Because nothing much has been posted lately...

...I figured I should at least throw something on. More later after midterm hell. But enjoy:




Have I mentioned that some times the media is stupid?

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.

On Hillary-bashing

At the last college dems meeting, despite my complete lack of technical skillz (sorry again everyone), we managed to discuss issues of media bias in this, as well as past, campaigns. The meeting ended on a discussion of Hillary Clinton's treatment by the news media. Some of us, myself included, argued that Clinton has faced a lot of challenges and discrimination, perhaps surprisingly to some, because she is a woman. Issues brought up were the whole 'cleavage' debacle, talk about her wrinkles, wardrobe, questions about if she's had plastic surgery, criticisms of her voice, demeanor, etc. that I believe frankly wouldn't be issues of discussion if she were a man. Some people at the meeting opposed these assertions.

However, it seems that two Hillary-supporting NYTimes columnists have raised the same concerns about the venom being directed at Hillary Clinton. Stanley Fish and Paul Krugman both wrote columns/blog posts decrying the treatment of their favored candidate. I agree wholeheartedly with both columnists that over-the-top Hillary-hating is ridiculous and absurd.

An important distinction must be made, however, that Fish and Krugman, for their devotion to Hillary, I suppose, fail to make. Both Fish and Krugman seem to imply that there can be no legitimate criticism of Senator Clinton and that supporters of Senator Obama are just suckers for fancy language, and ignorant of the 'dangers of inexperience.' Here I depart from their assessment and take offense.

While it may be easier for Krugman and Fish to paint all those that oppose Hillary with a broad brush, it is also intellectually dishonest and ethically questionable for columnists of their reach and power. It may astonish Krugman and Fish, but it is possible to hold legitimate reasons for disliking Hillary Clinton. Personally, her foreign policy plan and support of healthcare mandates does it for me (not to mention her comment that 'there are certain things presidential candidates cannot say when they are running for office'). See? I accomplished that without any hate or venom! Furthermore, there are many of us that don't just blindly support Senator Obama, but have chosen to support him because we believe his policies and qualifications will serve the country better. I join Krugman and Fish in asking Americans to join in this rational, hate-free discourse, but in making this call, the columnists would do better to avoid the blatant generalizations they so decry in their opposition.

Also, because this post was so serious, I feel the need to lighten it up. Enjoy these blasts from the past: