On July 25, The Washington Post published a user comment from its website attacking Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) following the most recent Democratic presidential debate: “Hillary is so calculating, she is almost robotic. ... And Obama?? I'm still waiting. Other than an excellent cheerleader, who is he???” The comment was written in response to a July 24 entry by staff writer Dan Balz on the Post's presidential politics blog, The Trail. The comment was then published in the July 25 edition of the Post in a new section also titled “The Trail.” The section did not feature any other comments from The Trail blog, although numerous other comments to Balz's entry complimented Clinton and Obama. As Media Matters for America has documented media outlets frequently portray Clinton as “calculating” or overly ambitious, while rarely offering actual examples or support. Moreover, Media Matters has also documented media baselessly suggesting that Obama is “all style and little substance.”

From the print version of “The Trail”:

“Hillary is so calculating, she is almost robotic. ... And Obama?? I'm still waiting. Other than an excellent cheerleader, who is he???”

-- “jillcinta”

A posted comment on Monday's debate

This criticism of Clinton and Obama by “jillcinta” appeared in the comments section of Balz's July 24 blog post analyzing the two Democratic senators' debate performances. However, while the Post chose to publish two sentences criticizing Obama and Clinton, the comment also contained praise of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE). Following is the full text of the comment, with the sentences published by the Post in bold:

I am so tired of you pundits talking about Hillary and Obama. Hillary is so calculating, she is almost robotic. Except for the brief moment when Biden called her out on not telling the truth on Iraq and her vote against funding MRAPs.

She was pale as a ghost. She knew Biden was right.

Biden was the winner of the debate last nite. He is the only candidate that is ready to move into the WH tomorrow. He is capable of getting things done. He is winning the online polls about who is the most knowledgeable.

Things were great in the Clinton era -- but they did little for foreign relations. and this election is first about foreign affairs.

And Obama?? I'm still waiting. Other than an excellent cheerleader, who is he???

Posted by: jillcinta | July 24, 2007 03:27 PM

Furthermore, the Post decided to publish only this comment in its print edition, despite the fact that 44 other comments to Balz's blog post appeared online as of 8 p.m. ET on July 24, many of which contained positive reactions to Obama and Clinton. For example, praise of Clinton:

In my opinion, Hilary Clinton won the debate hands down. She demanded the attention of the audience, having the strongest stage presence and the most thought-out and well articulated responses. Yet, I would have liked to see all the candidates address the United States' commitment to the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025. Indeed, it is estimated that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion annually would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. In a time when the current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach and it is my hope that whoever becomes president in 2008 addresses this pressing issue.

Posted by: emh8k | July 24, 2007 07:28 PM

Praise of Obama:

I have a different interpretation than some readers of Clinton's response to the question of meeting with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. My interpretation is that it is not a question of IF such meetings would be 'spun' for political advantage, but WHAT the spin would be at that moment in time. Spin on both sides is unavoidable. But it might be possible to avoid unintentionally making things worse by blundering into a meeting whose perception after the fact is not what you imagined it would be.

That having been said, however, I can't imagine that Obama would be any less careful of this than Clinton. So the distinction being drawn between the two candidates' responses seems a little fine to me.

Posted by: elizabeth.elzer | July 24, 2007 02:35 PM

Praise of both Obama and Clinton:

Hilary's service as First Lady isn't relevant experience, but her participation as a key advisor to the president on numerous initiatives (beyond just health care) is ... remember Bill said “two for the price of one” even while campaigning ... and it's certainly better experience for an executive branch job than eight years in a state legislature.

Don't forget everyone, you don't have to choose one or the other ... after Obama gains experience and shows us more of himself, he'll be highly electable in 2016 still. Why not embrace a strategy for 16 years of Democratic presidency?

Posted by: kemurph | July 24, 2007 03:13 PM

Political Jihad? Calculating and robotic? Guessing how President Hillary Clinton might have handled Katrina? All this rampant speculation and it's as if you people know her and her policies. It seems that you already have an agenda of “hate” for the lady without even listening to her. You are quick to flog her for allegedly flip flopping, but “beginning diplomatic talks” is basically what she said last night, were you listening? You want the freshness of Obama, with the experience of Richardson, minus the flash of Edwards. Some idiot hates the Clintons so much and is upset that the former president is making money speaking and operating his foundation (along with Bush Sr. I should point out). So is it your position that anyone that can afford it, should not take any money from social security, or any other government subsidy, right? LOL, what a loon ... And to the yahoo that feels that since 40% of America “hates” Ms. Clinton, she should not win the democratic primary ... look with the likes of Arthur Branch, America's Mayor and the Hero representing the Republican party, I foresee 8 years of President Clinton and potentially 8 years of Edwards or Obama after her.

Posted by: cave_mann | July 24, 2007 06:30 PM