Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story
Within the fast-forward world of campaign journalism, it's not considered cool to examine the recent past in order to provide context for today's events. (We know it's not cool because nobody does it.) Nonetheless, here's a very brief history lesson that the political press prefers to ignore.
At the Democratic National Convention in 1992, Jerry Brown, who finished a very distant second to the party's nominee, had his name placed into nomination and addressed the assembled convention. After having his name placed in nomination*, Brown delivered a fiery speech that thrilled his unruly supporters inside Madison Square Garden. Brown's ill will toward nominee Bill Clinton was so legendary that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution considered it newsworthy that Brown's convention address "avoided a direct attack" on the nominee, while the Los Angeles Times noted Brown "did not specifically endorse presidential nominee Bill Clinton."
Indeed, for weeks leading up to the convention, Brown refused to back his party's nominee, complaining to The New York Times in June that supporting Clinton was like buying a ticket for the Titanic.
Four years earlier, the Democratic convention in Atlanta witnessed even more tumult from the second-place finisher when Jesse Jackson, furious at being passed over for the vice-presidential slot by the party's nominee, Michael Dukakis (who failed to call Jackson and tell him the VP news), threatened to withhold his delegates' support from the party's nominee. In fact, just hours before the convention began, Jackson's supporters threatened to place the candidate's name into nomination for the vice presidency, which would have created a massive floor fight between Jackson and Dukakis' pick, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas.
Pre-convention tension grew so heated that the mild-mannered Dukakis was quoted as saying, "I don't care what Jesse Jackson does. I'm going to this convention and I'm going to win." During his convention keynote address, which lasted nearly an hour -- much longer than expected, Jackson did not specifically endorse Dukakis.
End of history lesson.
Now, take those historical nuggets from 1992 and 1988 and transport them to Denver this week, and try to imagine what the press reaction would be (not the political reaction, but the press reaction) if Hillary Clinton delivered her address Tuesday night and did not endorse the Democratic Party's nominee.
Honestly, I have trouble even picturing the response, mostly because there has already been such an unhinged media response (see Maureen Dowd, if you must) to Clinton's finishing second, speaking at the convention, and supporting the party's nominee. If she snubbed the nominee? We'd probably see a media-credentialed riot, with hordes of pundits and reporters roaming the late-night streets of Denver (Pitchforks? Probably) in search of Clinton and looking to inflict long-term pain.
Fact: Many in the press have portrayed Clinton's planned convention address, as well as the fact that her name is being placed into nomination, as an unprecedented, heavy-handed power grab.
Fact: It's not. In years past, Democratic candidates who won lots of primaries and accumulated hundreds of delegates (sorry, Howard Dean and Bill Bradley) have always been allowed to address the convention and very often place their name into nomination. It's the norm. It's expected. It's a formality.
This newly manufactured media attack on Clinton is just the latest in a long line of press grenades thrown her way this year. But this time, she's not the only victim, because the media's concocted story line is being used to unfairly skewer Barack Obama, too.
Consider New York magazine: "Obama Agrees to Roll-Call Vote for Clinton. Does That Make Him a Sissy?"
What's so startling in watching the coverage of the Clinton convention-speech story has been the complete ignorance displayed about how previous Democratic conventions have dealt with runners-up like Clinton. It's either complete ignorance or the media's strong desire to painstakingly avoid any historical context, which, in turn, allows the press to mislead news consumers into thinking Clinton's appearance (as well as the gracious invitation extended by Obama) represents something unique and unusual. Something newsworthy.
Based on previous conventions, if a candidate had accumulated as many delegates and votes as Clinton did during the primaries and then did not have her name placed into nomination, that would represent a radical departure from the convention norm.
But, boy, in 2008, an awful lot of media outlets have played dumb. When covering the August 14 announcement about Clinton's role in Denver, they miraculously forgot to make any historical reference to similar names-placed-in-nomination at previous conventions.
Instead, readers and viewers were left with the obvious impression that what was scheduled to happen in Denver was remarkable, an anomaly. And I suppose if you look at the events through a soda straw, it does look unusual. But if you include the slightest bit of context, the story changes into something normal and routine.
But that's not the story the press wants to tell (the Clintons are not normal!), so the press simply erased the context and stuck to its preferred story line that Clinton's appearance in Denver and the placing of her name in nomination are one for the record books.
Searching the recent news archives, it's hard to find many articles or television segments that reported on Clinton's symbolic nomination and also mentioned that runner-up Jerry Brown had been nominated in '92 or that Jesse Jackson had been nominated in '88 or that Gary Hart had been nominated in '84. (You get the idea.)
When The New York Times reported on Clinton's pending nomination, it made no reference to historical precedents. Neither did The Boston Globe, nor The Wall Street Journal, nor The Washington Post. And on and on and on.
On CNN, Jack Cafferty commented, "The Democratic National Convention is now shaping up to be quite a party for Hillary Clinton. Her name will be placed in nomination. She'll give a prime-time address." He made no mention that that's what previous runners-up had done at conventions.
Let's give credit to the Los Angeles Times, though. In the final two sentences in an article reporting the Clinton convention story, the Times miraculously found space to note that Brown, Jackson, and Hart all had their second-place names placed into nomination.
Actually, the real credit goes to CNN polling director Keating Holland (figures, he doesn't work in the newsroom), who posted a lengthy analysis at CNN.com. Holland's piece not only put Clinton's role in Denver into historical perspective ("Overall, between 1972 and 1992, 10 Democratic candidates who lost the nomination in the primaries went on to have their names formally placed in nomination at the convention."), it also pointed out that Clinton represents the only runner-up to speak at the convention who formally endorsed the party's nominee months before the convention; i.e., all the others grudgingly held out on endorsing their rivals.
But not Clinton. Yet she's the one slimed by media venom.
Even after all these months, I still don't completely understand why Clinton's essentially centrist campaign for the White House ginned up so much open contempt from the press corps, which has felt completely comfortable addressing her in an openly derogatory and condescending manner. The issue of her convention involvement simply allowed the press to whack her around like a piñata one more time, regardless of the facts.
Just take a look at a recent edition of ABC's CW-worshipping daily bulletin The Note as it mocked Clinton's convention role with barely containable contempt:
Maybe it was better for the Obama campaign to invite you inside, since you would have made an ugly scene outside. Surely Sen. Barack Obama can afford to be gracious, even to you, since he'll leave Denver with the only prize that counts.
"Even to you." That's a nice touch, coming from the same press corps that erupts with indignation whenever somebody suggests Clinton might have been tarred with sexist campaign coverage. (Y'think? National Review Online, August 15: "Sure, Hillary's fat and waddly and screechy and gives pantsuits a bad name.")
And this from Radar magazine:
Barack Obama has approved Hillary Clinton's dubious campaign to put herself up for nomination at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. We have to ask: Is it because she's a woman or just power-hungry?
Note that Clinton's convention campaign was "dubious," which was accurate if Radar, y'know, ignored facts and precedent and history and all that annoying stuff.
Meanwhile, what was The Note's proof that Clinton would have "made an ugly scene outside" the convention if not included? The Note had none. And that's what's been so amazing about watching the brazen, Clinton's-trying-to-steal-the-convention-with-a-speech coverage: The narrative is built on a swamp. The press has provided virtually no facts, not even anonymous quotes, to support its beloved narrative that Hillary Clinton's planned speech ignited some kind of civil war inside the Democratic Party.
What's curious is that journalists who have actually bothered to cite campaign sources about her speech and symbolic nomination came away with a very different picture of what was unfolding behind the scenes.
Writing at his Atlantic blog, Marc Ambinder, who seems to enjoy regular access to Obama sources, noted that "reports of strife between negotiators for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are exaggerated" and that "multiple sources in both campaigns have described the negotiations as relatively free of acrimony."
The next day, Ambinder returned to the topic perplexed, wondering why so many members of the press were pushing the clearly inaccurate story line that the Obama and Clinton camps were practically at war over the convention schedule.
Ambinder was either being naïve or playing nice with his Beltway colleagues. (My guess is the latter.) Because it was obvious the press didn't care whether the rift about Clinton's speech was real or imagined. The story helped journalists advance their beloved narrative that Clinton is a political-party wrecking ball and that Obama is too weak to control her. So even if the evidence ran counter to that, the press was sticking with its story line.
Like Ambinder, another journalist who actually reported the story was Joan Walsh at Salon.com, who wrote, "My sources say the Obama campaign was enthusiastic about the idea of putting Clinton's name in nomination, having independently reached the conclusion that it was the best way to honor her achievement and do more to win over her supporters."
She then included a quote from Obama spokesman Bill Burton:
"The conversations with her folks were very cordial and we've been able to work very closely with them as we unify this party. ... We couldn't be happier about how things are going with Senator Clinton and her team."
Burton made several public pronouncements like that regarding the Denver convention schedule, but New York Times columnist Gail Collins mocked the idea that the scheduling had been cordial and easy, instead comparing the convention task to negotiating a Middle East between "enemy forces."
And then there was Washington Post columnist Jeff Birnbaum who announced Obama never should have allowed Clinton to be nominated, suggesting it was a huge political mistake. How did Birnbaum know? He just knew. The fact that polling found Democrats by an almost 2-to-1 margin thought Clinton's nomination would be good for party unity was of no interest to Birnbaum or anyone else in the press spinning the event as a Democratic catastrophe.
FYI, Birnbaum told The Wall Street Journal he was "grateful" for "Hillary Clinton's attempt tacitly to take over the Obama victory" because it was a great story that the press could cover throughout the convention. (Oh, goody.) As one blogger wrote after reading Birnbaum's quote, "I thought journalists were supposed to uncover the facts and report the story, not decide on the story and then interpret the facts to accommodate their storyline."
Meanwhile, let's be clear: Clinton isn't the only injured party here. After the press constructed the phony premise abut Clinton's convention speech, critics then used it, unfairly, to tag Obama as a softie who can't even stand up to a woman. (Gasp.)
- "Russia rolls over Georgia, Hillary Clinton does the same to Barack Obama. Now we know who's boss." (Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News)
- "If Hillary Clinton can ride [roughshod] over this guy what do you think bin Laden will do?" (Dick Morris, on Fox News)
- "Russia invades Georgia. Hillary invades Obama's convention. Obama does nothing constructive on either count." (Amanda Carpenter, at Townhall.com)
Why were critics able to get off those cheap shots? Because the press, strenuously ignoring facts and recent history, was determined to paint Clinton as the ultimate party crasher.
Fortunately today, when our beloved and cogent members of the press aren't too busy inventing friction, they are able to shine a vibrant light of truth on what really matters: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5656295
Why they failed to provide A Look Back at Jerry's Year in Pantsuits 15 years ago is anyone's guess.
At LAST someone's said it.
Competing candidates have always spoken at conventions. And roll call votes are traditional (remember Harold Stassen ever year?)
There's nothing culpable about any of it. But when it comes to the Democrats, apparently everything they do is potentially culpable, suggestive, worrying, or of concern.
It's either that these people are in the tank for Republicans, or they are incredibly stupid and criminally ignorant.
It's either that these people are in the tank for Republicans, or they are incredibly stupid and criminally ignorant.
Why can't it be both? Seems one naturally follows the other.
And vice versa ;-)
I see a lot of projection in the BS piled on the Clintons. Secondly, in many ways the Clinton administration was a sucess. Liberal sucess must be marginalized and people responsible for that sucess demonized in neoconworld.
Might have been more of a sucess without the ideological warfare implimented by Gingrich and his contract on america
In many ways the Clinton administration was a sucess.
You know, I was never a big fan of Bill Clinton's at the time, but looking back it is hard to imagine any way in which it was a fialure, at least by the end of it.
For what its worth........
Does anyone in here realize that its Fox Noise that is covering the live feeds from the convention floor!! Yeah.... true!
For the life of me I can't figure out how that was/is allowed, but it was and is happening.....
Fox Noise IS running the camera's at the DNC..... makes sense now doesn't it..... the many crying and smiling black faces and the seemingly disinterested or bored looking white folks while Michelle Obama spoke that we all got to see during her wonderful speech!
Gee..... ya think Rupert Murdoch don't know what he's doing......
Oh, I don't think Rupert handles details like that, his minion Ailes is the one that directs the tone like you point out.
There are two public services that cannot be left to the free market, health care and news/journalism. For the last 40 years, both of those services have become excellent sources of profit but extremely poor at providing the said goal of the service. ie. educating the citizens about what thier elected officials are doing or not doing, and improvin public health.
Don't ask me for a perfect solution though, but I'll happily pay my taxes for a BETTER system than what we have experimented with for decades.
As much as the Clinton supporting left wants to downplay Clinton's "hurt feelings" and resentment over this whole Obama phenomenon, the knife twisting right wants to ratchet it up and stir the pot. Truth is probably somewhere in between, as it usually is.
Hillary was not dissed, or disrespected in any of this. So she wasn't vetted for the VP slot, so what? Obama was under no obligation to even consider her, so she and her die hard supporters better accept the fact that she was fairly beaten, and she is not on the Democratic ticket.
The press concocts a story? Nah, they didn't concoct anything, they may have thrown a little fuel on an already burning fire, but that's about it.
Obama defeated Sen. Clinton where it counted...votes. He is under no obligation just as she would not have been obligated to him. And contrary to what some people are wishing for, Sen. Clinton is above the nonsense which they portray.
Can't blame the press for creating stories. There are so many journalists(SIC) and so few real stories. Plus they all seem to want to break the BIG one. Here is a tip for the press...Obama is the nominee. Is that a scoop?
"Bill CLinton was correct when he said after the primaries that his wife was the victim of the most rigged media coverage in modern history. Only a partisan hack could think otherwise"
No partisan hackery where you're concerned, that's for sure. Thanks for that enlightening unbiased look.
Practically everyone I talk to admits the primary coverage of Clinton was incessantly negative
It took the form of depicting everything she did-- everything-- as potentially troubling, self-destructive, inept, and culpable in some way-- usually undefined. The tone was always that she was a dick and a loser.
Exactly the way Obama is being treated now. It was obvious this was going to happen-- the onus is always on Dems.
"she and her die hard supporters better accept the fact that she was fairly beaten"
Not exactly "fairly". There are a lot of disenchanted voters in Michigan and Florida, whose votes did not count. Imagine if this had been an important election cycle, some dems may have actually complained about the voters not having their votes counted. But, considering that never happens...having disenchanted voters during a presidential election cycle... I guess none would complain.
"Except she agreed to that in 2007"
I'm sure those millions of disenfranchised voters feel much better, now that she agreed to not letting their votes count.
I'm sure they're upset, but that's not what your original point was. Nor was it the point of the post you were replying to.
Tommy said Hillary was beaten fairly, and you said that no, it wasn't fair because of what happened in Florida and Michigan. Then someone quite reasonably pointed out that while the primary voters might feel disenfranchised, the process was certainly fair to all the candidates (i.e., none was given an advantage over any other) BECAUSE THEY ALL AGREED TO NOT COUNT FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN BEFORE A SINGLE VOTE WAS CAST!
If anything, one could argue that counting ANY of Florida's or Michigan's delegates would have been unfair to any of the candidates who "lost" either state because if you agree to the rules ahead of time, changing them midway gives an unfair advantage to the candidate (i.e., Hillary) who benefits from the rule change.
Now if you're willing to clarify that what you *meant* was that the DNC's decisions were unfair to the Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan, then you certainly have an arguable point. But to say that the Florida and Michigan decisions were unfair to *Hillary* is patently false.
" But to say that the Florida and Michigan decisions were unfair to *Hillary* is patently false. "
That was a nice comment, till you got to your point. I did not claim Hilary was treated unfairly by the DNC. I claimed she was not fairly beaten. No matter how you spin it, and you appear to be good at spinning things, 2 states were left out of the primary process, 2 major states. Being a decision the DNC made beforehand does not make it any more fair. Maybe they (the voters) didn't 'care' about being excluded, until they found out how important their votes were, but that goes to show the stupidity of democratic decision makers more than the fairness of the process. If they wanted to be "fair" they would have penalized every state for moving their primaries ahead of schedule equally. I don't think I remember California having their votes not count for moving up their primary.
The process was certainly not fair....only agreed upon.
...she and her die hard supporters better accept the fact that she was fairly beaten, and she is not on the Democratic ticket.
Don't look now, but i think that Hillary accepted she was fairly beaten when she gave a rousing speech that fully endorsed Obama and followed her words with actions by releasing her delegates to him and suspending the role call. If that is not accepting defeat, I don't know what is.
I can see where the whole notion that Hillary may only ostensibly support Obama
And you may even see Jesus. But have you anything specific to report?
What was with CNN having a full bank of Republicans whose only job it was was to criticize the Convention at the end of the night?
Think they'll so the same with them next week?
i like the blogger who wrote that the press was supposed to "not decide on the story and then interpret the facts to accomodate their storyline". in 2000, it was al gore is a liar, and 2004, kerry was a flip flopper. both story lines adopted by the republicans and promoted by the media. along with howard dean is crazy.
Gotta wait til she returns from Georgia and gives her report on civilian casualties. Or is she over there firming up another distributorship? Remember, should hubby win and put troops there, they'll need beverages. for the next hundred years.
What the hell is she doing there? I forgot, Mother Teresa told her go there the last time they talked.
IOKIYAR. It would be impossible for a Democrat with that financial pedigree to get where McGramps is. I am not enamored with the Democrats in general, but my gosh, how biased can the press be and get away with it? The repeal of the fairness doctrine was the death knell for the fourth estate.
Obama? Are you listening? PLEASE, win and bring back the fairness doctrine!!
Great post by Boehlert.
Hillary's name being placed in nomination at this convention is not really any different than what went on in the past.
But the media is having more fun with it. Looking for anything nefarious to speculate about, hoping for turmoil.
Clinton supporters by & large will throw their full-hearted support behind Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Oh of course there will be a few stragglers, or those that fold their arms & refuse to do so. They won't alter the outcome of the election. They didn't in the past.
The Clintons always make for great fodder. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that a bigger deal [than is usual] is being made of the split among delegates.
Now, just a tad off-topic:
After last night...I'm am totally in love with Michele Obama :-)
What these people are probably thinking is that these people really are dingbats. See for yourself:
Chris Matthews Battles Full-On PUMA Inanity
Because today is Catharsis Day at the convention, we figured we better do like Aristotle says in the Poetics and hit you with a double dose of pity and fear so you can purge both your raw, untamed emotion and your hope that life in America will ever get better for anybody. So, to that end, here's a video of Chris Matthews talking to a trio of PUMAs -- women who love Hillary Clinton whilst simultaneously hating the policies for which Clinton has fought. They are the total hot mess of the Democratic Convention.
Watch as they level bizarre accusations at Barack Obama, and then refuse to accurately cite the source of their claims. Maybe it was Lanny Davis or something! See, I don't know, and neither do they, but I can tell you, if I had tried to apply the same sort of "reasoning" in college, my professors would have knocked me unconscious and tossed me in a ditch, far from town.
Anyway, if possible, you should burn your computer after watching this. That is all.
2 to 1 those PUMAs are members of Cindy's bridge club.
Anyway, if possible, you should burn your computer after watching this. That is all.
Snoopy, I thought 236.com was SUPPOSE to be funny. That video, commedy wise , was funny.
I also say the Chris Matthews video. Someone should tell those nuts to stop using THEIR name as a reason to spout the bull sh*t those ladies (I say that loosely) are saying.
It's bad when Republicans lie, but it's much worse when so called "concerned Democrats" lie.
Pearl, you can say that 236.com is my outside voice! ;)
Michelle Obama's speech was full of some of the most hollow self serving rhetoric, superficial platitudes, hollow inspiration. It was painful to watch. I heard nothing that made me feel she was any more capable of being the First Wife than my hairdresser
Are you sure you weren't listening to an re-run of an old Barbara Bush speech instead of Michele Obama?
I wasn't a huge Michele fan before that speech. Just lukewarm really. But she won me over.
what exactly are the qualifications for First Lady?
Apparently the qualifications, using Republican standards, are to be airheaded and able to parrot exactly what the "man of the house" dictates (if she knows what's good for her), and using her mouth for something other than talking ...
Oh, and being able to flash your boobies at a biker rally - pole dancing optional ... just ask Seven of Nine ...
Her body language and tone of voice interpreted as agressive and hostile.
So long as it's directed at John McCain, then that's cool. If she really wanted to help Obama she'd agree to unleash hell on the fraud, John McCain.
And John McCain's next ad will say...
As a POW John McCain knows what it's like to be forced to say things under duress. Was Hillary Clinton under duress when she said she supports Barack Obama? <show photo of Hillary Clinton's face with anguished look> ;>)
Oh, forgot to ad the tag line...
I'm John McCain, a proud American, who didn't have a house, a table or a chair when I was a POW...and I approve this message. ;>)
But I read the wrong ad, where the d should have been added and the add shouldn't have been added.
Got that?
MOSTLY OFF TOPIC
Let's assume that Obama wins the presidency. Where would we like to see Hillary Clinton go from here?
Obviously, regardless of who wins this election, she could run for President again in 2012, but I bet she wouldn't with an Obama Presidency. There are any number of Cabinet posts for which she would be an excellent choice. However, that's not where I'd like to see her.
I'd love to see Clinton replace Harry Reid as Majority Leader in the Senate. While I understand what he's been up against with only 49 Democrats in the Senate and WPE Bush in office, I still believe he could have been more of a fighter than he's been. I think Majority Leader is a post that would play very well to Clinton's strengths. Especially if Obama lost the election, we would want someone with Clinton's brains, influence and toughness in that role.
Any thoughts?
The position isn't a very good stepping stone to the presidency, so I agree, I don't think she'll want it. Looking at Wikipedia, it only looks as though one former Senate Majority Leader has become President, and that was LBJ through the assassination of Kennedy. A few others have run for President, but no one else has come close. Bob Dole came the closest.
So, while it might be an office in which Clinton might excel, I suspect she'll look at it as poison.
As Glenn Greenwald often points out with inumerable examples, the press regularly decides that what "they think" is what "Americans think", regardless of polling that suggests the media holds a minority view.
The beltway media wines & dines with the swines (ie. the GOP), so, to them, "The American people" didn't want any investigations into the outing of Valerie Plame, "The American people" don't want any investigations into the lies that took us to war, ""The American people" thought Scooter Libby shouldn't be jailed, "The American people" don't want to cut and run from Iraq until the Republicans say we've "won", etc.
The only problem I have with making Hillary "the victim" is that - yes, the press despises her and singles her out for attacks, BUT as recently as last month she called Obama her "opponent" and has hardly been supportive of the Obama candidacy. Her die-hard supporters are constantly making outrageous claims against Obama that makes them seem vey much in the Rove/McCain/Bush feces-throwing swamp.
doesn't sound lukewarm to me....
We now know why there was a concerted media lynching of Hillary Clinton.
"much more of a classic liberal than the rest of us"
Former law partner speaking of Clinton. You all been duped, folks, for McSame and O-Bought-man. Clinton was the only genuine liberal threat to the corporate status quo. She was the only true liberal running with a good chance, who would actually work towards genuine universal single-payer healthcare. She was the only genuine threat to the Oligarchs, the Robber Barons, the corporate thieves.
But now y'all got yourselves O-Bought-man and McSame. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dummer. Good luck with change you can believe in!
(Thought we'd just luuuv a monicker of laissezfairesucks, right?)
Hillary and Barack's positions on the issues were almost exactly the same--and, funny thing, they divided the Democratic party just about evenly.
A lot of us saw two fine candidates, and were ready to support either one--and were puzzled and disappointed by the freneticism of the primaries.
Not me, though. Beyond the hysterical amplification of every single comment that might be construed to be nasty, hostile or racist--and a bunch of stuff that was just plain made up--there were people like you--intent on driving that wedge for the sake of the Republicans.
Hillary is smart, and tough, and a fighter, but the only liberal hope? She'd have made a good president, maybe a great one, and may still get the chance--but she has as many corporate sponsors as Barack.
But keep driving that wedge, my friend. Keep on running down Obama and saying you're doing it from the Clinton side. Cuz it's all you've got.
(Hint: no Hillary supporter would have attacked Michelle Obama the way you did. Sisterhood is powerful, and you don't get it.)
I'm watching the Fox News coverage of the Hillary Clinton speech at the DNC. Its just comical to hear Brit Hume and Bill Crystal downplay her speech because she never said "I support Obama the person" nor did she say specifically "I am confident in Obama as a Commander In Chief"
Hillary gave an incredible speech tonight. She left little doubt that bitter Hillary supporters should do nothing but vote for Obama. She endorsed Obama's plan up and down the line and spoke sternly against McCain's plan for the future.
I don't know the exact numbers for how many Hillary supporters say that would now vote for McCain because she didn't get the VP nod, but the Fox floor reporter mentioned a statistic that "30-40%" of Hillary supporters plan on voting for McCain. That stat seems very high. Can anyone correct that figure?
Hello Eric,
I'm a big fan of your work as a journalist--we really need many more like you.
----
Even after all these months, I still don't completely understand why Clinton's essentially centrist campaign for the White House ginned up so much open contempt from the press corps
----
After reading Dr. George Lakoff's "The Political Mind," I feel compelled to let you know that the left-CENTER-right political spectrum is a false frame.
There is no centrist, moderate or mainstream position. People can hold either progressive views, conservative views or a combination of both, known as biconceptualism. But there is no political middle. A biconceptual person can hold a combination of progressive and conservative views, but only in different non-overlapping areas of life. For example, a person can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Lakoff writes, “The very use of the left-to-right scale metaphor serves to empower radical conservatives and marginalize progressives…Conservatives have framed their ideas as mainstream when they are not, while progressive ideas are characterized as extremist, which they are not.”
- FTF
It bothers me that you would cite Radar and National Review as if they are mainstream or, as Kos wants us to say, traditional media.
Just as well tell us what Sports Illustrated said about Hillary. Gail Collins is a paid entertainer, like Maureen Dowd and Bill Kristol. I think she's a pretty good entertainer, but I don't expect her to pick up a telephone for a live quote or provide context for anything she says.
I just expect her to make me laugh on a regular basis. Like Dave Barry or David Sedaris.
You started out by noting that among the majors , only the LAT story gave context, but offered proof of the supposedly chosen narrative from only secondary publications and writers.
So if I were grading your report, I'd have to say it's inconsistent, though the premise may very well be correct.
This is kind of why this former newspaper reporter and politics/press junkie doesn't often come to Media Matters.
You're often as lazy and transparent as your subjects.
Take it back and try to do a better job, but if you do, I can't give you a straight A, I have to take your early work into consideration.
It's not as if we haven't discussed this endlessly in class.
You nailed it. I can't tell you how much it means to read something by someone in the media that gets it and states it. The fact that it means this much is testament to how rare, make that non-existant it is in the MSM.
The media long ago decided that a no-win situation was to be Obama's cross to bear, Hillary. If he'd nixed her speech then Obama gets labeled as a sore winner who hates women. If he complies with history and lets her speak its an unprecedented event which underscores Obama's inability to lead.
Way to go, MSM. With friends like you, we'll all be cooking rats over an open fire in no time, a delicacy called a "McSteak". We'll live in cardboard boxes, a new meaning for "McMansion". And every conflict will be called a "McWar".
Randy
Whoops! I hit post before I fully checked it. "Hillary-shaped cross to bear." Now it makes tons more sense, although the MSM coverage still makes none.
Randy
Is it only me that sees the sexism inherent in all these observations? Am I the only one who can see the press playing into the stereotype of "a woman scorned" who can't give up the spotlight? All of the gems in the quotes toward the end of this post conjure the traditional stereotypes of powerful (=emasculating, =crazed, =don't know their place) women. I've been an Obama supporter from the start, but it's really disgusting how sexism has reared its ugly head through this whole process, and especially in the press. The thin veneer of objectivity has clearly been shattered.
Hillary Clinton's speech was electrifying last night - they are really grasping at straws to keep painting her as the crazy woman she never was. Either that or they're trying to paint the positive crowd reaction as a kind of buyer's remorse (this is Rush Limbaugh's strategy), wherein Dems are supposed to have felt sorry that they didn't nominate her instead of Obama. It's all ridiculous, the equivalent of so much sound and fury.
What's sad is that most people seem to get their political news from TV pundits these days, so I hope the vast majority of them watch these things for themselves and see through all the hyperbole.
Thank you for an excellent column and for providing a historical context to the 2008 convention.
I cannot understand what the Hillary Clinton bashers think they are accomplishing by their continued focus on her instead of on John MCain.
Losing the states which voted for Clinton will mean that John McCain wins. A Republican victory in my state, Pennsylvania, which strongly supported Clinton, could be the death knell for Democratic hopes of taking back the White House.
I believe Hillary has done everything she can to try to bring her supporters along. While she and President Clinton can be of great help in states like mine, the primary responsibility is on the nominee and his vice presidential choice to make the case as to why their election is in the best interest of Americans who are worried about jobs, health care, the disappearance of our constiutional rights and the war.
Most of us who voted for Clinton are not bigots and won't cast our ballots for a candidate based on race, religion, gender, age or a single issue such as choice.
(Some of us do wonder if there will ever be a woman president but that's a discussion for another time and place and not a reason to vote for a white man instead of an African-American one.)
The people I know don't care how many houses John McCain has or how Barack Obama financed his house, they care about not losing their homes.
They don't care about McCain's first and second wives or what Michelle Obama wrote in her papers in college. They care about their families being safe and secure.
They don't care how much either candidate has in his bank account, they care about being able to put gas in their cars and food on their tables and being able to get the best medical care regardless of their income.
The way to reach Hillary's voting blocs is not to continue questioning her sincerity or that of President Clinton but to tell groups like blue collar voters and older women what an Obama victory will mean for them.
They don't care where a candidate goes to church or what his favorite Bible passages are, they want to know that they can practice their religion free from intolerance, be they Christian, Jewish or Muslim.
Nor do they feel threatened by the idea of gay marriage or gays in the military.
Some of us are old enough to recall a time when Barack Obama's parents would not legally have been allowed to marry in many states and the military was segregated. We don't like to see prejudice directed toward people because of their sexual prefernce any more than we thought it was right when it was based on race.
Maureen Dowd and her fellow Clinton-haters may fear a Democratic victory won't provide them with as much column material as a Republican one.
If so, continuing to trash the Clintons instead of focusing on the issues that really affect the quality of people's lives could give them a President McCain to write about for the next four years.
WOW
John Kerry is on the stage tonight calling out Karl Rove and what is his Fox News station doing?
Airing Kerry's speech? NOPE. They are running commercials. Is Faux afraid when a speaker is bad-mouthing their expert panalist? Looks like it to me.
Thank you for FINALLY telling it like it is.
I got so sick of correcting all those articles claiming Obama was magnanimously granting Hillary a roll-call vote. As if such a miracle had never been done before. I wondered whether these 'journalists' had never seen a convention? Were they obfuscating, or simply just did not know any better? Most assuredly the readers did not know better, and it served to vilify Hillary even more, as if he sought some special favor she wasn't entitled to.
Thanks for calling them on it!!