Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
10:55 AM on 03/03/2008
Great analysis. Did this refusal of the press to really examine HRC's fortune and connections happen because the longer the race goes on, the more advertising money gets spent? The more the pundits get face time and build opportunities for later books? The NYT article on K'stan didn't raise any eyebrows on the anchors. This could be that they didn't understand the information enough to talk about it, they couldn't present the info in 30 second sound bites or the eyebrows just don't move because of an over shot of botex. No questions about her the tax queries about HRC's inability to bring support to her work in the Senate. No examination of the paucity of successful collaboration with her colleagues. This successful campaign of press manipulation will be a three hour course in journalism school someday.
10:37 AM on 03/03/2008
Perhaps HRC's greatest achievement this fall will be to have spread the false "fair and balanced" to CNN. So far as I can tell, MSNBC is not only aware of the state of the race, but is reporting it accurately.
11:14 AM on 03/03/2008
MSNBC may have been reporting the race accurately, but I just watched a couple of pundits basically say that as long as Clinton wins either Ohio or Texas, that she in essence will have won the March 4 primaries.

I hope Al Gore and the rest of the super, super delegates ask Clinton to drop out tomorrow. If she doesn't hopefully the superdelegates will endorse Obama and goive him the numbers he needs to warp up the nomination, if it's mathematically possible.
10:33 AM on 03/03/2008
I'll be accused of sexism for asking this (but then again, isn't everybody on Huffington or anywhere these past few weeks who dares say anything other that women are better than men), but shouldn't everybody be extremely uncomfortable with the fact that the person seeking the most powerful office in the world is using guilt trips to get that office?

I want a leader, not a whiner. And ladies and gentlemen, Hillary is a classic whiner who bitches and complains and blames you when she doesn't get her way.

And here I thought Bush acted like a little weak-willed small child. That ain't nothing compared to the woman who wants those 3 a.m. phone calls.
10:21 AM on 03/03/2008
Don't forget, this is the same media who gave us Bush and the Iraq war. The fact that there is no follow-up with regards to Clinton's tax returns or how she is going to enforce her health care plan is a blatant example of the Clinton's powerful machine, it's sad and scary that people will not see through it.

I am sick of the Clintons, the media and the Democratic Party. Particularly, the Democratic Party, if Al Gore, Bill Richardson and John Edwards cared about the party at all, they would come out now for Obama and not let Clinton further dishonor and ruin our Party.
09:36 AM on 03/03/2008
Supremely on point, Mr. Jenkins. I hope that the journalists will read your peice and take it to heart. I sincerely pray that hope trumps fear, civic activism trumps status quo politics, and constructive thought trumps media gamesmanship. It seems to me no mistake that the status quo machine (which in this case seems to back the Clinton campaign) knows just how and when to play with the collective psyche of the American people in order to prevent the possibility of change in how we campaign and govern this country. At this crucial time in the election it seems as if the media works overtime to bolster Senator Clinton and ensure that this race continues, all under the guise of maintaining media neutrality. Moreover, as you stated, if any other cadidate had lost eleven races in a row at the margins of difference that prevailed, no controversy would exist. Thank you for your article.
09:29 AM on 03/03/2008
The Clintons have so many skeletons in their closet -- so much mud to be slung -- that the Republitards were salivating at the prospect of running against her.
She should have dropped out three weeks ago. Instead, her campaign continues trying to damage Obama without caring about what they are doing to our prospects in November.
I was a Hillary supporter. I have lost all respect for her. I hope she loses her Senate seat.
09:28 AM on 03/03/2008
Thank you for this article. Alot of us out here are wondering if we live in some parallel universe where mathematics is no longer fact. It has been alarming to watch the Clintons manipulate the media to do their bidding the last week. They don't have enough cash because of a mismanaged campaign, so they sic the media on Obama. I really respected Richardson for speaking out this weekend and essentially saying the race is over and the Clintons' attacks on the presumed-candidate have to stop. I hope we will see more of the backbone among the party's leaders and media that Richardson and Jenkins have shown. It's encouraging that someone is finally speaking the truth!
There will be a flood of innuendos over the Rezko connection this week. But just ask yourself this: if the Clintons investigated what Obama wrote about in kindergarten, is there any way they didn't have an entire team of investigators trying to find something on Obama in relation to Rezko? No they have undoubtedly searched thoroughly for the dirt and found nothing. So now they just want the media to issue innuendos disguised as journalism, and of course the spineless media will oblige.
The Clintons have the power, the elitists, and the media. But Obama has the people!
Obama 08.
09:36 AM on 03/03/2008
Well-said, busybeez.

It does feel like a parallel universe; the more Clinton whines and the more she pouts, the more the media pats her on the back.

Where are those darn IRS returns? How come her only issue now is that "the media doesn't treat me right" and "oh-poor-me-I-am-woman-hear-me-weep!"

Russert et al are by no means the only reporters covering this campaign, yet they end up covering themselves. Switch to NPR, to PBS, to CSPAN, to McClatchy, to anybody but msnbc/cnn. There's more info out there folks, you just gotta use the dial or the remote.
09:24 AM on 03/03/2008
HRC has pulled a page out of Freud by smearing the media as biased, because if the media denies it, this only proves that they are in fact biased and HRC wins, and if they affirm that they are indeed biased, HRC also wins. In the case of Freud, the Oedipal line goes like this: all men want to have sex with their mothers and murder their fathers, deny this and you're repressing, which makes it true, affirm it, and it proves the truth of the aforementioned. This is a trick all absolutists are very good at.
08:51 AM on 03/03/2008
the proof is in the pudding...

your blog is a perfect example of what the media coverage of Hillary has been like......

You may hope the people wont notice.... if you keep your head up your a$$. In polls taken of democrats more that 50% thought the media coverage was biased... only 1 in 10 thought the same about Obama... - Go figure..

Its a nice try to cover for yourself... But the major loser of this election cycle is the media.... and people like you ....

To borrow hillary's words .... "Shame on you !!" -- you bring disrepute to journalism...
08:36 AM on 03/03/2008
Excellent post, Mr. Jenkins.
07:41 AM on 03/03/2008
She keeps saying that she has been "tested" and vetted. Does she think winning elected office in one of the most liberal states in the country as being "tested?" And she says she has been vetted, but where are those tax returns?
As Eugene Robinson alluded to a few weeks ago, any other candidate with her losing streak would have been long since thought dead by the media. I'm not saying that aren't antagonistic to her, but they do respect her.
08:45 AM on 03/03/2008
Oh, great: we're going to get a candidate who takes truth, wrings every bit of reason out of it, chews it up and spits it out in some outlandish, surreal, opposite direction. And gets away with it.

I thought we were going to be done with this kind of president.......

A woman whose name happens to be Clinton is more discriminated against than a black man with a funny name, as a viable presidential candidate for the first time in history.

Who is totally comfortable that women will "protect" her, while she says she's "tough".

Whose foreign policy experience is based on being on a senate committee and cocktail parties at the White House.

It would all be laughable if I didn't see it working. Again. Like Bush.

President Hillary will have all kinds of excuses for why nothing she has promised will actually come to fruition. Can you honestly see President Hillary Clinton in an address to the nation, convincing republicans and independents that her policies are in their best interests? Without wagging her finger at us and scolding us? Boy, that'll be motivating.

No digging into her finances by the press, and they still aren't giving enough to her?

It's Bush all over again. If she pulls this off, we're in for a disastrous four years.
08:51 AM on 03/03/2008

But as to Jenkins's point ab out the media free ass, can you imagine if the situation were reversed? If Obama had lost eleven consecutive races? ELEVEN! Bill would be out pounding home the point that she had been annointed and that he was dangerously in her way. Come to think of it, that's what he's been doing. That's exactly the wayl they way they treat the front runner -- 11 wins and he's still a mere obstacle to her candidacy. This campaign has operated with a sense of entitlement from day one, and then went on to play victim of media and/or white male conspiracy.

And as a feminist myself, I'm mightily tired of the exhausted litany of accusations, that if only we could get past our unrecognized mysogeny, we would see the true 'person' here who's best qualified to move us forward, lead, take The Call at 3 a.m., etc. (Why does First Lady experience make you more able to answer that damned red phone, by the way?). Every one of us who resists supporting Hillary Clinton has our own bag of reasons, and they all have to do with her experience, her track record on the war, her husband's powerfully intrusive stance , and a desire to leave the past behind. We are entitled to reject her for whatever reasons we want, including a preference for a president who is not married to a two-term ex-President. The idea that her gender allows her a free pass for this last point is frankly contrary to everything feminism stands for. We are entitled to see 'the person' underneath-- and this one does come with too much baggage -- a Bush-supporting war vote and a pushy partner -- to earn my vote. I do not have to apologize for that decision, and refuse to ascribe it to my 'issue' with Mrs. Clinton being a woman.
07:31 AM on 03/03/2008
thank you . . . the MSM in the US seems to prefer establishment figures . . . investigative journalism in the US is I suspect all but dead . . . I found it odd that no one questions where the $5million came from or bill's lucrative business deals, and the withheld tax returns . .. . there is a huge can of worms just waiting to be exposed about the clintons . ..
07:22 AM on 03/03/2008
This fairly interesting post fails to account for the reality that the collective businesses known as "Media" will all too readily and happily attempt to spin a monkey's bollock on the tip of a spoon if it will get readers and viewers to continue to buy papers and watch their news shows. It was a statistical fact that after the last rush of primaries, Hillary was, and still is, in the miserable position where she must win 58% of the Texas, Ohio & Penn primary and caucus votes to pull EVEN with Obama once more in the delegate hunt. That brutal fact from over a week ago won't sell the Ooo & Ahhh drama of Hillary vs Obama, especially if it had been repeated as much as that stupid ass "Its 3:00 AM" advertisement has. And anyway Hillary vs Obama is a far sexier news story that Obama against John McCain, particularly if selling advertising is your life's blood..
07:22 AM on 03/03/2008
Sen. Clinton is the first woman to really be a legitment canidate for President. To me she playing the gender card in her campaign, that she is getting sexist treatment by the male dominated media. Problem is that she has too much baggage from her own legitmently questionable ethics, from being on the BOD of Wal-Mart while her husband was Governor of the state they were hq'd in to the cattle futures to her lack of dealing with her husband's adultury. These are issues well beyond the 'vast right wing conspiracy'. Sen. Clinton is also seen as a quasi-incumbant, with a much longer record in public view than Sen. Obama.
For Sen. Obama, the first person of color to be a legitment canidate for President, the media has to be extremely careful not to show any hint of racial bias and indeed may go to extremes to make sure they don't. While Obama has some questionable issues, most notably his real estate dealings with Resko, there doesn't seem to be anywhere near the level of personal ethics issues that Clinton has to his favor.
In the end, Clinton has a personal record that makes for the need for greater scrunity by the media, much of it legitment.
06:53 AM on 03/03/2008
The disturbing things is that if she wins the nomination, she is not going to be able to play the "victim" game anymore when the press is no longer trying to represent the Democrats' point of view for the general election. The entire atmosphere will transform and suddenly she'll be pelted with interrogations about her and Bill's fortune, "universal healthcare" will be a bad word among Republican journalists, she'll be called on her lack of foreign policy experience when up against a veteran, the religious right will go after her, her blame-the-press schtick will sound old, Fox News won't be her friend anymore, and she'll be mocked by Republicans if she tries to cry again. Voters need to remember this - if you think they're unfair to her now, it's only going to get worse and it will be at the Democrats' expense. Obama will have to deal with the switch as well, but I'm not as worried, because so far he's not the one complaining every time a charge is leveled against him - he simply answers the questions, even the stupid ones.
08:52 AM on 03/03/2008
The irony is, she loses big-time to McCain on foreign policy experience. I know, I know -- Obama has far less and should lose that argument as well. But his approach is different, he's stood up when it wasn't popular to do so, he has more national security legislation than Hillary. He has ideas on how to heal the rifts with the world, while Hillary thumps her chest with the best of the Republicans. Hillary and McCain are practically identical on foreign policy in philosophy. It's a joke that this how she tries to win the nomination, because it gets her nothing in the general election.

As to whether the details of her "plans" are better than Obama's -- what difference does it make if she can't get a working majority to pass anything?