About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

NY Times article quoted only Republicans in support of claim that Democrats "fear ... sharing the ticket" with Clinton

December 04, 2007 4:16 pm ET

10 Comments

In a December 4 front-page New York Times article, staff writer Carl Hulse asserted that "the possibility" that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) will be the Democratic presidential nominee "is already generating concern among some Democrats in Republican-leaning states and Congressional districts, who fear that sharing the ticket with her could subject them to attack as too liberal and out of step with the values of their constituents" and reported that "House Democrats do not like to discuss the idea of reverse coattails for fear of giving it too much credence and angering the Clinton camp." However, while Hulse quoted several Republicans supporting the theory that Democrats have something to "fear" from Clinton becoming the party's nominee, he quoted no Democrats, by name or anonymously, who said they "fear ... sharing the ticket" with Clinton.

In his article, headlined "Vulnerable Democrats See Fates Tied to Clinton," Hulse quoted only three Democrats: Reps. Nancy Boyda (KS) and Chris Van Hollen (MD), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson. However, none as quoted supported Hulse's assertion that "some Democrats in Republican-leaning states and Congressional districts ... fear ... sharing the ticket" with Clinton. From the article:

Advisers to Mrs. Clinton, who has long sought to parry concerns within her party that she is too polarizing, dispute the idea that she could hinder Democratic candidates in Republican districts. They note that New York Democrats gained a net of four House seats in her two Senate elections and that she campaigned actively for House contenders in both.

"Anyone can speculate, but there are a set of facts that tell a very different story," said Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign. "The actual evidence makes clear that she is an asset in tough districts."

[...]

Ms. Boyda, who is trying to establish a political identity as independent, said her intent was simply to show the voters of both parties in her district that she was delivering for them. Of the presidential race, she said: "It is something I have no control over, quite honestly. They will demonize any Democrat who becomes the nominee. I just put my head down and work."

She said she was putting her faith in Kansans' willingness to split tickets. "Kansans are very practical people," she said. "They just want people who will get the job done."

[...]

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, says incumbent Democrats in generally Republican districts proved very capable of holding on in the last presidential election. He says the national race gives House candidates a chance to emphasize their independence by breaking with the presidential nominee when they differ.

"This is an opportunity to distinguish themselves on the issues from whoever the nominee is," Mr. Van Hollen said. "If they approach it right and tell their constituents where they stand, it enhances their credibility and independence."

By contrast, Hulse quoted two Republicans asserting that Clinton would hurt Boyda's chances of re-election if she were the Democratic nominee: Patrick Leopold, campaign manager for Kansas state treasurer Lynn Jenkins, who is running against Boyda, and Pottawatomie County Commissioner Tom Doperalski. But while Doperalski stated that "[t]he people I talk to, they just cannot imagine a worse scenario" for Boyda than having Clinton as the Democratic nominee, Hulse also reported that Doperalski "says any antipathy toward Mrs. Clinton will not necessarily mean enmity toward Ms. Boyda." From the article:

But Patrick Leopold, campaign manager for Ms. Jenkins, said a Clinton nomination would work in favor of either his candidate or Mr. Ryun, the other prospective Republican opponent of Ms. Boyda. "Whether you are a moderate Republican or a conservative Republican in Kansas, you are pretty much of the same mind on Hillary Clinton," Mr. Leopold said. "There is no question Hillary is going to be a drag for Boyda."

The mere mention of Mrs. Clinton's name as a potential president drew a strong reaction from Tom Doperalski, an official in rural Pottawatomie County who had just finished meeting with Ms. Boyda about how to contend with growth issues arising out of the increase of troops stationed at nearby Fort Riley.

"The people I talk to, they just cannot imagine a worse scenario," said Mr. Doperalski, a Republican who heads the county commission. "They just don't think she can be trusted."

[...]

And Mr. Doperalski, the county commissioner, as well as his two fellow Republicans on the three-member board, says any antipathy toward Mrs. Clinton will not necessarily mean enmity toward Ms. Boyda. "She will be judged on the job she does," he said.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (December 04, 2007 4:30 pm ET)
         

      On what planet would Hillary be considered "liberal"? 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by RoberttheP (December 04, 2007 4:36 pm ET)
           

        SAVE DEMOCRACY !! VOTE INDEPENDENT!!! END THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!!

        She is not a "liberal" she is part of the problem with our political system, she is part of the old two party partisan guard. 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by progressive tribalist (December 04, 2007 7:36 pm ET)
           

        Planet neoliberal?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (December 04, 2007 4:50 pm ET)
         

      Well, considering the article's author does admit that this is something the Democrats don't want to talk about, but are doing so privately - you either give his take credibility, or you don't. 

      I agree it would have bolstered his piece to name names, but I doubt any Democrat wants to go on record as being "fearful" of sharing the ticket with Hillary.  Common sense, and his reasonings, certainly support what he is saying, however.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by solon (December 04, 2007 4:57 pm ET)
         

      And now a word from the Macy's marketing dept about how crappy Gimbels merchanidise is.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by carlileb5935 (December 04, 2007 6:34 pm ET)
         

      I knew there was something strange when I read this article-- it seemed a little too chicken-little. Thanks MMFA for pointing out why. It's biased. Another example of the MSM taking their lead (pun intended) from the right wing.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (December 05, 2007 12:30 am ET)
           

        carlileb, off-topic, but you responded to my comment on the L.A. Times yesterday(The Gentry Liberals).I agree that it has really showed its right-wing colors more lately.In their (not too enthusiastic) defense, I got home from work tonight to a message from a nice British lass who told me my letter would be in tomorrow's edition.It was a quick email, actually very polite, wish I'd put a little more into it.I'll have to take her word for it, I only take the Sunday ,for sentimental reasons. ;0)

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (December 04, 2007 7:24 pm ET)
         

      and i suppose edwards and obama won't be portrayed as ultra liberals?  please.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by progressive tribalist (December 04, 2007 7:39 pm ET)
           

        I think they have gentrified liberal and angry liberal reserved for those two.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by atheist (December 05, 2007 1:40 pm ET)
         

      Why would Hulse even interview Republicans at all on this topic ?  That would be like interviewing men on the topic of how it feels to be pregnant.

      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.