So now the press tells candidates when to quit?
History continues to unfold on many levels as the protracted Democratic Party primary race marches on, featuring the first woman and the first African-American with a real shot at winning the White House.
Here's another first: the press's unique push to get a competitive White House hopeful to drop out of the race. It's unprecedented.
Looking back through modern U.S. campaigns, there's simply no media model for so many members of the press to try to drive a competitive candidate from the field while the primary season is still unfolding.
Until this election cycle, journalists simply did not consider it to be their job to tell a contender when he or she should stop campaigning. That was always dictated by how much money the campaign still had in the bank, how many votes the candidate was still getting, and what very senior members of the candidate's own party were advising.
In this case, Howard Dean, the head of the Democratic National Committee, said he was "dumbfounded" by public demands for Clinton to drop out last month. (He now wants one of the candidates to quit after the final June 3 primary.) Yet lots of pundits have suggested that in a neck-and-neck campaign in which neither candidate will likely secure the nomination based on pledged delegates, Sen. Hillary Clinton must drop out before all the states have had a chance to vote.
I realize the political debate surrounding the extended Democratic campaign remains a hot one, with people holding passionate opinions about the delegate math involved and what the consequences for the Democratic Party could be. I'm not weighing in on that debate. I'm focusing on how journalists have behaved during this campaign.
And the fact is, the media's get-out-now push is unparalleled. Strong second-place candidates such as Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown, all of whom campaigned through the entire primary season, and most of whom took their fights all the way to their party's nominating conventions, were never tagged by the press and told to go home.
"Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history," wrote Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. "When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party."
Indeed, even after Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary convincingly last week, she awoke the next morning to read an angry New York Times editorial, "beseeching her to get the hell out of the race," as Howard Kurtz put it at washingtonpost.com. On the Times opinion page that day same, Maureen Dowd actually turned to Dr. Seuss rhymes to make her point: "The time is now. Just go. ... I don't care how."
And across town at the New York Daily News, a bitter Mike Lupica was steamed over the fact that Clinton "won't quit" the race.
Weeks earlier, New York magazine fretted about which senior Democrats would be able to "step in" and "usher Clinton from the race." Or if Clinton, obsessed with her own "long-range self-aggrandizement," would finally figure it out herself.
Meanwhile, Slate.com's snarky Hillary Deathwatch was created to document, day-by-day, the demise of her campaign, complete with a damsel-in-distress cartoon drawing of Clinton atop a sinking ship.
That represented just a fraction of the often offensive get-out-now proclamations that have become a staple of this campaign.
No longer content to be observers of the campaign, journalists now see themselves as active players in the unfolding drama, and they show no hesitation trying to dictate the basics of the contest, like who should run and who should quit. It's as if journalists are auditioning for the role of the old party bosses.
It's a new brand of political commentary that leaves some veteran journalists perplexed. "The idea that it's your job to tell candidates when to get out, and really trying to control the whole process -- putting it in the hands of the journalists or the reporters or the columnists -- I find that to be new and different," Haynes Johnson told me last week. A Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Johnson has covered more than a dozen presidential campaigns and is currently working on a book about the unfolding 2008 contest.
Johnson says he was astonished to read some early calls in March from the media for Clinton to get out of the race. He was stunned by "the pomposity and the arrogance of it."
Indeed, a very strange leap has been made this year by lots of media commentators who argue against Clinton's candidacy. Rather than simply detailing her deficiencies and accentuating the strengths of her opponent, which political observers have done for generations, time and again we saw pundits take the unprecedented step of announcing not only that voters should not support Clinton, but that she should also quit. She should stop competing.
More often than not, the analysis ends up resembling poorly argued temper tantrums. For instance, The New Republic's Jonathan Chait has written three essays about why Clinton must abandon her race for the White House, each increasingly petulant in tone. (We learned the "rationalizations" for Clinton's "kamikaze campaign" are "wretched.") Last month Chait wrote that Clinton's chance of winning the Democratic nomination this year were closer to Ralph Nader's than they were Barack Obama's or John McCain's. It's a reasonable comparison, if you ignore the nearly 1,600 delegates Clinton has amassed, compared with Nader's zero.
Chait also compared Clinton to former presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Biden, suggesting that if Biden could figure out when it was time to quit the race, why can't she?
Searching for candidates who did the right thing and went "gentle into that good night," Chait compared Clinton, whose campaign has secured nearly 14 million votes, to Biden, whose campaign ended abruptly in January after he received roughly 2,000 votes in the Iowa caucuses. That's who Clinton is supposed to emulate when ending her campaign run.
Quick note: I realize the press is not alone here and that scores of liberal bloggers have also loudly made the claim that the Clinton should drop out of the race. But there's a clear difference between the two groups, I think. Lots of liberal bloggers have a strong allegiance to advancing the progressive agenda and feel that to improve the party's chances in the fall, Clinton should give up. That's fair game, and that's part of an internal Democratic Party debate that continues to unfold.
And yes, journalists should report on that internal struggle, quote lots of players, raise all kinds of questions, and commentators should provide in-depth analysis about the ramifications. But what we're seeing this cycle -- and it's unprecedented -- is independent journalists taking it upon themselves to weed the presidential field by demanding one of the remaining candidates simply quit.
And no, this is not part of some larger liberal media conspiracy where the Beltway press is desperate to elect a Democrat and that's why so many journalists are anxious to get Clinton to quit -- because it might help the party's chances in November. The truth is, as The Daily Howler noted last week, the Beltway media's love affair with John McCain only grows deeper and more affectionate with each passing day.
This is more about media arrogance and unleashed elitism.
In the past there was always an assumption among journalists that candidates had earned the right to decide when they should quit. Journalists also respected the fact that candidates represented a sizable portion of the primary voting public and that the candidates owed it to their supporters to fight on, that there was a symbolic significance for the candidates -- and their supporters -- to persevere.
With Clinton, though, the press seems to have almost complete disregard for the 14 million voters who have backed her candidacy, as well as the idea that she is their representative in this race. Instead, they treat her entire campaign as some sort of vanity exercise in which voters do not exist.
And if pundits do acknowledge the Clinton voters, it's often with baffling ignorance, the way Time's Mark Halperin claimed many of Clinton's supporters would be "relieved" and "even delighted" if she dropped out. Really? Delighted? Halperin offered no proof to back up the peculiar notion.
But again, the point here worth stressing from a journalism perspective is that this is all brand new.
Looking back at history, it's hard to find evidence of the same media response to Ronald Reagan's failed 1976 presidential campaign. Taking on President Gerald Ford, Reagan lost more primaries than he won, and Ford won a plurality of the popular vote, but neither man had enough delegates to secure the nomination. So the campaign went to the GOP convention, where Ford prevailed. The bitter battle did nothing to damage Reagan's reputation (in fact, it did quite the opposite), in part because the media did not collectively suggest the candidate was acting selfishly or irrationally. Instead, Reagan walked away with a reputation as a resilient fighter who stood up for his conservative values.
And what about Sen. Ted Kennedy's doomed run in 1980? He trailed President Jimmy Carter by more than 750 delegates at the end of the primary season and insisted on fighting all the way to the convention, where he tried to get committed Carter delegates to switch their allegiance. The press did not spend months during the primary season ridiculing Kennedy, in a deeply personal tone, for remaining in the race.
And what about Gary Hart in 1984? He and Walter Mondale split the season's primaries and caucuses evenly, and neither had the 2,023 delegates needed to secure the nomination. Superdelegates eventually determined the winner. (Sound familiar?) Mondale had many of them locked up even before the campaign season began, so after the final primary between Mondale and Hart was complete, it was obvious that Mondale was going to be the nominee because Hart could not persuade enough superdelegates to change their mind and support him.
When Hart took his crusade all the way to the convention, the media did not form a posse and decide it was their job to get Hart to quit for the good of the party. (And the press certainly didn't form a posse in March to start pushing Hart out of the race.) Nor did the press collectively suggest that Hart had an oversized ego that had turned him into a political monster.
That new media standard has been created exclusively for Hillary Clinton.
And where were the catcalls in 1988 for Jesse Jackson to ditch his quixotic run before all the primary votes had been tallied? He finished with 1,200 delegates, nearly 1,400 behind Michael Dukakis, yet soldiered on all the way to the convention without having a prayer of winning the nomination. There were few if any media drum sections trying to pound him out of the race.
Or Jerry Brown in 1992? He continued his campaign against Bill Clinton through June despite the fact he tallied fewer than 600 delegates. (By contrast, Hillary Clinton has won approximately 1,600 delegates so far.) Brown's attacks at the time were far more personal and bruising than anything we've seen this cycle. As The New York Times reported on June 2, 1992, Brown "put his party on notice that he intends to carry his politics-is-corrupt, Clinton-is-unelectable message to the Democratic National Convention in New York in July, and beyond." Brown also told the Times that voting for Clinton was like buying a ticket on the Titanic.
At the time, Clinton was actually polling in third place nationally, behind President George H.W. Bush and independent candidate Ross Perot, so why wasn't the press in a frenzy demanding that Brown drop out of the race because he was hurting his party's chances in November?
If you look at Reagan and Kennedy and Hart and Jackson and Brown, those men all ran competitive races. But toward the end of the primary season it was clear most of them had no mathematical chance of winning the nomination. (Reagan was the exception.) Yet none of them was told collectively by the press to go home. Nor were they routinely depicted in the media as being self-absorbed.
Today, Clinton does have a chance to win. Yet she has been told by the press to go home and to get over herself.
It's unprecedented.
Holy moly batman...I can't even fathom the level of chaos in the white house if Obama is prez with Hillary as veep!
While I see what you're angling for...a democrat president...I can't image Obama would be able to trust Hillary. How would he be able to function while having to continually look over his shoulder?
Or vicey versa?
This whole thing is crazy. We keep hearing how 'Hillary does not have enough votes and she should drop out" etc. ad nauseum...
Bur either does he!!
So why is that different....?
Sure.
But I think that too much water has run under the bridge in their relationship. However, if I were president...I would be more inclined to trust Obama as veep than Clinton.
But hey, if she can win Kentucky, I might get on board with her.
What's not unprecedented is the continued whining by Hillary backers that she is the victim here. That she is being scolded out of the race. That she is being told in no uncertain terms to pack it up and go home. That only the journalists mentioned are mean and nasty, but not the lofty liberal bloggers, because they have only the much sought after liberal agenda to push and their calls for Hillary to call it quits are out of love for that agenda, they are not to blame.
How ridiculous.
These are commentators and pundits offering up their opinions, they are not demanding anything, they cannot demand anything......they might be suggesting it, but that's all it is. They don't "tell" the candidates when to do anything.
Poor Hillary.
I would say if the column is to be believed that unprecedented aspect, its whole premise, in and of itself is unfair IMO. Hillary Clinton has been treated worse and for longer than any other American politician in recent memory. For you to bury your head is surprising. Even if you are the local wingnut.
Personally, I'd like to see her drop out, but that's just my thing.
Why should she drop out? Why doesn't he?
After all, she has carried almost all of the big states.
This whole 'go away-Hillary-go away' argument is nutty.
You are ridiculous. The whining is being don't by Obama and his supporters.
These are commentators and pundits offering up their opinions, they are not demanding anything, they cannot demand anything......they might be suggesting it,
Suggesting?
Tommy is the king of understatement when it concerns conservative media.
And thanks for elevating "liberal bloggers" to the same stature and importance as mainstream network talking heads making MILLIONS of dollars per year while calling for a candidate to quit before everyone has voted.
As always, nobody is actually saying that Boehlert is wrong. So they're all just whining instead.
And Tommy continues to enable egregious journalistic malpractice.
And many of you liberals do not understand the concept of "opinion", do you? Boehlert has his, and I disagree with it, and call it whining, sorry if you call that enabling journalistic malpractice, which is ridiculous.
But you don't fool anyone, for you would accuse any media member of that who dares stand up to your liberal politicians, so your act is tiresome, and I don't buy it. Nice try though.
You didn't disagree with Boehlert. You just whined that he's whining. Is Boehlert wrong on any point, such as the point that this current "opinion" from journalists is unprecedented?
Sorry, but journalists don't have free reign to opinion. Because of the nature of media, they have responsibilities.
Excuse me? Pundits, commentators and columnists most certainly do have free reign regarding their opinions, that is what they are paid to do......not shill for your liberal heroes, sorry.
Straight news reporters should report, not opine.......if you weren't aware of their different responsibilities, I am glad to clear it up for you.
The black/white conservative mind again. Some journalists can opine, but they must curtail those opinions to fit media ethics. There's something between no opinion and any opinion.
No disagreement with Boehlert, as I thought. The man's untouchable.
Yes, they absolutely are demanding that Clinton drop out. Just look at the examples cited in the article. Anyone paying attention could add a multitude more.
By the way, this article wasn't written by Clinton. Is he whining too?
Wes, Silly Wes, They are different - read Boehlert's explanation of that. They are only, with divine intervention guiding their way, pushing the "progressive" agenda, so their goals are god-like, not like the heathen journalists who want to derail that agenda.
Don't ya know........
Yep, the irony is dripping from Boehlert's lament.
When some of these same liberal media types write columns savaging a conservative candidate it's aok...with great cheering from the liberal gallery.
But now, these same journalists are savaging Hillary...there is little cheering. There are howls of "not fair"...sweet fancy moses, the irony.
Although I think Dems would have to be complete idiots to choose Hillary, I don't really care if she stays in the race or not. Strange enough, a lot of good things are happening. Conservatives are wasting a lot of ammunition trying to damage Obama from the sidelines without taking him out. What does not beat Obama makes him stronger. If Obama is indeed the candidate, he will win the Presidency. I am not saying that to brag or trash talk, but it is now pretty much just math. McCain is not getting the contributions Republicans have enjoyed in the past, but Obama is. Obama will easily outspend McCain at least 2 to 1.
Secondly, being a Hoosier by birth, I am excited that Democrats are campaigning in Indiana. That never happened in the 30 years I lived there. Maybe Indiana and some of these other states will be more in play during the general election as a result. This extended campaign is bringing the candidates to places they had long before given up and generating a lot of excitement.
A side effect of all of the attention being paid to the Democratic primaries is that much of the population doesn't even know much about McCain. My high school aged children didn't even know McCain or that he was in the race until I told them. My kids don't know any supporters of McCain at their school. All of the kids were either Obama or Clinton backers. Considering I live in an extremely conservative part of Georgia now, I find that absolutely remarkable.
Mr. Geometry:
Every day, please note the articles that don't stink so Tommy can comment on them
You're welcome....
But it seems like Mr. Geometry is napping, wonder when (or if) he will reawaken.
Ah, the old horse chestnut about contrasting opinions derailing the thread.
mmfa clearly states that they welcome all opinions...not just the robotic head nodding of their supporters. I find the scroll button very effective in bypassing the comments made by some of the posters...as I'm sure many do with mine.
mmfa has gone through a transition from their start up days...when no registration was required as they built their traffic. All you had to do was show up and start posting...no matter out outrageous.
Then came registration...with the routine deleting of posts when one poster disagreed with another's comments and flagged them.
Today? mmfa provides a pretty good forum for open discussion of divergent opinions...unlike many other partisan sites. Dip your big toe in sites like freerepublic, dailykos, newsbusters, and huffpo with a differing opinion and see what happens.
If you don't like the opinion of some posters...say so. Otherwise, scroll brother scroll.
Wesley: Dip your big toe in sites like freerepublic, dailykos, newsbusters, and huffpo with a differing opinion and see what happens.
Newsbusters has opposing views, and you can see all of them for an article on the same page, one big scroll. I do not know about the others you list.
Newshounds does not allow opposing views. Johnny Dollar routinely reports what he posts there gets cut, and it is evident from the disjointed nature of the Newshounds comments section, where there are responses to posts that are no longer there.
This site, MMFA, is good about allowing opposing views. I wish they would upgrade their software so the comments per screen are not limited to 20.
He didn't say there wasn't any differing opinion. He said: look what happens to you. I have been to all of those sites and they all viciously and personally attack any dissent from the politically correct position.
I have posted on some of those sites. I responded to some of the scant reasonable replies, but by far most of the replies to my comments were personal attacks - mostly name-calling.
It's the fact that while scrolling, I'll go through 100 posts that are dominated by Tommy ...next article same thing. This guy has no life or is paid to be here. They should at least change the format so threads are distinct and separate and I can see who started them...
That way when I want a "what is this article doing here" thread, or I want to spar with the forum addicts like Tommy...then I will know where to go.
TempleHandle,
Add something to the conversation besides sophomoric ridicule. If you can't do that then STFU.
I agree. Uncalled for.
Tommy
Come on man.........you know the rules. Only conseratives play dirty, and use "Rove" tatics. HC is just mis-understood, and under sniper fire, and can not be blamed. BO may be bitter, but never mean. And how could you forget, dems are always............always the victims.........conseratives are always the offenders. Keep this in mind, or I will have to give you an official MMFA demerit.
Oh........dont forget...........HC on the evillll FOX news tongight. First BO on Fox, and now HC. What ever will the dems do........HC and O'Rilley,....i love it......lol
It shows she wants to win the nomination and the presidency. She's not like many dems/libs who are happy with losing every 4 years.
BTW, she'll be treated more fairly by BO than many of the idiots on MSNBC.
she'll be treated more fairly by BO than many of the idiots on MSNBC.
I think you're probably right. Just shows how upside down this race has become & the media's reaction to it... FOX has actually been more fair & balanced in regards to Hillary than most of the MSM, & the twits over at MSNBC.
Of course they [FOX] likely have an ulterior motive. They would like to see the Dem primary go on endlessly. Keeping Hillary alive & well and able to fight another day against Obama pleases them I'm sure.
That is an interesting take. But I would beg to differ since her actions in this contest are less than noble, IMO. I'm sure she wants to win, but at what cost? She has reduced herself to that of Rove, lied about her foreign policy experiences, and has even stooped to sayng that McCain is more qualified than Obama. That tells me that she has put her own ambitions about those of her country and party. Are you telling me you admire that? As for her vist to O'Reilly, it is obvious she is desperate enough to vanquish her own self worth and try to win votes from O'Reilly's 2 million person audience after they have listened to him insult her for ten years. Rationalize it all you want, the woman has no decency left. She spent it on her own blind ambition. She is destroying the party and the Democratic chances for a win. It's that simple.
Jeeter,
I will agree with your point to an extent. Anyway my first response was to Appleboy. I always forget to address to whom I am responding.
BTW, do you think you're better than those 2 million BO viewers you referred to?
"Sorry, this isn't about BO, it's about the voters. She can communicate with many of them tonight on Bill's show. Why is that so hard to understand?
BTW, do you think you're better than those 2 million BO viewers you referred to?"
It is about BO and her willingness to do anything to obtain favor. She is grasping at straws to think anyone who regularly watches BO will vote for her after listening to BO call her a Socialist and insult her for 10 years. This interview allowed her to communicate with voters who will never likely vote for a Democrat. What is perplexing is why you think it is admirable to sacrifice her own pride and appear on this mans show after he has insulted her for TEN YEARS. For your schtick to make any sense you have to believe that O'Reilly is really an independent as are his viewers. BTW, I do think I am better than those who idolize the man. He is a pervert who uses his power and influence to intimidate young women in to sexual relationships and threatens them if they tell. He calls young women, who work for him, and masterbates on the phone while talking to them. These are people who continue to follow the man after not only this but his other myriad of assisnine statements i.e. calling Latin Americans Wetbacks, saying that the young kid who was kidnapped actually LIKED HIS CIRCUMSTANCES, wanting the Coit Tower to be blown up and then say he was only joking, and the list goes on and on. So yeah, I see the man for what he is and what he does. If that makes me better than those who blindly follow him and believe everything he tells them then so be it.
She has reduced herself to that of Rove, lied about her foreign policy experiences, and has even stooped to sayng that McCain is more qualified than Obama.
She hasn't done any of those things.
Why is there such a lack of perspective and historical knowledge among so many Obama supporters? It boggles the mind-- they always have to make things up-- like how evil the Clintons are, etc
a) she's hardly on the Rove level-- she's campaigning against an opponent and at times will make critical comments -- which I guess is culpable when her opponent is Obama.
b) she has much foreign policy experience-- certainly more than O-- where was he during the 90's?
c) she said Mc. had more experience than O, not more qualifications. This is a statement of fact that O supporters are uncomfortable with.
"She hasn't done any of those things."
Yes she has. She lied about Bosnia, she indicated that she and McCain had experience and Obama only had a speech he gave in 2002.
"Why is there such a lack of perspective and historical knowledge among so many Obama supporters? It boggles the mind-- they always have to make things up-- like how evil the Clintons are, etc"
I calls them likes I sees them. If you can't see her sniveling tactics for what they are then so be it. Take off the rose colored glasses is all I can tell you.
a) she's hardly on the Rove level-- she's campaigning against an opponent and at times will make critical comments -- which I guess is culpable when her opponent is Obama.
Sending out her minions to revive the Wright story before Pennsylvania isn't Rovian? Accusing Obama of not wanting to give people their vote in Florida and Michigan after she herself said they wouldn't matter isn't Rovian? Here is another opinion which I agree with on this matter. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/14/hillary_the_rove_candidate_of.html
b) she has much foreign policy experience-- certainly more than O-- where was he during the 90's?
Huh? By your measure then I guess Laura Bush is more qualified in the Foreign Policy field than Obama as well, since both her and Clinton have essentially done the same thing. Get your facts straight sir. Every one of her "foreign policy" accomplishments she brags about have been debunked. I guess we should thank God she was there to broker the peace deal in Ireland. Tool.
c) she said Mc. had more experience than O, not more qualifications. This is a statement of fact that O supporters are uncomfortable with.
Word parse all you like. Qualifications come with experience not vice versa. Her meaning by this statement is clear. You should work for her campaign as a spin doctor.
What she said was TRUE
I heard that, Hillary going on the "illegitimate" Fox's O'Reilly Factor, now isn't that a fine how-do-you-do?
The most beloved here meets the most hated.......how will it be covered, and what if Hillary and Bill become fast friends, buddies, after their chat?
Oh, the drama...........
I thought you were referring to Fox when you wrote "heard that, Hillary going on the 'illegitimate' Fox's O'Reilly Factor, now isn't that a fine how-do-you-do?" and, as such, I felt that her 2006 alliance w/ Murdoch warranted mention.
I was referring to Bill O'Reilly, MMFA's biggest villian. He just happens to be on Fox, which is MMFA's biggest corporate villian.....and pointed out here all the time as being an "illegitimate" news outfit.
Sorry to confuse you Governor, next time I mention MSNBC, just so you know, I am not talking about the head of GE.........got it?
Something about "Birds of a feather...". (Ha ha)
I think I will actually watch Bill O' tonight and hear for myself what gets said before I read about it here
(mark it down on the calender because we may never agree on anything again.)
The thing is though that even if we, you and I, agree that we want the same peace, freedom, opportunity and prosperity for each other, I am not about to give you a break my friend. Conservative control of government and dominance in our culture has been a disaster and I cannot allow or afford for my children to grow up in a society that values punishment, hierarchy and incarceration over empathy, participation and rehabilitation.
Sorry.
I'm not looking for a pass Round - not do I need to give one. We have different life experiences and I'm sure that has shaped our views. Growing up in New York I have seen the failures of liberal policies first hand. We had Mario Cuomo for governer for about 12 years. George Pataki was moderate at best. I do believe in state government over Federal, and even though the feds may be conservative the state was liberal. An employee in NY city is the highest taxed in the country - yet nothing seems to ever improve. I have seen more people become dependant on the government - and then blame the government when their lives take a downturn.
I teach my kids to work hard, and to rely on no one but themselves fo their success. America is the land of opportunity and everytime one door closes another opens. I've tought them that everyone needs help at some time in their lives and always extend a hand to help and contribute to those less fortunate than themselves. I've taught them not look to government for help, and not look for government to blame. Governments function is to provide us a safe environment and an equal opportunity for all, and while they have failed miserably at times to do that, government works best when it gets out of our way.
Actually, I agree with Dems on the birds of a feather thing...
I have made it clear I have no love for Clinton, I think her entire campaign has been one big fat eff you to a majority of Democrats...even when she was "the presumptive nominee."
Dont worry Tommy
That sports Guy KO will find a reason to make O'Rilley the worst person in the worldddddd. I think Keith just has a man crush on Bill.
Well, based on the way you've worded the question: No.
Questions for you: Did you know that Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Clinton in 2006? And, knowing that he did, do you think her appearance on The O'Reilly Factor is purely a coincidence?
So, let me understand you - someone who helps fund a presidential campaign is NOT supporting her bid for that office?
Ahh, makes sense???
Corporations can't contribute to campaigns. A law was passed in 1906 about it. Let me know if you need a link... As for Murdoch, he knows to hedge his bets. He needs to buy time with whoever wins.
You did not answer my questions...
Gov, As much as strolling down the word parsing expressway with you is entertaining, it just ends up with you hurling an expletive my way and ducking out, so let's not bother, shall we?
So, your answers from me are 1) Yes. 2) I have no idea.
Not to toot my own horn, but your "fcuk you" admonitions to me are a feather in my cap, I wear them with pride, not wallow in them sheepishly.
Just so we're clear.......
;)
PS:
Tommy: So, your answers from me are 1) Yes. 2) I have no idea.
That would be "Yes" you knew that Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Clinton in 2006.
Yet 3 posts prior you wrote "I mean, if their head honcho did what you said"
How could you have known that Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Clinton if you were questioning my claim that he hosted a fundraiser for Clinton?
Because Gov, you said Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for her, which he did.....but it was not as you said it was "help fund her presidential campaign", because she had not announced yet. It was for her NY Senate bid.
That is why I said what I did 3 posts prior, but answered your direct question the way I did, after that.
See, parsing words is not necessary, try it....
...The fundraiser will take place in July [2006], the newspaper said. Clinton is the frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, though she has not indicated whether or not she will run...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml
So you're saying Hillary and Rupert knew she was running for President and held fundraisers for that express purpose, but she kept telling everyone she hadn't made a decision yet, and let the voters vote for her in NY by lying to them, and only telling her good buddy Rupert?
Wow, that is quite a condemnation of the ole' girl. Can you back any of that up or is it in your mind, only?
It was known that she was running for president in May of 2006. I recall it being common knowledge. The guy quoted at the end of this MSNBC article knew it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762092
Murdoch knew it, and threw a fundraiser for her with that understanding.
Gov, Did you even read your article? Hillary clearly states it's for NY, about the job she was doing for NY.
She hadn't announced yet. Period.
The Fox attitude is the same as most Republicans, they don't really give a crap about the cultural things they rant on beyond manipulating honest folks through contempt of liberal values. They just want to keep that tax cut gravy train rolling and that's exactly what McCain will continue; even more tax cuts for the stinking rich and more market fundamentalism.
Republicans are such phonies.
Murdoch is no dummy. He knows that no matter who wins between McCain and Hillary, he will have their ear. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Murdoch has directed the Fox force to aim all guns at Obama.
I also will not be that surprised if Fox is not that aggressive at going after Hillary in the general election - assuming Hillary becomes the nominee (shudder). The screechmonkeys of course, will more than make up for Fox's uncharacteristic reticence.
From about a little over a year ago:
"WASHINGTON - The "vast, right-wing conspiracy" is back, presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is warning, using a phrase she once coined to describe partisan plotting.
Once derided for her use of the phrase, Clinton is now trying to turn the imagery to her advantage.
Speaking Tuesday to Democratic municipal officials, the New York senator used the term to hammer Republicans..."Seems like Mr. Boehlert is saying the Senator has other opponents now. She is surrounded by opponents.
Tommy and Wesley have taken the usual perspective that things are no different for Hillary than any other cadidate. But that is simply a lie. The conservative press HATES Hillary and is hysterical in their fever to be rid of all things Clinton.
Dowd, Kurtz, Slate, Chait, etc., couldn't care less about what's good for the Democratic Party, only what's good for McCain. HuffPo is mostly only interested in electing a Democrat, any Demopcrat, rather than weather another 4 years of Bush-lite under know-nothing McCain.
Hillary has good reason to point our the baseless unwarranted criticism of her continued campaign. Every campaign is fraught with silly lies, mistatements, purposefully misleading assertions, deceptive arguments and cherry-picked facts. But only McCain has the help of the largely conservative press to reinterpret his baffling lack of an agenda as strength, resolve and candor.
McCain is an empty suit. And it will be the coup of the next century if he manages to get elected because the conservative press drives the electorate to vote against its own self interest again over phony issues (flag pins) and phonier character assasination (Wright, elitist, arrogance). After all, who could be more elitist than a veteran senator married to a multi-millionaire.
-- HuffPo is mostly only interested in electing a Democrat, any Demopcrat -- cannonball
Oh you are sadly mistaken. Huffpo is unashamedly opposed to Hillary and supportive of Obama. You obviously haven't spent much time there.
Wesley is correct.The HuffPo recently morphed pictures of McCain and Hillary and put the hybrid as introduction of the top story.
Indeed, Arianna was recently spotted in the island of Tahiti chilling in David Geffen's yacht. Geffen is a billionaire Obama supporter.
I know I was excited about her running but she has been such a disappointment on so many levels.
How is my criticism of McCain "part of politics"? The only agenda he has summarized is to stay in Iraq and keep the tax cuts. No domestic agenda for healthcare, schools, the mortgage issues, etc. When he produces an original thought, I'll gladly credit him with it. Please offer a rebuttal with some policy substance.
And Huffpo is made up of many bloggers, some of which a fearful that Hillary won't carry the party to the white house. Or they simply don't like her, but be aware, their tune will change quickly if she is the nominee. Any Democrat is better than McCain.
It's an idiotic idea, that both McCain and Clinton now support, suspending the gas tax - nothing but election year pandering for votes, who is that stupid they can't see that?
Thankfully Obama has not supported it, good for him.
I should preface this by saying I really like John McCain, but people that believe McCain will lower gas prices by subtracting 18 cents per gallon simply don't understand the economics involved.
We are simply using too much gas compared to the supply. OPEC is operating at near 100% production capacity. World demand is outstripping supply - causing prices to rise. This is basic economics.
The only real thing that can make oil prices drop is decreased demand (not going to happen soon) or increased supply/production (not happening soon either). Lowering taxes on oil does not favorably effect the price with regards to supply or demand. Lower prices increase demand and we are right back where we started. Increased demand causes higher prices. This is econ 101.
Even if prices are briefly lowered by having a tax holiday, they will ultimately shoot back up because the economics is ultimately driven by the final price and taxes have little or no effect when prices at the pump already reflect the supply/demand ratio and prices already greatly exceed the cost of production.
I would suggest that even raising the gas tax modestly would have little or no effect on the final price considering the current supply/demand situation. If you really wanted to get back some of the gas/oil company profits, that would be the easiest and most surefire way to do it. I am not advocating that, but Hillary's plan is the dumbest of them all.
Hillary plans on giving a gas tax holiday and then recovering the money by going after the gas companies. This is just pandering at its worst. If the goal is to lower gas prices, this is just as ineffectual as McCain's proposal. Even if the economics of the situation chose to completely ignore the law of supply and demand with the lower gas prices, the gas companies would simply raise prices to pay their taxes. They aren't stupid and will just pass the costs along to the consumer because they are in a position to do it - they set the price.
I like how Obama sees this for the joke that it is. He is probably one of the best political figures to come around in a long time.
If we don't like the oil companies making billions in profits, we shouldn't send them our money - or at least not so much of it. Buy a more fuel efficient car, drive less, ride your bike, or walk.
I guess that ends my rant for now.
tommy
Here is what Arianna Huffington said in response to Sen.Bayh's complaint about the tactics of the republicans:
-- It's not the far right wing relentlessly using these comments for political gain, Senator. It's your candidate, Hillary Clinton, adopting the frames, lies, stereotypes and destructive clichés long embraced by the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. She has clearly decided that the road to victory runs through scorched earth. -- Arianna Huffington
Poor ole Hillary...the victim...what a joke.
To be fair, Rove was not a candidate and his candidates won. If Hillary was winning, I don't think it would be an issue for her.
Please do not take my remarks as any way supportive of Hillary.
That whole anti gay marriage campaign that Rove waged was about keeping families from being victimized by the gay agenda. Man, for a cultural liberal you can be such a Republican stooge, Tommy. Republicans are the biggest whiny, "I didn't start this fight," complainers on the face of the planet.
Ok, put aside any agendas huffingtonpost or any pundits may have. If the math doesent add up for clinton, why stay in the race? I think Olbermann had a piece about that there is no way Clinton can win this. So why stay in a fight that you can´t win.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cyQynd-5nI
By the way, its kind of intresting that, the many time by MMFA praised Olbermann, is not amongst the journalists that Mr Boehlert points out in his column.
And please don´t give me any reason like commited delegates are allowed to change their minds. If that is the reason, well it´s just stupid and it contradicts Clintons earlier comments about trusting in the voters and etc.
So she is giving her supporters false hope and the election isn´t about regaining the White House, but it´s all about her personal ambitions and clinging to power.
Sounds a lot like some right-wing pundits are right about Hillary being powerhungry politician with a personal agenda. If I could vote in the american elections, I would just have got the reason why NOT to vote for Hillary...
Please, some other reason for her to stay in the race. I´m not cynical enough to belive that she is staying in the race for personal reasons.
I'm not one to defend Hillary, but being powerhungry with a personal agenda is kind of a pre-requisite over here for seeking political office in general - even moreso for the presidency.
The images of these candidates are pretty well filtered and manicured. We all need to realize that our perceptions of these candidates are continually manipulated by the candidates themselves and their opponents. All I can say about any of these candidates is don't necessarily believe everything you read or hear.
I like the trail of thought in the above essay, marked by these words:
"...journalists now see themselves as active players ...trying to dictate ...who should run and who should quit. It's as if journalists are auditioning for the role of the old party bosses"
"...time and again we saw pundits ...announcing not only that voters should not support Clinton, but that she should also quit"
"...journalists taking it upon themselves to weed the presidential field by demanding one of the remaining candidates simply quit"
"...the press seems to have almost complete disregard for the 14 million voters who have backed her candidacy, as well as the idea that she is their representative in this race"
"...if pundits do acknowledge the Clinton voters, it's often with baffling ignorance"
And that's where I'd stop on the trail, and mark how undemocratic all of this Clinton hatred and ridicule over her continued candidacy is, and of how dismissive and insulting it is, to the American People.
It's noted above, how in response to the People of Pennsylvania's rather impressive support for Sen. Clinton (a near 10% of the vote victory margin, which is considered very large by any standard), the very next morning, rather than respect this large margin of victory, and respect in any way the People of Pennsylvania's Official registration of their Political Opinion, there were instead a flood of voices on the Internet Wire (The Huffington Post making the high water mark), cranking the hatred and ridicule up into over-drive... and yes, in the process, either expressed or merely implied, cranking out a hatred and ridicule of the People of Pennsylvania.
And of course this disrespect and hatred and ridicule of the People of Pennsylvania, is applied naturally also to the People of Ohio, and California, and New York, and New Jersey, and Massachusetts, and maybe Michigan and Florida too (it's hard to say for sure)...
As in, how dare those People in those States register a majority support for Sen. Clinton, or otherwise, why would we (the undemocratic haters and ridiculers) respect their Official registration of support for Sen. Clinton.
And it continues!
How dare the People of Indiana and North Carolina even consider going to the polls in the Democratic Primary (DEMOCRATIC I say) and register their support for Sen. Clinton...
How dare the People in those States to think they have any voice at all in the matter?
Well, it strikes me more like, how dare these haters judge the American People so, in the Democratic (and Official) registration of their preference for the Democratic nominee to the Presidency?
It's insulting, and aggravating, and has me wondering whether these many scribes and 'bloggers' who think so much of their hatefully-worded opinions of Sen. Clinton, whether they even know what the words DEMOCRATIC and DEMOCRACY mean, or whether they even know or care that it is the American People who make this Democracy, by way of registering their Official support of candidates (and Policy) at the polls... that it is the People of the various States who decide the Democratic nominee to their Presidency, and not the few scibes and hateful 'bloggers'.
[And I want to add as a personal footnote, that it was for typing out and expressing sentiments Democratic, like the one I just did above... it was for that that The Huffington Post web-site banned me from commenting in their pages... a ban I would never think would be imposed by MMFA, who as best I can read, has no such hateful bone in their bodies, as does make the framework of The Huffington Post. Screw them is what I say... MMFA is way better anyway. The dark pages of The Huffington Post don't hold a candle to the light, that guides the trail marked by the words of MMFA's writers, as evidenced above in the essay.]
I've been thinking along those lines a bit. The campaigns I remember didn't end till the convention. It seemed somehow comon knowledge this time arround that we had to decide before the convention. The big thing being having months with a single candidate so that the final two could have at each other in a long time frame.
As Eric says many people with no chance campaigned straight into the convention. The issues of the people who voted for them were the reason they they were there. If they acknowledged a victor pior to this, then their issues and their supporters issues disappeared.
Dispite more differrences with Hillary than Obama, I'll still happily vote for either. Frankly I don't care if it does go to the convention. I'm not anxious, the two difuse the efforts of the Anti Democracy Media.They're in the tank for McCropolith. Their not going to come out. The brewha ha over Wright shows however much Hillary makes their spleen skrunch. They're fully capable of taking a hachet to Barrack with great enthusiasm, energy, and volume.
So why, when the tables are turned, is Hillary being urged to quit?
It's time to face it: The attacks on Hillary, and the double standard, are - simply put - blatant sexism. Liberals, progressives, Democrats, journalists, commentators, and the average woman and man on the street are guilty of this. It is time to open our eyes!
LM
LM, I'll agree that there is some latent sexism in the Hillary bashing, but there's latent racism in the Obama bashing too. How much each affects the candidates is, frankly, too complex for me to un-tangle. What I do know is that come convention time, unless Clinton wins every state from here on out by 70% or more, there is no way she is going ot have more pledged delegates than he is. I also know that Florida may count it's election, but there is no way that anyone can say Michigan should count. The candidates signed pledges to not put their names on the ballot in Michigan, and Clinton reneged on that pledge.
It is mathematically impossible for Clinton to garner a majority of the pledged delegates. Plus, there's rumors that Obama actually has more super-delegates lined up than Hillary.
But let her stay in the race. However, if she wins, I won't be voting for her. Of course, I wasn't going to vote for her before all this mess anyway.
But (a) few if any people are calling for Obama to drop out; and (b) there is no way mathematically for Obama to win the minimum number of delegates either. Linda is right.
That is the best evidence of the relatively larger role sexism happens to be playing in this instance than is racism. But there is no question that both candidates have had to deal with the isms and are frequently damned if they do, damned if they don't. We have a long, long way to go.
Do you have a link for that? Last I heard, Obama left it entirely up to the DNC - which would be the opposite of how you just characterized him.
Open_Mind, because politicians and their staffs are quite careful about such things, I doubt that there will be any document that states unequivocally "Obama doesn't want MI and FL delegates seated and doesn't want a revote of any kind." What you will find are documents in which an enormous number of "concerns" about re-voting plans will be articulated, such as:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/03/obama_memo_shows_campaigns_con.html
Let's take FL alone. With FL's state Dems' preferring that its existing vote be counted (there are multiple sites providing supporting evidence on the web); Clinton's campaign preferring their seating or a revote, failing that; DNC's repeatedly saying (again, the sites are out there) that if the candidates agreed to a plan, DNC would support it: what prevents either the seating of the delegates per the original vote, or a revote? Similar reasoning could be used with MI.
The reason why people are asking Clinton to drop out is not because she is losing. It's the way she is losing. Huckabee ran a campaign against McCain that was in the very least civil to his opponent, contrasting himself against McCain while recognizing that he must keep the party unified.
Clinton is running against Obama as if she were the Republican, resorting to their low-ball tactics of 527 ads, whispering campaigns, and causing general destruction in her wake. She's been in politics too long to pretend to not know the resulting damage her campaign is doing. The once solid Democratic Party has no be divided by race, gender, income, occupation, age, and education. Whether intentional or not, her '60 Minutes' comments to the former President, Democrats cringe each time the go out on the campaign trail.
Democrats are afraid that no matter what happens, the wounds that have been inflicted in this brutal race will not heal in time for the General Election in November and that spells Doom for everyone.
I'm with you. Indiana has voted Republican since before I was born. Democrats are now campaigning in the state for the first time in 40 years. This extended priimary season has introduced the candidates personally to people who normally never would have met them.
I remember growing up bewildered by all of these Iowans and New Hampshirites who spoke casually of meeting presidential candidates several times. About time some other states became apart of the equation.
Brilliant column, Mr. Boehlert. You are right and these comments are long overdue. I happen to believe that factors in addition the arrogance of the media account for what you've observed (for example, I suspect Bill O'Reilly has implanted mind, or at least mouth, controlling devices into certain journalists and pundits - as well as into many in the so-called liberal blogosphere, who are beyond the scope of your critique (given that this is MMFA), but not beyond mine). But the causes may be less important than making the point that this new behavior is occurring and should be troubling to all fair minded Democrats if not all people. So thank you for a badly needed exposé.
The snippy, off-topic "responses" by quite a few posters here show you are on-target. They can't refute your evidence with better evidence so slip into the all-too-familiar name calling.
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/04/22/national-poll-regardless-of-pa-outcome-clinton-should-stay-in-race/
ERICCCC!
Thank YOU!
Thanks for this column Eric.
I didn't connect that for some odd reason.
UI have been so disturbed by the media coverage of this race and kept saying/thinking how I have never seen anything like it, never seen the bias, out and out blatant anti Clinton bias over the course of months and months and months.
I remember way back when they were all getting irritated that Obama wasn't attacking, he needed to "punch" her.
aiyeee!
(he was "swiping" her right from the beginning)
They admitted they wanted blood. Some of the media attacks on her were unbelievable.
I'll tell you the truth I was an Obama supporter for a long time. I had written to him and urged him to run. But between some of what was happening in the Obama campaign by way of passive aggressive attacks and manipulation, the fringe faction of Obama supporters on HuffPo and the unbelievable media bias I really became very disturbed. I stayed neutral for awhile while I researched them both as much as I could. I support Clinton now.
Anyway, Thanks again for writing this article. The facts you have researched on the primary races from the past were very helpful in putting my anger into perspective.
I'm not expressing myself well but I know what I mean!
LOL
Thanks again
What now? Sounds to me like Media Matters (very little) is joining Operation Chaos!!
Dittos Boehlert, Dittos!
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
I am SO tired of hearing people telling her to quit, I am tired of the BS and the "Muck" - is there even a place online where people who support her can go?
You are the only person I have read or heard talk about Hillary's supporters as being relevant. Thank you for that. We are not just something to be shooed away. If the media wants to shoo us away, do they also want to shoo us away from voting for Obama, should he be the nominee? If so, they're succeeding. I can't tell you how many people I know who won't vote for Obama. Hey, I'm in PA, that makes me bitter, I guess. @@
I won't watch Olbermann any more. His show used to be the best. Now it's just another "I Love Obama" show. Chris Matthews, if he runs for senator, won't get my PA vote. BLAH. Talk about an ass-kisser.....
When I voted for John Kerry, I held my nose and pulled the lever. But why should I do the same for Obama? Doing it for Kerry got us nowhere, Bush got re-Selected. There is no difference between those two, not at all. I don't like Obama much, and I don't want to vote for him.
Hillary kicked ASS on O'really? tonight. If she can take O'really?, she can take on anyone. You could see he respected her for doing it, too. She deserves respect from the rest of the media, too.
Among the gruesomely disillusioning shocks of Election 2008 is that the Reptilians were right about the totalitarian tyranny of the 'Liberal Media.' *I* always thought *we* were at least trying to be noble and objective. That the job of a journalist was to observe with a rigorous attempt at fairness. I trusted our side.
Since I've seen the projectile misogyny hurled at Hillary by putative journalists with seldom a word of disapproval least of all condemnation from peers or cowardly Leaders of the Democratic Party, I feel so duped and dumb. This Severe ObamaSwoon Syndrome has been as total and virulent as St. Vitus Dance. They've all gone loco and don't even know it. The whole community of faux-journalists has shamed itself.
There are numberless examples but Howard Fineman's Big Lie is a typical example. He was an analyst on MSNBC after the Texas-Ohio victories for Senator Clinton. She gave a splendid celebration speech. I watched it on CSpan with my own little eye. In it she said warmly, "Senator Obama brings so much to this race. I look forward to our continuing dialogue." Her crowd clapped appreciatively.
I shift back to Matthews, Olbermann, Fineman. After Mr. Obama's long defeat speech, Mr. Fineman says with the pompous contempt he is perfecting that Mr. Obama had been so gracious about Senator Clinton and in her 'typical cold harshness' Senator Clinton had failed to even bother to mention Mr. Obama. I had just seen Hillary speak with sincere warmth about Mr. Obama. Neither Olbermann nor Matthews said a word about Fineman's complete fabrication.
Of course I can absolutely understand that he might not have seen her speech (tho it was much shorter than Mr. Obama's) but why make up a complete & scurrilous lie? Dumbfounded? I was thunderstruck.
Just a few days ago he made an unchallenged crack about Hillary being out there "with a smile plastered across her face." Plastered? When he said that did he wish his tongue would fall out in self-revulsion or was he oblivious?
Well, in "Egregious Sexism for Dummies," it suggests that that kind of ad feminem crass characterization is the worst of all possible audacities of ignorance. To those of us who have leapfrogged out of the 19th century postprandial bastions of port and ribaldry after the ladies were dismissed to natter of embroidery and the perils of dying in childbirth, a giga-stupid crack like that boomerangs us between rage and despair.
Hillary has a radiant grin and superb, detailed & paid-for plans on Universal Health-Care, Education, a stunning practical vision for a Green Future, and a smart plan for extricating ourselves from Iraq. And an astonishing ability to work like a daggone dog on our behalf. She is the champion of many of us who can only hope that Fineman was plastered on that port as some excuse for being so benightedly boorish.
Well said. I noticed all of that, too.
FYI... Ken Rudin of NPR compared HRC to Glenn Close's character in Fatal Attraction, last Sunday, on CNN's morning show. I called NPR to complain. The omnibuds person told me that they had gotten hundreds of calls complaining about his comment.
It is time to fight back.... Thanks again, Eric.
Now I fully support Hillary. And she can thank HuffPo, Chris Matthews, Fineman, Olbermann, Mo Dowd and all the others.
Hill might not project warmth but that doesn't mean she's not well intentioned. I'm willing to bet on her effective handling of the major policy issues this country needs to resolve.
That said, I'll vote for Obama if he's the candidate because I'm a smart person.
It's obvious what the deal is. It's because she is a woman. Older women have heard this all their lives, especially from men who don't want the competition.
It shows the bias in the media, run by older white men who are stuck in the "good 'ol days" when women knew their "place."
I agree with you Eric, we are a government OF the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE and OF the PEOPLE unless that has changed to a Government BY the Journalist and pundits, FOR the Jounalists and pundits.
This is absolutely ridiculous! I wish they would close their mouths and let the PEOPLE speak and decide.
Thank You!
Great post, Eric. I think the Obama campaign has a lot to do with the push in the media for Clinton to drop out. It was a big part of the campaign's talking points for weeks. I see Obama supporters walking around with t-shirts that say, "Stop the drama, nominate Obama." And, the media has been following the campaign's lead like little sheep.
Joanne
Sign our petition to Super Delegates: www.ipetitions.com/petition/supporthillary
hillary supporters love when the pundits tell her to quit. we use that as a rallying cry to increase donations and other services. so, keep it up.
THANK YOU= THANK YOU= THANK YOU
Thank you for speaking for me, and dear God thank you for answering my prayers.
We will be so lucky to have Hillary Clinton as our President this country will become great again.
Thank you and God Bless you and America
joethick,
After you take your medicine, please know that we indeed have much to be grateful for.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2008/04/florida-democra.html
This is the most controlling some media and press that I'n ever seen!It makes me wonder even more of who is doing what to the american people.I can say this.Hillary is not droping!Howad Dean is not telling the truth about he was DUMFUNDED about the people of Sen.Hillary Clinton wanting her to drop out!What kind of people do we have in our DNC,I think a pettition is in order.This is a very sorry day when you have the press and some Media DNC who would want people to belive their lies.
Hillary is the only one who can defeat McCain)Hillary has toughened herself againt the never-ending slams,So she has the tenacity to fight on.She has already proven that.Those who wish she would drop out have rocks in their head.She is the most competent candidate in the campaign.She has the knowledge of what needs to be done to straighten out the mess creadted the last 8 years.She has the intelligence and capability of accomlishing the task(Although it will be a difficult road and it won't happen over night)I've often wondered who would want that job,but someone has to do it.For the good of our country.Hillary is that person our next leader.Obama lacks the neccessary qualities to be a can-do president with not the asbility to confront the variou situations head-on.As Bush has said over and over,"This is hard"Over his head is more accurate, We need a ready,willing and able leader and Se.Hillary Clinton is that one.
She will never give up!The DNC is responsible for the lengthy process and sen.Hillay RClinton should not be expected to br the scapegoat when she's by far the most qualified to handle both domestic and foreign issues.This needs to be tecognize tha Obama will fall on his face against McCain.Sen.Hillary R.Clinton will remain upright with her head held high and leave her footprints on the path to the white house and be an exemlary president.She has worked together wioth the republicans in the past and she will continue to do so.That's her common sense way.
Sen.Hillary R.Clinton has been beating by the media and press who by spining!Who is trying to control the peoples mind and votes.There is NO ONE WHO ARE SUPPORTERS OF HILLARY'S WHO IS ASKING HER TO DROP OUT.
1st have to win Pa.She did and by FAR,2nd she has to win Indaina which she is ahead.Now it's and North Carolina and she can and will do it.
What is that you want? Obama has did this before in the bollots and getting people to drop.Let's see why is it that all had taken their name off the Michigan ballot but Sen.Hillary R.Clinton.This is not right in playing games of dirty politities! We will fight to the end.It's is false of the media and press to run the untruth
Let's talk truth< Obama has lied.not voted on bills and put people down in saying they didn't and John Edwards called him on that.Obama voted present over a hundred time on the issues that are inportant that he chosen not to vote on those Isusse,becaue why?What were the Issues.
He ran an ad in PA saying that he was the only candidate who was the only one who did not vote on the Buch-Dick Cheney energy Bill when infact Obama did vote yes.Which was a great policy for the energy company who written that bill.$115 million dollars givaways to the lobby and others who voted for it.NOW TRUTH,Sen.Hillary Clinto and Sen.John McCain did not vote,again did not vote on the Bush-Dick Cheney energy Bill.The only two opf the candidates who stood up to the oil companies!
Obama on a video that many have now while talking to supporters he stood there and took his middle finger put it against his cheek and say as he smiled"I know how to get my jabs in"He was talking about Hillary after her win in PA.What kind of person would do such a nasty thing and a person that's a candidates? The words as the night of Pa primary win.He also said words without useing names.That's the same he did in as speaking to supporters.What kind of messege does that send to the people.
He's close to people with to many wrong doings to the United Staes.Do you remeber the EAST,WEST,NORTH,SOUTH AND IN THE MIDDLE.Michaelle and Obamas web site.EL-HADY.was a fundraiser for Obama,As well as Reko,The billionaired iraqi-born london based.More and more the trail is long.To many articals that are not good.
For the press and the media do such a nasty wrighting of false and ugly rummors because of who you think is best,FOR YOU.people are voting for Sen./Hillary Clinton by large numbers.wouldn't think that's more votes then the people who write the articals and the media who maybe they choose Obama.Well that's their vote not Sen.Hiollary R.Clintons suppoprters.ARE VOTE IS SENTOR R.CLINTON.Get a real honest job.
GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!! YES WE CAN,AND YES WE WILL.AS THE FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN SHOULD HAVE THIER VOTES COUNTED.ARE WE BECOMING ANOTHER COUNTRY?
Question> obama name was on the Michigan Bollot.it was his choice to take it off after loseig Forida.Obama has done this before.
WE THE PEOPLE HAVE OUR RIGHT TO STAY IN THE RACE AND WITHOUT THE NEGATIVE UNTRUTH ON Sen.Hillary R.Cinton.
GO HILLARY RICE HILLARY RICE.AND THAT'S WHAT SHE HAS BEEN DOING.ARE YOU THAT AFRAID NOW?
Mr. Boehlert's analysis, comments & conclusion are completely correct. The media long ago overstepped, with seven-league boots at least, the boundaries of its proper role in reporting the Clinton/Obama race. The DNC and Democratic party are no less guilty. If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee it will be the result of this unfair treatment of Clinton, and many Democrats, including myself, will cross over and vote for John McCain, who at least is an honorable and honest man.
Patrick Knif
Clearly, a man would never be treated so dismissively. This article describes one example of the gender bias that Hillary fights every day with the media. I only wish that all of these readers could see this as I see it, a (now retired) 70-years-old professional woman; it's an old story. However, I am encouraged by the fact that this article was written by a thoughtful young man.
Judy
I agree that "Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history," said Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. "When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party."
Why is Hussein Obama the "God" not getting the same criticism as Clinton?
I totally agree with this column. I am a pacifist and have never hit anyone in an angry manner, but in my dreams, I have lined up each and every media pundit and some bloggers and with a closed fist, decked each and every one of them.
I just don't understand how they can dismiss the fact that more than half of the country has supported HRC - if FL was counted. Even if you don't count FL or MI (which if there is not a revote will be a travesty), she still has almost half of the country, so far. How dare they treat my vote and all others with such disdain.
Talk about taking democracy to an all time low.
Your article makes it all the more important for the 14M people who support Hillary Clinton to hang in there tough and make their voices heard. 14M people can't be wrong!
Thank you!! I have contributed to a national candidate for president for the first time in this election! One factor persuading me to do so was the gnawing evidence that Hillary is being pressured by very powerful national media powers through "news" and commentary to abandon her right to compete by the rules and process set by her party. Everytime I read or hear some powerful reporter or commentator demanding(many do so with sexist and even violent language) of Hillary to drop out, I get very unsettled because I feel these people have no right to tell me who I should root for and because this notion of the American ideal is being taken away!! There are rules set by the party that would allow any person no matter how quixotic the right to compete under the rules. If it is true that she has no chance of winning, then why the big worry and waste of ink, airwaves and internet space? More importantly, in my mind it is about the ideal that in America, one can compete by the rules and work hard and even if you don't win, the integrity of the process and one's right to dream is vindicated by allowign one to choose to go to the end. Isn't there any legal remedy that Hillary or citizens can avail themselves of? Seems there has to be a law against it-interfearing with people's right to participate in elections. You focus on the obvious fact, but I have been educated about the power of the media with this election. Reporters and commentators strategically frame or report the news in a way that helps their candidate. It is very confusiong and fills me with distrust and anger at the meaness. Chris Mathews even dispenses unfounded theories to help his candidate (i.e., suggesting that Obabma's relationship to Wright was really Michelle Obama's responsability because "traditionally" women are the ones that determine the religious activities and education in the family!! Crazy and ridiculous, but shows the desperation of their bias. This has been so educational to me. I NO LONGER TRUST NOR BELIEVE ANY OF THEM!!
If Hillary loses, it will be in small part because of the media! Obama will owe his nomination to CNN and the other "news" and commentators. If Hillary wins despite all the barriers deployed in her path by all these empty suits, she should enact laws that protect the citizens' right to participate in the political process and a candidate's right to try to persuade her country that she can led this nation! Very disillusioning! Maybe I was too naive, but certainly no more.
Thank you for writing about this one as it gave me the chance to vent this great frustration at what I see.
To the best of my knowledge, the people own he first amendment. If we were to tell the press we have had enough of their reporting, imagine the outrage, not to mention the lawsuits. But these beneficiaries of our grant, now feel free to tell us to stop voting. I guess they must be lining up their cocktail party invitations. Unfortunately, the free press has been bought. They confuse their role as news reporters with news makers. They are commodities that have been bought, and not too expensively. Newspapers will die because reporters and columnists live by government handouts, obsequious questions,and invitations to social events. And we gave them the First Amendment. I guess it isn't enough.
Frank Cooney
Are these same pundits calling on Nader to get out/stay out? I know he's not in the party, but he will never win so why should he be in at all? It seems only fair since they want Hillary out and at least she has a significant number of votes.
I think the members of the press should remember that they don't MAKE the news; they simply report it, distort it, and/or comment on it. This is like the tail trying to wag the dog with the media trying to control this process. It must really irritate them that over 14 million of us support Hillary and stand behind her.
Hillary should not quit this race just to make the gender-biased media or the Obama's campaign and suppoters happy. Obama is not experienced enough to be President, the only reason Obama is ahead is because some of the Republicans croosed over in some primaries to help Obama become the nominee to make it easier for McCain to win the general election, when that time comes if Obama is the nominee, these same Republicans and Independents will go back to party lines and vote for McCain, So in the long-term, Obama has not gained anything but a sure lose to McCain, because after The Republican Swiftboat Machine get through with him, he'd wish he stepped down and gave the nomination to a more experienced candidate like Hillary, the Swiftboaters will eat Novice Obama alive, causing us to lose the General election for sure, at least we have a better chance with Hillary bringing home the Presidency for our party.
I'm suggesting that all Hillary supporters not untie behind Obama or the DNC if Hillary is not the nominee, because the way she was biasly and unfairly treated by the gender-biased media and the Obama campaign, All Hillary supporters at that time should either stay home, vote for Hillary as a write-in Candidate, vote for Mcain, or Nader, this is to protest the DNC, the media, and Obama's campaign for not being fiar and balanced towards Hillary, if she lost fair and square.
I would not be calling on all Hillary supporters to do everything they can in the general election to help block Obama's Presidency, but since they did not want to play fair, we should not unite the party around Obama who's truly not prepared to take on this office and be able to clean-up and fix the mess Bush will leave behind, Hillary is prepared now to step up to the plate, and start tuning this country around on Day One of her Presidency as oppose to Obama who needs a lot of fon the job teraining before he could even start doing the duties of the President.
Obama should be the one to step down and let someone with experience and know-how like Like Hillary to fix America's ills, and then in four more years, Maybe gave Obama a chance to continue fixing and enhancing what Hillary has done in her 4 or eight year term to turn this country in the right direction, Obama is still very young, so he would have his chance to be President again, but for now Obama needs more time in the Senate in order to strenghen his skills in Congress and than win for President after he's gained a little more experience.
I hope all Hillary supporters follow my lead, if Obama get's the nomination, try and block his Presidency and vote for Hillary as an write-in candidate, vote for McCain< nader, or Stay home in protest of the DNC throwing Hillary under the Bus to nominate a aless experienced candidate than Hillary, I'm also considering also leaving this party and going Independent if Hillary does not get the Nomination, I just can't back a candidate who I don't trust or have confidence in to do the job of uniting and fixing the mess Bush will leave behind, I hope other strong Hillary suppoters will follow my lead, no tuniting this party around Obama or the DNC, go Independent if you have to like I will if Hillary quits, forced, or pressureed out of this race. Al of of people are still having a problem with women trying to become President in this country, the glass cieling is still present when it comes to a woan terying to run for this office, so voters and the DNC Leadership and some in Congreess would rather put up a inexperienced male candidate over an experienced woman candidate to be President what a shame, well I will not support it, I'm voting based on experience not race or gender, Hillary meets that standard and criteria now.
Go Hillary!! Never give-up Never quit, fight until this nomination process is decided by the Superdelegates, because you or Obama can't win the nomination without the Superdelegates approval, and let the chips fall where they may. I still think you can win the nomination at the DNC Convention, don't get discouraged a lot of supporters are behind you and have your back, this Presidency is worth staying in the race at all cost,because the stacks are to high just to turn the nomination over to a novice Senator Obama, who has a less of a chance of beating McCain than you do, you will give McCain a run for his money.
You are right on about the press and media effort to drive Clinton from the campaign. Their obvious partisan backing of Obama has made them unreliable sources of information that distort or fail to report the news if unfavorable to their candidate. 1) They want everyone to believe the Rev. Wright is over. That's whistling past the graveyard. 2) They play the expectation game.Hillary can't just win. She has to meet a certain threshhold to "really" win. The instances you cite of past campaigns are evidence of your knowledge of history. Unfortunately, since reporters today study make-up and how to dress instead of history, they are ignorant of the precedents. And to think Americans have suffered and died for the First Amendment to be abused by the celebrities in the media.
Frank Cooney
The problem is hate towards Hillary because she is a woman. Look back at how she has been treated by all of the media. She can do no right even when she is right. She keeps surprising everyone with her wins because the media always counts her out, but as the race goes on Obama keeps putting his foot in his mouth. As far as the "super delgates" are concerned let me say that this is how the Democratic party has been doing it for years and if they want to change then they should -- BUT NOT until this race is over. On January 21st when the new President has been sworn in then start to change it not in the middle of a race.
Mr. Boehlert,
You are absolutely correct about the unprecdented role of pseudo-journalists during this campaign. It may be the real story and will probably be fodder for political science doctoral candidates for years to come.
Is it the profit motive that has done this to journalism? The race for ratings and ad revenue has perhaps transformed news coverage into entertainment disguised as journalism.
Please listen to me fellow Democrats, we need to join these two candidates either which-way the tide turns on a united and strong ticket. This ticket, as described by much of the media as "Unbeatable" before the campaigns ever began, is our ticket to reality, the truth, and fixing this nation. You do not have to be a constant cynic to be liberal. Peace.