With Clinton It Would Be "Hillary Hates Hicks" -- With Obama It's "Compassion"

Unlike Bush, I don't buy into the "you're with us or you're with the enemy" mindset. I'll proudly vote for the Democratic nominee in November, so I don't bow exclusively at the alter of either Obama or Clinton. That's for blood relatives, rabid supporters, or me if I'm on the payroll.

Overt favoritism from quality news outlets is a different category. It bothers me.

Take The National Journal, widely respected by Democrats and Republicans as bipartisan. I've read Charlie Cook's weekly "Off To The Races" for years. He handicaps politics better than anybody in the business.

On April 11, the Journal's tip sheet The Hotline had a piece titled "Small Town Stew" by editor Jennifer Skalka. It concerned Obama's remarks about small town voters, delivered at a recent closed-door San Francisco fundraiser and first revealed on Huffington Post.

He said that with years of struggling economically, "it's not surprising they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them...as a way to explain their frustrations."

Republicans always play the offensive God, guns and gays card, but if bemoaning it was where Obama was aiming, he missed the mark. He now says he meant that it's good for Americans to rely on faith in hard times, even though he lumped it in with guns and fear of foreigners. That's a political problem, and it opens up millions of voters for the Republicans next fall in crucial swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and who knows where else.

Fortunately for Obama, the mainstream press continues to assist him in ways Clinton can only dream about. In her Hotline piece, Skalka briefly explained the issue and quoted his comments in full. Then came something that jumped out at me:

"Bitter is a loaded word. No doubt. But I'm guessing Obama meant to say that he has compassion for members of the middle class, who are watching their jobs get shipped overseas and their communities struggle."

How nice of her to reorient the reader's perspective toward what the senator probably meant, like a dutiful press secretary. She wasn't finished, next offering her own version of the script:

"He could've said there's no place in America for blame, however. Immigrants are not the problem. Isolationism is not the answer. And God, while great, isn't going to solve our nation's economic ills. That might've been more palatable, no?"

Yes, that sounds better, but Skalka is basically batting cleanup for a candidate who admits stubbing his verbal toe. And her work is couched as straight reporting with analysis thrown in, not opinion writing. Whether or not she personally supports Obama, I bet she'd be the first to tell you she intended to show no preference. She'd doubtless point to this lone sentence, which appears after casting Obama's words in the most favorable light:

"Obama stirred up a boiling cauldron of religion and guns and hate, and he pointed a finger at the good voters of PA for clinging to the wrong stuff."

Aha! There's the fair and balanced part!

Now, try imagining a Clinton fundraiser at Stephen Spielberg's house, packed with wealthy liberals like those at Obama's event. Audio emerges of her saying the same things about small town America. Does the press write that she "meant to say" she really has "compassion" for regular folks? Do they add a helpful rewrite on her behalf so it appears more populist than elitist and put-downish? In other words, do they instinctively cover her back like Skalka did for Obama?

Not a chance, and you know it. She'd get bludgeoned. We'd have lots of "Hillary Hates Hicks" and no benefit of the doubt.

Hotline's approach is the latest evidence that the mainstream media shows Obama greater deference. The MSM did the same thing for Bush in the 2000 general election (repub vs. dem), so they're equal opportunity offenders. Gore was constantly crucified for being an insufferable know-it-all, while Shrub got a pass at every turn for being likable, remember?

I'm not comparing Obama to Bush. I'm saying the Fourth Estate hasn't changed a bit. They tee up the agreed-upon meme and run with it like the rat pack they are. It will be interesting to spot the pro-McCain tilt in the general election. They've historically indulged him, you know. Chris Matthews, September 10, 2006: "The press loves McCain. We're his base."

A friend suggests the press simply loves Obama, too, more than Clinton. OK, it's a free country, and it isn't why she's behind in delegates. Still, there's no use denying that deference affects news coverage -- and thus public perception. Always has.

Postscript: Democrats strongly agree. According to the Saturday, March 1 New York Times, "a New York Times/CBS News telephone poll {reveals that} nearly half of respondents who described themselves as voters in Democratic primaries or caucuses said the news media had been 'harder' on Mrs. Clinton....Only about 1 in 10 suggested the news media had been harder on Mr. Obama."

Comments

[LeoMarvin]

"Now, try imagining a Clinton fundraiser at Stephen Spielberg's house, packed with wealthy liberals like those at Obama's event. [...] We'd have lots of "Hillary Hates Hicks" and no benefit of the doubt."

Maybe that's because her feelings toward these people really are less benign than Obama's. Unless "screw them" is how Hillary expresses endearment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

[DoveyJudith]

"Why is the mainstream media following Hillary's line and favoring Hillary in this case (totally , diametrically opposite of this post?)" says Pluto.

Contrary to Pluto, this post didn't claim that the mainstream meda was NOT following Hillary's line in this case. Maybe they are, in fact....for once. The post argued, it seems to me, that if she were the one to say what Obama said, the mainstream media would spend weeks attacking her like they did over the Bosnia deal.

Anyway, I don't buy Obama's logic. Sure there's something curious about some who vote on God, guns and gays instead of their economic interest, but people vote for many reasons. Some rich people vote because they're pro-choice. Some even vote for candidates who'll raise their taxes. If Obama really meant to say that poor people should only vote on economic issues instead of "clinging" to their faith and their 12 gauge shotgun, then does he also believe that rich people trying to hold on to their money should only vote in their economic self-interest, too? It would only follow logically, but it would be bad for America.

[northeast73]

BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO!!!

It is INSANE the way the media is DEFENDING OBAMA FOR HIM....take rachel maddow, keith olbermann, michelle bernard, eugene robinson, jeff toobin, jack cafferty and make a video of their comments of the last week....R E D I C U L O U S.....

"this is what obama MEANT to say....this is what he really meant....he was speaking about a larger issue....i dont think this will hurt him....." could I imagine them doing THAT for Hillary....NEVER.

Take bosina flap....they could have said...."mrs. clinton meant to say "threat of"sniper fire, not actual fire...." they could have pointed out that DOZENS, including the PRESIDENT OF BOSNIA affirmed that her story was just an exaggerati­on....they could have used the AP and CNN reports of the trip that speak about sniper fire and sharpshooters protecting her....but they didnt.

Thank you thank you thank you for this.....many of us feel like its the twiligt zone when watching the MSM these days.....

[northeast73]

BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO!!!

It is INSANE the way the media is DEFENDING OBAMA FOR HIM....take rachel maddow, keith olbermann, michelle bernard, eugene robinson, jeff toobin, jack cafferty and make a video of their comments of the last week....R E D I C U L O U S.....

"this is what obama MEANT to say....this is what he really meant....he was speaking about a larger issue....i dont think this will hurt him....." could I imagine them doing THAT for Hillary....NEVER.

Take bosina flap....they could have said...."mrs. clinton meant to say "threat of"sniper fire, not actual fire...." they could have pointed out that DOZENS, including the PRESIDENT OF BOSNIA affirmed that her story was just an exaggerati­on....they could have used the AP and CNN reports of the trip that speak about sniper fire and sharpshooters protecting her....but they didnt.

Thank you thank you thank you for this.....many of us feel like its the twiligt zone when watching the MSM these days.....

[hwebb54]

Great column. I've been saying there is a double standard working against Hillary from the beginning. The media will actually go as far as digging "hidden meanings" from the Clinton's and call them everything from racist to liars. Yet Obama ACTUALLY says something that didn't need some pundits interpretation and spin to be seen as highly patronizing, elitist and just plan wrong. When Bill Clinton called Obama's position on the Iraq war a "fairy tale" it was racist. When Obama calls small town America gun toting, bible thumping bigots, then it is compassion.

[plutorage]

I can't agree with this at all.

The literal interpretation of Obama's remarks is not : "The issues of religion, immigration, guns are not real issues".

It is: "We pols must address the gunsgaysbible issues instead of economic issues because the record of the incumbent lead folks to bellieve that the government cannot respond to their needs on economic issues. Therefore a pol must fish for votes in the gaygunbible issues while I, Obama, really do think I could be talking about improving the lot of everyone in life economical­ly/educati­onally".

Why is the mainstream media following Hillary's line and favoring Hillary in this case (totally , diametrically opposite of this post?)

this is a PAT (Political Aptitude Test) question for which I am still pondering the answer. I wish the media would let me sneak a peek at the answer. I am stumped;

a) the fix is in for McCain because he will protect tax cuts of wealthy, keep the cable war going, and he is still putative chair of telcom committee in Senate that regulates cable/TV.

b) The media want to toughen Obama up for the November election and are picking out typical red state bear trap meat for his next meal

c) The media want to sink Hillary's political career by making her anathema to black voters in the democratic partty.

d) the media want to sink Obama because they don't think he is reactionary enough on the issues of War, Wall Street and Zion.

[northeast73]

Guess what? You just did what the author is saying the media does....you are RECASTING HIS WORDS TO SOUND BETTER.

He was NOT making some GRAND speech about american politcs...he was ANSWERING A QUESTION about WHY he cant win in PA (agains another democrat with democratic voters)....his answer was VERY TELLING.

KEEP SPINNING.

[jstock]

Apples and oranges. Were Hillary to make such a gaffe, the MSM would undoubtedly make a huge fuss, but it would also have had less impact with potential voters because everybody knows her. With Obama, every time a Rezko or Wright pops up, his campaign risks these associations negatively impacting him. And this is because millions of American voters are still trying to figure out who this Obama fella is.

I do agree, though, that Sen. Clinton's coverage has largely been less favorable than Sen. Obama's. Should he advance to the general, though, he'll be pitted against good old Grampa, whom the MSM just adore. Talk about giving a politician the benefit of the doubt! One of my favorite examples of this was when the NYT's Kristof wrote that one of the things he likes about McCain is the fact that he looks embarrassed when he flip-flops. I guess we Obama supporters should enjoy the mostly positive coverage of him while it lasts.

[Burnsey]

You millionaires just don't get it. We small town americans ARE bitter, and we are not mad at Obama for pointing it out. I guess you all expect us to get upset because you wealthy people tell us we should be upset. But we have some news for you, just because we are small town and bitter, doesn't make us stupid enough to buy into your fake scandal.

You people wouldn't know the actual cost of living if it bit you in the ass. And sorry, I buy what Obama is selling. I buy the truth over pretentions any day.

[DanielinLaLaLand]

Living in LaLa Land doesn't make me a millionaire, and speaking for myself, the cost of living is a daily battle. That's true here or in podunk. But tell me this: You say that as a small town American you are bitter and are not mad at Obama for pointing it out. Does your bitterness make you "cling to guns or religion as a way to explain your frustrations?" That's what he said to a group of wealthy millionaire contributors in private. Is he right about that? Do you cling to guns and religion out of bitterness? Is he right about that?

[northeast73]

dont forget clining to bigotry!

[Bullyness]

I think the current agreed upon meme is that the media is in the tank for Barack Obama.

[Stevie57]

I expect this would be true if you don't count Fox and MSNBC as serious News Networks.

I think the truth is that Obama has given her a pass on a lot of gift issues (sniper fire, Mark Penn) because he doesn't want to be dragged into the muck.

...additionally he is smart enough to realize that people don't generally like mud-slinging and that there is always a backlash. Hilary take note!

Sen. Clinton has several problems, not the least of which is her tenuous relationship with the truth. Much has been made in this campaign about the misogyny of the media, but to my mind this is less an issue of gender, and more one of personality. People don't like her; she is not honest, or empathetic, or endearing, or charming; and that has to do more with her vitriol and stridency and less with her womanhood. Unfortunately this is a definite disadvantage when the opposing candidate is startlingly similar on important issues, and nicer.

[Stevie57]

Sorry..but she did.
In an article on Time.com in November Mrs. Clinton was quoted as saying: "During the 1990s, I cannot remember being asked about immigration. Why? Because the economy was working. And average Americans didn't have to go around looking for others to blame."

[sef2121]

The thing is, HRC would NEVER say anything like that about working America, never. Not in private, not at a fundraising dinner, never. She my be a millionaire, but she is more in touch with the needs and concerns of ordinary America than Obama could ever be.

[mamak]

If you cannot write something constructive and meaningful...then with all due respect refrain yourself...you are creating more entropy in the universe....go fly-fishing or something....

[WAstateliberal]

Oh please! The MSM is unfair to Clinton? Is that why they are strategically not bringing up "Tammy Wynette" gate, where she called out stay-at-homes as worthless losers? You know, there are many women from my mom's generation (she is 70) who have, and have had for better than 16 years, a virulent hatred for Hillary Clinton. My mother hates her in a way I have never seen her dislike anyone else (as does my mother-in-law and my sister's mother-in-law, ages 60 and 70, respectively). And it all started when she gave that interview. Now the Boomer white women wonder why feminists age 40 and under can't stand her? It is because of this second wave bullsh*t wherein Boomer feminists believe that a woman's success is measured solely by her accomplishments in the work place. We have moved on from Second Wave feminism and Hillary needs to move on as well.

[Jacksonfromtejas]

Tammy Wynette gate? Seriously?

You're referring to one single sentence in an answer Clinton gave to a question during Bill's presidential campaign back in 1992. She defended not being a stay-at-home mom by taking an insensitive swipe at the Tammy Wynette's of the world who bake cookies and have teas, and then apologized. As First Lady of Arkansas, it was her first foray under the klieg lights of a national campaign. Tammy herself later thought it was a hysterical remark. That's the Tammy Wynette gate you're referring to?

God, the anger people in public life must endure from total strangers over one errant remark made almost two decades ago. Obama admits his remarks in San Francisco were poorly articulated. Does he have this to look forward to when he's 60?

And unlike you write, the piece wasn't about how "the MSM is unfair to Clinton." It was about how they've been deferential to Obama. The headline was just a grabber, but out of 17 paragraphs, she's the focus of only two, and mainly by way of analogy.

You write that your mother "hates her" like you've never seen her hate anyone. The Right demonized them for sure in the '90's. It may well be an element that makes her a hard sell in November were she to be the nominee. Then again, I know plenty of older women, too (mothers they are, just like yours!) who support her passionately, so I guess it takes all kinds.

[Burnsey]

Her first foray? Give me a break. This is a woman who claims she has 35 years of experience, and you claim something that happened less than 15 years ago was her first foray. Which is it, 35 years of political experience or not?

[Mattjoe]

"If only if's and buts were candies and nuts......." Stop. No more school yard antics please Jackson.

Spin, twist and posture how you will - the truth is in the reality. Could Clinton produce more genuinely "offended" people than Obama could those that are "bitter"? Are you kidding me? The defense rests. The CNN's and the FOX's etc. take us down the garden path - Gore, Kerry are great examples (we gained George and Dick) and I'm entirely certain no one in let’s say......Louisiana is "bitter" through circumstance and failure of leadership? What a relief Cheney/ Republicans exhibit no signs of elitism at all and no one in the U.S. clings to guns. Thank you for the clarity CNN, FOX and Mr. Williams.

Be offended alright, however, about your collusive government/ media, they bank on those not knowing they don't know.

Tomorrow's Headline:
"Obama claims sky is blue - Clinton on the attack"

[hwebb54]

Just think of how the media "twisted" Hillary's words of compliment to LBJ into being a knock on Marting Luther King and because of that she was a racist. Now that is twisting words. If the media try to clean up Obama's "actual" words and not call it what it is (divisive and wrong) then we will know that the media truly is bias like alot of us Hillary supporters thought all along. I live in a small town and what he said was wrong and what he said about Montana was wrong too. To say that he is winning in "backwards" places like that too means he thinks very litttle of the people up there. (My granddad is from there, and he didn't like that)