home

What Double Standard?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:01:10 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

In one of the more revealing moments of this campaign regarding how simply awful the Media is, NPR's Michelle Norris asked Hillary Clinton this question:

"Senator, I want you to react to something that I keep hearing among voters, and increasingly among people who cover the campaign -- both those who are reporters and those who speak about the campaign on television, on radio -- the statement that the only way that Hillary Clinton can win is if she’s willing to win ugly[.]"

(Emphasis supplied.) What is really amazing is not the classic "some people say" formulation, but that Norris including a "some REPORTERS say" formulation. My, it is good to know they can be objective after saying that. Hillary's reaction was predictable and right: "I understand that there has been, throughout this campaign, something of a double standard. I accept it; I live with it." but after asking that incredible question, Michelle Norris proves how biased she really is - she is so biased she does not even know when she is being obviously biased:

Norris followed-up again, saying, "Just in case it's not clear to someone, I don’t want to assume. I just want you to tell me what you think the double standard is because I don't want to assume . . .

Incredible.

< A New Class of "Dems for a Day": Parents | Hillary's Youthful Supporter: The Mayor of Pittsburgh >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Double Standard? | 126 comments (126 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    it's not bias (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Turkana on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:15:30 PM EST
    a separate standard for the clintons is presumed reasonable and just. don't bother asking why, it just is. or maybe ask sally quinn.

    Michelle Norris has been on Tweety's Sunday (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:54:25 PM EST
    show quite a few times. It's in the air and in the water coolers around the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media). When Ed Rendell told Charlie Rose that the media had been tougher on Hillary than on Obama, Charlie Rose acted as if this was the single strangest thing he had ever heard. He couldn't accept it.

    Because among the MCMers, being against Hillary isn't bias. It's just the way things are--and that is reinforced every time the MCMers talk to one another.

    They simply do not see any other way of understanding  the world.

    [ Parent ]

    For the press (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by DaytonDem on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:16:46 PM EST
    the negative first step is to admit there is no problem. As for the "some people say" gambit watch the documentary "Outfoxed". It's hilarious.

    Yeah, but come on... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Alec82 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:19:41 PM EST
    ...NPR is not Fox News.  

    [ Parent ]
    Why? Because it's bias agrees with yours? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:22:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Nonsequitor (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:25:43 PM EST
    Who cares? What a low bar you have.

    [ Parent ]
    Some people say (none / 0) (#22)
    by DaytonDem on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:24:22 PM EST
    that NPR and ABC are biased. See how easy that is?

    [ Parent ]
    So, it is (none / 0) (#79)
    by 0 politico on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:34:34 PM EST
    like an addiction for the media.

    So, of course, its HRC's fault, isn't it.

    Perhaps the media will have to go cold turkey sometime after she actually passes away.  Because it seems character assassination isn't doing enough to feed the addiction.

    [ Parent ]

    Not likely (none / 0) (#89)
    by honora on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:01:18 PM EST
    Haven't you been in the supermarket lately ?  Diana is still big news.  I am sure that Hillary will be destroying our democracy and killing suicide victims for years after her death.

    [ Parent ]
    tabloids (none / 0) (#98)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:21:49 PM EST
    are really into the O smears.  Remember the Enquirer running the garb photo? (Though I've yet to see how that is a smear, but whatever).  Last week, in the check out line, I saw a huge headline on one of the rags about O and his "other women" and then another one about how he and Michelle were getting into huge fights from the stress. (Yeah, I shop at trashy grocery stores)

    But, as I said weeks ago, the only place I hear mention of Clinton's new policy speeches or stuff like her plan to eradicate breast cancer is...Entertainment Tonight.  They LOVE her.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary did very well (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:17:08 PM EST
    a class act, as always IMO.  

    I particularly liked when she threw it back at Norris and asked why the press isn't asking Obama these questions.

    "No, but you know - for example, why is the question directed at me?" she said. "I mean, neither of us has the number of delegates to win. It is a problem for both of us. And Senator Obama's supporters refuse to support a revote in Michigan, which I thought was rather odd for the Democratic Party to be against another vote. Senator Obama's supporters wanted to end this contest and short circuit it so that the votes of the people in the next upcoming contest wouldn't count because he has a slight lead. And it's by no means definitive. It would have been like calling the championship game last night with two minutes left to go because somebody was ahead. And that's not how it turned out."

    Has any reporter ever asked Obama why his campaign  is screaming "Surrender, Dorothy"?  

    Short answer: No. (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by kmblue on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:20:33 PM EST
    Man, I'm glad I'm not a reporter anymore if this is what passes for journalism these days.
    All you need is a stint at modeling school and good bone structure.
    Objectivity?  Fairness?  Fugedaboudit.

    [ Parent ]
    No... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Alec82 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:26:12 PM EST
    ...because if you believe that this is an example of media bias, you've gone off the rails.  

     There are examples of media bias against Clinton.  Plenty of them, many sexist.  Go onto YouTube, I'm sure you'll find them.  But NPR? Michelle Norris? Because she asked a question that floats around the blogs and the media? You've lost your minds.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry to disagree (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by kmblue on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:31:24 PM EST
    but repeating garbage posted as gospel drifting in the fetid pools of the blogosphere and in the fevered brain of Chris Matthews is not and has never been my idea of good journalism.

    And using the phrase "some people say" is the last refuge of a weak mind.

    Just my opinion, of course. ;)

    [ Parent ]

    Oh good goddess, since when (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:23:29 PM EST
    do good journalists get their questions from floating around "the blogs and the media."  Journalists ARE the media, and good ones did the research to generate the new questions, not the ones in others' newspapers that morning.

    NPR has gone down the bunny hole, too.

    [ Parent ]

    Simply saying (none / 0) (#123)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:53:56 AM EST
    oh no, Not NPR, and not Michelle Norris is silly. If she walks, talks and quacks, then she's become another duck.

    She needs to hold herself to a higher standard if she is to retain the respect I once had for her. At this point in time, it's rather hard to find much in media to respect.

    (Strange picture in my head of a duck sliding down a bunnyhole.)

    [ Parent ]

    Take it easy (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:36:54 PM EST
    Stick to the issue. You are not the last word on what constitutes bias. Obviously we all disagree on this but you are crossing the line. One more and you are gone for the day.

    [ Parent ]
    On second thought (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:38:06 PM EST
    this makes 4.

    you are suspended for the rest of the night.

    Do not comment any more today.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry BTD (none / 0) (#39)
    by kmblue on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:42:44 PM EST
    I was ranting downthread.  If you mean me,
    I'm gone.

    [ Parent ]
    Immediately following ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by lyzurgyk on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:22:01 PM EST

    ... the Michelle Norris' Clinton interview, NPR ran a story on a congressman (can't remember his name) who said he was being pressured by Clinton supporters for appearing at an event with Obama.

    Sure seemed intentionally placed to echo the "Clinton plays ugly" theme.

    [ Parent ]

    As I recall MN pushed HRC pretty (none / 0) (#31)
    by suisser on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:36:38 PM EST
    hard on the, "what do you mean by that???" Are you saying there's a double standard?"" I'm paraphrasing, poorly, but it was creepy enough to perk my ears.
    Seriously considering withdrawing my "sustainer" support from NPR (where they ding my checking account monthly). Also really annoyed with On the Media for it's last - "Hilary can't win, stupid" segment.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup, biased reporters get pretty touchy (none / 0) (#35)
    by kmblue on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:39:48 PM EST
    when someone points out they might be a wee bit
    out of line.
    See David Gregory when he was suspended for his infamous remark about Chelsea Clinton being "pimped out".  And our friend Tweety says in a NY Times Magazine profile (coming your way Sunday) that he didn't really mean his apology to Hillary regarding his statement that she only won her Senate seat because Big Bill fooled around.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I rest my case.

    [ Parent ]

    Ooops I think I meant (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kmblue on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:41:15 PM EST
    David Shuster.
    So many reporters, so many sexist remarks.
    So hard to keep track of them all. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    I don't listen to NPR (none / 0) (#37)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:40:04 PM EST
    but what you're describing reminds me very much of Steve Kroft's repeated questioning of Hillary on the "is Barack a Christian" question.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes! They have a narrative, as Somerby says, (none / 0) (#115)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:58:37 PM EST
    and they're going to get the "material" to support it if it takes 20 questions! Or just some truncating and magic ellipses. Or even lying for some in the field.

    Ding ding ding ding. We have a winner!

    [ Parent ]

    can someone please... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by miguelito on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:19:24 PM EST
    remind me when HRC's campaign actually did 'get ugly'  or go on the offensive?  The only times I feel they've come even close, it's met with an media onslaught and a collective whine from the Obama campaign.

    The Went Ugly (none / 0) (#125)
    by flashman on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:19:07 AM EST
    When they repeatedly pushed the line about the Iraq vote.

    Oh wait, that was Obama.

    When they consistantly accused their opposistion of being racists.

    Oh wait, Obama again.

    When they said their opponents were too divisive.

    Dang!

    When they stated their opponents didn't have any ideas.

    Oooops!

    When they accused their opposition of throwing in with Bush and not talking to world leaders.

    Dooh!

    Oh!  I know, when they said thier opponent was only "likable enough".

    Hmmmm....

    Ok, I give up!

    [ Parent ]

    What is funny is the media isn't (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:21:07 PM EST
    fooling anyone and is in fact driving voters toward Hillary IMHO....It is amazing how strong she is turning out to be considering nothing but negative shots from the media for the get go...I admire her strength daily and I bet I am not the only one....

    I think you are right (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:05:32 PM EST
    The media bias helps her most because they're always followed by stories about the tanking economy.  It makes you think, "I need a fighter."  I liken it to when you want a divorce--do you want the nice, feel-good lawyer or the one who will make your ex-beloved sell his Porsche and forgo a breast implant for the new girlfriend?

    But, the greater point here is this:  "The only way she can win is to win ugly."  Makes me think they are actually scared she will win, so they are getting their story in place: yeah, she won, but she did it dirty!

    A dirty win is still a win.  Getting your opponents knocked off the ballot--Obama still won.  Leaking your opponent's divorce papers in the last few weeks of the election--Obama still won.

    A win is a win is a win.  Even GWB got the win, and his was the ugliest way of stealing an election in recent memory.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is winning Fugly (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:30:38 PM EST
    I don't know how disenfranchising MI and FL is pretty?

    Yeah.  It's a double standard.

    Speaking of (none / 0) (#29)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:35:53 PM EST
    Will the press cover this:

    A couple dozen members of the Florida Building Trades are planning to picket at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington on Monday afternoon to protest the "lockout" of Florida delegates from the 2008 convention.

    Or maybe I should be asking how they'll spin it.

    [ Parent ]

    Give Michelle some credit (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Lora on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:01:37 PM EST
    she is so biased she does not even know when she is being obviously biased:

    She knew.  How can an interviewer start with anonymous "voters," add anonymous "reporters," and cap it off with "those who speak" about the campaign in the media, THEN asks Hillary to clarify for "someone," NOT know?

    Maybe. (none / 0) (#46)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:11:32 PM EST
    It's possible...but in my experience, most people do not know what their biases and prejudices are.

    Honest self-examination is not one of the strengths in our culture, IMO.

    "I'm OK, You're OK!"  Along with "Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten!"

    Arggghhhh...

    [ Parent ]

    True, true... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Lora on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:15:54 PM EST
    I was thinking that any reporter ought to know better than to ask that type of question at all.  I mean, what do they learn in journalism anyway?

    [ Parent ]
    What do they learn in journalism school (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:36:17 PM EST
    anyway?"  Ah, now, there's a question these days, and don't get me started. . . .  But first, we would have to determine whether Ms. Norris majored in journalism.  There is a trend these days away from that and for, as kmblue says, semi-modeling school.

    And then even if she majored in journalism, on which track?  That's the trick these days to figure out -- and one of the fast-growing tracks these days is "media studies."  It never was meant to train journalists but actually to do the opposite, to train media consumers.  But too many media doing the hiring these days don't ask the good questions in job interviews, either -- such as the old basic, "so howjado in newswriting 101, kid?"

    [ Parent ]

    I was curious (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:42:38 PM EST
    so I looked her up - she originally studied electrical engineering at the University of Wisconsin, but graduated from the University of Minnesota with a degree in journalism.

    Seems to me if she started to be an engineer, she would be a little more careful and precise!  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe (none / 0) (#73)
    by Lora on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:11:15 PM EST
    Seems to me if she started to be an engineer, she would be a little more careful and precise!  

    Maybe that's why she had to change her major to journalism!

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:50:54 PM EST
    thanks, I needed that.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, well, maybe we're all safer (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:52:44 PM EST
    with her in journalism, as we in the Midwest remember too well what happened to a bridge in Minnesota.  (Btw, re extraordinary journalism, the online star in the Twin Cities has built one of the best event-based websites yet in the media -- linking to stories of each soul lost and survivors, linking to reports pre- and post- from engineers, etc.  If you can stand to relive that day, it's worth a look.  Having looked, I can't look again . . . having been on that bridget not long before.)

    [ Parent ]
    Tweety's take (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Grey on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:36:05 PM EST
    He mentioned this interview during tonight's Hardball and, after playing the audio, he looked into the camera and said Sen. Clinton should decide whether she's "a fighter" or "a victim."

    Apparently, in his world, fighters shouldn't actually fights back and, if they do, they're whining.  Unless the fighter is Obama, though, because hitting back on slights, real or perceived, is a sign that he doesn't take any crap from anyone.

    And that's his unbiased opinion, of course.

    Saying Hillary is playing the victim (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:03:45 PM EST
    is a favorite line of Tweety's.  He goes all steely-eyed and self-righteous when he says it, and is at his most unattractive and unwatchable.  It was after a week of this a few months ago that I swore off Hardball, and rarely watch it since.

    He seems to think that by Hillary pointing out that she has been treated unfairly, she is asking for some kind of sympathy vote. That is not how I see it at all.  I see it as her showing strength that she is still in this thing even though there has been obvious bias against her.  That is not asking for sympathy, it is asking for acknowledgement of her strength.  He has never understood that, as shown by his comments about how people vote for her because she was a 'victim' of her husband playing around.

    Gee, I get the idea that he doesn't understand women at all. /snark

    [ Parent ]

    Nor has he listened to gossip (none / 0) (#113)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:40:41 PM EST
    How much sympathy does a woman get when people know her husband has been getting extramarital nookie?  Maybe she gets some sympathy from other women, but from men?  

    [ Parent ]
    Seems to me like this all started to go off (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:12:03 PM EST
    the rails when the suits decided that "news" was no longer enough - we had to have people who looked and sounded like "news" people telling us what to think and feel.  The line between news and entertainment all but disappeared, the pundits got addicted to the power of being able to drive the news, and here we are: with people like Matthews and others believing it is their responsibility to lecture us and condescend to us and shame us into seeing things their way.  

    Now the news people want the freedom and the glory of driving the news, so we have people like Andrea Mitchell and so many others framing their reports and choosing their words in ways that make it clear who they think is in and who is out.  

    Michele Norris asks questions like she did because she has forgotten that she is not the story, and that good reporting should leave the viewer, the listener or the reader totally in the dark about what the reporter thinks.

    These last couple of weeks, I have been getting home late enough to miss all the national news.  We don't have cable or satellite, so I don't have to make a conscious decision to not watch MSNBC - and you know what?  I confirmed that I haven't been getting news from the networks for a long time - all they have been good for is the entertainment of checking to see how much they can get wrong, and how much they leave out.

    A pox on all of them!

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, (none / 0) (#76)
    by rnibs on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:23:20 PM EST
    it's the Norris-Matthews syndrome...  
    A fact stares a journalist right in the face and they fail to see it.  

    [ Parent ]
    I call (none / 0) (#124)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:06:16 AM EST
    it the Russert "Gotcha" school of Tabloid news. Tim Russert and his disgusting brand of media political reporting, or bloviating, is now pretty much the standard. Watching it and them just gives them the ratings to continue to do what they do. I don't watch network or cable news, and have unsubscribed to the Washington Post and New York Times online.

    Unfortunately what we see with Michelle Norris is where media is headed. For every Dana Priest, we get a dozen Kornbluts.

    NPR has evidently decided that they don't really care about maintaining high standards either. Or at least Michelle Norris has.


    [ Parent ]

    dang, glad I didn't see that. (none / 0) (#80)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:36:03 PM EST
    THAT is what I call ugly. I sure hope all of this is being documented like the video the other day. Someone mentioned we would have enough clips for a feature film, now I'm thinking sequels on how F'ed up the media is.

    [ Parent ]
    Well Obama has convinced the media (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:20:05 PM EST
    and alot of the party officials of his winning, now all he has to do is convince the VOTERS...What a concept....rofl

    Fortunately for him (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by rnibs on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:26:08 PM EST
    he doesn't have to convince the voters of FL and MI.  

    [ Parent ]
    This reminds me of the comment of scheiffer (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by wasabi on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:55:21 PM EST
    Bob Scheiffer made a comment on Sunday on Face the Nation where he said something to the effect that "we hear everyone mentioning XXX, so there must be some truth to it".  It's the same "some people say..."  
    No sources.  If it's out there, it must be true???

    Which is why the Drudge smears (Clinton planted (none / 0) (#116)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:13:56 PM EST
    photo of Obama in native garb--or her people did) and the bad reporting on Trina Bachtel is so deadly by a politician. And when the MCMers go on and on about the inaccurate reporting, then say little when it's shown to be inaccurate, the initial impression tends to stay.

    They've also learned, as have the Republicans, that people tend to believe something is true if they hear it from a lot of sources. The "some say" locution abets that, as "some" clearly is more than one.

    I was just over at The Left Coaster looking through comments about the Bachtel "Gore-ing" of Hillary, and someone said it served Hillary right for posting that photo of Obama. Other commenters correted the poster and gave links to blogs which had the story as well as it could be known.  But this person had left the story at the point where Josh Marshall had given Drudge his stamp of approval--or thereabouts--and it was what this person believed (Unless it was a particulary stupid troll trying to dislogde fact-based belief among The Left Coasters. Did not seem to be one--seemed to accept the facts once they were made known to him or her.)

    Point is all this talk about Hillary being so far behind as to make it impossible to win, trying to win "ugly," being "willing to do anything," the Bosnia thing (unfortunately not cut off soon enough and without quite enough humor, I fear), now this hospital/insurance story.

    Notice that the MCMers do not take responsibility--or apologize.  It just gets left out there, with maybe some offhand or mumbled update.

    We are not well served by the MCM. And it's hard to keep a democratic representative republic without an informed polity.

    [ Parent ]

    I wish I could get paid ... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:31:36 PM EST
    ... for being so breathlessly clueless, like Michelle Norris. What a comfort that must be, to be compensated so handsomely for one's bimbosity.

    I keep wondering (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by echinopsia on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:34:52 PM EST
    with each new outrageous example of media bias, double standards, sexism, insults ("monster" "liar" and f**ing wh** come to mind), and scurrilous attacks - when will they see it?

    When are Obama supporters going to reach the point where they say - wait a minute. We don't like Hillary Clinton, but that is just too vile and too unfair. That is indefensible. You can't say that about or to a Democrat.

    So far, it appears there is no bottom to how low they will set the bar for acceptable treatment of a former first lady and current senator, who has been a good and loyal Democratic for over 40 years.

    I was wondering too, but not anymore (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:01:07 PM EST
    When they did not rise up against a radio personality calling a sitting U. S. Senator, former first lady for the most popular Dem president in 40 years, solid Democrat, first woman in shouting distance of being president or Senate Majority Leader, etc., etc, ,etc a f** wh***

    I knew there was no sense wondering anymore.  There is no bottom.

    [ Parent ]

    Ugly? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Sunshine on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:22:55 PM EST
    The media has been so ugly to Hillary that the Obama camp might win the battle and lose the war... They need to think about the future when they are going to need the Hillary supporters to beat McCain...

    "some people say" (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:07:42 PM EST
    is pernicious. It can also be very useful in daily life :-D.

    I prefer... (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Nasarius on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:16:23 PM EST
    The Cavuto Mark. Is Hillary Clinton a monster who would do anything to win? Hey, I'm just asking.

    [ Parent ]
    How... (1.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Alec82 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:15:42 PM EST
    ...is Michelle Norris being biased?

     Oh wait now I remember she's a misogynist ...Jesus you're seeing bias where there is just none.  I get it when you're attacking Chris Matthews, but come on.

    She might be biassed (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:36:17 PM EST
    The only way to prove she isn't biassed is for her to aske Obama "I want you to react to something, something I hear from voters.  Some say that winning a nomination where two large states are left out of the process is illegitimate, that the only way you could have won is by leaving Florida and Michigan out of the process?"

    Now if she were to ask that question tomorrow, then I would say "no she is not biassed."


    [ Parent ]

    There is a report (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:00:37 PM EST
    that Hillary was going to use the "kitchen sink" approach.  See NY Times article here.  The source of the term "kitchen sink" was a "Clinton aide."

    So, there is a basis of asking her at least what her "kitchen sink" strategy is....

    As to the follow up question about double standards, I fail to see how that is biased.....Asking for clarification, seems fair game to me.....There would be no need for innuendo....

    [ Parent ]

    Should have asked that (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:05:55 PM EST
    anonymous aide that question then, since it came from him or her, not from Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Norris is with NPR (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:07:59 PM EST
    not the NY Times and would not know the identity of the source....

    Has anyone from Hillary's campaign denied the kitchen sink quote, or approach?

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, I'm going to back up (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:09:43 PM EST
    Norris didn't even mention the kitchen sink, so I'm sorry I followed you down that road.  

    'Win ugly' could have meant a lot of things, and I wish Norris and Clinton had defined the term.

    [ Parent ]

    you are kidding right? (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:39:43 PM EST
    an ANONYMOUS aide, hidden by source protection (does that aide even exist?), says that the candidate I work FOR (not against) is going to "use the kitchen sink approach"...and that is enough PROOF for any journalist from that pt on to ask Clinton herself, "an aide says your willing to toss the ol' kitchen sink, does that mean you know in your heart that you've lost and that the only chance you know have is to throw household plumbing fixtures?"

    Grow the hell up.  Anonymous aides have been providing the media with 90% of their fodder concerning Clinton.  I am the first to admit that Wolfsohn and Penn have led Clinton down a losing street in terms of strategy but for all these disgruntled aides to exist without being ferreted out is asking me to assume that Clinton, Maggie Williams, et al are complete morons.

    Do you like this one?  "Mr. Obama, an aide working for your campaign, asking for anonymity, has stated that one of the Obama campaign goals was to inject race into the campaign trail to ensure that Hillary's support among blacks was effectively neutralized?  Secondly, did you approve of such a plan or have a say in turning an innocuous statement by a former President into evidence that Bill Clinton harbored racial prejudices?"

    [ Parent ]

    That wasn't the question (none / 0) (#104)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:39:58 PM EST
    I'd like someone to ask Obama about the illegitimacy of his lead.

    Then they will have been equally unfair to both candidates.


    [ Parent ]

    What did she mean by 'win ugly' (none / 0) (#105)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:54:33 PM EST
    The awful way she asked the question did not make it clear what she meant by 'win ugly'.   Hillary chose to have it mean 'win with superdelegates'. It could have just as easily meant win by using the 'kitchen sink' strategy.   I wish she would have just asked Norris WTF she was talking about.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, Alec, I believe it was you who said (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:27:13 PM EST
    yesterday that some criticism is not sexist.

    Same goes here -- some bad journalism is not sexist.  This is just bad journalism, and the double standard in this case is asking some questions of one candidate that never even would occur to ask of the other candidate, when both have the same status of not being to win on pledged delegates alone.

    I.e., Norris may or may not be sexist, but she is lousy.

    [ Parent ]

    Asking a question (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:04:36 PM EST
    that would never occur to ask....Hillary was being interviewed, not Obama....

    It was a fair question to ask in light of her aide's saying they were going to use the "kitchen sink" strategy.

    If and when she interviews Obama, and asks him only softball questions, then there would be a basis of asserting different treatment.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    Why is a "kitchen sink" strategy bad? (none / 0) (#117)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:19:29 PM EST
    My brother used to make what he called the "kitchen sink" salad, meaning putting in anything on hand. Truly great salads, actually.

    And in a campaign, what is wrong with using any tactic, any opening, any approach which may win you voters?

    Other than going down and dirty.

    And no one called it the "garbage pail" strategy.

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking of double standards (none / 0) (#1)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:04:26 PM EST
    the democratic party is helping organize a rally for Obama

    You can also create an event there (none / 0) (#5)
    by ajain on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:10:20 PM EST
    Its kinda like Facebook.
    Its not the Democratic Party cheering one candidate over another.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary did well. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:06:03 PM EST
    I have to admit, that line of questioning was a bit jaw dropping to me.  Sure, I've heard all that on the blogs - but I was(very past tense) hoping that Teh Media would do better.

    What she should ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by narius on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:09:32 PM EST
    have done is not being defensive and go for a bigger tagline than Obama.

    Double standard? Accusation of being treated unfairly? That just sounds weak and defensive.

    What I would do is to say ...

    I am for HOPE .. and HOPE is not ugly. I will win because HOPE is better than CHANGE. You know the saying CHANGE FOR THE WORSE, right? CHANGE does not always be good but HOPE is.

    (in case anyone wonder, the "hope" part is tongue in cheek .. but the point still stands .. you can't fight a media war on defense. You have to go on the offense with a nice big juicy tagline.)

    Zzzz (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:11:34 PM EST
    Honestly, you once were arguing about how politics work. I think we know well how Media relations in politics work - mau mau-ing the Media has always worked and always will.

    Your comment seems rather foolish to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Now that is news ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by narius on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:13:47 PM EST
    to me. Complaining about the media never won any votes. You may get your anger off your chest ... but that does not win elections.

    Just ask Al Gore about it.

    [ Parent ]

    Ha! Just ask the longest-lasting mayor (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:28:59 PM EST
    in a major city in this country about it, were he still with us -- a guy in my town who got elected for 28 years by running against the local paper.

    Everyone but the local paper loved it . . . and even the local paper got good press about it from other media.

    [ Parent ]

    I guess it is news to you (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:24:57 PM EST
    You missed the Right Wings ma mau that made them what they were for the past 2 decades.

    Yep, you have lost all credibility with me on this subject frankly.

    [ Parent ]

    Mau mauing...OMG... (none / 0) (#42)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:01:19 PM EST
    I haven't heard that term since....the 50s?  Maybe the 60s...

    [ Parent ]
    The '60s (none / 0) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:08:37 PM EST
    Was used against politicians and bureaucrats then, though, not media.

    [ Parent ]
    mau mauing (none / 0) (#52)
    by hue on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:29:47 PM EST
    Tom Wolfe wrote Radical Chic and Mau Mauing the Flak Catchers in the 1970s. Both of those essays were partly about black rage and white guilt ...

    [ Parent ]
    um, in 1970 (none / 0) (#53)
    by hue on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:30:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Double standards do exist (none / 0) (#15)
    by AF on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:20:30 PM EST
    But this isn't a good example of them.

    Given Obama's current delegate lead, he has a reasonable chance of winning the nomination without serious dispute that he is the rightful nominee (ie, by winning pledged delegates, the popular vote, and super-delegates).  Hillary's chances of doing that are far lower, because she is highly unlikely to win more pledged delegates than Obama.  Her most likely route to victory involves winning the popular vote and the super-delegates, but losing the pledged delegates -- which will create a lot of discord within the party ie be "ugly."

    Therefore, "the only way that Hillary Clinton can win is if she's willing to win ugly" is a fairly accurate analysis of the current state of the race.    

    Again, I am not denying the existence of media double standards (or arguing that Hillary should drop out or that an "ugly" win would be illegitimate).  I'm just pointing out that this particular exchange appears to be based on the electoral math, not on a double standard.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:22:48 PM EST
    Quite the unbiased analysis there from you. You gotta be kidding me. What do you mean by "winning ugly?" I do not  want to assume anything . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Winning ugly (none / 0) (#36)
    by AF on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:39:50 PM EST
    Is a disputed nomination -- one that is not clearly decided by the primary results.  For example, if the popular votes and pledged delegate victors are different, or if FL and MI provide the margin of victory.

    In general, there are four possibilities: (1) Obama wins ugly; (2) Obama wins cleanly; (3) Hillary wins ugly; (4) Hillary wins cleanly.

    In my view, (1) through (3) are reasonably likely -- each has at least a 20% possibility.  Possibility (4) is quite unlikely -- less than 5%.  Hillary would basically have to run the tables.  

    [ Parent ]

    So why aren't reporters (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Manuel on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:01:08 PM EST
    asking Obama about (1)?  And FL and MI revotes?

    [ Parent ]
    And, reporters, for the most part, (none / 0) (#81)
    by 0 politico on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:47:54 PM EST
    have ignored the accusations/issues surrounding voter intimidation at, and unbiased administration of, caucuses that have apparently favored the BO campaign.

    That is NOT winning pretty or cleanly, either.  Is the MSM ever going to really explore that, or are they just going to look at is as a Party problem?

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:22:37 PM EST
    If (1) and (3) are both plausible, you'd think Obama would be getting asked about whether he's willing to win ugly.  Don't hold your breath for that line of inquiry.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama can only win ugly at this point (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by rnibs on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:00:48 PM EST
    The whole refusing MI/FL revotes is ugly, so no matter what, if he does win, it will be ugly.  But I haven't seen reporters regularly hammering that home and asking him about the ugliness of such a stance.

    [ Parent ]
    it's amazing (none / 0) (#122)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:34:00 AM EST
    That the media hasn't tied the FL/MI issue to his lawyer-led purge of his opponents in IL.  THAT is the kitchen sink strategy, hire a lawyer to find out if candidates got ripped off by the folks collecting signatures or because the rolls had been updated that year and some people had the wrong lists (if i recall).

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting. I took winning ugly (none / 0) (#77)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:25:58 PM EST
    as her doing scorched earth and everything else she's been pre-accused of.

    Remember she'll say anything, do anything. And she eats babies. /s

    [ Parent ]

    And the last Dem to "win ugly" won (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:55:13 PM EST
    the general election, after a long primary campaign that did not settle out until summer.

    That was, of course, the summer of 1992 and you-know-who.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry AF (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kmblue on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:23:34 PM EST
    A good reporter does not ask such a question.
    You could ask about say, facing tough odds.
    But I'm old school, and consistently appalled by what I see on TV these days.
    Asking such a question would have gotten me smacked by my old News Director.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure, the phrasing was poor (none / 0) (#40)
    by AF on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:47:18 PM EST
    But with all the examples of double standards, this isn't one of the more egregious, because it refers to a real difference between the candidates -- their paths to victory given the current state of the race.

    [ Parent ]
    Poor phrasing? Journalists cannot use (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:32:30 PM EST
    the excuse of "just words," y'know, since it's what they do.  

    I would not hire a plumber who said that he would fix my pipes with "just wrenches."  Words comprise the toolbox of journalists, not just in what they write but -- perhaps even more so -- in what they ask and how they ask it.

    One wonders if Ms. Norris would release her transcripts to see what grades she got in j-school.  That is, if she majored in journalism.  Too often these days, journalists are being hired for anything but their training to do justice to and with words.

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsense, this is a perfect example (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by xspowr on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:37:09 PM EST
    As Obama cannot win without the superdelegates either (the real "electoral math"), and could conceivably win the nomination without winning the popular vote and by excluding Florida and Michigan, it is equally valid to characterize his approach to winning as "ugly" (and equally likely to create discord in the party). Far from being a "fairly accurate analysis of the current state of the race," as you put it, the implication by the interviewer that only Clinton would be "willing to win ugly" is a perfect example of the double standard applied to Clinton by the media, as well as by Obama supporters generally.

    [ Parent ]
    Nonsense, this is a perfect example (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by BlueDemocrat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:24:40 PM EST
    Another perfect example was just now, ABC
    changing a very rare critical Obama headline from;

    "Obama Ducks Olympic Critics" to

    "Obama Sets Conditions for Bush Olympics Boycott!!!!"

    I posted more but it never appeared, had trouble posting.

    [ Parent ]

    I am wondering (none / 0) (#26)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:28:28 PM EST
    how much the seethng anger just under the surface against the media and the way they are shoving Obama down our collective throats is affecting polling and public perception.

    Is it possible people are lying to the pollsters? Is SUSA accurate because it isn't a person but a robocall?

    Does the media think they are being clever in doing this and in thinking that blind themselves to the truth? Or is the media tuly as blind as this reporter seemed?

    It would be nice if Hillary could capitalize... (none / 0) (#118)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:27:54 PM EST
    ... on that.

    Seething anger is absolutely right...

    [ Parent ]

    Winning 'ugly' (none / 0) (#54)
    by Chincoteague on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:32:00 PM EST
    means using the supers to overturn the will of the people in the contests so far, where Obama is winning.

    That would be ugly, in the extreme.  

    It's surprising to know that Hillary feels she's a  'victim' of a double standard.  The standards are not the same.

    She's losing, and Obama is winning.

    Or is she expecting that the presidency should be an affirmative action job?

    To be clear (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:37:37 PM EST
    Unless you're fine with "affirmative action" gibes aimed at your candidate, you probably shouldn't be aiming them at other candidates.

    [ Parent ]
    He has no need to claim (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Chincoteague on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:44:40 PM EST
    such, he's winning.

    [ Parent ]
    Winning isn't the same as won (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by rnibs on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:14:00 PM EST
    Who won will be determined at the convention.  To quote Yoda, "Always in motion is the future."  

    [ Parent ]
    you must be new here (none / 0) (#68)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:50:50 PM EST
    Jeralyn has strict policies about trolling, shilling and baiting.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think I'm doing any of those things (none / 0) (#72)
    by Chincoteague on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:10:06 PM EST
    I made a comment on BTD's story about winning ugly, pointing out a difference of opinion.

    Sorry if it offends you.  BTD knows me well. I don't troll, and I'm certainly not baiting.

    [ Parent ]

    and to be fair (none / 0) (#60)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:42:26 PM EST
    neither candidate can win without the super delegates.

    This "stealing the election" talking point is officially inane to the point of inducing torpor.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe then you should (none / 0) (#64)
    by Chincoteague on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:45:46 PM EST
    change the rules so there are no primaries, since you think they are meaningless.

    [ Parent ]
    Holy cow you guys are persistent (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:54:45 PM EST
    in beating a horse with no legs.  

    The rules...need 2025 delegates for a clear win...how can you get delegates?  Placement in caucuses and primaries affords proportional number of delegates.  How else can you get delegates?  Why superdelegates of course.  Chris Dodd is a superdelegate, he has endorsed Obama...But here is the kicker you people don't seem to want to accept...Chris Dodd can choose to endorse Clinton...not a day goes by that your blog of choice doesn't promote superdelegates pledging for Obama or switching their pledge from Clinton TO Obama.  

    With MI and FL not counting I would say that Obama is winning ugly.  That the DNC would penalize the voters and not the state party's is appalling to me.  That Obama is fine with this type of disenfranchisement because both states are Clinton states, to me, is winning ugly.

    But the fact of the matter is this...Hillary wins a few more primaries, and this thing finally gets decided by the superdelegates and the supers go with her...IT IS WITHIN THE RULES...You can term it UGLY if you want because no matter who wins the nomination I will never think anything other than Obama won UGLY by perpetuating the idea that the Clintons are biased and that disenfranchising two states is still "abiding by the will of the people".

    [ Parent ]

    The supers (none / 0) (#59)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:41:22 PM EST
    are supposed to use their judgment to prevent the party from driving itself off a cliff.

    [ Parent ]
    There is no cliff (none / 0) (#65)
    by Chincoteague on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:47:43 PM EST
    is there?

    [ Parent ]
    There can be, (none / 0) (#86)
    by 0 politico on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:57:07 PM EST
    even if it is not obvious.

    If memory serves, the Super Delegates idea came about after the McGovern campaign's massive loss to Tricky, I mean President Nixon.  McGovern was widely supported by anti war voters and youth voters (who stood to be drafted at the time).  And, recall there had been campaign fights at the 1968 convention - wasn't that in Chicago?

    We may hope there is no "cliff" here for the party to go over, but there are some polling indicators that it could happen, depending on who the party candidate turns out to be.

    And, the Super Dels are always right.  Didn't they support Mondale's campaign, and we saw how that ended up.

    [ Parent ]

    The cliff is obvious (none / 0) (#119)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:30:35 PM EST
    Disenfranchising the voters of FL and MI (and that includes Obama's grotesque 50/50 proposal) delegitimizes an Obama nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    is she 'losing' (none / 0) (#69)
    by isaac on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:52:18 PM EST
    in pennsylvania, ohio, new york, mass, cali, fla, michigan, too?

    [ Parent ]
    meant to reply (none / 0) (#70)
    by isaac on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:53:14 PM EST
    to 54

    [ Parent ]
    Ugly? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Sunshine on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:44:55 PM EST
    Talk about ugly, nobody has been quite as ugly as the media..  They are just now admitting that the media was bias toward GWB in 2000...  About 2016 they might be willing to admit that they were bias toward Obama...

    A voice of an outsider. (none / 0) (#66)
    by sk5otia on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:48:27 PM EST
    Could it be less of candidates persona and more of policies? Or, even better, more for the voter, of either Clinton or Obama, the real figure (or hero?) in this whole affair, where the real change (and I do see a change) actually is.

    Clinton or Obama are the figureheads, but what makes this forthcoming election interesting and (I might say) promising, is the obvious change in the voter. What makes them different?

    It would be nice (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by