"It has come to this": In two separate segments, MSNBC highlights Hillary Clinton's new hairdo
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Two segments on MSNBC Live referenced Sen. Hillary Clinton's new hairdo, with one of the segments featuring a discussion "[l]ive from Capitol Hill" with MSNBC congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira, who said, "I'm not really crazy about standing here talking about a senator's hair, especially Senator Clinton's hair, but I'll just say this: When it comes to senatorial hair, she's way ahead of the game."
During the 10 a.m. ET hour of the July 16 broadcast of MSNBC Live, host Monica Novotny devoted a segment to discussing Sen. Hillary Clinton's "new look," specifically the "short[ness]" of Clinton's hair and the fact that Clinton "shifted her part from the left side to the right side." At the beginning of the segment, Novotny contrasted a video of Clinton's July 15 speech on the floor of the Senate with her official publicity photo in order to illustrate the difference, stating, "All right, if fashion -- as far as hairdos go -- isn't your forte, Clinton's hair is apparently shorter than it used to be, and she's shifted her part from the left side to the right side."
Clinton's July 15 speech:
Clinton's publicity photo:
Novotny asked MSNBC congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira, "So, it's Hillary's part that's shifted to the right? Not her political positions?" Viquiera replied: "Monica, all I can say is, I'm not really crazy about standing here talking about a senator's hair, especially Senator Clinton's hair, but I'll just say this: When it comes to senatorial hair, she's way ahead of the game. I mean, we've got some combovers around here that are engineering marvels, modern engineering marvels, I tell you. And look, I mean, you know the price of Grecian Formula these days -- I could use -- I could use a raise for that, and some Rogaine." Novotny later stated: "Look, I'm just going to say this: I mean, you remember there have been some other reports where people were focused on other things, so I say, better the coif than the cleavage. That's just me."
As Media Matters for America documented, on July 30, 2007, MSNBC devoted a total of 23 minutes and 42 seconds to segments discussing Clinton's (D-NY) "cleavage" between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET.
During MSNBC Live's noon ET hour, anchor Alex Witt also reported on Clinton's hair. During a news brief, Witt said: "Mrs. Clinton's hair is a bit shorter than it used to be, and she has shifted her part from the left side to the right side. However, keep in mind this is just Hillary's part that has shifted to the right, not her political position. We want to be real clear on that."
Prior to MSNBC's reports, The Washington Post's Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts highlighted Clinton's hair in their July 16 Reliable Source column. Under the heading "Hillary's Parting Line Moves a Smidge to the Right," they wrote: "Hillary Clinton returned to the Senate floor yesterday to give a big speech -- on a Medicare doctor payment bill -- and showed off a new hairdo. Since leaving the presidential race, she's gone shorter . . . and shifted her part from the left to the right. Just thought you'd want to know."
From the 10 a.m. ET hour of the July 16 edition of MSNBC Live:
NOVOTNY: And Hillary Clinton has a new look. Here's what she looked like when she showed up for a big speech in the Senate yesterday. And here's her official publicity photo from the campaign. All right, if fashion -- as far as hairdos go -- isn't your forte, Clinton's hair is apparently shorter than it used to be, and she's shifted her part from the left side to the right side. Live from Capitol Hill, MSNBC congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira --
VIQUEIRA: Monica, it has come to this.
NOVOTNY: I just had to -- it has.
VIQUEIRA: It has come to this.
NOVOTNY: Welcome to mid-July. So, it's Hillary's part that's shifted to the right? Not her political positions?
VIQUEIRA: Ahhhh, stretch.
NOVOTNY: Bu-dum-bum.
VIQUEIRA: Monica, all I can say is, I'm not really crazy about standing here talking about a senator's hair, especially Senator Clinton's hair, but I'll just say this: When it comes to senatorial hair, she's way ahead of the game. I mean, we've got some combovers around here that are engineering marvels, modern engineering marvels, I tell you. And look, I mean, you know the price of Grecian Formula these days -- I could use -- I could use a raise for that, and some Rogaine.
NOVOTNY: Are -- are we just leaving it at that?
VIQUEIRA: Yeah, that's it. That's all I got for you.
NOVOTNY: Look, I'm just going to say this: I mean, you remember there have been some other reports where people were focused on other things, so I say, better the coif than the cleavage. That's just me.
VIQUEIRA: You know what? The reporter that wrote about the cleavage is standing right here next to me. We were just talking about that.
NOVOTNY: There -- OK, well, I'm going -- I'm going to stick to the coif. All right, Mike, thank you.
VIQUEIRA: All right, bye.
From the noon ET hour of the July 16 edition of MSNBC Live:
WITT: Hillary Clinton had a new look when she showed up for a big speech in the Senate yesterday. Now, you might not notice it at first. It's kind of subtle, but she has changed her hair. In case fashion isn't your forte, here, take a look. On the left, that's from the campaign. On the right, there's the new style. Mrs. Clinton's hair is a bit shorter than it used to be, and she has shifted her part from the left side to the right side. However, keep in mind this is just Hillary's part that has shifted to the right, not her political position. We want to be real clear on that.
Isn't this the kind of stuff they used to put of E.T.?
How far we have fallen.
I can't decide if this is more important than Jesse Jackson's castration threat. I wish somebody would rate them for me.
Well Colonel I'm pretty busy but from the tone of your post you sound like you really need this dilemma cleared up by a level head. That would be me ;-)
So wish granted:
Personally a castration threat rates higher in my book [yours too I bet] than some new Hillary do.
But if I were to comment on Hillary's hair, I'd say..."Hill hon, switch the part back to the left. It was more flattering"
BTW Beach have you seen the latest 2008 Campaign "Obama-McCain" Jib Jab video? Might be the funniest one yet!
http://sendables.jibjab.com/
So true, it's not just the news media, it's the whole culture.
Every time you turn on the TV, it's nothing but people screaming at each other, crying their eyes out, fighting with their spouses, or falling all over themselves about the plights of celebrities.
And that's just the home improvement shows!
I agree. I have given up watching CNN and MSNBC, except for Countdown. After the 2000 election, when the most important thing was which candidate would you rather have a beer with, I thought the media would never treat our elections so frivously again. I was wrong. Mike Barnicle, while sitting in for Matthews on Hardball did a segment on whether Obama was "too cool" and if he could relate to ordinary folks because he drank wine instead of beer, and ate arugula. That was the final straw for me!
No, what do people think they might feel about what could be the impression of what Bill Clinton might have said about it-- to others.
Even if it's not what he actually said, isn't the mere suggestion that he might have said something like this going to be harmful to Democrats-- right Howard Fineman?
Little fluff? God, MSNBC goes totally stupid on the weekends with their 'prison specials', I mean, are they really catering to the dummies or what?! The usual crap during the week, excepting Olbermann and possibly Abrams, is just getting worse - looks like the memo came in directing them to be more 'Fox-like' these days. Must be the upcoming election, I suppose.
I'd say... maybe 10-15% 'decent' stuff on MSNBC... the rest is pure unadulterated trash.
Yep, and now they are going after Obama. Some 'libruls' over there, huh?
Rabbit who exactly are THEY?
I get home from work in time to catch at least 30 min of Road to the White House w/David Gregory. He has four guests every evening. On most nights it seems to be stacked 3 to 1 for Obama. Or its 2-2. Personally I'd rather have non-partisan media types there, but I'm beginning to doubt any actually exist.
Hardball is next. Matthews on any given night can swing either way. Sometimes he's All-Obama, other nights he's All-McCain. However he has a pretty fair & balanced guest list.
Then come Olberman. He's up Obama's butt.
Abrams (sp?) show, The Verdict leans towards Obama as do most of his guests on most nights.
So who exactly are THEY, & when are THEY on? And what are THEY saying? You aren't objecting to Obama being fairly criticized are you??
Also I catch most of Morning Joe...also a pretty even number of voices for both sides.
MSNBC was absolutely outraged by mid-January about the fact that Hillary was still insisting on being in the race.
Even more hilarious, they consider Romney's runner-up status to be a qualifying factor for the Republican VP slot, but the mere idea of Hillary being the Dem. VP choice is considered to be an absolute, unethical outrage-- as well as a big joke.
Reason-- they're all little boys over there who don't like women. Group therapy time.
Could you state that as a question? Defining "going after Obama" would help also.
Also check yesterdays threads, a four man conservative braintrust considering how best to attack Barrack.
Also check yesterdays threads, a four man conservative braintrust considering how best to attack Barrack.
Fair enough example. But I'm talking more about day to day consistency. I watch enough MSNBC to be able to say honestly I haven't seen that network "going after" Obama other than to, in most cases, fairly criticize him. The one example [from yesterdays thread] would be like FOX going after Bush one particular day, but usually treating him quite favorably. IMO & from what I've seen, MSNBC treats Obama very well...sometimes as to appear to be playing favorites.
You'll have to ask Rabbit what he meant by "going after Obama", I'm figuring he meant in an unfair way.
Ok, I'm heading home. I'll try to check in later :-)
K, its in rabbits court. As I don't veiw the nightly news, I can't say.
Its local afiliate did a report on immigration crack downs. The Militamen spokeswoman got some time. Opposing view points zilch.
One additional thing that these tactics are going to produce is casual sadism. Its horrible what we are doing to some of these victims. But they may have broken the law so its ok to hurt them. And if its ok to hurt them, then its possibly ok to hurt other people who might cause discomfort or distress. This isn't just a slippery slope. Its lubricated with sinthetic humanity.
I don't know who the "they" is, but MSNBC has definitely engaged in the "Let's continue falsehoods about Obama while ignoring f*$k ups by McCain" game. Reverend Jesse Jackson was made an issue, because . . . ? Meanwhile you have a candidate who, if elected, wants a man claiming America is in a mental recession and is a nation of whiners, to be his economy advisor! If that's not newsworthy what is?!? Yet MSNBC engaged in ignoring an obvious story as did most other cable "news" media.
Ok, Keith Olberman is in the tank for Obama. Whoopdeefreakindoo!! This one lone voice compared to the constant opposing voices is who you trot out to say MSNBC is favoring Obama? LOL!! When have YOU seen a segment on "How to defeat McCain?"
See the problem with some of you liberals, who were pulling for Hillary, and you conservatives, who want another 4 years of murder, lies and corruption of our constitution, is that when it comes to actual policy, when it comes to actual stances on issues, Barack is difficult to attack. So what has the media engaged in, tabloid type stories. It all started with "Is Barack Obama black enough", which quickly turned into "Is he too black and is his wife too militant", which then shifted to "Is he Muslim", which then quickly became "Has he been part of a separatist Christian church." Make up ya damn minds!! Meanwhile McSame makes a comment about killing Iranians through exporting cigarettes and the media glosses over it as if this wouldn't have been doomsday coming out of Barack's mouth!
Finally, and for me the biggest show of disrespect to everyone Jewish, black, hispanic, female or anything other than a white heterosexual male is Pat Buchanan being hired as a "political pundit" on MSNBC and NBC!! This man wants white women to become baby machines so they can keep pace with the growing immigration of other races!! Where is the radical opposing voice? Why is Pat B. allowed to spew his racial war and extremism on Neo-Nazi radio shows and then receive a pay check from MSNBC, while any suggestion of African-American pride by the Obamas is seen as militant?!? The media is a joke. I'm not for any extemism by the way. Those of you that don't see what's going on at MSNBC, don't want to see what's going on!!
I don't know who the "they" is, but MSNBC has definitely engaged in the"Let's continue falsehoods about Obama while ignoring f*$k ups by McCain" game.
You can't name who THEY are, nor did you give any examples of exactly what alleged falsehoods THEY are allegedly spreading. As far as the f##k ups by McCain go...sorry but I've heard them talked about & analyzed on MSNBC as well as elsewhere. So I don't know what you're talking about.
Reverend Jesse Jackson was made an issue, because . . . ?
Because he suggested that Obama was talking down to Black people. Because he said he'd like to cut Obama's nuts off. And because he [Jackson] used the N word in that same whisper whining he did. Jackson is from another generation, he's obviously jealous of Obama & let's be real here...if Obama is elected, Jackson will lose at least some of his Blacks are victims because of White people excuse. Also Jackson would rather Blacks go on blaming everybody but themselves for all their ills. Obama is saying there's blame to go around...but you have to take some personal responsibility. Jackson doesn't like that. It might put him out of business.
Meanwhile you have a candidate who, if elected, wants a man claiming America is in a mental recession and is a nation of whiners, to be his economy advisor! If that's not newsworthy what is?!? Yet MSNBC engaged in ignoring an obvious story as did most other cable "news" media.
I not only heard that story ad nauseam on MSNBC, but everywhere else. It wasn't ignored.
when it comes to actual policy, when it comes to actual stances on issues, Barack is difficult to attack.
You mean when he isn't changing them, or redefining them? Actually I've heard the media offer up JUSTIFIED criticism of his policies & stances. On MSNBC as well as from others in the media. No difficulty whatsoever. Well, except that most folks still tippy toe around the guy most of the time. In all honesty neither he nor McCain get much real deep scrutiny from the media.
Finally, and for me the biggest show of disrespect to everyone Jewish, black, hispanic, female or anything other than a white heterosexual male is Pat Buchanan being hired as a "political pundit" on MSNBC and NBC!!
Why is Pat B. allowed to spew his racial war and extremism on Neo-Nazi radio shows and then receive a pay check from MSNBC, while any suggestion of African-American pride by the Obamas is seen as militant?!?
Ok August, I don't know what Pat is saying ON RADIO, but on Morning Joe, or any of the other MSNBC programming he appears on, he's not spewing anything close to racial war and extremism as you claim he does on radio.
I'll take your word on it he does, but on TV he is one of the better pundit/analysts on MSNBC whether one agrees with him or not. And BTW, he has said MANY positive things about Obama.
And finally...
Ok, Keith Olberman is in the tank for Obama. Whoopdeefreakindoo!!
Yes August I'm sure you'd be saying Whoopdeefreakindoo IF Olbermann had been in the tank for Hillary...or God forbid McCain. Selective outrage is a very Liberal trait ;-)
Yes August I'm sure you'd be saying Whoopdeefreakindoo IF Olbermann had been in the tank for Hillary...or God forbid McCain. Selective outrage is a very Liberal trait ;-)
Selective outrage is a very liberal trait? HAHAHAHA!!! That's a joke to me. Like Bible thumping Republicans don't get all hushy-poo when members of their party are caught soliciting male on male sex in public bathrooms, yet want to tell everyone else how to live their lives. I have conservative views, I have liberal views. Please don't try to fit me in your box.
But in reference to the rest of your post, I think it's just a difference in perception. You perceive MSNBC to be giving fair coverage or slanted coverage to Obama and I don't. Where I will say you are flat out wrong is in regards to Pat B. This man called Obama "exotic" on prime time television. Seriously? "Exotic?" He makes racist comments all the time and it's given a pass because he's Pat B. Jeter you're intelligent and I'm not just massaging your ego. If a hateful person makes intelligent remarks, does it make him any less hateful. Many of the dictators throughout history were intelligent; didn't make them any less murderous. Pat B. is actively promoting white women to procreate more to keep up with the growing minority population. Now I don't know what your race is and I don't care. If it were a black person, spanish person, buddhist, Muslim, gay or whatever other classification you could think of OTHER THAN WHITE CHRISTIAN MALE, they'd be labeled a radical militant. So why is MSNBC still cutting checks for this racist?!?
August,
I see more selective outrage among Libs than Cons, or at least moderate Cons, such as myself. I will go after either Lib or Con if I think they have done something outrageous. I just don't see that with most Libs. They tend to ignore or excuse bad behavior. Keep in mind I'm talking about the posters here, as well as pundits/media. Politicians are a whole other category. They will spin it, deny it. Both sides do it.
I have conservative views, I have liberal views. Please don't try to fit me in your box.
Then you & I have a lot in common. I call myself a moderate Con, but in reality I'm more of a Centrist. My views lean left or right depending on the issues & I don't fit into one ideology box.
But in reference to the rest of your post, I think it's just a difference in perception. You perceive MSNBC to be giving fair coverage or slanted coverage to Obama and I don't.
August are you voting for Obama? If you are, then maybe your perception is skewed a tad. Now I'm not saying that to be a jerk. I'm not voting for McCain. I'm still contemplating Obama. Had Hillary won, I probably would have voted for her. But as of this moment, I'm not sure what I'm doing. I might sit it out. Now that doesn't necessarily mean my perception is clearer than yours, but then again, since I have no dog in the hunt, maybe, just maybe, I'm a tad more non-partisan when viewing the going ons at MSNBC.
Where I will say you are flat out wrong is in regards to Pat B. This man called Obama "exotic" on prime time television.
I heard Pat say that. And I'll admit I cringed because I thought it was racially charged. But then I heard that Obama had referred to his upbringing as "exotic":
‘’I have an unusual name and an exotic background, but my values are essentially American values,'’ Mr. Obama said in 2004, shortly after his election to the Senate. ‘’I'm rooted in the African-American community, but I’m not limited by it.'’
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/obama-is-exotic-but-to-each-a-different-way/
This does not excuse Buchanan for using the word because Pat has a checkered history concerning race. But Obama did bring the word into the conversation, so I'm not entirely shocked others are using it.
Pat Buchanan is an intelligent man. And no that doesn't mean he doesn't hold some hateful views. I don't know that I'd classify him as a "militant". Do I agree with his views? On occasion. Depends on the topic. For example he was against the Iraq War. He doesn't believe the USA should invade sovereign nations to wage a preemptive war. I agreed with him on that. But I reject anything that even borders on racist.
I'm one of those White guys, but I'm not deaf, dumb, or blind to the fact that racism still exists in this country.
God forbid, MSNBC should talk about policy.
I distinctly remember the networks (not sure about the newspapers) devoting a significant amount of airtime to Jimmy Carter changing the side he parted his hair on way back when he was Pres.