In Defense of Senator Clinton
The opening segment of this weekend's On the Media broadcast touched on a subject that's baffled and frustrated me for sixteen years now - the media's Clinton coverage and the public's response to it.
For eight years, the mainstream press gleefully repeated false, ad hominem attacks against both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Depending on the month, they were money launderers, extortionists, murderers, liars, cheaters, sexual/social deviants... the list goes on (after all, eight years is a lot of space to fill with false charges). And when they weren't parroting bald and baseless accusations, the mainstream press was making snide remarks about the pair's supposed politicking, about their private relationship, or about their theoretical hidden agendas.
Congress spent more than $80 million in taxpayer dollars investigating these charges, and never found a thing. Two special prosecutors overturned every single rock, and came back empty-handed. Did the press report that? Technically yes. But, it never made the kind of headlines that the accusations made, and the general public was left with, at worst, a sense of impropriety, at best, Clinton fatigue.
After Clinton left office, the press soldiered on with its attacks. Remember all of those reports about the Clinton administration trashing the White House and Air Force One on their way out? All false. Congress spent another few million bucks digging into that one.
Along with millions of other Americans who still supported President Clinton after his impeachment (approval rating of 73%), I asked myself, "what the fuck?!"
In 2000, Hillary Clinton became Senator Clinton, representing my great state of New York. In 2006, she was re-elected by a landslide, carrying many of the traditionally Republican counties upstate. Why? Because she listened, she worked hard, and she transcended false perceptions to get real things done for real people. She is, as anyone in or covering the Senate will readily admit, a workhorse and a Senator worthy of respect. Before her Presidential campaign began (and the media trash talking came back in earnest), she enjoyed a 72% approval rating, including half of the State's registered Republicans.
The average approval rating for a Senator is 53%.
Is any of that being reported during her Presidential run? Of course not. In the past few weeks alone, we've seen flat out repugnant mainstream coverage of the Clinton campaign.
During the ABC News debates before the NH primary, every major press outlet spun an exchange she had with Senator Edwards as an example of her being "shrill" or "losing her cool" or "getting angry." Anyone who actually watched the debate knew that hers was an excellent, even-keeled response to the empty-headed sound-byte politics of the moment. Don't believe me? Did you watch the debate?
When Senator Clinton showed emotion in the day before the NH primary, every single publication and broadcast spun it as her crying under pressure. The headlines were disgusting. "Hilllary Gets Teary," "Hill Weary And Teary," "Hillary's Soft Side: Cold, Calculated, Crying." Hey you - public: Watch the video and make your own call. I think it was a very real exchange (where ZERO tears were shed, by the way).
President Clinton, stumping for his wife last week, called the media meme of Obama's steadfast and vocal disapproval of the Iraq War "a fairy tale." Senator Clinton, in a separate conversation, noted that Martin Luther King Jr did not achieve civil rights reform on his on, that he had a partner in President Johnson. Immediately, the media spun these two remarks as racially coded, which set off a maelstrom of anti-Clinton rhetoric from the Black community. Bullshit, all of it. Listen to the full quotes. Listen to the context. You will see.
I am not a supporter of Senator Clinton's Presidential aspirations. But the media's consistent disrespect and appalling misrepresentation of her campaign are causing me to re-examine that. She *has* been an agent of change for 35 years. She *has* served my state of New York well. She *has* earned the respect and admiration of her Senate colleague on both sides of the isle for the work she's done there. She *has* been tested on the international stage. Why am I - and so many others who seek a more progressive platform - so dismissive of her?
In my case, I think it sadly boils down to what I've been writing about here: A President has to unite. A President has to inspire. A President has to achieve. And as long as the media continues to go full bore against Senator Clinton, she will never, ever have the opportunity to do this. She will always be fighting false charges. She will always be refuting ridiculous and irrelevant attacks - or ignoring them and seeing her silence dominate press coverage. We cannot have a leader that's hamstrung like this.
For eight years, the mainstream press gleefully repeated false, ad hominem attacks against both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Depending on the month, they were money launderers, extortionists, murderers, liars, cheaters, sexual/social deviants... the list goes on (after all, eight years is a lot of space to fill with false charges). And when they weren't parroting bald and baseless accusations, the mainstream press was making snide remarks about the pair's supposed politicking, about their private relationship, or about their theoretical hidden agendas.
Congress spent more than $80 million in taxpayer dollars investigating these charges, and never found a thing. Two special prosecutors overturned every single rock, and came back empty-handed. Did the press report that? Technically yes. But, it never made the kind of headlines that the accusations made, and the general public was left with, at worst, a sense of impropriety, at best, Clinton fatigue.
After Clinton left office, the press soldiered on with its attacks. Remember all of those reports about the Clinton administration trashing the White House and Air Force One on their way out? All false. Congress spent another few million bucks digging into that one.
Along with millions of other Americans who still supported President Clinton after his impeachment (approval rating of 73%), I asked myself, "what the fuck?!"
In 2000, Hillary Clinton became Senator Clinton, representing my great state of New York. In 2006, she was re-elected by a landslide, carrying many of the traditionally Republican counties upstate. Why? Because she listened, she worked hard, and she transcended false perceptions to get real things done for real people. She is, as anyone in or covering the Senate will readily admit, a workhorse and a Senator worthy of respect. Before her Presidential campaign began (and the media trash talking came back in earnest), she enjoyed a 72% approval rating, including half of the State's registered Republicans.
The average approval rating for a Senator is 53%.
Is any of that being reported during her Presidential run? Of course not. In the past few weeks alone, we've seen flat out repugnant mainstream coverage of the Clinton campaign.
I am not a supporter of Senator Clinton's Presidential aspirations. But the media's consistent disrespect and appalling misrepresentation of her campaign are causing me to re-examine that. She *has* been an agent of change for 35 years. She *has* served my state of New York well. She *has* earned the respect and admiration of her Senate colleague on both sides of the isle for the work she's done there. She *has* been tested on the international stage. Why am I - and so many others who seek a more progressive platform - so dismissive of her?
In my case, I think it sadly boils down to what I've been writing about here: A President has to unite. A President has to inspire. A President has to achieve. And as long as the media continues to go full bore against Senator Clinton, she will never, ever have the opportunity to do this. She will always be fighting false charges. She will always be refuting ridiculous and irrelevant attacks - or ignoring them and seeing her silence dominate press coverage. We cannot have a leader that's hamstrung like this.
Labels: Politics
posted by isaacjosephson at 10:15 AM
1 Comments:
ha, i actually agree. i like hillary a lot. my fear is she wouldn't be able to get anything done primarily because of the hate she'd face from republicans. they have so much hate towards the clintons, they got a great president impeached. over a blowjob. it's insane. if it weren't for that, i'd be more likely to vote for her.
Post a Comment
<< Home