About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Post's Kornblut focused on politics of Clinton health proposal, ignored substance

January 22, 2007 4:19 pm ET
image

17 Comments

A January 22 Washington Post article by staff writer Anne E. Kornblut reported on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) announcement of a new health-care bill but largely ignored the substance of Clinton's proposal, focusing instead on how Clinton "gave her first public glimpse of how she will run" for president in 2008. Kornblut also cited "fears among some Democrats of being perceived as the 'Mommy Party,' " without attributing these "fears" to any specific individual.

The 1,100-word article was the former New York Times reporter's first since joining The Washington Post. Kornblut allotted just 25 words to the substance of Clinton's proposed legislation, writing: "Clinton announced that she and Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) will sponsor legislation to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program to include more middle-class families." Kornblut's was the only Post article on Clinton's proposed health care legislation, according to a Nexis search.

In contrast, a January 22 New York Times article offered further detail:

Mrs. Clinton's proposed legislation would renew the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides money to states to cover Americans under age 18 whose families earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid. The 10-year-old program, which now covers four million children, is to expire this fall. Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, plans to introduce a similar bill.

Mrs. Clinton's legislation would raise the income eligibility limit so that more children could enroll; in New York, a family of four earning $75,000 would qualify. And the bill would allow any family, as well as employers, to buy insurance.

''They're trapped between the rising costs and the broken system, and we can help them get out of that trap,'' Mrs. Clinton said.

Members of the senator's staff said they were still working out the cost of the proposal. About 8.3 million Americans under 18 do not have health care, but about 70 percent of them are already eligible for Medicaid or for the program Mrs. Clinton seeks to expand.

Additionally, Kornblut noted that "Democrats across the board are putting children at the center of their imagery and message," writing:

Earlier this month, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a vivid impression by assuming the House speakership surrounded by a squadron of young grandchildren. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) recently questioned whether Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, not having family of her own, could understand the stakes in Iraq.

Kornblut, however, mischaracterized Boxer's remarks to Rice. Boxer, at a January 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, drew a comparison between Rice and herself, noting that neither of them will "pay a personal price" because neither has immediate family serving in Iraq, not that Rice has no "family of her own." Boxer said:

BOXER: Now, the issue is who pays the price. Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.

Republicans and conservatives seized on Boxer's remarks as an attack on single, childless women. White House press secretary Tony Snow called Boxer's comments a "[g]reat leap backward for feminism," while Rice herself said: "Well, at the time I just found it a bit confusing, frankly. But in retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that." As Media Matters for America noted, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh attacked Boxer for "hit[ting] below the ovaries" and "trying to lynch" Rice.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mr. l (January 22, 2007 4:49 pm ET)
         

      Speaking of editorials....I hope to see MMFA cover other local papers.  I know they have less circulation than the heavies, but I can't believe some of the garbage written up by my state's newspapers- that would be the Fairbanks Daily News Minor and the Anchorage Times...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (January 22, 2007 4:50 pm ET)
         

      "Mischaracterized" is such a nice euphemism for "lied". These right-wingers should thank MMFA for being so kind.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (January 22, 2007 5:59 pm ET)
         

      "Kornblut also cited 'fears among some Democrats of being perceived as the "Mommy Party" ' " . . . Hm, here in California, Gov. Schwarzenegger recently proposed universal health care for CA residents . . . I'd love to see Anne go up to Ah-nold's face and accuse him of being a member of the "Mommy Party;"  she'd either get punched in the face, or, more likely, groped on the buttocks . . .

      Report Abuse
      • Author by savagerocks (January 22, 2007 11:37 pm ET)
           

        The governor of california has never been connected to any form of woman abuse as your "punch in the face comment" would suggest.  I think your comprehension of fact and fiction are blurred....convenient for a lib

        Report Abuse
        • Author by fawltylogic (January 23, 2007 8:21 am ET)
             

          Speaking of comprehension, you might want to work on your reading skills. Arnold was an "action hero" movie star, hence the "punch in the face" comment, and in real life he has admitted to groping women, hence the "buttocks" comment.

          Anything else you need explicitly explained?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by evillib1727 (January 22, 2007 6:02 pm ET)
         

      Boxer made a personal attack at Rice, and she knows it.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mr. l (January 22, 2007 6:05 pm ET)
           

        LOL.....No, she didn't...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by evillib1727 (January 22, 2007 6:09 pm ET)
             

          I say that because she KNEW she(Rice) has no family. She could have made her point simply by stating she(Boxer) has nothing to lose. No need to mention Rice. No need at all. Justify her action then?

          Why direct that comment to someone that has no ties to her statement.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by fawltylogic (January 22, 2007 6:19 pm ET)
               

            Her comment was that they both have no children that are in the age group that would be in danger of losing their lives in war. There is simply NOTHING here that is an attack on Rice.

            Anyone who sees this as an attack on Rice because she doesn't have children is just partisan and looking for an excuse to avoid the real issue.

             

            Report Abuse
          • Author by fawltylogic (January 22, 2007 6:21 pm ET)
               

            And one more thing - she doesn't even MENTION Rice's status regarding children. If you didn't know before she was childless, you wouldn't know it after Boxer's statement either, you'd just know that Rice had no children in the age group Boxer is referring to.

            Gawd, what a fricking non-issue. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (January 22, 2007 6:35 pm ET)
                 

              This is just another GOP talking point.

               

              It's kind of like the phony outrage they manufactured over Kerry's comment about Dick Cheney's daughter.  Just more Bullsh*t from the Right. 

              Report Abuse
          • Author by tex (January 23, 2007 7:52 am ET)
               

            EVILLIB:

            So, you criticize the STYLE with which Boxer pointed out that NEITHER she nor Rice had a "personal stake" in Iraq's mounting casualties.

            I'm reminded of an incident in a college economics class where I avoided a personal reference. The issue was "Mommy" Government, and the "conservative" side was loudly represented by a young man who claimed that every American had the ability and the responsibility to make their own way without any government help or interference.

            Reasonably, I claimed that I could appreciate the sentiment of "self-reliance", but would feel hypocritical railing against government "aid" since my own presence in the classroom was made possible by a federally-guaranteed loan program.

            You guessed it; the loud "conservative" was ALSO a beneficiary of a federally guaranteed loan ... but he claimed to "resent" it. The class laughed at him, he was humiliated and his POV undermined irrevocably. He was exposed as a rank hypocrite.

            So, YES, Boxer could have noted Rice's lack of personal stake in the Iraq war ... a position which is shared with almost ALL the Bush Administration, who are elitists and chickenhawks almost exclusively ... but she didn't choose the "indirect approach" as I did.

            Yet, she made a very good point, and one which resonates with the "class" of all Americans, who are expected to sacrifice dearly while their "leaders" are effectively immunized from any such sacrifice (where ARE those Bush twins?!?). It is that TRUTH that bugs the rightwing Republican warmongers, and so they seek to change the subject by portraying Rice as some sort of "victim" of an "unwarranted attack". Guess what? It didn't work, because the American People have wised up.

            On the one hand, you have Rice's supposedly hurt feelings, and on the other, you have the 3000+ American soldiers dead on the Bush Administration's orders, along with 20,000+ maimed and dismembered and subjected to a "sentence" of lifelong suffering.

            It's no contest: Rice as a "victim", as an attempt to deflect blame for horrendous consequences of Rice's (and her boss's) decisions, is now a non-starter. It's a nice try as a subject-changer and sympathy-seeker, but the reality on the ground is that Rice has no personal stake, and that's a FACT, and Americans see it clearly.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by rusty shackleford (January 23, 2007 9:20 am ET)
               

            EL:  it isn't an "attack" to point out that someone has no children.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Conchobhar (January 23, 2007 11:12 pm ET)
               

            EVILLIB,

            I missed the post where you took Laura Bush to task for saying Condi could never be President because she was single.  Where did you post it?

            Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (January 23, 2007 10:59 pm ET)
           

        No she didnt and anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it

        Report Abuse
    • Author by vapaday (January 23, 2007 9:53 am ET)
         

      I watched Kornblutt on MSNBC last evening. When questioned about the timing of Sen. Clinton's announcement to enter the Pres. race, she danced around the question, tossing out a well Mrs. Clinton might not be telling the truth, but it is for the viewer to make that decision. Is this not the same Kornblutt who a few days ago suggested that Mrs. Clinton FAKED a cell phone call so that she could avoid questions from the media!Sadly, our media has lost its objective compass, turning it into a RAG.  

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.