Wash. Post's Balz alleged "Clinton fatigue" but did not quote anyone tired of Clintons
In an April 17 Washington Post article about recent fundraising reports from several presidential candidates, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), staff writer Dan Balz claimed: "Among Democrats, a sense of 'Clinton fatigue' has led some major fundraisers to reassess with whom they want to align." The phrase "Clinton fatigue," despite appearing in quotes, was not attributed to anyone cited in the article, and Balz did not provide any additional information to support the notion of "Clinton fatigue." Additionally, though Balz reported that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) first-quarter fundraising was "anemic," he did not raise the possibility of "McCain fatigue."
In another Post article published the same day, staff writers John Solomon and Matthew Mosk reported that "some" Clinton donors "cite fatigue after more than a decade" of various fundraising efforts for the Clintons -- but they did not quote any donors claiming to be tired of the Clintons. Solomon and Mosk added: "Most [Clinton donors], though, blame the defections on the enthusiasm generated by the upstart campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)." From Solomon and Mosk's April 17 article:
Hillary Clinton still has the loyalty of many major players from her husband's network, including chief fundraiser Terence R. McAuliffe, aerospace executive Bernard Schwartz, businessman Alan Patricof, investment banker Stanley S. Shuman and venture capitalist Steve Rattner.
But dozens of donors have migrated. Some cite fatigue after more than a decade of raising money for Bill Clinton's White House bids, Hillary Clinton's Senate campaigns, his presidential library and their global charitable efforts involving AIDS, poverty and hunger.
Most, though, blame the defections on the enthusiasm generated by the upstart campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
Kirk Dornbush, a veteran Atlanta fundraiser whose father served as an ambassador during the Clinton years, said Obama has created an excitement unseen since that surrounding Clinton in 1992.
"Bill Clinton and Al Gore energized people to do things they had never done before, and that is why you were willing to knock the roof off fundraising for them. And that is what is unique to Senator Obama and none of the other [Democratic] candidates," Dornbush said.
As Media Matters for America previously noted, in a March 29 article, USA Today failed to challenge political psychologist Stanley Renshon's false suggestion that the public's views of the Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies are comparable and his claim that the public suffers from "extraordinar[y]" Clinton "fatigu[e]." USA Today reported: "Stanley Renshon, a political psychologist at the City University of New York Graduate Center, says the Clinton and Bush presidencies have been 'extraordinarily fatiguing' for Americans, who may be seeking 'a somewhat calmer presidency.' " In fact, according to USA Today's own polling, Clinton's approval ratings remained in the 50s and 60s through most of his presidency; in the wake of the 1998 impeachment proceedings, Clinton's approval rating jumped to 73 percent. The article also reported that Clinton's current approval rating is 60 percent and that "[i]n the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 71% said he was a good president -- more than double Bush's 34% approval in the poll."















Clinton Fatigue? I've Got Anna Nicole and Duke Rape Case Fatigue. I've Also Have Teleprompter Readers Posing As Journalists Fatigue.
This might be true with Obama on the sence now.
The Clinton fatigue runs neck and neck with the Bush fatigue......starting now with the Clintons, and January '09 with the Bushs, can we just put these two families to bed please, politically speaking.
Oh Please God I Hope Tommy's Right.
Sorry, Jeb in 2012 and Chelsea in 2020.
LOL..
Nice try, Leather. But I think Dubya has pretty much 86ed the chance of Jeb - or any other Bush - ever getting elected President.
ive got imus fatigue. ive also got fatigue from having to see crappy women's basketball on tv all the time when it belongs on the last page of your local newspaper. ive got fatigue from the liberal douchebags at duke taking too long to apologize to the dukie boys. im fatigued from mmfa's lame posts.
Piggy... when you actually get off your kiester and move away from the tv, and actually PLAY a sport, then you can swpew your nonsense... your earlier flagged and deleted post about the team was ridiculous.. those women are division I athletes who play fundamental basketball with better defense than the men... the plays they run are the same, and they shoot a higher percentage than the men...
lt. is tired of women's basketball on tv? and tired of mmfa? obviously his tv only gets one channel, and his computer only connects to one site. poor guy.
"im fatigued from mmfa's lame posts."
buh-bye...
LOL.
Now hear this, Private Douchebag ... Nobody holds a freaking gun to your head and makes you watch women's basketball.
Confined to the barracks for the weekend for stupidity. Have fun cleaning the latrines with a toothbrush.
Dismissed.
Hey, LT. Shouldn't You Be Listening To Hannity or Savage. I Suggest You Go To Some Right Wing Website and Complain About G.E and Viacom Being The Liberal Media. I Don't Go To Right Wing Websites And Then Complain About Them. But Like Most Repubs I Guess You Just Enjoy Being Annoying.
Clinton fatigue is real, though maybe not in the sense meant by Balz.
Clinton's lead over Obama has shrunk significantly as of late.
Again, fatigue among donors, in the sense used by Balz might not be true, because no evidence was provided.
I guess David Geffen would count as one example of thse who are tired of the Clintons since he basically called them masterful liars.
Let's get back to the issue at hand: A reporter makes an editorial comment in an article, not an editorial, and that's considered a legitimate news item. It's not. It's sloppy journalism and we get bounced out of class for making assertions in a story.You have to have sources, if not, then get into column writing.
I think there's fatigue in a different sense. A colleague at lunch brought up the point that if Hillary wins, we would have either a Bush or a Clinton for president for at least 24 years, 28 if she's re-elected. And by then maybe Jeb would be ready to run! "Democracies" based on competing family dynasties are sick. Besides, Hillary's foreign policy is the closest to George Bush's of any of the leading Democratic candidates. The fact of the matter is that lots of Democrats <i>are</i> tired of the Clintons. The good news is that there's tons of talent in the field: Edwards, Obama, and Richardson are all highly capable.
That said, should Hillary win the nomination of course we'll all vote for her, because the Republicans are so much worse. But I really, really don't want that triangulating crowd back.