More Than Four Thousand Readers Respond To Coverage Of Ann Coulter at The Huffington Post

I submit this post today in the spirit of the Reuters feature, Oddly Enough:

The Huffington Post’s banner headline on the front page today, CBS Takes Out the Trash, refers to right-winger Ann Coulter’s appearance on the Early Show this morning. However, I was drawn to Huffpo’s coverage of Coulter’s efforts to promote the obvious drivel in her new book, Guilty, by the stunning number of readers’ comments. At this writing, 4224 people have taken the time to reply.

According to Huffpo’s latest update at 8:55 a.m. ‘“Coulter appeared on CBS's The Early Show where she told anchor Harry Smith that he was her favorite for having her on this morning after The Today Show had canceled her. Smith allowed Coulter to rant, but then pushed her on claims of right-wing victimization and urged her to ‘take a breath.’ He also called her ‘goofy’ and ‘sophomoric.’”

This morning’s update followed Huffpo’s coverage of Coulter’s earlier interactions with the media, including the cancellation of her appearance on the Today Show and mention of the campaign of liberal watchdog Media Matters.org asking, Is NBC Going to Help Coulter Sell This Book?

But the real story here is about Huffpo’s readers:

Evidently not realizing that page views and readers’ comments dictate to a large extent coverage at blogs like Huffington Post, one reader wrote (errors included), “I am staring to get a little cynical about HP. This has been the main story for a long time and is really a non story about a media person. Is HP getting too self absorbed?”

Here are a few additional samples of comments taken off the top:

“I must say she is truly sassy smarmy sub-filth -- even laughing on Alan Colmes' radio show LAST NIGHT -- January 5, 2009 -- that gay people's only need for marriage versus civil right was "to visit each other in the hospital"....OY what a twisted wreck of a human she is.”

“Why do shows continue to host this person?”

“Ann need not look further than Sara Palin and her daughter for evidence that illegitimacy is not a liberal issue.”

“Right, Anne. George Bush is a victim. Right. That's a good one.”

“Good for NBC for cancelling. Really tired of hearing conservatives bash everything that is not them or their ideology. Harry did a good job patronizing her--she looked shrill and deflated by the end of it.”

“That is one psychotic piece of work, that woman is dangerous. One of these days we will read about her and a wild eyed rampage. Who would pay good money to read that garbage,..........another psychotic piece of work of course.”

‘“The controversial author accused the network of orchestrating a "set up to block me from other TV shows." Ah, so tv appearances are an entitlement now for raving heldenshrikes such as Coulter. I did not know that.”’

“Does she own any other clothes? All she ever wears is that black dress with the boots.”

“I'm sure this has already been said, but I liked her much better with her mouth wired SHUT!”

Oops. I just checked and the number of comments is now up to 4447.

Palin and Clinton: facing the two extremes of sexism

From Taggles a comparison between the sexism faced by Hillary Clinton in her presidential run compared to the sexism now face by Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate (reprinted in full):

Extremes of Sexism - Same Results
October 4, 2008

I have been thinking a lot lately about the sexism that Hillary faced in her run for the White House and contrasting it with the sexism that Sarah Palin faces in hers. There is some commonality between the two, but in general there have been two extremes of sexism that can be identified. They are both undermining to women. Here’s how I see it:

Hillary

· Hillary is cold.

· No man would ever want to have sex with Hillary.

· Men are afraid Hillary will castrate them.

· Hillary has too much Washington experience.

· Hillary has too much baggage.

· Hillary was too wonkish.

· Hillary craved power

· Hillary’s old.

· Hillary wears a pantsuit.


Sarah

· Sarah is hot.

· Men want to have sex with Sarah.

· Men are not afraid for their private parts around her.

· Sarah does not have enough Washington experience.

· Sarah has no baggage.

· Sarah’s a beauty queen.

· Sarah’s power is not earned.

· Sarah’s young.

· Sarah wears skirts.


It is all so damaging. All too pervasive. Women are continually clubbed with these biases. Make it stop, please!

The Nation’s Leadership Crisis in Government, Business, and the Media

David Gergen, posting at AC360 (CNN), is calling our attention today to more than a financial crisis; he writes:

“Yesterday’s stunning rejection by the House of Representatives of the financial rescue plan represents one of the clearest signs yet of the deepening leadership problem we are facing as a people.

“The pleas of a President, Congressional leadership, the business community, the press — all were ignored and defied by a majority of Members in the House. The opposition was especially intense among House Republicans, even though the most urgent pleas came from fellow Republicans in the executive branch. Those who voting against a rescue, in my judgment, should be held accountable by voters at the polls this November if the country now endures greater hardships.

“But we should recognize as well that the reason so many voted against the package was that the public has been against it — and in turn, the public has not been persuaded because it has lost trust in our national leadership. And THAT is a serious problem for a democracy — one that deserves more extensive debate about why the breakdown in trust and what can be done about it.”

Gergen goes on to cite recent thought-provoking survey results that point to leadership failures not just in government but in other national institutions as well:

“At Harvard’s Center for Public Leadership, which I have the privilege of directing, we have taken public surveys in each of the past three years measuring confidence in our nation’s leadership. Our surveys have been done in partnership with U.S. News & World Report as well as Yankelovich.

“The results haven’t been pretty. In the fall of 2005, some 65% said we have a leadership crisis in the country. By 2006, the number had risen to 69%. And last fall, no less than 77% declared there was a crisis of leadership. Moreover, 79% said the United States would decline unless we get better leaders.

“Please note that this survey did not reflect just an unhappiness with President George W. Bush. It was widespread across 12 different institutions and leadership groupings. Only the military and the medical profession were given relatively high marks this past fall. Strikingly for purposes of understanding these past few days, the institutions and groups with the lowest levels of confidence were smack in the middle of this financial meltdown. Four of the five lowest rated groups in the index were business, Congress, the executive branch, and the press. No wonder the “leaders” of these institutions had so much trouble persuading the general public about the seriousness of our financial mess.

“What we see today then is a leadership vacuum. And in particular, we are experiencing an interregnum in Washington, a moment when the highest office in the land seems vacant and we are awaiting a new national leader.

“But we cannot assume that a new president, whether Barack Obama or John McCain, can magically wave a wand and solve our problems. It is clear that we need to rebuild leadership in institutions and groups across the board. And unless we do so, America’s greatness as a nation will be severely challenged.

“How should we renew and rebuild our national leadership? That, I hope, will be a conversation in which we can all engage in the days ahead. Your views would be welcome right now. Thank you.”

Hmm, maybe the leadership issue is why I continue to feel uninspired by both the Democratic and Republican tickets in the 2008 presidential race.

Midterms: Failing Grades for Obama, McCain, and the Media

It’s rare to come across a blog post that fairly and objectively grades the performance of both the Republican and Democratic candidates and goes after the media as well. Carl Jeffer’s piece titled Obama-McCain -- They Fail Midterms, Now They Cram Debate Finals accomplishes that feat. Jeffers even nails the media for its misogynist attacks on Palin.

Jeffers writes:

“As we move into this week of the first Presidential Debates, it may be helpful to review how the two candidates for President have fared in the first half of the main fall campaign. In many ways, they have not fared well. And if we are passing out failing grades for performance to date, let's not leave out the media as they certainly deserve that same report card as well.

‘“For John McCain, he came out of his convention with a surprising level of new momentum thanks to his choice of Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate. And in fact, for the first few weeks after the conventions, the McCain campaign defied the media predictions that the ‘Palin’ effect would wear off quickly and her "obvious" experience defects would doom the ticket. Indeed, from strictly the perspective of objective analysis of campaign strategy, if your campaign perceives that the media is out to ‘destroy’ your VP candidate, and if that candidate is creating even more excitement than you are, then it is absolutely good campaign strategy to pair the two of you together on the campaign trail and limit the exposure of your VP pick to a media that you perceive as "lying in wait." And on the campaign Ad front, McCain has done reasonably well in capitalizing on perceived missteps from the Obama campaign, going on the attack, and then getting response ads out quickly.

“But in the most important task the McCain campaign has had and still has, they have not performed up to what is required, and that failure not only gets a poor performance grade, it also bodes poorly for victory in November if McCain does not improve his grades. And what task is that - simply the task of continuing and emphatically making the case that not only is McCain not a third term for George Bush, but that McCain is also a change agent who can bring the American people the kind of change they really need.

‘“For a couple of weeks, the McCain campaign actually seized the momentum on ‘change’ as the Sarah Palin choice enabled them to assert that they would really bring change to Washington. But it seems as if McCain is still reluctant to openly break with George Bush and make a point of saying that he not only opposed many Bush administration policies in the past, but that he has, by choice, elected to go a very different route than President Bush and, in fact, rejects the path of the Bush administration. I simply do not believe he can skate on that issue to Election Day. He will have to make a choice, and if he doesn't, the American people will make that choice for him.

‘“For Barack Obama, it is actually easier to grade his performance. He is simply ‘off message,’ and in an environment where he should have a 10 to 15 point lead (even with the race issue), this election is still a toss-up both overall and in most of the key swing states. That is not good.

‘“I have heard many Obama supporters in the media suggest that he was going to ‘break out’ in mid September just like Ronald Reagan broke out in September of 1980 after being even or behind in the polls because the American people just weren't sure about him. Well, September is almost over, and there clearly is no sign yet of any national voter ‘break out’ to Obama taking place, although the economic bail-out crisis might provide a launch for that occurrence.”’

After several more paragraphs analyzing the campaign, Jeffers gets around to grading the media for which he deserves a round or two of applause:

‘“And finally, the last failing grade must be enthusiastically presented to the media. Frankly, the media has been so determined to destroy Sarah Palin with an ‘every one wants to be the first to succeed in ‘gotcha’ and bring her down approach that if I were the McCain strategists, I would do exactly what they are doing - keep her paired with McCain on the campaign trail and limit her press interviews. If I'm doomed and fated to walk into a Lion's Den of hungry lions and a couple of angry alligators as well, then I'm going to make you throw me in there - I'd be stupid to just waltz on in there on my own. But no surprise here as the general media is determined to help elect Barack Obama President of the United States. That's fine with me - but just be honest about it and stop any pretense that you are giving both candidates fair and equal coverage and treatment. Another ‘F’ midterm grade.

Jeffers concludes:

‘“The second half of the course Term is always the most important. As we now enter the Debate phase of the second half of the Term, let's hope the questions are not about Jeremiah Wright, Alaska Trooper Gate, and ‘how do you personally feel about your opponent.’ Both candidates and the media now need to elevate the level of discourse. If they don't, forget the midterms -- we all fail the course!”’

To read Jeffers’ post in its entirety – it’s well worth it - go here.

The Media’s False Portrayal of the Clintons at the Democratic Convention

If you care at all about the state of journalism in our nation, Eric Boehlert’s piece over at MediaMatters.Org titled The Denver Media Migraine is a must-read for you. Specifically, Boehlert is critiquing the coverage of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, focusing on the portrayal of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Here’s a sample:

‘“How 15,000 credentialed journalists could descend on Denver and produce such unvaryingly weak and shoddy coverage of a staged news event -- and do it with coverage that celebrated sameness and shallowness -- was a sad spectacle that newsrooms nationwide ought to ponder.’”

Boehlert zeroes in on the media’s concerted efforts to create a fictitious storyline to demonize Bill and Hillary Clinton up to the very last moment prior to each of their appearances at which the former president and first lady were both well received by the delegates.”

Boeherlet asks:

‘“And what about Patrick Healy's August 28, page one article about Hillary's address to the convention where Healy reported, in the second paragraph, that she "took steps on Tuesday -- deliberate steps, aides said -- to keep the door open to a future bid for the presidency.; As the Daily Howler noted, there wasn't a single fact or quote in the entire article to back up Healy's fictitious claim that bolstered the ‘ill will’ theme of the article's opening. Was that the kind of Denver gold Keller was hoping for?

“Imagine if a Times reporter filed a front-page story from Beijing about Michael Phelps and inserted a completely unsupported claim up high in the article that made Phelps look petty and selfish. Think Times editors would have printed it?

And what about Times heavy hitter Jill Abramson, who wrote matter-of-factly on Friday that the Monday-through-Wednesday portion of the convention had a theme, and ‘its narrative was [the Clinton] soap opera.’ And specifically, the ‘narrative’ was whether Bill and Hillary would ‘behave themselves’ and ‘embrace Barack Obama.’

“She wrote that after the convention had concluded, after Bill and Hillary Clinton had enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama and after Democrats ended the convention on an historic and united front. Even then, the Times was still pushing the media's beloved narrative of a Clinton ‘soap opera’ and how the two nearly ripped the party in two inside the Pepsi Center.

‘“Question for Abramson: Who pre-selected that ‘soap opera’ narrative? Answer: The press. What actual proof did the press have to support it? Almost none. (Hillary Clinton had already publicly, and formally, endorsed Obama months prior to the convention.) I suspect if a truth serum poll could have been conducted in Denver to find out how many professional poll watchers within the press corps actually thought that Bill or Hillary Clinton would refuse to ‘embrace’ Obama at the convention, the answer would have been zero. But how many within the press pretended for days that that was a possibility? Almost all of them.

“Indeed, there was lots of pretending going on in Denver, like when Politico suggested Hillary Clinton might be booed by Obama delegates during her address. And when, prior to Bill Clinton's taking the Denver stage, MSNBC's Chris Matthews raised the possibility that he might get a Bronx cheer. (Apparently because they're such divisive figures within the Democratic Party.) Viewers who saw the rapturous welcome both Clinton's received will recall that those predictions were inaccurate.

Boehlert concludes:

“What was behind that type of half-baked Times/Politico/Matthews convention analysis? The answer is that it was based on nothing. The concocted Clinton storylines simply reflected what some journalists wanted to see happen, which then made it slightly plausible, and therefore news. (Speculating now trumps reporting.) To suggest that approach demolishes decades' worth of American journalism standards would be an understatement.

“It's impossible to escape the conclusion that journalists for much of the week in Denver weren't informing news consumers about the unfolding event, they were purposefully misinforming people. (Bill and Hill might snub Obama!) Think about where journalism is heading when an entire industry knowingly adopts a false narrative and pushes it for days simply because it likes it; because it gives journalists a good storyline.”

Read more.

The Media's Ongoing Love Affair with Obama

Vacationing at home in Ohio where I grew up has been a heartwarming and relaxing experience these past few days. The rain clouds melted away on Sunday in time for a great family reunion with 56 family members present.

Needless to say, I haven't spent much time following Barack Obama's travels abroad in his last minute attempt to burnish his foreign policy credentials; I think he would have done a lot better by fulfilling his responsibilities in the Senate some time ago and convening at least one oversight hearing on Afghanistan.

From quickly scanning news sources this evening, it appears the media has been trailing after the Democratic party's presumptive nominee on his trip and as usual swooning at his feet wherever he stops.

Not surprisingly, Rasmussen has just reported poll results that half of Americans think the press is trying to help Sen. Barack Obama win the presidential election.

The poll also found:

'"Asked a backward-looking question, about which 'major presidential candidate' – Obama, McCain, or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton – had received the most favorable coverage overall, 57 percent said it was Obama. Twenty-one percent of respondents named McCain, with 11 percent choosing Clinton."

We knew that.

Riding on a Donkey Down the Road to Denver

The road to Denver may not be as smooth as predicted for Barack Obama, the Democratic party’s presumptive nominee, whose followers anticipate he’ll ride into town on a donkey while adoring crowds wave palm fronds and shout “Hossanah to the highest!”

Ken Vogel’s post at Politico this morning titled “Obama alienates the editors” is newsworthy for two reasons. It documents the firestorm created in the media by Mr. Clean’s decision to break his promise to accept public funding in the general election, while it simultaneously reminds people that today’s angry editorial boards were mostly in the tank for Obama throughout the Democratic primary, and their news coverage was biased accordingly.

Vogel reports:

‘“The Philadelphia Inquirer’s called the decision ‘as disappointing as it is disingenuous,’ while the Boston Globe’s wrote it ‘deals a body blow … to his own reputation as a reform candidate.’ And The Baltimore Sun’s editorial called it ‘a major disappointment for those struggling to restrain the pernicious influence of special interests in American politics.’

‘“The New York Times’ editorial board, which endorsed Clinton after allegedly leaning toward Obama, wrote that ‘Obama has come up short’ of ‘his evocative vows to depart from self-interested politics.’

I’m wondering if the thousands of Obama supporters enraptured at campaign rallies by his stirring words about “change you can believe in” are following the news these days in the aftermath of the Democratic primary. Must be a bit of a let down to see the one they’ve been waiting for revealed as a master of old Chicago-style politics.

Warning: Idolatry, especially of another human being, is not a mark of wisdom.

It's a Fact: The DNC Couldn’t Even Wait for the Body to Cool

Photo credits: AP

Paul Krugman is right; this is definitely the year the progressive movement lost a lot of its innocence - if not the movement in its entirety, certainly a few of its long-time members. My lost innocence has to do with the jarring realization that news sources such as PBS, the Washington Post, and the NY Times and their respective pundits are liberal in every way possible except when it comes to granting equal rights and respect to women. And I’ve not even mentioned the vulgar talking heads at MSNBC and CNN.

Actually, I was more offended by comments I heard from PBS’s NewsHour cast than from the likes of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. Shouldn’t Jim Lehrer or Mark Shields have known better than to visibly display contempt week after week for the first viable woman candidate in a presidential primary?

Indeed it has been a whole week since Hillary Clinton made her concession speech, and I’m still simmering in outrage at the way she was treated by the Obama campaign, the DNC, and the media, a shameless triumvirate of good old boys that carried the less qualified, limping Obama over the finish line.

Simmering outrage aside, I actually have been looking for a viable way forward that doesn’t require swallowing the vicious strain of misogyny that erupted in our culture throughout the Democratic campaign and passively falling in line behind “Sweetie” Obama, who supposedly represents the lesser of two evils for women voters in the general election race.

Yesterday, I stumbled on Ellen Goodman’s op-ed invitingly titled, The Best Revenge: Get Even. Ellen acknowledged:

“This has not been an easy week for ardent Hillary Clinton supporters, who are being told to move on and move over to the Barack Obama camp. The woman who looked improbably energetic and strong as she bowed out last Saturday reinforced both the respect and disappointment of her core supporters.

“Mourning is not too strong a word to describe what I've been hearing in the last few days. No sooner had the speech ended than a Clinton fund-raiser received an e-mail from the Democratic National Committee asking her to raise money for Obama. She said, tersely, they didn't even wait for the body to cool.

‘“Women have had the idea of her being president in their heads for a decade or more. So the level of disappointment, anger, discouragement is that much stronger,’ said Marie Wilson of the White House Project. As Dianne Feinstein said, ‘the nerve endings have to be healed.’”

As you may have noticed, I’m one blogger whose nerve endings are still pretty raw. But I’m listening, Ellen:

“Well, fair enough. But in the early stage of the mourning process, those supporters who have been dismissively pegged as Angry White Women should take another adage from politics: Don't Get Mad, Get Even.

“This is not a revenge fantasy, especially not against Obama. I cannot imagine the core of Clinton's female supporters turning to McCain, a man who voted against equal pay, let alone abortion rights. So I'm not talking about payback; I'm talking about pay it forward. I mean ‘get even’ in a very different sense: Even the playing field, even the odds.

‘“Get Even in the Media.* Every Clinton supporter I talk to heatedly brings up the media. Women who have never let the word ‘misogyny’ slip from their lips now pair it alliteratively with media. If you have five minutes, go to the website of the Women's Media Center (womensmediacenter.com) and be aware that this is just a Whitman's Sampler.

‘“It wasn't just the ugly stuff coming out from under the rocks – ‘Life's a B - -, Don't Elect One.’ Nor was it just the sleazy shout-outs of the new boys' blogosphere. What shocked even the slur-hardened feminists was that, as Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List said, ‘it seemed to be so acceptable. And it was shameful.’ Where was the DNC's voice of protest? Where were the big feet and CEOs of the media? Why do sexist slurs get a laugh while racist slurs end careers? Getting even is, finally, shaming the media messengers.

‘“Get Even in Politics. First lady Hillary Clinton made the water safe for ‘uppity’ wives like Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama. She may well make it easier for the next woman running for the West Wing. But how different would this race have been if there were three women in the mix? Women of varied opinions and backgrounds? Women are still lagging behind in the profession of politics, and are reticent to run. For all those mourners who fear there won't be a woman in the White House in their lifetime, getting even is building - sports metaphors be damned - the farm team.

“Get Even as Voters. Until now, Democrats have taken our votes for granted. Where else would progressive women go? Democratic leaders have often seen these women as a one-issue, pro-choice group. It's not enough.

“I'm not saying that Clinton's world will be appeased by offering her the vice presidency. To some this would be a proper reward, but others would see it as only a consolation prize. More important, Obama needs to talk directly to women in this fragile, slip-sliding, backsliding economy. Getting even requires winning respect.

‘“It would break my heart,’ said Clinton, ‘if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours.’ Well, I'll hold the half-full cup lightly in my hand. But let's remember how good women are supposed to be at multi-tasking. It's not so hard to root for Obama and work on leveling the field for the next women.

“Getting ‘even’ is the best revenge.”

Um, okay, Ellen. Give me a few more days, and I’ll consider rooting for Obama.

About leveling that playing field for the next woman? I officially left the Democratic party the other day and registered as an independent. Yep. Independent. It has a nice ring to it. As I’ve noted elsewhere, I no longer have any obligation whatsoever to the sexist political hacks of either party and if it appears the Dems have not yet learned that misogyny no longer cuts it, I’ll remember in November to vote present.




*Bold emphasis on subheads is my added touch.

For Clinton Supporters, It’s Too Little Too Late

Five days after Hillary Clinton’s concession speech, it still comes as a surprise to read an op-ed piece acknowledging the historic implications of her campaign despite the repulsive wave of misogyny she faced from Obama surrogates, Democratic party leaders, and the good old boys network that continues to dominate the media.

The Washington Post’s David Broder concluded his column this morning titled “Clinton’s Remarkable Run” with these words:

‘“In the future, she {Clinton} said, ‘it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories, unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the president of the United States. And that is truly remarkable.’

“It truly is. And whatever the fates have in store for this woman, in 2012 or any other year, it is certain that this campaign will be seen as a major step forward for her -- and for other women. With Ted Kennedy's illness, she has no rival as the most influential Democrat on Capitol Hill. She came closer to breaking the White House barrier than any woman in history. Someday, she or some other woman will go all the way. Whoever that is will owe Clinton's 2008 run a huge debt.”

In response to his column, readers comments from Clinton supporters suggest that Mr. Broder’s tip of the hat to Clinton is too little and too late. Here’s a sampling:

cashmere1 wrote:
Finally, a WaPo article about Hillary Clinton that is NOT trashing her.... thank you.

However, I knew that once Hillary was out of the race, you "journalists" will start to throw Senator Clinton a few bones in order to ease your own guilty consciences!

It is so typical of you misogynists!

Of course, some of you, like Dick Morris and Jack Cafferty of CNN will NEVER have a positive word to say about Senator Clinton. THEIR hatred of her is eternal, it shows in their twisted faces!

flygirlc1722003 wrote:
CLINTON SUPPORTERS ARE YAWNING DURING THIS PORTION OF THE CAMPAIGN. NOBODY CARES ABOUT OBAMA. WE AREN'T LISTENING ANYMORE. WE KNOW WHO WE ARE VOTING FOR AND IT IS NOT OBAMA. HE IS SPENDING A 1/2 BILLION DOLLARS JUST TO LOSE IN NOVEMBER.

canaldoc wrote:
We need to have this conversation about misogyny. It pervades our culture like air-difficult to see but everywhere. I used Chris Matthews' show all last summer as a teaching tool for my youngest son on bias in the media. And, as Hillary began to come on strong, Keith Olbermann lost all perspective and I can no longer watch him. Tim Russert said the night of the WVa primary: "We need to listen carefully, like criminologists to what Hillary Clinton says tonight" David you think there is "some" sexism? Try 43, soon to be 44 male presidents with one woman nominated to a national ticket in more than 2 centuries. When there has always been competent women (can you say Abigail Adams?). I call that damning sexism and the media just displayed itself as more of the same, unable even to identify this pernicious, unconscious bias.

judy64 wrote:
Alas Mr. Broder, too little too late.

graced8669 wrote:
Bloody but unbowed, Senator Clinton.
You have represented us (women) well. I am proud to be counted as one or your many supporters!

truthtime wrote:
Of course Hillary Clinton couldn't acknowledge the "gender" issues during the campaign. That would have cost her dearly, and would have been portrayed miserably by media forces already aligned against her.

It is amazing really, that most of the punditry, even Obama's biggest shills, now talk of Hillary Clinton in a kind way.

Somewhat akin to a serial spouse abuser, the perpetrator of gender abuse is full of remorse after.

The media magnified every suggestion that someone may have played the race card, usually in an exaggerated way, while ignoring the endless examples of gender bias in their own coverage of the campaign.

Chris Matthews' thrill going up his leg for Obama was a wonderful symbol of the gender preferences exhibited by too many in the media in 2008.

It is time for some serious self-examination, with some hard decisions by management on who should continue "reporting" "news" in this post racial and, hopefully, post gender-biased society we all want to live in.

Katie Couric Speaks Out Against Sexism in the Media

CBS anchor Katie Couric speaks out against the vicious sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton by members of the media throughout her campaign. To Watch Katie address this issue on her “Notebook” segment, go here.

Elizabeth Edwards on the Press

Photo credits: Getty Images

Throughout Campaign 2008, I’ve done my share of complaining about the media, especially since the Democratic debate last October in Philadelphia hosted by MSNBC. That’s when Tim Russert and Brian Williams launched the media’s sustained effort to knock Hillary Clinton from her frontrunner status and sweep Obama to an early coronation.

Evidently, Elizabeth Edwards from her front-row view during her husband John’s campaign also noticed how much power the media has in picking our president. In an op-ed in today’s NY Times titled “Bowling 1, Health Care 0,” Mrs. Edwards critiques the media’s disservice to the American people in Campaign 2008.

Mrs. Edwards begins with the most recent primary:

“For the last month, news media attention was focused on Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the gargantuan effort, what did we learn?

“Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the rest of the country this political season, the information about the candidates’ priorities, policies and principles — information that voters will need to choose the next president — too often did not make the cut. After having spent more than a year on the campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I’m not surprised.

“Why? Here’s my guess: The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to the public. And I know that serious newspapers and magazines run analytical articles, and public television broadcasts longer, more probing segments.

“But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.”

Mrs. Edwards’ observations about how the media chose the characters and constructed the story line for the campaign are obvious with hindsight:

“Watching the campaign unfold, I saw how the press gravitated toward a narrative template for the campaign, searching out characters as if for a novel: on one side, a self-described 9/11 hero with a colorful personal life, a former senator who had played a president in the movies, a genuine war hero with a stunning wife and an intriguing temperament, and a handsome governor with a beautiful family and a high school sweetheart as his bride. And on the other side, a senator who had been first lady, a young African-American senator with an Ivy League diploma, a Hispanic governor with a self-deprecating sense of humor and even a former senator from the South standing loyally beside his ill wife. Issues that could make a difference in the lives of Americans didn’t fit into the narrative template and, therefore, took a back seat to these superficialities.”

The astute Mrs. Edwards asserts:

“News is different from other programming on television or other content in print. It is essential to an informed electorate. And an informed electorate is essential to freedom itself. But as long as corporations to which news gathering is not the primary source of income or expertise get to decide what information about the candidates “sells,” we are not functioning as well as we could if we had the engaged, skeptical press we deserve.”

Members of the electorate who wish to be better informed owe it to themselves to first read Mrs. Edwards’ op-ed in its entirety and thereafter continue to call the media to account.

Read More.

Media Recovering from Obama Intoxication, except for MSNBC’s Olbermann

Photo credits: AP

Scanning the online media this morning has been a dizzying exercise. I’ve gone from suggestions that the press has finally overcome its intoxication with Obama to at last recognize Hillary Clinton as the more substantive candidate to Keith Olbermann’s on-the-air, blatantly misogynist comment that someone should physically beat Clinton up to force her out of the Democratic race.

To prepare myself for the usual assault on Hillary Clinton that I’ve learned to expect from the media, I began at the NY Times with Paul Krugman’s predictably Clinton-friendly comments under the heading, “Self-Inflicted Confusion.”

Krugman begins:

“After Barack Obama’s defeat in Pennsylvania, David Axelrod, his campaign manager, brushed it off: “Nothing has changed tonight in the basic physics of this race.”

“He may well be right — but what a comedown. A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it’s talking about math. ‘Yes we can has become ‘No she can’t.”’

Krugman explains Obama’s inability to win over the working class and sweep easily toward the nomination this way:

“From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.”

At the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz rambles all over the place, highlighting first the unfortunate timing of Jeremiah Wright’s attempt to set the record straight in a media blitz including Bill Moyers, the NAACP, and the National Press Club.

Kurtz goes on to cite Michael Novak’s astonishment in the National Review at the turn of events since Pennsylvania. Novak asks, “Did Pennsylvania Deflate Obama?”

"It always amazes me how swiftly the narrative can change. Seemingly in an instant, serious commentators reverse the direction of their analysis and change their tone of voice, while their excitement level shoots upwards. Monday, it was all: 'No matter what happens in Pennsylvania, Obama has the election all locked up.' Wednesday morning, it is 'What a great, gutsy victory it is for Hillary. Hillary is really a fighter. She won labor-union households, those over 40 years old, white men and white women, churchgoers, hunters--and most of these by high margins. She won Catholics by 70 percent. These are the groups a Democratic nominee must win against McCain in November.'

"Some are even now working out the arithmetic to show that it is possible for her to win the popular vote by the last primary, June 6. Possible, but not likely."

I felt a touch of euphoria over at CNNpolitics.com when I read “The Week That Clinton Came Back.”

The CNN piece notes the biggest question about Clinton’s campaign for weeks had been “when it would finally succumb to being so second-place.

“This week that changed. She won the Pennsylvania primary by 10 percentage points, a margin that convinced contributors to flood her Internet site with $10 million.

“The win and the windfall don't change the race. She is still behind in every way that matters. But the race has changed anyway.

“In the six-week build-up to the Pennsylvania primary, Obama's well-run campaign lost some of its luster.

“Americans learned that his former pastor gave angry anti-American speeches, that Obama was friends with a former terrorist, and that he seemed to think small-town voters "cling" to God and gun-ownership because they're bitter about the economy.

“Obama supporters blame Clinton for negative and nasty campaigning, but she didn't pick his church, his friends or his words for him.

“Clinton was always more appealing to ordinary, working-class Americans than Obama. While he based his campaign on the promise of 'hope' and 'change,' she offered a catalogue of policies and programs to address concrete concerns.”

The CNN piece concludes: “Clinton has argued consistently that she should win the Democratic nomination because she'd be more likely to defeat the Republicans and win the White House.

“If people nationwide think like the ones in Pennsylvania, she may be right.”

My head was still spinning when I checked in at the Huffington Post, Obama’s chief mouthpiece in the blogosphere. HuffPost’s political editor Tom Edsall is perturbed that “In a blink of an eye, the media has jumped ship from the Obama campaign and become a crucial Clinton ally, pressing just the message -- that Obama is a likely loser in the general election -- that Hillary and her allies have been promoting for the past six weeks.”

Edsall laments:

“The new tenor of media coverage is visible almost everywhere, from Politico, Time and The New Republic to The Washington Post and The New York Times.”

What Edsall apparently missed, however, is a piece by Rachel Sklar in today’s Huffpost, where only an occasional pro-Clinton piece is allowed. Sklar responds to an over-the-top comment by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC (watch video):

"Olbermann was discussing the election with Newsweek's Howard Fineman, a frequent guest. The topic was, how can a winner finally be determined in this never-ending Democratic race for the nomination? Of course, the assumption was that it was Clinton that should be shown the door (despite clearly still earning her spot in the race thanks to, um, voters). Fineman said that, all the delegate math aside, ultimately it was going to take 'some adults somewhere in the Democratic party to step in and stop this thing, like a referee in a fight that could go on for thirty rounds. Those are the super, super, super delegates who are going to have to decide this.'

"Said Olbermann: 'Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."'

Sklar asks: “What does that mean? Really, it can only mean one thing: Beating the crap out of Hillary Clinton, to the point where she is physically incapable of getting up and walking out. At minimum. We know this. We know this because we have all seen movies where people are invited into private places to have "discussions" and the unruly party is, um, dealt with accordingly. It's an unmistakably violent image.”

Incredible.

One of the cruelest realities I’ve faced in the Democratic primary is that many who describe themselves as liberal are liberal in every way except when it comes to equal rights for women; Olbermann is obviously such a tragically flawed liberal.

Nevertheless, I conclude my post today with a sigh of relief that overall the media in America finally appears to be coming to its senses.

The National Media as Kingmakers

Photo credits: Associated Press

Scanning major news outlets on the Web this morning, I found the usual biased news coverage and to-be-expected opinion pieces dissecting the Clinton campaign and declaring Hillary Clinton’s drive for the presidency over.

The Washington Post’s Dan Balz in his analysis of the Clinton strategy blames Clinton’s recent losses on ceding the caucuses to Obama; Howard Kurtz chimes in with a tongue-in-cheek prediction of a media rush to judgment from the primary to the general election with Obama versus McCain.

Over At the New York Times, the Caucus manages to sneak in speculation about how Obama and McCain might address spending in the general election.

The Huffington Post has moved beyond declaring the Democratic primary over; the gloating over Obama’s nomination at the blogosphere’s leading supermarket tabloid, has been excessive even for the Hillary-hating Arianna and her minions.

What I haven’t found in today’s opinion and news coverage is acknowledgement of the media’s role as kingmaker in the 2008 primary season that Sean Wilentz and Julian E. Zelizer so effectively describe in an article titled No Way to Pick a President appearing in last Sunday’s Washington Post.

Wilentz and Zelizer begin by pointing out the flaws in our system of state primaries and caucuses:

“Something is seriously wrong with the way we pick our presidential candidates. But experts and pundits, caught up in the horse races, have been slow to point out the obvious -- or come to accept our badly flawed system as immutable fact. This is no way to choose a president.

The authors continue with a history of our official process for selecting presidential candidates going back as far as 1952 when the Democrats chose Adlai Stevenson over Estes Kefauver and bring us up to date with the present patchwork system they point out has some “grave problems,” for example:

"Open" primaries and caucuses (in which anyone can vote, not just registered party members) let voters from the other party cause all sorts of mischief. A Republican convinced that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is too divisive to win in the fall could vote for her in some Democratic contests in the spring, hoping to saddle the Democrats with a losing nominee. Or, as Sen. Barack Obama's campaign did in Nevada, a candidate can openly appeal for votes from people outside his or her party in order to stop a rival. The winners are outsiders hoping to game the system; the losers are rank-and-file party members whose choices count less.”

After detailed analysis of today’s severely flawed process, Wilentz and Zelizer describe how Democrats and Republicans have ceded power to the news media “now driven by national outlets that prefer sensationalism, scandal and sound bites to substance, nuance and balance.”

"Take back America" has cropped up from time to time as a slogan in the 2008 campaign. I suggest it's time for Americans to take back the power to select our party candidates. We can begin by getting behind Hillary Clinton today; she's easily the best qualified candidate for the presidency.

Media Accountability for Wrongdoing?!!

Take the word of Carl Jeffers writing for the Huffington Post: MSNBC’s Chris Matthews is not the only representative of the media who should be called to account for their disdainful treatment of Hillary Clinton.

Jeffers reminds us:

“After the New Hampshire primary, the media spent a great deal of time analyzing the unpredicted and surprising comeback victory of Hillary Clinton. Indeed, in retrospect, that victory will be seen as even more important than realized as the day of the primary, some pundits were confidently analyzing what the role of Jesse Jackson would be in the seemingly certain to be Obama administration.”

But hold on - Jeffers has even stronger words for the media:

“First, in the post-primary universal acknowledgment of the fact that Hillary had been "savaged" by the media and the press, no one really touched on why she was savaged, criticized and basically attacked by the media to a far greater extent than any other candidate on either side, Democrat or Republican. The fact is, there was almost an implicit "license to kill" that was issued to everyone in the media with no review, monitoring or renewal requirements. It was open-ended and unlimited in scope. And the reason this activity was allowed to go on essentially without interruption or question before the voters spoke was because there were no recriminations or penalties to be incurred by anyone who engaged in this activity, regardless of how tasteless, unfair or unsubstantiated the actual activity might be.”

The New Hampshire voters, Jeffers explains, restored fairness to the process:

“But the enthusiasm and literal glee with which the media went after Hillary Clinton aroused a new policeman on the block designed to restore fairness -- the voters themselves. And the voters, the new policeman on the block, rode in on the night of the primary, handcuffed the media, read them the riot act, and then proceeded to put them on probation and an extended community service sentence. And even opponents of Hillary Clinton were thankful for this new late entry of recrimination and accountability for the unbalanced unleashed forces of anti-Hillarism that had raged unchecked throughout the land for weeks on end.”

Jeffers concludes his post by shaming the media for offering mea culpas for the Hillary bashing without taking any personal responsibility for their part in it. Does that surprise anyone?

Wading Through the Sleaze in the Media’s Coverage of the 2008 Campaign

Eric Boehlert’s column today in MediaMatters.org again calls the press to account for unethical practices that put leading news outlets in the MSM and the blogosphere in the same league as supermarket tabloids, especially in their coverage of the 2008 campaign.

Boehlert writes:

He might be the former president of the United States, but when Bill Clinton dared critique the press for the vacuous way it covers campaigns, he got smacked down by the media elites who unleashed their contempt and, fittingly, misstated what Clinton had said.

Such is the state of affairs where, as Clinton noted, campaign issues have faded so far in the rearview mirror for the press that they've dipped below the horizon. What's worse is not only has the press shifted into hyper-horserace mode where tactics reign, but lots of media players can't even do the horserace stuff right. Bloomberg's Al Hunt displayed that nicely with a recent tactics-only campaign column where he mangled a key fact in order to prop up his favorite narrative.
Read more: