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

[SteveClements]

The media has been anything but pro-Obama. hillary lies lefft and right and they give it a little coverage for a few days, but Obama says the truth with perhaps a poor choice of words and that's all we hear about day after day. People are bitter, in the cities, in the suburbs, in the small towns, and on the farms. There would be something terribly wrong if they weren't. Where is the media when it comes to reporting the real news, investigating the state of the real union, the corporate control of past administrations of both parties. Jobs with good pay and benefits have been outsourced. Corporations get away with writing off pension plans, violating fair labor practices, etc, etc. People are angry and bitter. Foreclosures at an all-time high. Hillary praises "the great drug companies" at the Compassion Forum and not one newsoutlet or pundit says a word about it but they jump all over Obama for a poor choice of words. Nor has there been any real investigative reporting of any depth of the Clinton's long-standing and on-going connections to union busting Wal-Mart.

[FogCityJohn]

Actually, Hillary Clinton has gotten pretty good press treatment recently. Every one of her attacks on Obama is tirelessly repeated by the news media without an evaluation of its accuracy. No one in the media has called her on her race-baiting tactics, despite the fact that she's used them repeatedly. She's tried to turn white voters against Obama by making Jeremiah Wright into her own version of Willie Horton, and she and her husband have suggested that African-American votes don't count as much as white votes. Thus, they dismiss as unimportant Senator Obama's victories in states with large numbers of African-American voters. Now, in her latest use of Republican tactics, the 109 million dollar woman who once disdained housewives who "stayed at home and baked cookies" is trying to call the African-American son of a single mother an "elitist." And the news media are eating it up. Like the Republicans, she knows how effective it is to claim media bias.

All I can say is, Hillary had best hope that African-American voters are a lot more forgiving of her tactics than she is of Obama's words. The news media may not notice Hillary's sleazy demonization of black men, but trust me, it hasn't been lost on African-Americans. If she gets the nomination, she may find that in November, they will repay her contempt in kind.

[GnitenGoodLk]

I'm trying to stay out of the fray here, but I've got to mention this:

I watched his speech today on c-span, he is exhausted, he even tripped over how many states we have "48,50....­" and mentioned his lack of sleep during the speech.

Not a smart move. Shows he's a never give up guy which is why I respect him, but he's tripping up all over and his accuracy is suffering, which is what I think was the goal of the Clinton campaign..­.squash those damn good speeches somehow. They have him jumping through hoops and literally falling face first.

Penn is a dirty genius. Obama, come on guy. I'm pulling for you here, get some sleep!

[shep1900]

I have no doubt that campaigning is tiring, but isn't _being_ the President probably even more tiring? If he wins, I'd like to think that he wouldn't make constant careless mistakes.

[GnitenGoodLk]

True, but it hasn't gone unnoticed his mistakes are harmless compared to McCain's gaffes. It's just vitriol back and forth blown out of proportion by MSM just like Hillary's were. He's run an incredible campaign regardless.

[JoeSun]

The news media has been harder on Clinton because she constantly lies and attacks Obama. All the media is doing is shining light on her negativity. They're not making anything up.

[Michale32086]

I would say that the reason that the Media favors Obama over Clinton is likely because they (the Media) have grown weary of getting kicked to the curb by the Clinton Machine over and over again...

That, in and of itself, is a strong endorsement for Obama...

Michale...­..

[MPeter]

What sort of crap is this? You are a simple-minded hack if you cannot understand the seriousness of this election and are ready to roast Obama because he stood up for the poor and those forgotten by the Clinton-Bush eras. You must be angling for a job in the Hillary administration. The Clintons are sitting on $109m, part of which they made selling our jobs to Colombia..­.

[grendl]

And what if Barack Obama had been referring to a ghetto in a Pennsylvanian city, would the term bitter be dismissed there too? Because the more the middle class watches their jobs farmed overseas, and home foreclosures, the closer small town Pennsylvania gets to the ghetto ideologically, abandoned by a centralized government that doesn't give a damn about their plight.

He spoke the truth, people traditionally have gravitated to those things that give them security and comfort, when government won't provide it. Guns and god, and a certain mistrust of those who would take their jobs from them. Are we going to say this country doesn't harbour resentment for outsourcing? And are we going to pretend that people in this country are unilaterally intelligent enough to put the blame where it belongs on corporations for farming those jobs out ( actually the blame rests with the American people who want to buy everything at cost now ). No xenophobia exists, everywhere.

In Iraq as well, well his words ring as true as they do here. You say you have a love for the democratic party, do you share the same love for the woman who endorsed a member of the GOP???

[SteveClements]

I agree with most of what you say here except "actually the blame rests with the American people who want to buy everything at cost now". Truth is wages have been virtually stagnant for the last 20 years. The big box stores, primarily Wal-Mart, have driven off way too mant good paying jobs so that the American people has no choice but "buy everything at cost now".

[grendl]

The Walmarts and Blockbusters and Costcos of this country have put mom and pop stores out of business, by selling things close or below cost, loss leaders to gain a monopoly on an area.

Americans wanted to buy things at cost, and now are paying the price.