The Political Voices of Women

Opinion and Commentary of Over 500 Women Political Bloggers

Entries Comments



Was There a “Media Assault” on Hillary Clinton?

7 August, 2008 (13:59) | Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, bloggers, blogging, democrats, election, election 2008, feminism, journalism, media, news, opinion, politics, women, working moms | By: Catherine Morgan

Here is a guest post by community member, Deb Della Piana, from Turn LeftHillary’s Ugly Run.

I’ve waited to write a recap of the Hillary Clinton campaign until the feeding frenzy was over. In nearly every article I read, the author was quick to point out that it wasn’t the media’s horrible treatment of Hillary Clinton that caused her to lose. It was Hillary herself. I agree for the most part. However, the reporters and pundits who had a field day attacking Hillary Clinton on personal grounds rather than policy issues do not get a bye on this one. Maybe they can justify their actions in their own small minds, bit I do not think we should. Women, in particular, should view this as part of a broader attack on our participation in government. Here are some of the more brilliant comments issued during the Clinton campaign that represent an affront to all women:

“There’s just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing and scary.”
-Tucker Carlson

“Mrs. Clinton’s testicle lockbox is big enough for the entire Democrat hierarchy, not just some people in the media.”
-Rush Limbaugh

“The reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.”
-Chris Matthews

Now, if you can believe it, all of these political hacks have their own shows. That’s right. Somebody considers these gentlemen (and I use the term loosely) worthy of broadcast status. However, nobody ever said they appealed to anyone’s intellectual side and it is certainly clear that the three of them have issues with women in general that they projected onto Hillary Clinton.

If you want to talk about the fact that Hillary Clinton was one of the members of the Senate who saw fit to give President Bush unprecedented war powers as a reason she should not be elected, then I’m behind you. That’s one of the reasons why she wasn’t my number one candidate. If you don’t agree with Clinton’s immigration policy, then by all means call her to task. If you think her economic policy is doomed to fail, then say so. However, the line should be drawn when the banter borders on verbal abuse. The fact is that Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews would never treat John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney with such utter disrespect and disdain.

When NBC Political Director Chuck Todd was asked if the media covered Clinton fairly he said, “You can only cover the campaign that is in front of you. And the fact is the campaign that was in front of us was one that was being presented as somebody who was running for Bill Clinton’s third term.” Honestly, Todd should consider going into politics because his answer had nothing to do with the actual question he was asked. If the media raised this issue, one could at least argue against that premise. You could argue that Hillary Clinton was her own person. However, let’s take this comment at face value because even this is a bunch of blarney.

Many will argue, myself included, that John McCain is running George Bush’s third term campaign. How do we know that? John McCain is in 100% voting agreement with George Bush over the last year from tax cuts, to war funding, to torture and beyond. His campaign employs high-powered lobbyists and fund-raisers, many of who worked on the Bush campaigns. You know, the guys he has taken a public stand against. Neither NBC nor any of the other mainstream media have chosen to address these issues. Instead, they insist on presenting John McCain as an anti-Washington, straight-talking, special-interest-battling maverick. Hillary Clinton would never have been given such a break by the media.

Rather than discuss her policies and positions, the media focused on such pressing national issues as her cleavage, her wrinkles, or her choice of clothing. Prior to the Democratic primary kick-off, Fox News Channel conducted focus groups to determine what kind of campaign the voters wanted to see from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Fox consultant, Frank Luntz, was aiming high on the intelligence scale when he conducted these focus groups. “How many of you want to see them really argue,” he asked. “And, how many of you want them to make love to each other?” Can anybody figure out what’s wrong with that picture? It’s no wonder then that we have men in the audience at Hillary Clinton events yelling, “Iron my shirt!” The media’s total lack of responsibility in presenting objections to Clinton’s presidency in fair, balanced and truthful terms goes a long way toward fostering such a bigoted response from the general male population.

When you put the pieces of the anti-Hillary media coverage puzzle together, it is pretty obvious that the majority of the bashing comes from conservative news outlets and commentators. Now, I understand that people will argue that point where Chris Matthews is concerned. He did work for Jimmy Carter and Tip O’Neill. That was then, however, and this is now. Matthews admitted voting for George Bush in 2000, and he has done absolutely nothing but present the president in the most respectful, glowing, positive terms, no matter what transgressions the man has committed. The popular misconception that Matthews is from the ‘liberal media’ gives MSNBC an advantage, allowing the network to present itself as being balanced.

Those who employ the ilk of Matthews, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Carlson are conspicuous by their silence. Of course, the mainstream media has been thoroughly ‘corporatized’ and aren’t the least bit interested in being credible news outlets. Those days are gone. When David Schuster made a degrading remark about the Clinton’s “pimping out” Chelsea to campaign for her mother, MSNBC apologized and gave Schuster a token suspension. However, they allowed mad dog Matthews to remain on the loose to regularly attack Hillary Clinton on everything but the issues. While she was actively campaigning for the presidency, his fixation on Clinton neared obsessive proportions.

And while we’re talking about the flak the Clintons took for having Chelsea campaign, let’s remember that Mitt Romney employed all of his children in his bid for the White House. While he was actively campaigning for the presidency, Romney was asked why his children weren’t serving their country in Iraq instead of campaigning for their father. Romney’s answer was steeped in sheer entitlement and arrogance. According to Romney, his sons were indeed serving their country by helping their father get elected. The mainstream media barely mentioned Romney’s comment, even though it was worthy of a thrashing for its total lack of sensitivity for the families whose members are in harm’s way every day fighting a war that is both unjustified and illegal.

The media’s assault on Hillary Clinton started months ago back in Iowa. They were calling for her to quit then. She showed true grit and determination for many months beyond that and, frankly, whether or not she was your choice for president, you should be proud of her efforts as a woman competing in what has historically been a man’s world. In the final analysis, Barack Obama didn’t win by a landslide. He didn’t embarrass Hillary Clinton. In fact, neither would have gotten to the necessary delegate count without the superdelegates thrown in. Carol Jenkins, president of The Women’s Media Center, said of Clinton, “All women have gained from her ability to go the distance and not be turned into a quitter.” Jenkins also rightfully pointed out that each woman would have to judge for herself whether or not she’d be willing to go through what Hillary Clinton went through.

Also See:

What Does Hillary Want?

Comments

Comment from Randy
Time: August 7, 2008, 5:13 pm

The fact is that the “unbiased” Media went after Hillary like a pack of wolves!

My fellow Americans, please remember who pays the media’s bills … “large corporations”

The media is a direct reflection of corporate interests. And, Barack Obama is bought and paid for. Look at “all of the flip-flops” by Obama over the last 2 months.

Yeah, the media is guilty of “smear” tactics… no doubt!

Comment from Mark Hoefling
Time: August 9, 2008, 12:17 am

Re: Senator Edwards
From all the news coverage tonight I didn’t hear one word on the question of whether Senator Obama wins the nomination if Senator Edward tells the truth last year when the story broke.
Does anyone really believe that Senator Clinton looses the Iowa caucuses if Senator Edwards is not in the race, especially after the landslide of working class voters who supported Senator Clinton after Senator Edwards left the race?
And what of the value of the Edwards endorsement, the timing of which stepped all over an important moment for Senator Clinton.
So all of the above leads to the question of motive. Was it just revenge for perceived slights during the 2004 campaign? Will some one at least try to find out?
And finally, exactly how hard did the media investigate the Edwards story when it mattered.
I find it hard to believe that if the story was reversed, the “What if” questions and investigation of motive would not have been a center point of the story.
Fraud has been committed against the members of the Democratic Party potentially resulting in an illegitimate nominee. But not one word uttered about it.

Comment from Lois Hutson
Time: August 12, 2008, 10:30 pm

If seeking the Presidency is about wanting what is best for the whole …. that is to say, the fair representation of all of the people ALL of the people, the goal would be to place a Democratic candidate in office. Anytime a front runner cannot get past his/her/their ego issues … they place all of us in danger of another 4 years of Republican inequity. I have held a high respect for the Clintons, however, it remains to be seen how they go down in my personal history book.