Blame The Media
Blame the media. Because this stand-off between the Dem candidates is our fault. And certainly, it's easier to pitch a negative message under the guise of a request for proper vetting by the fourth estate than it is to simply slam a rival. But slam they are.
Cue today's round of Bash The Media, during which Barack Obama's campaign started down the path perfected by Clinton's crew over the last week:
David Axelrod: "The point we want to raise is that the vetting of Hillary Clinton has yet to start and that the hard questions haven’t been asked of Sen. Clinton. And as I said yesterday, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. We think that there ought to be the same standard held to both candidates. And we ought to start on the issue of the release of tax returns. Sen. Clinton has been very elusive on this subject throughout this campaign. ... They’ve talked about change you can Xerox. You can Xerox your tax returns. There’s not a whole lot of preparation necessary for that."
Seriously? The Obama campaign is going to co-opt Hillary Clinton's message that the media is boo hoo unfair? How is that going to work? Maybe next weekend we'll see him on SNL, too ...
(JENNIFER SKALKA)
There has been a double standard -- it's the media's lack of interest in reviewing the scandals of the Clinton years, even though many people weren't paying attention the first time, and there are millions of new voters who weren't here then. I agree with Kate O'Beirne, who wrote: "The media has been tougher on Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama, but not tough enough. Has anyone asked her campaign about Hillary's partnerships of the past? Her real estate partner was Jim McDougal — a convicted felon. Her law partner was Web Hubbell — a convicted felon. Clinton campaign donors racked up countless guilty pleas to illegal contributions."
I am sorry, but all day the media has talked as if last night was a huge win. In reality, last night officially made it impossible for Clintonto win the pledged delegates. She would have to win the remaining delegates by 65%. This means winning EVERY STATE 70% to 30%.
The media hasn't even talked about this today. So for one day at least, you are all blatantly biased.
Blame the media. Because this stand-off between the Dem candidates is our fault.
Tell me this is a weak attempt at humor. Because yes, the media is very much at fault.
Walter Shorenstein, founder of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University (and Hillary Clinton supporter), penned a memo about the unprofessional and biased coverage of the Democratic party primary race between Clinton and Obama.
Perhaps you've heard about this. But I'm guessing not:
The stakes are so high – for our security, our economy, our health care, our future and our
country. There is too much on the line for the media to ignore important issues while
they obsess about Hillary’s hairdo or Barack’s baritone.
Is it in the country’s best interest that voters received far more information about
Hillary’s laugh than Obama’s legislative record? Is it good for our nation that more
attention is paid to the differences in their speaking style than their healthcare plans?
Our democracy depends upon the fourth estate to fulfill the uniquely critical role of
informing voters about the important issues facing our nation – yet far too often, the
campaign coverage has been biased, blasé, or baseless.
Here is Shorenstein’s memo with supporting documentation.
not sure exactly what the author's problem is but when at last nights Hillary rally her supporters chant and have signs saying "Yes We Will" - you can say Obama "co-opting" any thing Clinton might say without cracking up??
"Seriously? The Obama campaign is going to co-opt Hillary Clinton's message that the media is boo hoo unfair? How is that going to work? Maybe next weekend we'll see him on SNL, too ..."
Thanks for making Axelrod's point, Jennifer. You are more concerned about the "tactic" they are employing than the very legitimate question of why Hillary is allowed to skate on releasing her tax returns.
I think the media just assumed Hillary was going to lose, so they didn't bother to do any review of Hillary Clinton's record since she took office in 2001. Well...if she considers herself a viable candidate for her party's nomination, start vetting. Or prove that Hillary's whining paid off.
I certainly think Democratic voters in Pennsylvania have a right to know whether Hillary is hiding something, or whether there is something in her tax records that would make an east target for the Republicans. And I don't mean after they vote.
corinne
are you aware Shorenstein is a major Clinton fundraiser?
are you also aware the center is named after him because he PAID for it not because he has any credibility as a policy person?
are you aware Walter Shorenstein is on the board of Bill Clinton's Global Initiative?
are you saying anything he writes is valid?
Alison, are you aware that I did identify Shorenstein as a Hillary Clinton supporter in my original post? Go back and read.
Bring on the media:
I lived in Canada for 10 years because of my position as CEO for an international NGO. I continue to follow both the French and English media. There is a STORM in their parliament over the so-called NAFTA-gate that seriously affected the Tuesday primaries. Clearly the prime minister's chief of staff in remarks to the press first mentioned the Clinton campaign as downplaying the seriousness of her anti-NAFTA speeches. This is Clinton politics that must be exposed and countered by Senator Obama's campaign. Make her pay for condemning his campaign for what hers also did. No doubt this cost Senator Obama many votes. It is truth-telling, not negativity, to expose such a hypocritical move on the part of Senator Clinton. Get THIS on to page one media!