Hillary vs. The New Republic and the rest of the media

If you think the media has changed its MO of building up Barack Obama and tearing down Hillary Clinton since the famous SNL sketch, check out the current issue of The New Republic

I'm beginning to wonder whether this isn't a disservice to both candidates.

In the issue, Jonathan Chait describes Obama as "an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate."  Fair enough, but he also describes Clinton in the same sentence as "cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness."

That's only after Chait has warmed up by calling Clinton "a wildly polarizing figure;" saying that her "path to the nomination is pretty repulsive;" and contending that she has engaged in a "trial-by-smear method" against Obama.

What is Chait's evidence for all of this?  He mentions only that Clinton said (gasp) that John McCain might be more qualified to be president than Obama and that her response as to whether Obama is a Muslim was "oddly qualified." Wow, for that she is labeled as "repulsive" and "Nixonian," while Obama is inspiring, reform-minded, young.

Chait's piece, by the way, continues a theme of the magazine's editorial in the same issue that admonishes Clinton for the "relish not previously seen in this race" with which she has attacked Obama.  In other words, stop campaigning hard against him; you might hurt him and you're not going to win anyway.  Is this really helpful to Obama, to put him up on a pedestal, from which we know that, sooner or later, the media, and The New Republic, are going to knock him down?

The Obama love, by the way, continues in the current issue of the magazine, in a piece by Michelle Cottle, subtitled "Why Michelle Obama is no Hillary Clinton."  The love is transferred to Michelle, whom Cottle describes as "a hybrid model" of First Lady: "...a fresh, modern exterior wrapped around a fundamentally traditional core--which, for the purposes of her husband's campaign, seems to me the best of all possibilities."

Clinton, on the other hand, is described by Cottle as "a fierce symbol of feminism," and as more "alien" and less "sympathetic" than Michelle Obama.

Finally, in the same issue, Michael Crowley describes Barack Obama's "signature cool" in the face of attacks by McCain, and notes his "skill, so evident in the primaries, at shrugging off shots from his opponents."  He quotes an unnamed Senate Democratic aide as saying it reminded him of "'the way he has handled attcks from Hillary in the debates.'"

This is all in one issue of one magazine. There is no question for me that Clinton is swimming against a media tide.



Display:


Most americans agree... (1.00 / 3)

Hillary basically has spent $150 million to shift her public image from someone who 50% of Americans hate, to someone that 75% of Americans hate.

If I were a donor, I'd ask for my money back.


by Sinbad Sinbad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:50:23 AM EST

Re: Most americans agree... (2.00 / 2)

Well, given that Hillary and Obama have almost identical unfavorable ratings, and given the Obama has even higher unfavorable ratings than Hillary among registered Democrats, what does that say about your preferred candidate and the copious millions of dollars wasted so far on his candidacy?


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:04:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most americans agree... (2.00 / 1)

Ooooooh, don't go there ... you might be labelled a racist.

(Ooooops, did I just go there?  Am I a racist now too?)


by Sieglinde on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:05:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 2)


good point!  and you made me chuckle too.

btw:

Geraldine Ferarro also said that Walter Mondale chose her for a running mate in no small part BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN.

Was Ferarro sexist for saying that?

p.s.  Axelrod is the new Rove.


by moevaughn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:43:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary vs. The New Republic and the rest (1.50 / 2)

If Hillary would have stuck with positive ads instead of negative ads and tearing down Obama she might be ahead in delegates right now.


by Spanky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:54:54 AM EST

pointing out her relatively superior experience (2.00 / 1)

is the substantive approach. You can't win elections unless you tell voters why you're better than the other candidate. Your friendly advice is a guaranteed loser.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:16:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary vs. The New Republic and the rest of t (none / 0)

This whole primary 'thing' is getting boring now. Yes it is a historic campaign, yes it has been fantastic for the party.
But I don't know about you, i'm getting fatigue. Obama has clearly won. It's time to put this whole charade over and get behind him.

HRC is waiting for a miracle messiah moment and it's now just a bore.


McBush: ''Doesnt' know that much about economics''
by PrinceCA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:01:35 AM EST

Go read up on the latest Britney scandal (2.00 / 1)

Meanwhile, the people of Pennsylvania want their voices heard.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:18:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent post! (2.00 / 1)

As always, a temporary respite from the mindless hate is dailyhowler.com. And Somerby has so-o-o much material these days. His analysis yesterday of Orlando Patterson NYTimes embarrassment is priceless.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:15:13 AM EST

Chait's New Republic column is here: (none / 0)

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=b40fea24-efee-4d3c-99f3-b824e787539e


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:26:37 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.