Clinton and the Vast Media Conspiracy

Hillary Clinton has convinced the media that it is biased against her, one of the great (and rare) successes of her presidential campaign, akin to her creation of the vast right-wing conspiracy responsible for conceiving a string of sexual and other disgraces in her husband's White House.
With classic chutzpah, Clinton would have us believe that in a campaign in which she has escaped the most basic scrutiny of her finances, her husband's business relationships and her claims of experience, she is hurting because of the media's favorable treatment of Barack Obama.

On the race itself, the media has time and again let itself be manipulated by a Clinton campaign deftly managing expectations, albeit in increasingly surreal ways. Only two weeks ago the consensus was that Clinton had to win Texas or Ohio by 20 point margins to have a shot at the nomination (at the time these margins still seemed plausible). In recent days, her campaign has put out the word that if Obama doesn't win all four contests this Tuesday, it will be a sign of trouble for him. Of course journalists, no matter how lazy or gullible, know this is stupid, but nonetheless, maybe in a failed effort at fairness, they now seem to accept that Clinton needs to win either Texas and Ohio by any margin. Suddenly gone is the original assessment that Clinton has to win big on March 4, despite the fact that it is mathematically verifiable that there will be too few contests after Tuesday for her to make up the delegate count if she doesn't put a big dent in Obama's lead now. This judgment has become more accurate daily as Clinton's superdelegate lead melts away.

Losing eleven contests in a row, mostly by far wider margins than anyone had anticipated, would doom any campaign (in fact, can anyone think of one major primary contender who has survived such a string of defeats?). Yet the media continue to portray Clinton as strongly viable, if not quite the frontrunner. Again, this is a remarkable feat by her campaign, and an utter failure by most journalists to accurately portray the state of the race.

Clinton has been able to twist these expectations because so many are still in awe of her and her husband, attributing near-mystical powers to their ability to come back from the dead (the latest example, we are told, was her narrow New Hampshire win two months ago). At the same time, she has set up the media as sexist and easily wooed by Obama. This may be true, but, if anything, this has lead the guilt-ridden mainstream press to soften its negative coverage of the Clintons. Nowhere is this more visible than in the complete lack of recent interest in the couple's finances: far more has been written about Obama and Rezko, despite the relative benignity of the charge, than about how Bill and Hillary have amassed the tens of millions of dollars that make up their fortune, starting with her Arkansas cattle futures deal and ending with his Kazakhstan connections. There is a rich vein of potential conflict of interest, corruption and misuse of power that the media should relish covering in great detail, but much of the discussion has been relegated to a few bloggers. A particularly opportune time for coverage should have been when Clinton pulled out $5 million seemingly out of nowhere, to finance her campaign, but we're still left to wonder how these long-time public servants have instant access to such sums, especially since no tax returns are available. In the meanwhile, journalists have been covering the cackle, the misty eyes and the pantsuit; Clinton should be eternally grateful for this, as it has distracted us from far bigger sins, made her look like a victim of the predominantly male political media's sexism, and rendered journalists insecure about their ability to cover her campaign objectively.

Of course, it doesn't help when Tim Russert interrogates her with that crazed look in his eye (he did this to Obama too, but it somehow didn't have the same effect), or John Edwards and Obama team up against her in a debate. Clinton is highly practiced at seizing such opportunities to prove her point: to this day, many credit her landslide win in her first Senate campaign to the outrage she fuelled about her male opponent invading her space and "yelling" at a debate.

On issues, too, she often gets a free pass, most gallingly on her empty and deceptive claim that her plans provide for "universal" health care. This is not the case. Journalists should know it, call her on it and report it, but it now seems accepted that her plan is "universal," despite the evidence. She also gets a free pass on the enforcement issue, which she has consistently refused to address.

On Iraq, Clinton also gets away with murder. In one recent instance, she asserted that Obama had decided that "George Bush wasn't doing such a bad job in Iraq after all." Again, this is stupid and yet it finds its way into the most mainstream of media, occasionally with a disclaimer that in fact Obama never said such a thing. But why is such drivel even reported on in the first place? In the meanwhile, Clinton's head is still spinning about an Obama mailer in Ohio that accurately questions her position on NAFTA.

Obama hasn't exactly been subjected to the third degree: this is not necessarily in the tradition of the US media, and he has skillfully sheltered himself from it anyway. But it is equally clear that Clinton has had at least as easy a time of it, making her claims of unfair coverage and of being tested and vetted sound particularly hollow. Much of the focus has been on what the Republicans will "do" to Obama come the general election campaign. A more accurate question would be what they would throw at Clinton, whose 35 years of experience include a succession of unsavory episodes and associations, many of them still unexamined, unexplained, and ignored by the mainstream media and the Obama campaign. Clinton should be grateful for this, but also fearful that John McCain would be unlikely to be as gracious an opponent as Obama has been.

Follow Paul Jenkins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulcJenkins

Comments

[roncraw]

With Clinton wins in Texas and Ohio she would have won all the big states she needs to win the pres.14 of the states that Obama won are solid red states.Now who stands the best chance of beating McCain.

[jackstpaul]

The need for a Democrat win isn't to win the Blue states--winning those is a virtual given for either Obama or Clinton. The key is winning Red states. A significant part of Obama's wins in those states are a result or getting the votes of independents. That's crucial. Any generic Democrat (or Republican) is assured of winning 40 + something % of the vote. The key to winning for candidates of either party is to win more of the middle than the other. Clinton will win fewer of those than Obama according to every survey, and Obama is projected to win more of them than McCain per current polls.

The strong to somewhat strong blues will go to either Clinton or Obama--or almost certainly given the very high Dem voter turnout. Winning those blues--large or not--isn't the key metric. Hillary’s high negatives will kill her amongst the middle.

[SaltySaltillo]

Finally, calling it like it is... The new, new consensus is that if Obama doesn't win big tomorrow in all 4 states, it is a sign that he should not be the nominee because he doesn't have what it takes to win in November. Somewhere in the last 7 days, Clinton hit pay dirt - she has succeeded in turning reality on its heads... which was always the only way she could win this thing anyway. Welcome to Bizarro World, people, where Hillary Clinton is back on top - the pre-ordained nominee, thanks in part to John McCain's constant tag-team hounding of Barack and Rush Limbaugh's last minute call for Republicans to vote for Clinton tomorrow.

Sorry Hope had to die such a premature death.

Mark my words, no matter what happens tomorrow, Clinton will win this thing - cost what it may - and the Republicans will dance a sweet dance. Can you say "President McCain" any one?

[Emsworth]

The validity of this article was borne out this morning in a short viewing of MSNBC"s Morning Joe show. First, Joe Scarborough began by saying that Hillary should not drop out no matter what happens tomorrow; then Mika Brezinski misquoted Bill Richardson, saying that he said that whoever won tomorrow should get the nomination (he said whoever is ahead in delegates after tomorrow should be the nominee, and that will certainly be Obama); then Craig Crawford came on to echo Scarborough, saying that Hillary should stay in no matter what; then they have Howard Wolfson came on to trash Obama; then, when it is finally time for an Obama supporter, who do they have on but JESSE JACKSON, who many of the white moderate voters that Obama needs in Ohio and Texas thoroughly dislike! All this from the network that is supposed to be in the tank for Obama! Perhaps this folding under the Clinton spin or perhaps MSNBC has made a business decision that it is in their interest for the Democratic race to drag out. In either case, I am tuning in to a morning show with more integrity--Don Imus.

[Petey]

The Media need to focus on one thing: presenting an accurate picture -- not creating a false sense of balance or trying to correct the (mis)impressions that politicos spread.

If a candidate is mired in sleaze, The Media should reflect that. Truth and democracy suffer when journalists allow themselves to be pressured into "balancing" every negative story about one candidate with a negative story about the opponent. It leaves the public cynically thinking that there's no real difference between the two.

[SaltySaltillo]

What "sleaze" are you referring to? Bill, Monica and Cigar? Clintons' favorite fundraiser Hsu? McCain's cozy 20 year relationship with Lobbyists? Or some ambiguous, murky allegations that there are mysterious "connections" between Obama and Rezko?

[sanglug]

The MSM prefers to accept this complaint of bias, because it distracts us from their nearly universal incompetence.

[Durango]

Exactly. It is a conspiracy of dunces.

BTW It is the Corporate Media. Named after those who own them.

P.S. There was and is a "vast right wing conspiracy that targeted Bill Clinton. That sex scandal was the ONLY thing they could pin on him after investigations ad nauseum. Just because I support Obama doesn't mean I have been blind for the last 15 years.

[TXFreedomFighter]

Great post. I been living in that same parallel universe for the past two weeks. Tuesday night cannot come quickly enough. Please let's make the Clintons go quietly into that night.

[FreedomLoverX]

Brilliant! Many thanks. From your mouth to God's ear!

[efranklin]

What do the Clintons expect from reporters traveling in their midst after 11 consecutive losses? A story on boundless morale inside the campaign? Reports of the campain's impeccable management? Jubilation from the staff, candidate, supporters, et al? The reality is that there has been a singular dearth of good news about the Clinton campaign for some time now. A prospective president must show voters that they will persevere against adversity, not whine over perceived unfairness about it.

[shaggles]

Hillary is absolutely right about the media and it's about time Democratic candidates stood up and told the truth about this. Obama's getting better treatment now but when he takes the nom and is running against McCain the press will trash him just like they've done every other Democratic candidate since at least Dukakis. John McCain can come out and make one statement about a perfectly legitimate story and everyone says "Shame on the NY Times!" But Clinton tries to point out what should be obvious to everyone and she's "whining."

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Most Clinton supporters are largely uneducated about the Clintons. They have somehow managed to project all manner of qualities and character attributes on the Clintons that they have never possessed. The Republicans do not want Senator Obama as the nominee because he has nothing in his background or record that is remotely scandalous. Clinton has already attacked Obama, and if you have missed the lies, the race baiting, the pics sent to Drudge by her campaign, and her campaigns sending emails claiming Obama is a Muslim, then you haven't been paying attention.

The Clintons have so many scandals past, present, future, it would be impossible for HRC to be elected to the office of President. Clinton supporters have screamed hysterically about media bias towards HRC, but I have witnessed entirely the opposite. Clinton has refused to answer questions about her IRS enforced mandated health insurance coverage and explain why the poor should have their wages garnished. There have been no questions raised about the Clinton's sudden 45+ million dollar wealth, from dubious foreign sources and business partners. Clinton's refusal to reveal her tax returns, or release her White House records is extremely questionable and worrying. Clinton has not been asked about her vote for continued use of cluster bombs in civilian areas, or her refusal to sign the treaty to ban land mines, or her refusal to sign a pledge to return constitutional liberties. Clinton has not been asked why her campaign has been funded by the same backers as Bush. Clinton has not been asked why she has more defense contractor contributions than any candidate, including McCain.

Clinton is a political opportunist, whose political career was born on the back of her spouse. HRC has consistently played the victim, manipulating the press and her ignorant supporters, when she is nothing more than a corrupt Neocon shill. HRC is more Nixonian than Nixon, and dangerous to the future of the Democratic Party. We are at a historically important crossroad in American history. It has nothing to do with gender or race. We must back away from the scorched earth politics of the Clintons and embrace transparency in Government and political accountability. Obama has championed ethics reform in the Senate, whereas HRC has simply voted lockstep with the Neocon agenda for the last seven years.

[colette]

Very informative, rational post, Mr. Jenkins.
The media is once again is chiefly interested in "changing the narrative" every five minutes, and fearfully shielding itself from claims of "bias." And they're swinging the penduulum of coverage and punditry back and forth like crazy, in part, to keep people tuned in. Heaven forbid, we get bored!
What I want to know is this: doesn't half the country say consistently in polls that they can't stand Hillary Clinton and would never vote for her under any circumstances?
Has no one in the Democratic Party considered that visceral electorate bias (far more real than any media bias) and what it could mean to the party? Or the vast disillusionment of millions of new young voters, if they feel like the nomination was snatched away by the nasty Old Politics of the Clinton machine?
I'm very disappointed in Joe Wilson's column covering Sen. Clinton's misguided support of the Iraq War, of Paul Krugman's constant , surprising Obama-bashing and as you so articulately state, in the failure of the media to delve into the Clintons' far murkier financial dealings. Rezko sounds like a scum bag, who did help Obama get some kind of deal on his Chicago home. But the failure of Clinton to release her tax returns, and the cattle and mining deals by her husband, sound like far more extensive and potentially damaging problems.
Finally, the media loves that "comeback kid" narrative -- knock 'em down, send'em to rehab, and then gush over their rehabilitation. Suddenly, Clinton is a victim of sexism and charisma voodoo, instead of her own missteps, overpaid advisors and complacency. If we fall for this crap, poor poor pitiful us....

[moda31]

the spin department is the only part of her campaign that's been working, no matter how insane their assertions are. the media is worthless, and the american public deserves what it gets. if she somehow manages to steal the nomination, and the shit finally hits the fan a few months from now when some of the dirt starts to show, people will somehow be wondering what the hell hit them. the lazy MSM has done the clintons more favors than you can imagine.

[greenpaz]

Combine this perspective with the post by Joe Wilson excoriating Obama for being "hollow," and you have the makings of some serious head-in-the-sand thinking. Let's project forward: Clinton narrowly wins Texas and Ohio, then goes on to win Pennsylvania by a decent if not overwhelming margain. What then? By all mathematical calculations, Obama would remain the leader in pledged delegates. And Hillary still wouldn't be able to snag the nomination unless there's some sort of protracted fight, which would be damaging to the Party, seriously undermining the Democrats' ability to win in November. Obama supporters would virtually disappear in the general election, or else be so put off that they vote for John McCain, a move that is not implausible, given the fact that McCain, for all his attempts to massage the conservative base, is a pretty moderate guy and perhaps the least scary Republican out there, save Lincoln Chafee. So the only chance Clinton has of winning the nomination is if she blows up the Democratic Party. And I wouldn't put it past her. The last thing the Clintons want is someone like Barack Obama to potentially obliterate the Clinton legacy with a Kennedy- or Reagan-like legacy of his own. I'm not saying that would happen, but I don't think Bill or Hillary wants to take the chance. So they will happily bring the Democratic Party to its knees if Hillary doesn't get the nomination. It's all part of her plan to run against McCain in 2012. Hillary's right: We Democrats should, indeed, be very afraid.

[getrealalready]

Hillary Clinton has done the most damage in convincing voters she is at once annoying, rude and just plain irksome and perplexing on any given day. Her inconsistent emotional barometer documented daily through her (now broad) range of emotions will, no doubt, serve as daily fodder for media. I want to see her dust herself off. Everything looks perfect- the hair, the makeup, the clothes... "Hillary uncut" needs a better stylist.

[MIHOP]

Clinton and her supporters fail to recognize you can't actually go back to the future. They don't have a Time Machine for the great Democratic Party Do-Over.

[getrealalready]

Saturday night, CNN was a huge disappointment/TURN OFF to tune into. There was a frenzied pitch to Ballot Bowl. The issues of contention dividing the Democratic opponents are worthy of dissection and albeit funny re their clashes on words, nuances, body language or speech tone. However, the media should cease and desist from comedically presenting these differences like the type of show ET would. Voters need to rely on their own impressions, belief systems and demographic needs and so on and so forth- before buying in to all the media alerts US to be made aware of. This is a sobering time for our country. This race has become a media carnival.

[DennyCrane]

Thank you so much for writing this. I too feel Clinton has gotten way too many passes by the media. They don't grill her on her vote for the war, her refusal to read the NIE, and her refusal to admit her vote was a mistake. They don't grill her on her claim of 35 years of experience. She's only held elected office for 7 years. If being First Lady counts as experience, does that mean Barbara and Laura Bush are qualified to run for President too? The media should be bashing her for not releasing the presidential papers detailing what she did during her husband's presidency. You can't count that time as experience and refuse to show what you did. And how was she able to loan her campaign 5 million dollars? The media let her off on that one too. After every debate where health care comes up, the media declares her plan to be the better one, even though Obama brings up an excellent point. Hillary says mandates are necessary, but she never says how she'll enforce them. And as you pointed out, any other candidate in Hillary's current position would be bashed by the media. If Obama was behind in delegates, behind in the polls, and had lost the last 11 contests, the media would be calling for him to get out of the race.

Hillary has perfected the victim routine. She cries in New Hampshire and when the media criticizes her for it, she uses it to show that she's a victim of media bias. She's been pushing this vast media conspiracy theory for months now. And the media, not knowing how to disprove it, feels the need to swing the other way. We saw this tendency for the media to cave in the 90s. When Republicans called the media liberal, they responded by giving airtime to people like Glen Beck and Tucker Carlson. Now the media has to back off on Clinton or else they look sexist. This is why people hate Clinton so much. She's not a victim and yet she plays one everytime she's down. As lousy as the media has been, they've been really, REALLY good to her. If they'd done their jobs, they'd be a lot tougher on her, and on Obama, than they have been.

[ThinMan]

Thank you Paul Jenkins and post-er DennyCrane for articulating this maddening phenomenon so well. Just in today's NY Times (who endorsed Clinton) there were two articles and one Op-ed asserting media bias against Clinton. Yesterday a piece about Obama and Rezko.