Clinton gets misty — coverage called 'ridiculous'

I think that's part of it. And, I mean, seriously, Bill, if Hillary wanted to raise those questions, she had an invitation to go on MTP just like all the other candidates. She declined. You really can't cry foul.

And I don't see many talking heads pointing out that Obama has more time in elected office than Hillary or Edwards. Granted, that's likely because none of the campaigns are steering them in that direction, but come on.

 

I would argue that most are centrists. Liberal on some positions, conservative on others. Saying liberal/conservative isn't much different than red state/blue state.
Most aren't to the extreme either way but depending on which way they go on certain key positions and you get tagged liberal or conservative.

I think the thing that is interesting about Hillary and getting misty is that my paper has a reporter there and it got no mention in his story, the papers in New Hampshire didn't bother with it either, yet in the national media, it got huge play.
From the outside looking in, it appears that Millbank had it right when he said the press corps had their knives ready for the first moment of Clinton weakness.

And, first off, Clinton didn't cry. Secondly, didn't Mitt the Mormon also have a teary-eyed moment on Meet the Press a couple weeks back?
I know people who know Hillary personally and to a person they all say that the steely-eyed bitch label is a media creation. She just isn't that way in person. Same can be said of the stiff Al Gore, who was, by the way, hilarious in Futurama.
But he's stiff. Hillary's a bitch. So it goes.

 

That may very well be the case, but the general perception of her is still much the opposite.

And the Clinton camp has known this was a huge issue for her and had 4 years to fix or address it, and they have failed to do so.

 

For six months, the storyline was how disciplined and how structured the HRC campaign was. "She doesn't make mistakes," it went. "She never strays from her message," they said. "She's running a razor-sharp race and she's being taken seriously by voters," it concluded.

Now people have the nerve to say how unfair the press is to the Clintons?

The Clintons need to understand something: When Bill ran in 1992, he was the outsider. He represented change. He was fresh and different and charismatic. He was different than the establishment.

Like it or not, the Clintons ARE THE ESTABLISHMENT now. There's no way to argue differently. They're not the establishment in terms of the party in power. But they're rich and famous and we've deconstructed their motives, marriage, message for 15 years now. She doesn't have the charisma to overcome the fact that she's part of the rich and powerful. (Not to mention: boring.) Being a woman isn't enough. Instead of blaming voters for not embracing your message, how about you get a new fucking message?

 

Well, yeah.
The key questions being has the press actually been unfair and have they made statements that would give the appearance of being out to get Hillary?
It would appear from the local coverage as compared to the national coverage, Hillary is been treated unfairly by the national press corps.
And it wasn't like I made up what Millbank said on CNN.

Now, for comparison's sake, what would have been the coverage if Obama had been heckled with "pick my cotton" signs at a debate like Hillary catching the "iron my shirt" line?

 

I have a really hard time when people say the media is hard on "The Clintons"

The media loves Bill.

 

WFW.

Jay, Milbank raises a good point, but Bill's critique is just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Yesterday he was trotting out the "If she was taller and younger and male..." bullshit.

Guess what, Bill? John Edwards is taller, younger and male. And he ain't beating Obama right now, either.

 

Everyone loves Bill. Except the crazies. He's a likable guy. He connects.

 

Jay said that? Really?

Welcome to the board. It's an honor to have the Emir of Cretinistan posting around here.

 

I look forward to getting my passport stamped when I go to Cretinistan.

 

So Jay, when the Washington Post wrote a "Is he really Muslim, despite what he says?" story and slapped it on their front page, was that unfair? When numerous magazines and newspapers asked the question, "Is he black enough?" and when the Sun-Times asked if both Barak and Michelle Obama were "black enough" because they were middle class and went to Ivy League schools, was that unfair? Was it unfair when everyone wrote about John Edwards $400 haircut and made jokes about it on late night TV shows?

Milbank can say whatever he wants; it doesn't make it so. He doesn't speak for the national press corps. More than anyone, the Clintons should know that the press can be fickle. If they thought they were going to get nothing but rosy coverage while everyone was savaged because they've already been through their wars, they must have blocked out a lot of stuff from 1991-2004.

I honestly don't know what the coverage would have been had people shouted "Pick my cotton" at Obama. I can't explain a hypothetical. But if you want me to theorize what mike have happened, I'll say I'd bet Obama would deftly made it into a joke or ad libbed that "Those two men show we've still got a long way to go, but I know we're going to get there" and probably handled it better than Hillary did when she stiffly said "sexism was still alive and well." Or he might have just ignored them, and maybe the press would have too. But by address it, she made it an issue. He handles himself better than she does when he goes off-script. That's hard to deny.

 

Even though I disagree with Clinton on most things and think his morals/ethics are pretty low, I'd enjoy having a beer and shooting the shit with him for a night.