Media Bias?

Obama may have been the media darling for a while--I'm willing to concede that he was in a number of different places/networks/etc. But the PA debate last week should have you question how sound that was, granted that ABC was clearly pretty awful in just about every imaginable way. But even so, whether you think the debate was biased or not, how can you even remotely endorse that question about patriotism? That was a cheap trick. I wonder if Karl Rove wrote the question for George Stephanopolous.

However, I saw an article headline in the NYT today. "Clinton Clearly Outduels Obama in Pennsylvania." Never mind that polls showed him losing there by twenty points only four weeks ago; never mind that he lost by slightly less than ten points; never mind that one good Medill friend tells me that only assholes use adverbs in headlines. What's going to be the headline after North Carolina? "Obama Crushes Clinton in the Tar Heel State?" or "Obama Is New Southern Belle?" No. I'd imagine it will be something like, "Obama Gets Expected Win in North Carolina"--because he's been ahead there forever.

If I were Hillary Clinton's strategist--you know, the one who isn't on the sly promoting sovereign trade deals--I'd be scared, more than anything. She still hasn't come close to explaining the fundraising gap, Barack Obama is ahead by ten points or more nationally, he beats McCain in most head-to-head (granted, these are soft at best), and he eroded ten percent of her supporters in PA. This is hardly cause for victory.

However, she needs to give the speech about how rosy everything is--that she's a fighter, etc. (On another note, it feels like each one of her speeches can be categorized by words she uses too often: we have "experience" speeches, the "fighter" speeches, the "comeback" speeches.) Senator Clinton needs a photo-op with balloons and streamers to prove that she's still relevant in the race, and that she can pitch herself to superdelegates, and all will be righted again. Never mind that she's still trailing substantially in pledged delegates and the popular vote.

And the New York Times will be there to cover it all.

Macho, macho (wo)man?

We're pretty much all political feminists: we believe in the equal rights of women before the law. You won't find anyone worth a damn who thinks otherwise.

Having grown up to a mother who always asserted, and vigorously, that women were not at all intrinsically different from men, I think I overlooked the more moderate way of looking at things. There are inherent differences between men and women. These differences have nothing to do with the law and equality in society, and they don't mean that we can't all be friends.

However, are these differences so concrete that they impact leadership style? Is Hillary Clinton not true to women when she advocates a leadership and campaign style that is considered more obstinately... male?

So I don't know what to think of this talk I hear of Hillary Clinton wanting to be "one of the guys." I really don't know that I buy any of this, but I was curious on your thoughts about this column that Maureen Dowd wrote the other day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24dowd.html?em&ex=1204002000&en=4b989bb5febb28a6&ei=5087%0A