So ultimately, others have to make this point for her. That's why the SNL skit was so good, because it raises the issue in a way that encourages viewers to notice the bias for themselves, and SNL after all is part of the media.

    I guess another appropriate humorous response, if Omama got a softball question and she did not, would be, "This line of questioning is starting to sound like Saturday Night Live again". But while that might resonate with some people in the audience, not everyone would get the reference, so it could fall flat. And remember that Colbert could not get the WH news media to recognize his satire of them, so she would not get any help from the "serious" moderators present.


    You are prescient! (none / 0) (#201)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:32:21 PM EST
    Fascinating, thanks -- and Bill Clinton's (none / 0) (#155)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:01:01 PM EST
    favorability rating is through the roof, never higher . . . among many, many interesting stats.

    Duh (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Claw on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:13:48 PM EST
    Is right ;-)  HRC has endured some of the most unfair attacks from the press I can remember for any politician.

    Well, BTD - (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by AmyinSC on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:20:28 PM EST
    As you said, "Duh!'  Heck to the yes, they treat her disparately!  One need only look at the recent characterization of her throwing a "tantrum" over the mailers in OH.  If that had been ANYONE else, the media would have looked at the information IN the mailers, and would have labeled the falsehoods fr what they were - falsehoods.  But you have people at MOTHER JONES saying Obama pretty much has it right on Clinton and NAFTA in the mailers - he DOESN'T, though not so much on the health care initiaitve.  Is that their idea of "fair and balanced"?  That it doesn't matter if it is FALSE as long as they say the other one is??  That's preposterous!  And just for the record, Clinton has been on the record for YEARS abt her opposition to NAFTA, but hey - if Obama says it is, it is, right??  Sigh...

    I might add - if it had been Obama being righteously indignant over these false mailers, he would have been seen as strong and presidential.  Grrr.  IMHO, that is!

    MOTHER JONES (none / 0) (#181)
    by nycblue on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:51:56 PM EST
    I am glad I'm not the only one noticing that about Mother Jones!
    They appear to have caught the obama virus too....
    Quite distressing

    Dana Milbank of the Washington Post (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:26:04 PM EST
    said on Howard Kurtz's CNN Show "Reliable Sources"
    that the press hates Clinton.  (paraphrase)
    You can't get much plainer than that.

    Yep, they hate her like they hated Gore. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    It's a seething hatred that oozes out of their pores. I'm sure they don't even know why they hate her. Maybe it's just some sort of bonding ritual for them.

    I think it's much worse (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Firefly4625 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:41:01 PM EST
    with Hillary. They've become emboldened since their "success" in getting rid of both Gore and Kerry - not to mention their years and years of success in demonizing both the Clintons.

    Add pure "manly man" misogyny and the many words of love and praise from Obama "fans" and the corporate media feel like they have a license to lie and attack at will. Heck - they don't even try to hide it anymore - they're totally blatant about it.

    It's amazing to me that Hillary is still standing, actually. It's a testament to her. Here she's got the left wing blogosphere, the right wing, all the men who hate and fear women, most AAs now, and all the media DETERMINED to get rid of her - and she's still hangin' right in there! Wow!


    Because the Kennedys told them to . . . (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:52:54 PM EST
    the setters of the norms in Dem circles in D.C.

    If she's going to point it out (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Firefly4625 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:31:44 PM EST
    I would love for it to be tonight - in the debate - and I think she should throw it right back at her NBC "moderators" - maybe a question from her to Timmeh or BriBri - "Do you believe your coverage and the coverage by the media in general has been evenhanded?"

    Put 'em on the spot - make 'em squirm - in the nicest possible way. :)

    Never get into a fight (none / 0) (#29)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:33:49 PM EST
    with a guy who buys ink by the barrel.  

    The media ALWAYS have the last word.  And you will ALWAYS lose.


    Not anymore (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by goldberry on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:37:48 PM EST
    We might be small but we're here and there are more pro-Hillary sites than I thought when I was an DailyKos addict.  In the month that my little outpost in nowhereville, I've gotten 26000 hits.  I thought no one would notice.  I was wrong.  

    What happened to hope? (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:15:04 PM EST
    I'm not interested in accepting the inevitability of always losing to the media. Accepting that battles cannot be won -- and therefore never fighting them -- is what got us a Congress that is afraid to stand up to Bush because he wields a veto pen and a 30% approval rating. It's bs. If someone is going to beat me by fighting unfairly, fine, but I'm going to make you have that fight in front of everyone and eventually, your lack of fairness will be exposed and I will win.

    (The above is not to be taken personally -- you=media.)


    not if more of us push back (none / 0) (#148)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:46:44 PM EST
    against the media.  this is a battle that will continue regardless of the outcome of this particular election.  in fact, i suspect that if the media wins this round, it will only be worse the next time.

    the media of all people (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:35:36 PM EST
    have zero right to complain, given that they're largely responsible for the mess our country is in right now.  fancy the media painting hillary as desperate, when the most desperate player of all in this election has been the media--to bring hillary down, that is.  what a bunch of power-tripping jerks.

    Out of curiosity, (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by mg7505 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:50:05 PM EST
    does the media hate Clinton or Edwards more? To me it seems like a tie, but the hate is manifested in different ways -- they destroy Hillary with bad coverage and Edwards with zero coverage.

    different (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:45:23 PM EST
    Glenn Greenwald has compared the treatment of Edwards and Huckabee, surmising that it was their economic populism in particular that caused the media to marginalize them. Mainstream journalists are typically quite well off, and have a real stake in the economic and political status quo. It's hard to make a joke out of Edwards like they did with Huckabee and Paul, so they simply ignored him.

    With Clinton, it's sheer irrational hatred. She's not really any kind of major threat to them, it's just personal. Same as Gore, same as Kerry. For whatever petty, juvenile reason, Hillary just isn't cool.

    Looked like a tie to me (none / 0) (#85)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:59:36 PM EST
    at least until Edwards dropped out.

    I've changed my mind. I want the moderators (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:57:37 PM EST
    to ask Obama if the media has been fair to HC, not Hillary. I'd be interested in his answer.

    Teresa , I love you, but (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:03:24 PM EST
    Good luck with that.
    You may remember that the last debate moderated by Timmeh and Brian was not a great experience for Hillary.  
    I hate to say it, but I don't think tonight will be pretty.  
    For background, check out the Daily Howler.

    Bob Somerby at... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:07:52 PM EST
    The Daily Howler today points out that the two main allies of Drudge and Obama's Rovian attacks yesterday were Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum. He also reminds us that both Marshall and Drum were pro-Iraq War...

    It struck me that sites like Eschaton and Hullabaloo have not been major players in the Obama-jacking of the blogosphere. Funny, that, our pro-war bloggers who ginned up the war talk are now the ones who help Drudge gin up the attacks on Hillary Clinton. Maybe there is something to Taylor Marsh's turn of phrase, "The Progressive Village": not something progressive per se, but centrist Village tactics adapted to exploit and divide a new community.

    The progressive tools and noise machine that netroots bloggers, readers, and donors have built together during the past 5 years have been turned into weapons against progressive Democratic candidates and the Democratic party (the noise about Florida, Michigan, and superdelegates). The consequence seem obvious, as they pine for reconciliation after they beat that 'hysterical' and 'desperate' b___h, their shilling and propagandizing have Balkanized the blogosphere and netroot progressives.

    I think you are 100% correct and.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:16:43 PM EST
    ...I find it very depressing. My husband who doesn't follow blogs and is an Obama supporter doesn't really understand why I am so upset all the time. It's funny cause generally he is more "low information" than I am and yet I'm the one branded as such because I voted for Hillary Clinton. The irony is that I am sometimes tempted to become more "low information" in order to go with the flow and support Barack Obama. But I just can't do it. Not until this god-awful primary season is over and I find that I have to.

    i agree. (none / 0) (#163)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:18:07 PM EST
    me, too & I'm totally depressed :( (none / 0) (#175)
    by nashville on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:42:01 PM EST
    oops, correction... (none / 0) (#177)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:43:20 PM EST
    I meant to place in quotes, "beat that 'hysterical' and 'desperate'...." Sorry, I didn't mean to use that slur in my own voice (except in reference to Tina Fey's appropriation!)

    When Saturday Night Live... (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:11:47 PM EST
    ... does an eight-minute skit mocking the excessive bias for Obama and against Clinton, you know something is wrong.

    When two NBC reporters have to take timeouts for saying vile sexist remarks, you know something is wrong.

    When a half dozen media critics all say that Clinton has gotten a raw deal, but none say that Obama has, something is wrong.

    I think Obama supporters would do well to acknowledge that. It doesn't take away from their candidate.

    Agreed, (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by NecSorteNecFato on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:29:52 PM EST
    I fail to understand where it hurts Obama to acknowledge the clear bias in so much of her coverage....if he is truly the better candidate, as so many believe, than why could standing up for fair coverage hurt him? Honestly most of the coverage I have read that Obama supporters claim to be negative towards him, like the lapel pin story, actually tends to debunk these stories instead (CNN's patriotism poll being a notable exception). One would hope that we could expect BOTH our candidates to demand unbiased coverage if this election is truly about two candidates with similar political beliefs who very greatly in their ideas for implementation. The way it stands now, Obama seems to enjoy the benefits of the sexism to the point where calling it out might cost him the nom in loss of support from white males and crossover republicans. It makes me have much less respect of his "change" rhetoric.

    yep. (none / 0) (#166)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:21:23 PM EST
    it doesn't hurt for him to acknowledge the bias if he is truly the better candidate.  his silence speaks volumes.

    Obama Supporters ... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:24:18 PM EST
    cannot say that because it cuts into their myth that he's a once in a life time candidate who's transformed politics and made everyone love him.

    So according to Obama supporters, we (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:14:29 PM EST
    should no longer care if the media is fair or not? Isn't this one of the reasons blogs came into existence? I guess when Obama starts getting unfair treatment it will be the Clinton supporters left to defend him and I will be one of them.

    Not that I think for a minute his supporters won't raise hell when he is a victim of it. Can some of you never put yourself in her place? Has your blindness to all things except Obama gone this far?

    I am probably wrong.... (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:28:43 PM EST
    I think I am pretty sane guy, but I really begin to wonder if the media is consciously organized against Hillary Clinton.

    I have linked to the Gallup tracking poll the past three days. There was a graph designed to show that Obama had "teh momentum." However, Obama flat-lined at 47% and Clinton rebounded to 45-46% for three days straight. It was just on TalkLeft a yesterday as possible evidence that Obama did not have "teh momentum" that the media claimed he had.

    Now today, the Gallup tracking poll has no graph. It also dismisses its own findings and attempts to mislead readers that Obama still has momentum. It states, "Obama has been ahead more often than not in Gallup Poll Daily tracking. (In a separate poll Gallup conducted with USA Today Feb. 21-24 and released Monday, Obama did lead by a statistically significant margin.)"


    damn, (none / 0) (#202)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:25:47 PM EST
    i thought i was the only one who's been weirded out by gallup recently, and i just chalked it up to my overactive imagination.  first time i noticed was when i saw them recently omitting the caveat that typically accompanies comparisons within the margin of error.  i really, really hope i'm wrong.

    The will have that fixed.... (none / 0) (#205)
    by Oje on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:15:20 AM EST
    Three days from now, the poll will say Obama +10%, with the headline "Big Obama Momentum Coming out of the Ohio Debate."

    And the graph will be back.


    Voila! (none / 0) (#207)
    by Oje on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:00:37 PM EST
    Gallup "fixed" its daily tracking poll. The graph is back and Obama has gone from no lead to a 5 point lead in one night!

    "Teh momentum" has returned!


    And... (none / 0) (#208)
    by Oje on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:05:29 PM EST
    There is now a graph on yesterday's post, but still the marginalization of their own tracking poll with a reference to the poll commissioned by USA Today.

    I am sure Gallup feels the need to keep their clients happy, so it does not help to post two polls in the same day that say tie and Obama +13%.


    Hillary's press (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by disappointed on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:38:53 PM EST
    I am an older woman attorney who was in the Peace Corps. I voted and worked my whole life for civil rights and Democratic candidates beginning with McGovern. I assumed that my candidate, Hillary, would receive a fair hearing from the left.   I expected the horrible treatment from the  "centrist" media and the right, but I cannot tell you how betrayed and disappointed I am by the left I always supported: The Nation; Jonathan Alter; Keith Olberman; Talking Points Memo; DKos; most of the Huffington Post; Tapped; Move On. There are only a few sites that I feel are fair: yours, Hullabaloo, to some extent Eschaton, and Eric Alterman at Media Matters.  You can hear the chortling and the glee in so many media voices at Hillary's demise. All good is Obama, all that is not is Hillary.

    I'm with you Disappointed (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:47:26 PM EST
    I feel utterly defeated by what I've witnessed by the left against Hillary Clinton. One expects the horrible sexism and swiftboating from the right; I never anticipated the same exact words coming from the left.

    I told my husband it's almost to the point where I'd rather read the right-wingers - at least with them you know exactly where they stand.


    The Clintons "Whyning" About Press (none / 0) (#1)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:08:20 PM EST
    I don't  know....seems kinda bogus.
    For starters, if the press were really "after them"....they would hound Hillary/ Bill on Tax Returns and funding source for Clinton Foundation.

    Sounds Like You (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:21:58 PM EST
    Have some great employment potential in the press. You would fit right in.

    lets face it.... (none / 0) (#51)
    by jor on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:43:05 PM EST
    ... the press likes "stories". The fall of hillary is a human-interest piece almost.  Hillary not releasing her tax returns is far more politically relevant, but gets less coverage because its "blah blah blah" level of detail.

    Likes Stories? (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:51:09 PM EST
    You are blind. Hard to believe how anyone cannot see the biased treatment she has gotten. You must be blinded by being either GOP or an Obamaniac. Which one is it?

    re-read what I wrote.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by jor on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:54:39 PM EST
    ... I agree the media has the knives out for Hillary -- but its not just because they hate Hillary. They do hate her -- but their is one thing that reigns supreme over Hillary hate and that is RATINGS.   The fall of Hillary has a nice human-interest piece narrative to it --  which makes it easy to package for infotainment purposes.

    The knives are out, but they aren't out at relevant issues is what I'm trying to say.


    Exactly right (none / 0) (#89)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:01:20 PM EST
    Mass media outlets are easily the most short-sighted businesses in the world.  They care about jacking up ratings not this year or this quarter or this week but today.  (Anyone here remember Max Headroom and the minute-by-minute ratings?  Or the discussion in Broadcast News about the "moral quandary" of whether to televise an execution, if given the chance?)

    This is why they love to build up a public figure and then throw rocks at him or her--it makes a good story.  The fact that it's a fictional story bothers them not in the least, as long as they get their ratings.


    I Read It (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:15:49 PM EST
    But that cannot account for it, sorry to say. Was there a story, well that would be another story. It goes beyond selling papers. After one of the primaries, she walked into the press office and everyone purposely ignored her. How does that sell papers?

    Which years' tax returns? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:48:49 PM EST
    I see this complaint yet never telling me, nor can I find, which years are the concern. I'm sure you don't mean 2007, since we all -- even Senators -- have until the Ides of April. . . .

    Longer even, if we get an extension. :) (none / 0) (#64)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:50:28 PM EST
    How about ALL Tax Returns Info/ Data for 2007 (none / 0) (#98)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:06:39 PM EST
    How about the list of contributors to the Clinton Foundation (and all relevant data....evry last detail).

    Why we don't demand this from all our elected representitives is ....well shameful.


    Okay, but how about wait 'til they're due (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:12:47 PM EST
    on April 15, or later with an extension which is perfectly legal. And you still haven't answered the question about other years, so you're only asking about last year's that aren't due yet, huh? Btw, do we have the Obamas' 2007 returns yet?

    Interesting you would defend HRC's decision to (none / 0) (#113)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:18:28 PM EST
    NOT release Tax Return data untill later in the year.
    Ok....u have that right.
    Just curious though as to why she doesn't want that info out untill after the primary season.

    per this link....Obama claims he has relaesed his


    I haven't done my taxes yet (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:21:32 PM EST
    for this year.  Sure Obama's return is for '07?  By the way, I don't see why it matters since the Senate income disclosure forms are public.

    Sounds sinister though doesn't it?


    If Clinton Foundation donors (none / 0) (#112)
    by mg7505 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:18:05 PM EST
    are required by law to be disclosed, that's one thing and I won't argue. But if they're not, then why does it matter? The better piece of information would be Clinton Foundation expenditures, so we know if Bill et al are using their influence to turn bad money towards good causes. Otherwise they'll just release the donor list along with stats on how many children's lives they saved; doesn't exactly help anyone to criticize them...

    agree...thanks for the fine tune (none / 0) (#115)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:19:13 PM EST
    I just don't get it. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Chimster on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:16:31 PM EST
    I know the media, republicans, African-Americans, and self-righteous liberals are biased against the Clinton's (I'm sure there are more groups that I've not included) but who are these people switching over to to Obama's camp at this point in the primary? Independants? Undecideds? ex-Hillary supporters? Were these people at one point stumping for Hillary, then all of a sudden, they see Keith Olberman sucking up to Obama and decide "Hmm.. I guess if Keith Olbermann likes Obama I should too"? I just can't understand why Clinton supporters would switch this late in the game. I thought there would have been a ceiling and we would have hit it by now. But now she's losing folks in Texas and Ohio? I just don't get it.

    Speaking only for myself (none / 0) (#18)
    by Claw on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:28:58 PM EST
    I did stump for and support HRC.  I've since switched to Obama.  I did so because I think he has a better shot at the White House and because I think he'll make a better president.  I don't think my support for a fellow dem merits insults (self righteous liberal) but perhaps we disagree on that point.

    You're right. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Chimster on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:41:03 PM EST
    I was frustrated, I wrote that self-righteous thing as a stab in the dark. Sorry. My bad.

    nah (none / 0) (#153)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:57:46 PM EST
    It's a more or less accurate characterization of people who criticize Hillary from the left. I'm one of them. I still have major disagreements with her politically, but she's at least gained my respect during this campaign.

    But are they voting for Obama? I don't know.  I recall seeing exit polling data from some of the early primaries that showed the most liberal group was breaking for Clinton by a significant margin.


    I would agree (none / 0) (#7)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM EST
    that the media, taken on the whole, doesn't much care for Hillary.  The question I would the Hillary supporters is this.  Do you think that Hillary has contributed to this hostility?

    No. (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:21:49 PM EST
    No (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:23:26 PM EST
    Same question to you.

    Absolute I do (none / 0) (#19)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:29:25 PM EST
    Her negative relationship with the Beltway press has been going on for 10 years at least.  

    Do I know why they don't like her?  Not really.  Do I think it's all her fault?  No.  But the punditocracy are just like everyone else.  They react to how they are treated.  

    Then again it's possible that it is personal and that they are venting all of their frustrations about disillusionment they have about Bill.  I really don't know.

    But Hillary never seemed to address the problem, thinking it would just go away I guess.  

    It didn't.  Now she is paying the price.


    If you do not know why (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:33:23 PM EST
    how can you possibly say she caused it?

    You are making no sense.


    Because we are speculating (none / 0) (#34)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:35:38 PM EST
    Unless you know the reason why they are hostile to her.  If you do I would love to hear it.  

    You guys want to assign all sorts of evil agenda to the media when the reality is that most likely they simply don't like her because of the kind of person she has been to them.


    So does this justify them... (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:39:59 PM EST
    ...being biased in their reporting. Because they are supposed to be unbiased, you know. Or at least I thought so. But many things I used to believe seem to not be as true as I thought they were just a few short months ago, apparently.

    Let me throw an analogy at you, since you are fond of them. If I am a teacher and I don't like one of my students, does that absolve me of my responsibility to teach him or her?


    No YOU are speculating (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:41:32 PM EST
    I am saying she did nothing to deserve biased coverage.

    You know why I say it? Because NO ONE deserves biased coverage.


    You are dealing (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:45:57 PM EST
    with some abstract sense of fairness when dealing with an environment that is decidedly NOT fair.

    The media certainly doesn't care about fairness.  

    Successful politicians overcome the media.  Losers complain about it.  

    There is no such thing as an unbiased media. Never has been. Never will be.


    No, media creates successful politicans (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by BigB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:37:11 PM EST
    Media creates successful politicans, Example George W. Bush. He turned out to be a disaster for the country because the media could not help him govern well.

    The latest example: Barack Obama. An untested, inexperienced, first-term senator from the "clean" Illinois politics.

    He is a media creation.


    remember that between the nomination (none / 0) (#71)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:53:14 PM EST
    and November.  no whining about Obama's bad day in the press.  OK.

    I can guarantee you (none / 0) (#78)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:57:00 PM EST
    that you won't hear me complaining about the media.  

    Yes I will get upset when they cover trivial crap that I don't care about or focus on complete BS. But that is what they do.

    FTR, if you think the media is biased against Hillary you should go to the Conservative blogs and get their opinion on media bias.  It is a RELIGION for them.  


    Irrelevant (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM EST
    Of course that is obvious. Why do you think I support Obama?

    Clinton and the media (none / 0) (#76)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:55:18 PM EST
    What kind of person could Hillary be to the media that would warrant the vindicative behavior of Tweety, Tucker, etc.  Are you suggesting she made particular actions toward the media that soured their relationship?  No incidents like that come to mind.

    It has been noted during this campaign that Obama has not been very accessible to reporters.  Shouldn't they dislike him for that?

    There's a lot of interesting information on how she has been viewed by the media on her wiki site.  It seems to begin with media criticism of the 'appropriateness' of her active role in Bill's administration.  And so it goes.

    Hillary on Wiki


    But you ignore (none / 0) (#91)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:01:43 PM EST
    her dismissive tone about not being a little woman baking cookies.  She was very combative about her role.  I can respect her doing that, but she should also realize that when you attack their sensibilities they are not going to like you.

    It's not just about being accessible to the media.  It is how you treat the media.  It's how often you try and treat the media as dupes. It's how often you deceive them.


    Oh c'mon (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:10:27 PM EST
    Obama has duped the media a bunch of times.  The step by step Rezko revelations?  Exactly what 'duping' of the media are you referring to?  

    Also, you forget that she was taken out of context when discussing baking cookies.  Which exemplifies the problem.  

    Whose sensibilities was she attacking, btw?  The media's?  

    The media consistently does a hatchet job to Hillary.  In many ways, she is a maverick.  But she isn't a cool cowboy maverick, so have at her.

    "HILLARY CLINTON: You know, I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life.

    JUDD (VO): Never mind that Clinton went on to say feminism means the right to choose work, or home, or both; the damage had been done. She'd been tagged an elitist and an ultra - feminist."



    There's a lot in your list of complaints. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:10:35 PM EST
    You seem to be suggesting that Hillary's cookie remark somehow harmed the media. I don't see that. How did it attack their sensibilities...is it because they like cookies or because they like Tammy Wynette?

    And finally this:

    It's how often you try and treat the media as dupes. It's how often you deceive them.

    Do you really believe this because then how do you explain how much they made fools of themselves over the Bush administration and dangled like puppets from Karl Rove's strings?


    It seems pretty clear (none / 0) (#106)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:12:08 PM EST
    to me that the media LOATHES George Bush.  

    He isn't getting those 30% approval ratings because of all the good press he's getting.  Not that he deserves any.


    Sorry but that one won't "fly"... (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:23:37 PM EST
    Those 30% approval ratings came while he was still getting cheered by media. And where were you when David Broder and his pals were breathlessly writing comments about Bush's anticipated "comeback." You don't have to be right about everything, you know. And this is one of your weakest rebuttals yet. :)

    I won't agree with this (none / 0) (#125)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:27:33 PM EST
    One the main reasons why people see media bias so often is because they view the media through their own biased prism.  So when the media attacks people they support they think that the only reason they could be doing it is because they are biased.

      And when they attack someone they don't support they don't support it is because they had no choice but to report the truth.

    I think that the media gave Bush a free ride from about 9/12/01 to 12/04.  But they have hardly been kind to him in his second term.  Of course the horse had already left the barn by that time, so it hardly mattered.  All that did was let the Conservatives feel like victims for a while.


    Please, what news have you been watching? (5.00 / 5) (#133)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:33:48 PM EST
    BushCo should be impeached by now for all the crap they've done. Does FISA ring a bell? Where's the media criticism of that? I've missed it. Other than ignoring him I hardly think the media has stopped giving Bush his free pass. In fact, ignoring him is another way of giving him a free pass. Good grief, his administration is in CHARGE and no one is blaming him for anything, except for being unpopular because that's the only crime they find him guilty of.

    flyerhawk, (none / 0) (#132)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:31:25 PM EST
    You don't have to agree with me (none / 0) (#140)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    But I do appreciate your civil response to my comments.  Seems a rarity here at times.

    I don't know if you remember that cookies comment but it upset a lot of people.  It didn't bother me but I was 23 year old in the Army at the time.  I hardly cared.  

    IMO, the notion that the media is out to get the Clintons for no reason seems even more absurd.  Things don't happen for no reason.  There is ALWAYS a reason.  May be a good reason.  May be a bad reason.  But always a reason.


    this is hilarious. (none / 0) (#151)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:56:24 PM EST
    why bother trying to please the press?  yet another instance of obama no longer caring about people once they're in his pocket.  reminds me of the state of the black union.

    An excellent book which examines the (none / 0) (#191)
    by hairspray on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:15:59 PM EST
    Clinton rise from Arkansas to the White House and beyond is covered by Gene Lyons and Joe Conasen in "The Hunting of the President".  It basically goes like this: Clinton returns to Arkansas and cleans up banking, health care and the education system. Steps on lots of toes and his "hippey wife" really makes them mad. When he heads to D.C. the knives are out and a guy named Lee Atwater (the first genuine swiftboater) goes after them involving the NYT (Jeff Gerth) and WaPo. The GOP is desperate to kill off a populist southerner, but Bill is too gifted and they don't win. The GOP of the past,  have always been elitist.  TheBradley/Quinn's never forgive them "razorbacks and low life Clintons" from taking over "their town"  Well documented book.

    and this is... (none / 0) (#54)
    by jor on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:44:43 PM EST
    ... someone the dems should nominate for president? 50% of the country and the DC media corp against her.

    Irrelevant to this post (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:49:30 PM EST
    As you would know if you had read me, this is precisely the reason I support Obama.

    Guess that makes the perverse pointr (none / 0) (#172)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:32:05 PM EST
    that we just take on the powers that be, so we should hide in our holes and hope they don't run over us.

    i have a hunch as to why they don't like her. (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:20:31 PM EST
    her winning this election threatens their power over the outcome of elections.  look at what they did to dean in 2004.  or as james carville put it in 1994 about bill's 1992 campaign:

    "No one understands the power of the media in this country. I went into this campaign believing they were powerful. I didn't know. The power they have is staggering. And they really do guard it.

    "They like to think of themselves as learned and insightful and thoughtful and considered. They claim the mantle of truth. Hell, truth is they make instant snap judgments and after that all of their time, all of their energy, all of their creativity is spent on nothing but validating their original judgment. Something happens and three minutes after the event they all talk to each other and decide 'this is the story,' and the story must remain thus in perpetuity. They claim the moral high ground; their job is to report facts and tell people the truth. But information is secondary to them, self-justification is primary. Once the collective media mind is made up, it will not change.

    "Until you understand that, you can never understand the media.  Their original take is the one that's going to last." (pp. 185-86; emphasis in original)

    incidentally, his wife and republican strategist mary matalin confirmed this; and god knows they don't agree on politics.  so i guess the takeaway point from this is that it's less about liberals vs. conservatives than about a bunch of egomaniacal jerks frantically guarding their power, which is possibly now under siege in this election.


    Study after study on this --- (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:46:22 PM EST
    the bandwagon theory, the "boys on the bus," etc. -- and on media, above all, reinforcing the status quo. This is a tough one for them between the Dems, but Obama is the male, so more status quo than Clinton. Once it's between one of them and McCain, though, no question he fits the status quo best -- the white male. (Lou Dobbs yesterday was so stunned and dismayed about "identity politics" -- because it never occurred to him or others that the ONLY identity ever seen before in serious candidates for the presidency was the white male identity.)

    interesting take. (none / 0) (#169)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:25:51 PM EST
    The hostility is older than 10 years (5.00 / 5) (#159)
    by goldberry on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:12:54 PM EST
    It started with the attack on her hairband back in 1992. Then it was her cookies and tea comment.  Then Bill's philandering ways.  Her clothes.  The White House decorator.  Her career.  Her friends.  You name it, they poked at it.  This has been going on for a very long time.  They NEVER liked her.  I think it's because she was too smart for them and "and in her air altogether there is a self sufficiency without fashion".  It drove them nuts that she thought herself an equal to her husbanc.  It didn't fit the preferred narrative.  She wasn't sucking up to them in order to be liked.  She made them seem unimportant to her existence.  
    So, they forced the issue.  It's been downhill ever since.  
    No, the media started it.  They just don't like her type.  
    She's too presidential.  

    Honest to God, (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by zyx on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:20:06 PM EST
    I don't know about the media.

    But I know about some of my so-called male "liberal" "friends".  A woman they are going to support for the presidency apparently has to be a GTLF.

    I am very deeply angry to have discovered this, let me tell you.


    rec for the Jane Austen reference (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:43:06 PM EST
    The press does kind of remind me of that evil Bingley sister with her pretentious, empty ambition.


    Clinton would be a better president, even with all the knives stuck in her back, than any of the other contenders currently in the race.  We're not supposed to think about that, but it's obvious.


    "They react to how they are treated." (none / 0) (#50)
    by Chimster on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:42:54 PM EST
    Obama ignores the press. What kind of treatment is that?

    Exactly. He doesn't talk with them (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:50:58 PM EST
    (see New Yorker this week) and yet. . . .

    And based on the experience of Barry Bonds, (none / 0) (#118)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:21:12 PM EST
     ... the media should hate him for not talking to them. Right?

    Hillary supporter (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Chimster on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:23:27 PM EST
    Being a Hillary supporter (take that for what its worth) I think she's been screwed since Iowa. She was not been on the harsh-attack up until recently. So my question to you is: what do YOU think Hillary has done to deserve this treatment?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:24:56 PM EST
    Do you?

    That's classical victim blaming (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:27:39 PM EST
    They can whack her all they want but if she fights back, she's contributing to the hostility.

    If a guy (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:32:01 PM EST
    walks down Atlantic Avenue in Bed-Sty at 3 in the morning with $100 bills hanging out of his pockets, the mugger is still the criminal.  But the victim is still a dumbarse for acting that way.

    Uhhhh (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:32:34 PM EST

    It's a rather obvious (none / 0) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:37:47 PM EST
    comparison taken to an extreme.

    But obviously for people that wish to treat Hillary Rodham Clinton as an innocent victim who has never done anyone harm in her life, I can see how it is excessive.


    Uhhhhh (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:40:09 PM EST

    I don't know what else to say (none / 0) (#41)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:40:59 PM EST
    A little more detail to your question would be helpful.

    You have said too much (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:42:34 PM EST

    no he hasn't... (none / 0) (#57)
    by jor on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:46:22 PM EST
    .. he's basically saying saying the press is unfairly attacking hillary, but hillary just seems to goad on more attacks by doing silly things.

    Coming from you (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:48:37 PM EST
    Well. you know.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#73)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:54:27 PM EST
    But that goes against the Hillary is an innocent victim meme they are convincing themselves of.

    As I have said before blaming the media for losing is like blaming the refs for losing the game.  Yeah the refs may have screwed you, but you kept it close enough to let them do it.


    uh, well when the refs (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:02:11 PM EST
    become so corrupt that they start deciding the game first and justifying their calls second, i'd say the time has come for the fans in the bleachers to protest.

    Yea, its a shame... (none / 0) (#81)
    by jor on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:57:24 PM EST
    ... people her refuse to realize the gross incompetence of the Clinton press machine. I mean they've had some of the most outrageous spin for weeks now -- what makes anyone think their handling of the media is any better than their spin?

    If you haven't noticed yet (none / 0) (#66)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    I say what I believe.  I am not going to sugarcoat it to make it more digestible for the inhabitants of TL, or any other blog I post on.

    You are trying to create a "Hillary is a victim" framing here.  I disagree that she is a victim.  I think she is a victim of her own hubris and decision to surround herself with insulated group of consultants that all think the same way.

    I would hope that you can be respectful enough to at least articulate the problems you have with my comments rather than leaving open ended innuendo.


    Shorter you (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:02:02 PM EST
    the b*tch deserved it.  did you see what she was wearing?   Then that BS about insulated consultants.  Press malpractice was the topic, not consultants.

    The press' (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:02:37 PM EST
    hatred begins in 1992, when their minds exploded at the thought of a husband and wife of equal intellectual merit and accompishment in the White House.

    JUDD (VO): Fear and loathing. The tabloid New York Post called Hillary Clinton "a buffoon, an insult to most women".

    RUTH MANDEL, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: It's the old kind of feeling about "uppity" women. Stay in your place. Here's someone who's stepping out of her place, here's someone who is - you're able to describe with all the old stereotypes. She's not supposed to be - if she's a woman, she's supposed to stand at his side, smile, look pretty, be quiet and say that everything he does is fine.

    Making Hillary an Issue:  transcript

    But I guess it's Hillary's fault.  


    You know (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:03:39 PM EST
    Saying what you think will not inoculate you from having people think what they will think about what you write.

    This subthread is easily your worst moments at this blog.


    One other thing (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    You banned me for a day for suggesting that you are acting like a Republican.

    A few posts below here a pro-Hillary supporter suggests I am no different than Bill O'Reilly and that my comment somehow related to rape.  Apparently that doesn't even merit a comment(note: I don't care about the comment but I do care about consistency).


    I apologize flyer. You know that you are one of (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:37:00 PM EST
    my favorite Obama supporters here and you have helped me accept how this will end up. I just think your analogy about the crime victim when way too far. My comment just popped into my head immediately but BTD can delete it if he wants to. I wouldn't offend you for anything even if I do think you are wrong to write what you did, as was I.

    Actually Teresa (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:42:37 PM EST
    I thought the other Teresa had made the comment.

    I knew the comment would provoke a response but I certainly wasn't going for the "She had it coming to her".  It probably was a poor analogy.  It was what popped in my mind, but certainly not arguing what you said.  I STRONGLY object to that reasoning.  

    Sorry if it offended you.


    Why? (none / 0) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:07:48 PM EST
    Please explain this to me?

    What have I said that is meanspirited, hostile, or offensive?  

    As I have told you before I find whining about the media utterly futile.  And right now the Hillary campaign seems to think the more they complain about it the better things will get.

    I really don't understand why you think that disagreement requires opprobrium.  


    If this campaign has shown anything (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Manuel on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:34:16 PM EST
    it is that as a society we come much farther on racism than sexism.  This is probably not surprising as the Nineteenth Amendment was not ratified until 1920.  If you can't see how this attitude has affected the MSM coverage of this election and HC, I can't help you.  How can you deny this?  It is self evident.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#86)
    by Chimster on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:00:27 PM EST
    for not sugar coating your opinion. Now I respect your opinion.

    The analogy (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:33:09 PM EST
    does. not. fit. the. situation.

    That sounds like Bill O. saying (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:34:06 PM EST
    "and what was she wearing"?

    Dude (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:42:38 PM EST
    Even though the Obama campaign has tried to use this issue as a reason why he can bring the country together and she can't, at least the Obama campaign has always had the mock sensitivity to go through the motions of saying "it's not her fault".

    Give it a try.


    Oh my. nt (none / 0) (#32)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:35:01 PM EST
    NO (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:47:28 PM EST
    They also hated Gore and gave him terrible coverage all the while sucking up to Bush.

    The media hated the Clintons from the beginning. Thought they were interlopers from "dogpatch". The really have a problem with being emotionally stunted. They are all stuck in high school trying to be part of the cool kids' clique.

    I don't think it helps for the Clintons to point this out. Her supporters need to do it, just like they should have for Gore, but did not. Go look at the archives from the dailyhowler.com site for lots of examples.


    There is another petty reason ... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:37:07 PM EST
    but it will be best understood by people who work in the media.

    The Clintons are hard to cover.  They rarely work from prepared statements. They often change or alter parts of their schedule.  They are spontaneous. They do things close to deadlines or broadcasts.

    You cannot write Clinton stories on the way to an event.

    They LOVE politicians like Obama, Reagan, Bush, etc..  You can cover these guys in your sleep.  These guys rarely veer from prepared statements or schedules, they aren't spontaneous, you can write your speech coverage before the speech is given, etc..

    In short, Clintons cut into their free time, and they hate them for it.  And they make them think, and work harder.  It's a petty reason for hating them. But a real one.


    no. (none / 0) (#168)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:22:46 PM EST
    Media (none / 0) (#9)
    by garage mahal on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    What...Frank Rich and the rest of the press corps wants Hillary to lose. Why never!

    Seriously (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    how can you complain about her shame on you performance being taken badly.  She was clearly not a pleasant person.  Who wants to be talked to like that?  Is it ok to be angry like that, yes, but for just cause.  I'm sorry but those mailers weren't a good reason.  You guys complain, but they are her mistakes.  

    When she responded to the picture saying that it was awful to think native clothing was an insult, is anyone that dumb?  

    Who wants to be talked to like that? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:23:21 PM EST
    Have you ever asked yourself that same question? You haven't been very pleasant yourself around here. Does that give us license to hate you and misrepresent what you say, call you names and suggest that you have a personality disorder? I'd say no, it doesn't give us the right, anymore than it gives media jerks the right to do that simply because they don't like someone. So think about what you are saying and remember that "pleasantness" is in the eye of the beholder.

    As for the garb flap, the Obama campaign should have responded just the way the Clinton campaign did. Tell me, please, why should Obama act like he's afraid of those pictures being made public? They aren't photoshopped, their real, why is he ashamed of them being shone in public. What a wuss.


    clearly (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:28:09 PM EST
    As for the garb flap, the Obama campaign should have responded just the way the Clinton campaign did. Tell me, please, why should Obama act like he's afraid of those pictures being made public? They aren't photoshopped, their real, why is he ashamed of them being shone in public. What a wuss.

    I'm the one full of unpleasantries.  

    You haven't been very pleasant yourself around here.

    which at this site, means not agreeing that everyone and everything is conspiring against Clinton.


    "which at this site... (none / 0) (#144)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:44:39 PM EST

    ...means not agreeing that everyone and everything is conspiring against Clinton."

    No, it means talking out of both sides of your mouth. Hillary getting bad press must be her fault. You being thought unpleasant must be this sites fault. That's been the kind of argument you've slung around here since I've started reading here. Two different standards depending on who you are slamming or who you are defending. BTD's called you out on this several times. I didn't mention this just to slam you, but make you see that just because YOU, or anyone else, hates someone, it doesn't make it right to treat them unfairly.


    Better Question (none / 0) (#129)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:29:11 PM EST
    Which is more to the point. What was the intent of releasing those pictures when they were sent out?

    Yes they were old news and benign when first published, but the intent this time around was malicious.


    I agree that Drudge's (none / 0) (#150)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:51:18 PM EST
    intent was malicious- to stir up bad feelings between the two campaigns. But beyond that, since the Clinton campaign denied authorizing their release I don't see any other maliciousness INTENT involved, or any INTENT at all. And why can't you answer the question?

    Because It Is Irrelevant (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:16:44 PM EST
    The question is about trying to do harm, not about harm inflicted.

    j's (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:55:00 PM EST
    original question was, wasn't it dumb of the Clinton's campaign to point out that there's nothing wrong with wearing native garb?

    My point was that it wasn't dumb and in fact it should have been said by the Obama people. My question is why did the Obama people act as a public photo showed something wrong and nefarious? The response should have been ho, hum, Congresspeople do that all the time, which was just what the Clinton people did.

    If Clinton had gone all ballistic over an AP photo  that's been out there for 2 years showing up on Drudge, believe me, we would have heard no end to the media whining about how "hysterical" she was being over a legitimate photo.


    Really? (none / 0) (#200)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:23:53 PM EST
    Seems like you are playing concern troll here. Obama's supporters are fine with the picture but not fine about the malicious intent.

    A pleasant person? (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:40:11 PM EST
    She was clearly not a pleasant person.

    Since when was that a requirement for election to the US Presidency? How did Nixon and Bush slip through?

    Plenty of people felt that her anger was justified, and were glad to see it being expressed. The problem is that the media then focuses on "Clinton's anger" as the story, as opposed to the Obama campaign distributing misinformation, which was the reason for the anger.


    exactly; i totally agree with you. (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:31:36 PM EST
    i should amend that to say (none / 0) (#174)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:39:44 PM EST
    i'd omit bush.  i actually think both bushes are likeable; they just made for horrible presidents.  bush jr. in particular just got in way over his head by assuming the presidency, imho.  but he'd have never gotten to the oval office in the first place if the media had done its job of examining the candidates and treating them impartially.  yet again, we can thank the media for screwing america over.

    As a supporter (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Manuel on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:06:05 PM EST
    I was glad to see her take that tone.  I share her outrage and frustration.  It was depressing to see the Obama campaign continue to use misleading tactics attacking her health plan from the right.  It was also depresing to see his opportunism on NAFTA (attacking from the left) which he has also praised in the past.

    Ah (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:32:02 PM EST
    another pearl of wisdom from you.

    I know (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:34:53 PM EST
    you thought shame sounded wonderful.  You couldn't be wrong of course, no reasonable person could have a differing opinion.  The media must be at fault

    Interestingly (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:39:19 PM EST
    you still have not commented on my post.

    I wonder if you will hate me so when I am defending Obama against GOP attacks.


    Its actually (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:01:14 PM EST
    annoying because they never complain that the press ahs covered something harshly.  The press hasn't hammered her on tax return on Hsu, or any trash.

    They have on several occasions gone after Obama on some pretty bad stuff.  Like the patriotism, some of the muslim stuff has been poorly covered as well.

    The problem is that she has no genuine complaint.  They things she does that are "portrayed" as calculating int he media, look calculating.  You gusy complained that her little celebration of Florida didn't work, and use that as evidnece of media bias.

    Her real gripe is that she wants the media to attack Obama more.  SO she is inviting more, he hates America stuff.  She is essentially just giving the media an excuse to attack our nominee.    Her advisors actually think it wasn't fair that the press didn't use that stupid picture to launch into a racist attack.  it is crazy what she is inviting the press to do.


    Please show some proof (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Manuel on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:20:26 PM EST
    that Clinton's campaign has done that.  In fact, I resent, but do not blame, the Obama campaign for taking advantage of attitudes like yours so willing to believe the worse about the Clintons.  The Clintons are no saints but neither are they devils.  Both Hillary and Obama are politicians with all that entails.

    No one wants to the press to ask silly stuff or horse race baloney.  It would be good if they had been asking at least some of the questions posed by Dan Balz.  Alas, it's probably too late.


    Did Hillary say that? I missed it. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:32:06 PM EST
    I thought it was Maggie Williams. But then apparently Hillary is on the record proclaiming somewhere that her candidacy is inevitable and I somehow missed seeing that too.

    Usually (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:35:56 PM EST
    when campaigns release statements, they are speaking for them.  So if you have issue with what she said, take it up with her campaign, not me.

    I have issues with.... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:41:22 PM EST
    ...inaccuracies. And if you had said that her campaign said that, then I wouldn't have challenged you.

    You're not a pleasant person (none / 0) (#79)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:57:14 PM EST
    either, but I doubt anyone hates you for it.

    you find me (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:23:40 PM EST
    unpleasant? so would you vote for me for president?
    So you see how finding her comments unpleasant, wouldn't make you hate her, however it is ample reason not to vote for her.

    If you were running against McCain... (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:27:26 PM EST
    I'd vote for you, but I would hold my nose. :)

    ha (none / 0) (#128)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:28:50 PM EST
    kudos on that line!

    Tonight is it. I wish she could just tell the (none / 0) (#20)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:30:29 PM EST
    media how she feels tonight. I know she won't but I still wish she would. Even Dan Abrams who claims to hold the media accountable, totally blew it on NAFTA last night. I started to send him an e-mail with sources but then I figured, why bother?

    He also said what her campaign did with the picture was a cheap shot. Was that determined to be true?

    Huff Post has a headline that Obama (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:40:41 PM EST
    is snubbing the media.  Stay tuned.

    the subtext... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:44:23 PM EST
    ...is that he's largely bypassing the national media and doing interviews with local media several times a day, in order to generate favorable local coverage in the upcoming battleground states.  
    Many of the national media questions are essentially "horse race" questions about superdelegates, MI/FL and whatnot.  
    I'm sure, when he's done wrapping up the nomination fight, he'll adjust his approach toward the media accordingly.  
    There are a variety of angles to criticize his campaign from, but generally they're not guilty of bad media management.

    She's known the media was biased... (none / 0) (#44)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:41:20 PM EST
    ...against her for the past 16 years.  Didn't she have some kind of plan for dealing with this?
    Similarly, she's known that a large portion of swing voters have an irrational bias against her for years as well.  Shouldn't she have had a plan for dealing with that, too?

    Gosh, I guess Clinton expected (none / 0) (#59)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:47:34 PM EST
    The media to be fair.
    And balanced.
    And stuff like that.

    Then she is naive (none / 0) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:51:53 PM EST
    Personally I find it incredibly unlikely that she expects the media to be fair.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#72)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:53:47 PM EST
    she expected them to be
    not so blatantly unfair.

    The expectation reasonably could have been (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:55:52 PM EST
    based on their past behavior, that the media were going to dump on all Dems. The media fear of being labelled racist changed that dynamic. That it could have been expected to be so extreme, I don't see.

    You think the media (none / 0) (#84)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:57:54 PM EST
    has been favorable to McCain just for no reason?

    He's been following a careful strategy with them and it's paid off big time for him over the years.

    Hillary has to be able to deal with the media successfully, to win or to govern. And she hasn't shown she can.


    Ahhh, more blame the victim. (none / 0) (#95)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:03:33 PM EST
    So how, exactly DO you fight a MEDIA that is about 80% out to get you, hmmm?

    Just think about it, don't bother answering.  I get too peeved about this sort of thing to come back and read.


    I find it humorous that the (none / 0) (#53)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:44:39 PM EST
    Hillary supporters are complainging about the press now when it is the press that annoited her inevitable 1 year ago.

    The same press then annoited her the comeback kid after NH but how else can a press treat losing so many primaries in a row?

    As in sports when you're losing you comlain about the coverage because all you can see the nagative as piling on.  The press would be just as harsh with Obama if he was losing but he isn't.

    Predictably we are seeing a little blowback with Obama and his "obamamania" (did you hear what Cokie Roberts had to say)but it will be too little to late.

    Hillary was just never very electable or likable and a smooth talking candidate was more then enough to take her down.  Press or no press.

    I Doubt You'll Get the Subtext (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:51:27 PM EST
    Of this question:

    But how did you come to realize that Clinton wasn't very likable and that Obama was smooth talking?


    Because her negatives (none / 0) (#206)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:24:31 AM EST
    are ridiculously high.

    For Clinton, it's her relatively high negative ratings. In the survey, 44 percent view her positively versus 39 percent who see her in a negative light. By comparison, Obama has a 42-22 percent positive-negative rating.


    It is hard to get elected when 1/3 to 1/2 of the country will never ever vote for you.  I don't know how many freinds of mine would vote for Obama but not vote for Hillary.   Only about 1/2 of the democratic base has a positive veiw of Hillary.   The other 1/2 is tired of her and the "clintons" and no republicans like her period.

    That's what I mean.   She should have ran vs. an unpopular Bush in 2004 and now it's too late.


    If She Wasn't (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by AmyinSC on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:55:10 PM EST
    Very electable, why have people been turning out in DROVES to support her???  She won by a LANDSLIDE in FL, even though Obama was the only major candidate to campaign there  She won by a landslide in CA, and even in MA, did QUITE well.  At this point, she is less than 100 delegates behind him, not counting MI,FL, or NV (it is my understanding from the NY Times that NV isnt apporioned until mid-April).  She is HARDLY down and out.  Her supporters, and I am proudly in that camp, love her.

    That being said, because the media is biased against her, and biased against women (that has, sadly, shockingly, and infuriatingly, been exceedingly blatant), means she should just tuck in her tail, do them all a favor, and drop out of the race??  Um, no.  I think MANY of us were surprised at the level of sexism, and downright misogyny, demonstrated by the media in their treatment of her (and Obama has certainly been sexist toward her, too, but who is going to call him on it, the media??  Hahahahahaha!).

    If those of us who are in a minority never tried to do anything because we KNEW there were people opposed to us, women could not vote, African Americans could not vote, lesbians and gay men could not be out at ALL (and it is still ileegal in 31 states), and our country would be a very different place.  All of that is to say, for whatever the reasons for their bias, the media in this country has lost all semblance of true journalism, and that is a sad state of affairs.


    Oops... (none / 0) (#80)
    by AmyinSC on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:57:20 PM EST
    Apportioned and illegal - sorry abt that!

    maybe pushing her "inevitability" was (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:14:56 PM EST
    just a way of building her up to make her fall more dramatic.  besides, i've seen repeated protest from the clinton camp to that whole "inevitability" characterization.  i'm starting to think it was part of the media's game-playing.

    Oh no, she has to face Timmeh and Brian? (none / 0) (#55)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:45:37 PM EST
    Watch the first question be "Senator Clinton, why don't you drop out of the race?"

    It has to be asked why Huckabee (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:57:41 PM EST
    is not getting the pressure to quit that she is.

    Because he is a sideshow (none / 0) (#97)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:05:05 PM EST
    Huckabee is just tagging along.  He's funny.  He's personable.  He goes on SNL and makes fun of himself.  

    McCain isn't paying attention to him.  He isn't a legitimate threat to McCain and Huckabee isn't taking shots at McCain.

    None of those things apply to Hillary.


    i do agree with you here. (none / 0) (#178)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:44:54 PM EST
    So your candidate failed to be (none / 0) (#198)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:15:11 PM EST
    as far ahead as McCain -- and Clinton is the problem? Uh huh.

    I am looking forward (none / 0) (#119)
    by mg7505 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:23:11 PM EST
    to seeing her rip apart whoever asks that question. It will start with the reasons (mentioned above in this thread) that she's not nearly down and out, and end with calling out the blatant hypocrisy that no one asked Obama to drop out when he was 20 points behind in the polls a couple months ago. It will be the answer of the night, and I'm going to get a good laugh watching Obama try and respond.

    It isn't always about what the media does, (none / 0) (#99)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:07:19 PM EST
    but about what it doesn't do.  The CNN debate last week was a perfect example.  On question after question, Obama was allowed to go on and on and on in his answers, and when Clinton finally got the microphone, Campbell Brown invariably hurried her up because they were running short on time.  He got the last word almost every time, and when he didn't get it at the very end, he was not pleased.  What that tells me is that Obama now feels entitled to favorable coverage, and isn't particularly gracious when he doesn't get it on his terms.  Perhaps Obama playing hard-to-get makes them more overt in their fawning, in hopes that the more obsequious they are, the more likely he will grant them the kind of access they have to McCain - or used to have.  Either way, it fails to serve the people, which used to be the function of the media, or maybe it's just so bad now, that it just seemed that way.

    As for whether Hillary deserves to be hated by the media, I guess that's a pretty subjective question.  The bigger question to me is, who is the media serving - their own personal feelings about the candidates and the issues, or the larger concept of journalism and the people's right to know?  I think, increasingly, it is about the former - together with the corporate overlords who condone that agenda.  It seems to me that increasingly, almost everything we read and hear is a form of editorializing, even from the so-called news divisions of TV and print media.

    And, they also take advantage of people's innate laziness and acceptance that if it comes through your TV, it must be true, as well as their short-term memory problem - a lot of people fail to see that Obama is getting the same kind of kid-gloves treatment George Bush got - and that worked out so well, didn't it?  Same result vis-à-vis the Iraq war - don't do any real work, just parrot the administration and take no responsibility for the public not being informed.

    Of course the media is biased, and this cycle's victim is Hillary.  For the media, it often seems more like 7th grade than the election of the president of the United States.

    i agree. (none / 0) (#179)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:47:18 PM EST
    i keep telling myself i'm going to start timing the number of minutes they give to hillary vs. obama in the debates, but i've never gotten around to it.  i'd try it tonight but the results may be unreliable if the media is on notice.

    I don't think it helps (none / 0) (#102)
    by s5 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:08:45 PM EST
    Unfortunately it sounds too much like "it's not faaaiiirrr", which doesn't play well. But I also don't think there's a solution here; she's in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" position.

    Personally I would rather the debate stuck to substantive issues and leadership style, but the only way the media is going to stop bashing the Clintons is for them to disappear from the political scene.

    I'm also split on whether this is how the press is going to treat any woman running for president, or if it's just Hillary Clinton. I'm hoping the next time a woman runs (and let's face it, it's not going to be for another 8 years or so - either Obama gets two terms, or it'll be Obama followed by a white male Republican), America will have grown a bit more from this experience.

    That said, I think her unfair treatment by the media is a terrible reason to vote for her. Either she'll make a better president in comparison to the other choices, or she won't. And like it or not, having the media against you makes it hard to run a country that's drowning in media.

    giving up the fight means (5.00 / 0) (#180)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:51:18 PM EST
    ceding power to the jerks who are puppeteering this election and who decided the last 2 elections for us.  i'd rather go down fighting the good fight than surrender like a coward.

    How can you believe (none / 0) (#127)
    by mg7505 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:28:13 PM EST
    America will have grown a bit more from this experience.

    when we haven't even grown from Bush II? History repeats itself, every four years in fact, when a strong Democrat's character is assassinated by the Right Wing controlling The Media controlling The People.

    Quoting out of context (none / 0) (#139)
    by s5 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:39:52 PM EST
    That sentence began with "I'm hoping", which I am. As a progressive, my political philosophy requires the possibility that society and culture are capable of progress. Notwithstanding our unpleasant habit of "two steps forward, one step back", history has so far been on my side.

    If the media really never turns on Obama (none / 0) (#116)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:19:38 PM EST
    is when you should really worry as that means he is more of a republican and they are comfy with him....Scary thought

    I suspect a percentage of voters (none / 0) (#123)
    by Paladin on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:25:31 PM EST
    chose Obama because he is the current media darling and more likely to get favored or more sympathetic coverage during the GE than Clinton.  Most of these voters want a candidate they think can return the Democrats to the White House.

    This is just my personal opinion - I can't quantify with numbers. But I think it's quite possible that this reason (media favortism toward Obama and/or media bias against the Clintons - take your pick) is how he's won some votes - enough to make the difference.

    So whether or not all of the other factors that play into the reasons why the media are "against" her (her attitude, sense of entitlement, sexism, etc.) doesn't matter.  Just the perception that the media is against her is devastating for her campaign.

    True, (none / 0) (#130)
    by mg7505 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:29:29 PM EST
    after all they say that "perception is reality in politics."

    This would almost be funny (none / 0) (#154)
    by jen on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:00:17 PM EST
    if it wasn't so (curse word) pathetic (Balz's article). Yeah, let's start asking the hard questions of Obama, after he's the nominee... :/

    Should have been clearer (none / 0) (#157)
    by jen on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:03:25 PM EST
    Balz's article at WaPo blog was linked at Sargent's post.

    With All Eyes on Clinton, Time to Question Obama, Too


    The media (none / 0) (#183)
    by talkingpoint on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:01:10 PM EST
      have been against Hillary from day one, and have been misleading people by distorting everything she said or did. My only problem is why did her camp take that long to start bashing the media?

    The today show is the most biased (none / 0) (#189)
    by hairspray on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:57:32 PM EST
    show on tv.  I think they are Republican operatives.

    The today show is the most biased (none / 0) (#190)
    by hairspray on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:58:08 PM EST
    show on tv.  I think they are Republican operatives.

    Were you this excited? (none / 0) (#199)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:19:00 PM EST
    The entire time the GOP has been showing up to vote for Obama? Today a poll in Texas was showing that 15% of republicans who will vote for McCain plan to vote for Obama in the primary.

    Media Bias Against Clinton !! (none / 0) (#209)
    by Peace Out For Unity on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:01:07 PM EST
    A definite no brainer objective yes and no question about it!Over-all no doubt but it's better than it was!Why?

    What is the media's response for solution to these results ?

    Let's show some honest objective comparisons on the Obama confusion with Wright. Compare interview #1 with the speech on 3/18/08.Obama makes a statement in  Greensboro,NC that the Trinity Church of God is 99% white? CNN plays the clip with no comparison or reguard for factuality? Why? Is Obama's church really 99% white ? Clinton at least comes out to say,I made a mistake and human !