Hillary Clinton May Have a Point About Media Bias

Hillary Clinton may have a point about the media bias against her: compare these two pictures from the NY Times Pictures of the Day section.

(Photo: Todd Heisler/The New York Times)

This one comes Feb 28. Long shot, the Senator leading her entourage down (was the photographer not there when she was going up?) The symbolism is too too clear.

This comes from the day before.

Photo: Damon Winter/The New York Times.

Again the message could not be clearer. This is a beloved man whom the masses adore. For these two days these were the only two pictures of the campaign that ran.

But what can you make of this?

(REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton)

While she may have reasons to complain about bias Hilary does herself no favours by allowing pictures like this to be taken. After eight years in the White House you think she and her people would know better than to play into the hands of their enemies like this. Did no one notice this imagery behind her? This is a tight long shot, but I'd love to see the wide angle of what the rest of the stage looked like. Was this a Satanist Rally in Clairsville Ohio? Were they sacrificing backstage?

Of course there is bias, but it's only the natural bias of the wolf pack wanting to tear apart the weakest candidate. It's unfortunate that Hillary, with all her experience, can't seem but to help them.

Comments

[Denni]

A white guy with less foreign affairs experience than Obama DID get elected... his name was Bill Clinton and he'd never held a national office, as Obama has.

Democrats weren't lining up telling the world that he needed to give up and go away, come back when he was older (Obama is older NOW than Clinton was THEN).

Democrats didn't give up on Clinton because he faced a more experienced candidate.

If Hillary were a man, she wouldn't have been able to get away with the race and gender baiting she's been getting away with all this time. She wouldn't have been able to pad her resume as she has, all this time.

Someone would have asked her how it would have been possible to have '35 years serving the public' when she's spent most of that time in corporate America and then in Office, herself. The media are afraid of being accused of gender bias so they sink back and their their teeth while resume padding continues!

[pizzmoe]

Another White guy with less experience in everything got elected. His name is W.

[aaron530]

What did the wideshot look like?

Cackling little demons were probably running around a lake of fire, pushing the hopeless and suffering back into line as they were forced to listen to yet another speech on the 'merits' of universal healthcare. Balls of fire were no doubt being launched into the torchered crowd as the next lamb was being led onto the stage to be sacrificed to Lucifer in the hope that he would not allow media bias to fall upon the campaign.

Quick someone, another lamb! Hurry!!!!

[SouthCentralDel]

I have never seen those two pictures of Hillary that seem biased. And I am a political junkie glued to cable news and the net on this primary.

One needed to go to great length to find bias in this story. A campaign starts losing, what do they do? Start whining about the unfairness. Whining is not the type of Presidential reaction I want to hear after a 3am red phone call.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

There's another bias at play.

This country understands, and is geting past racism, better than misogyny.

Moreover, would a white guy with Obama's credentials have gotten this far this well? Before you jump me as a racist -- which I most certainly am NOT -- note how many Obamanistas gladly credit Osama with bringing the value of his background to the Presidency. I *AGREE* with the notion, but folks, if it's color-bonus-points, it AIN'T color-blind.

Where's the love from the far left? No comparable ovary-points?

And Karl Rove is licking his chops over changing the tone post-conventions to rile up the racists in the Repuke base, who have gotten past neither bias.

[urbangreen]

Bias isn't "one size fits all." Among some, racism trumps sexism -- easier to see a white woman empowered than a black male. The bigot's vote goes to McCain by default in either case. But I believe there are more Americans fed up w. the Republicrat agenda than there are racists or sexists among us. I'm for Obama but I'll vote for who ever's on the Democratic line come November.

[Bagger]

Everyone from the MSM to the public are obsessing over race and gender. The only one not obsessing over it seems to be Barack himself. Hillary talks about how important it is to have the first woman president. I've never heard Barack say we needed a first African-American president. Frankly, I think most Americans don't care about race or gender. They care about style and the ability of the candidate to connect with people. Obama connects better than Hillary .

[Denni]

Why are Clintonistas unable to acknowledge that HILLARY is the problem, not her gender! Republicans aren't riling up the racists. Why would they have to? They have Billary for that!

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Re the closer: "Of course there is bias, but it's only the natural bias of the wolf pack wanting to tear apart the weakest candidate. It's unfortunate that Hillary, with all her experience, can't seem but to help them."

Beyond the opening phrase, what PAP!

The MSM is a LEMMING pack, but not one capable of identifying "the weakest candidate" beyond how they poll today, and the "momentum" swing since yesterday.

Note how the coverage of Hillary has been the same since way back when she had a big lead. No wolf-pack was shredding Obama THEN.

Note the bias, not between Hillary and Obama, but the ANYBODY BUT HILLARY bias, which is chalked off to the alleged corruption of the Clintons... as opposed to Hillary's ovaries.

Feh.

[thewhitewitch]

Amen!

[runswithscissors]

Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, Paul, and Richardson can legitimately complain about media bias. Clinton and Obama cannot.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Add Gore.

Had he not been subject to ridicule by the fact-phobic MSM, he might have already locked up the nomination.

Cogito, erGO GORE.

[MIHOP]

Actually, the flaws of Bill Clinton were a much larger factor than the media, Gore's lack of charisma and Ralph Nader combined. For all his positive qualities and accomplishments, Bill Clinton cost Al Gore the elecftion before the campaign ever began. He could have, and no doubt there were many political analysts who argued that he should have, denounced his behavior, but he did not. So far as I know, Al Gore has never blamed him, and he's a bigger man for it.

[yeswecancan]

Oh, please. The press has been browbeaten by the new Clinton team into fawning coverage for the past week by claiming, ta dah, BIAS. Oooooohhhh, the worst thing you could ever claim about the "fourth estate." And you have all bitten -- big time! Hillary Clinton has gotten bad press because, duh, SHE'S LOST 11 IN A ROW! And, for all you Edward R. Murrow wannabes out there -- since when did you forget that her explanation for that string of losses was -- she was focusing on March 4! She was looking past those little states to wipe out Obama with big wins in Ohio and Texas. Well, if I had focused all my attention on these states and had gone from double-digit blowout leads 2 weeks out to a dead heat, I'd expect to get some bad press, too!!!!!!! Is anybody awake on the press bus? Why is she not being challenged on the fallacy of her rationale for the February blowouts? OH, that's right, it's because the press is so pro-Obama it's ... hmmm.... completely brain dead? Give me a break-- or as HRC says without challenge from ya'll -- get real!

[ariadne1]

"Why is she not being challenged on the fallacy of her rationale for the February blowouts?"

because every time someone in the msm makes a comment that is less than laudatory the clintons unleash the hounds at media matters-clinton is one of media matters 'advisors.'

when the commentator happens to be a man, think msnbc, the antedeluvian feministas at now [national organization of women], create a firestorm.

she has the press in check. she wants to play with the big boys but she cries foul and sobs into her hanky when her machinations are brought to the public's attention.

this is called intimidation and it appears to be working; remember, with the clintons... perception is everything.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Got misogyny?

Or, more benevolently.... Got blind spot?

The pot-shots long predate the skid, though I agree with much of your starting-i­n-the-midd­le analysis.

[Jedi007]

The so-called negative media bias towards Clinton is garbage. She should be treated like Huckabee is now and they keep saying "you can't count a Clinton out". She has not won a single one of the primary election days this year...NOT A ONE! Here are the numbers:

Each day delegates were won Obama first, followed by Clinton

1/3 (IA) 16 - 15
1/8 (NH) 9 - 9
1/15 (MI) 0 - 0
1/19 (NV) 13 - 12
1/26 (SC) 25 - 12
1/29 (FL) 0 - 0
2/5 (SuperTuesday) 842 - 828 (11 still to be decided)
2/9 (LA, NE, WA, VI) 105 - 56
2/10 (ME) 15 - 9
2/12 (DA, DC, MD, VA) 111 - 57.5 (6.5 to be decided)
2/19 (HI,WI) 56 - 38

How many of you knew the above information? The media should have told you and they didn't. She didn't even win "Super Tuesday". The national polls now show her 15 points behind Obama. The media has been keeping a DEAD campaign alive.

She has lost 11 straight primary and caucus events. There should be an absolute roar telling her to get out. Please note that Barack has not done this. He has been nice about it.

Obama goes into states where she has 20 point leads and they move quickly. They just have to see her campaign and people stampede to get away.

After March 4th, the super delagates need to put an end to her campaign. She is damaging the party and America's hope for a better future.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Horsepucky.

Nice try making the race for the most delegates simply about who won more, in select races. Funny, your numbers don't add up to .

Fact of the matter is, they have a relatively comparable number, and "Mo" can change.

Just ask McSame.

As of 03/02, CNN (with SuperD's estimated in) has it at Obama 1,369 vs. Clinton 1,267. Quibble if you like, but both have a long way to 2,025. Declaring elections over before they're over is a Florida 2000 ploy. Keep campaigning, but puleeze.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

Next point: Nomination is one thing, surely. But performance in swing states against McSame will determine our next Preznit. Obama can have all the low electoral college red states he wants. Let's talk after Ohio. And let's talk about Florida.

Note that in Florida, for 210 delegates still on hold -- enough to swing the lead -- Hillary clobbered Obama 50% - 33% (regardless that Edwards pulled 14%, even if you give them all to Obama.) Note also that Hillary got 857,000 votes to McSame's 694,000.

An intra-party pissing match over the Florida and the rules could well knock out Hillary, and give us Preznit McSame. Bookmark this prediction.

Rove has long run against an opponents strengths, figuring to weaken the LEADER with help of the RIVALS, so that the knock-out would be easier. Obamanistas are being buoyed by TEMPORARY Obamacans, many of whom will vote McKnownCommodity in November.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

oop... "numbers add up to ***2,025*** ."

[DietrichMoody]

Three words describe the Clinton campaign - Disingenuous, Angry and Jaded. These photos can be taken out of context or put into context, ask any famous person out there. But what is happening, is natural - it's instinctual - but its not personal to Clinton, in a complete sense. Its called SURVIVAL. And the media are citizens too. The Clinton have BIG NAME RECOGNITION and "the most favored politicians" status for over a decade, years. Given this, she has lost over 23 states in the Presidential Primary. And in the process has judged to campaign negative, dark and stale. States, where Clinton was overwhelming leading 6 months prior are going to Obama or her lead has been erased. Can't blame the media for this.

Obama has managed to campaign harder, and erase her greatest and only assets, her name recognition and the good will she had established over the years as First Lady, and he in turn made her look like just another normal Presidential Candidate, they are getting to know her, and they are not liking what they see, so is the media. And she is loosing ground. And by instinct. the press is following the winner. What is disingenuous by her and her camp, is that when she had all the favorable press, and was the PERCEIVED nominee about 6 months prior - she did not question the favorable press, and say "oh there are other candidate in the race, this is a democracy". Go read the favorable press if you do not believe. This was favorable treatment. Now that the favored one is not favored my a movement and states across the Country, every one is trying to go further and be stronger. Its natural its instinctual its not personal. But for Clinton and her team, to now manipulate these natural aspects that she took advantage of is disingenuous

[sherifffruitfly]

Just like football, anyone who has a 30 point lead and loses can only blame themselves.

[Pneumaticus]

It's this pathetic American Idol mentality that seems to be driving the MSM, on TV especially. And if we're not more discerning as voters, then we're all just going to be cued applause on the Oprama Show.

[sanglug]

The problem is not bias; it is incompetence.

[winterfuknmute]

I wonder was it bias back in the summer when the media was calling Sen. Clinton the front-runner, was it bias when they were saying the same thing in December. But now that most of the country has had a chance to vote, and the Senator is no longer the front-runner and lost 11 in a row. The question now becomes was there a bias.

The bias was against every other democrat that was running. If this would have been some other democrat that was loosing 11 in a row, would people be even asking this question???

[sanglug]

It was incompetence then, too.

[BillMcKern]

You're wrong about the cause and effect. The press isn't tearing into Clinton because she's the weaker candidate. They're MAKING HER the weaker candidate by tearing into her.

[DietrichMoody]

Really? She got favorable press, and was the intended nominee for over a year - she did not question the favorable press, and say "oh there are other candidate in the race, this is a democracy". All the other Candidates had to campaign harder over her name. All she did is rest on her alleged laurels. What Clinton and her supporters are doing now, are PROJECTING, ya know, attributing your own repressed thoughts to someone else. Her campaign isn't connecting in states and with larger majority of people. The press are not making her weaker.

[57andfemale]

I'm still unsure what those laurels are. She's done so little in her own name, that it's only the Clinton name that has carried her anyway. Good point, that all the other candidates had to overcome her huge name recognition, when she had been coronated, in her own mind and by the press for a year.

The brave, tough Hillary would be transparent and show us her tax returns and her papers from the Clinton Library. We have every right to know what her actual experience was during the CLinton administration for which we're supposed to reward her with the presidency. I'm so weary of hearing how she's a survivor. She's great at personal survival -- what has she done to actually deliver to the people? What progressive cause has she been able to deliver, against political will? Her judgment on the war, the fact that her foreign policy advisors are all men who still support the war, just not the way it was managed. She was silent on torture before she was against it to win the democratic nomination. Her vote against the cluster bomb ban, Kyl/Lieberman, flag burning, -- yeah, some great progressive fighter she is.

If we're hoodwinked again, this time by someone who belongs in a think tank and not the White House, no matter how entitled she feels, then we will get what we deserve. It will be a different kind of hell, but hell it will be. A few short months ago, I would have been happy with any of our candidates. It is Hillary's mismanagement, willingness to distort and lie, the whisper campaigns that would make Karl Rove proud -- I have never been so disappointed in a democrat in my life. It is Hillary and Hillary alone who has driven me away.

[57andfemale]

I've yet to hear the press question any of her lies told the last week. "Obama doesn't want you to have healthcare. He only wants children to have healthcare", which she said in Ohio. You don't hear exposes of the smear campaigns, the emails sent from the Clinton campaign to seed doubt with the Jewish community, lying about his pro-choice record. The press questions nothing the Clintons say.

Oh, I know, we're picking on a girl. Some feminist. Why isn't it a lead story that the great feminist won't return campaign money from a company with an outrageous record on sexual harrassment? Can you honestly imagine if it had been Obama? Why the righteous feminists would have howling (wait -- is that a slur against females? I have to censor my words).

This 57, white, female feminist has had it with the Clinton whining that has cowed the press.

If she has to fire her campaign chief for blowing through $100,000,000 before Iowa, and then lies to us -- to our faces -- that Patty Solis Doyle didn't realize how hard a campaign would be on her family, yada, yada -- that's news, people. That's not media bias. If she loses race after race and gives us preposterous reasoning, time and time again, that the little states don't count, caucuses don't mean anything because they're mean to "working people", democrats in red states don't count, only New York counts (but I guess not Illinois or Wisconsin, or Virginia, Maryland). Only when she wins, it counts.

If Obama had lost 23 out of 35 states, he'd be hounded out of the race. The only reason she's allowed to drag the party through this nightmare is because she's a Clinton and the press allows it.

When I watch a candidate lie and lie and lie and watch the press not even highlight it -- well, I've lived through enough Bush years. I'm not looking forward to the press covering up for a liar for another 4 years.

When she makes some questionable judgment call on the world stage (and any president is going to make some bad calls), is she going to whine she's a girl, like she's done throughout this campaign? Are we going to be told to give her a pass because of the myriad number of excuses the Clintons have given their entire career? She won't be "tough" unless her poll numbers require it.

If she wins with the destructive campaign I've seen, then we will get the president we deserve and extend this nightmare of ugliness, mean-spiritedness and excuses. She won't be much better than Bush. Because if you think that whining, excuse-driven fearmonger is going to be able accomplish any of her precious 10-point plans, you are naive.

[Psalm30]

Right on! Write on!

[Bearc1aw]

In the same debate Hillary accused Obama of coping part of his speech then ended by stealing her speech from Edwards.

Hillary makes claims that are completely fake time and time again.

Hillary was trying to lie about her support for NAFTA and got busted.

Hillary has lost 11 in a row.

Hillary has said she isnt trying to play the gender card but does it all the time.

Hillary has said that if Obama doesn't win all 4 states on tusday that people are turning from Obama.

The list keeps going. You can only lie so many times then the press starts to bust you on it!

[mbjesq]

Let's assume that the media DOES suck up to Obama, and further agree that media bias is bad as a matter of principle. As a democrat who wants to win in November, and a clear-eyed realist, I'd say: enjoy the advantage, for once.

We saw the devastating effect that media bias had in the the Bush/Gore election, with Gore being pilloried for utterly untrue inanities and Bush getting a free-pass on everything from ignorance and presidential unsuitability to immoral and unlawful behavior. Assuming that we can't achieve a level playing field any time soon, I'd just as soon have a candidate who claims the advantage.

[BillMcKern]

The problem with that strategy is that the good press for Obama ends if he's the nominee. The guy the media is REALLY pulling for is McCain. The difference between Obama and Clinton is that she knows how to win despite the media advantage McCain will have.

[LoRiseAntlers]

BillMcKern-Then why can't she win despite the "advantage "Obama has?

Talk about one weak-ass argument.

[balance]

I question the judgement of the MSM.

The MSM was wrong in the run up through the Iraq Invasion, wrong on their favoritism for Bush Jr, wrong on ignoring the negative impacts of this New Wall Street Economic Order on the Middle Class, etc...

The MSM should be the last opinion I trust on whom to vote for President.