| Author |
Message |
    
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 6725
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 08:57 am: | 
|
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Did media move Clinton from front-runner to underdog?
Last updated February 28, 2008 4:52 p.m. PT
BONNIE ERBE
Are media outlets biased against Sen. Hillary Clinton because of her gender? It's an open question and one I'm not prepared to answer. But Tuesday night's debate in Cleveland certainly blew open some angles for examination.
First, there's the time question: Who got more of it? According to The New York Times Web site's Democratic debate analysis page, Clinton spoke for 30:43 while Sen. Barack Obama spoke for 38:17 (the moderators spoke for 16 minutes). So Obama was allowed some 25 percent more critical time on-camera.
Then there's the question of how much file video was used of each candidate -- or, more specifically, against each candidate. For Clinton, the tally was 56 seconds; for Obama, it was 22. Each was asked to explain past statements he or she had made after being confronted with videotaped proof of the claims.
For Clinton, NBC moderators launched the debate by showing two contrasting clips. In the first, she was being exceedingly gracious toward Obama. In the second, she was ripping into him in a speech before an audience of her supporters, for misrepresenting her health care plan in mailings to Ohio voters. The question: Which one represented her true feelings about Obama? She reacted mainly with aplomb to the unanticipated question. There was perhaps a glint of surprise in her eyes while she explained she made the comments during two different periods of the campaign. Her reaction changed, she said in essence, as events changed.
Obama was asked later in the debate to explain criticisms he leveled against Clinton for casting herself as "co-president" with her husband, while dodging blame for President Clinton's unpopular decisions, such as support for the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is a question he's been asked before.
The Clinton video and questions certainly had a much more obvious element of surprise or "gotcha." The moderators could have posed tougher questions to Obama, but for whatever reason chose not to do so. One example: why he took credit while campaigning in Iowa for passing an anti-nuclear bill that never passed the U.S. Senate.
The opening video clip question to Clinton was followed up by asking her why a right-wing Web site that day had posted a picture of Obama dressed in African garb. The Web site claimed it obtained the picture from the Clinton campaign. Again, an element of surprise. She said she had no knowledge it came from her campaign.
The tough questions for Obama centered on praise he has received again and again from controversial Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Obama repeatedly has denounced Farrakhan's support, so it was not a question by which the moderators reasonably could have assumed he would be surprised. Obama also was allowed in response to go on and on extolling the virtues of the Jewish community and its support for his campaign.
I'm not prepared to take a stand on whether the two senators were treated similarly or dissimilarly. It's clear that Obama could cite examples of where he feels he was treated unfairly. But one has to wonder how big a factor gender bias is in Clinton's move from front-runner to underdog. Of course she entered the race with so much baggage, historians could spend centuries researching the issue without finding an answer.
A high-level Democratic strategist told me months ago that internal polls showed some groups of American voters were more likely to vote for an African-American man than a woman of any color. And one webzine this week ran an article likening the Obama-McCain race that now seems all but inevitable, to cop flicks that team a white man and a black man together to overcome a woman.
I was in the U.S. Capitol last week and noticed two portraits side by side. One was of Joseph Rainey of South Carolina, who in 1870 became the first directly elected black member of the House of Representatives. The other was of Jeannette Rankin of Montana, the first woman elected to the House, in 1917. That's a 47-year gap. How prescient, I thought, that history appears to be repeating itself.
Bonnie Erbe is a TV host and writes this column for Scripps Howard News Service; bonnieerbe@CompuServe.com.
© 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/353122_erbe29.html
|
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 6726
Registered: 07-2006
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 09:17 am: |
|
...According to the latest polls Clinton is still hanging strong, so labeling her an "underdog" may be too big of a leap.
Ohio Poll: Clinton leads Obama in critical contest
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/ohio_poll_clinton_lea ds_obama.html
New Poll Shows Clinton's Rhode Island Lead Is Widening
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/28/politics/uwire/main3889995.shtml
|
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 6362
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 12:08 pm: |
|
Hell no. Once she started showing up, looking like an assistant librarian or an shrill shrewish head of a PTA in those pants suits and cheap jackets everybody knew she wasn't presidential.
She is toast. If she gets past Obama, McCain will clean her clock.
And so it goes. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11721
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 12:22 pm: |
|
McCain aint gonna clean nobody's clock, chrishayden. If people prefer him it will be strictly for superficial reason, - because they hate HRC or that he reminds them of their grandfathers.
And just what does what Hillary wears have to do with her ability? What would you suggest she wear? A house dress and an apron? She doesn't dress any worse than any other female politician. puleeze. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 6367
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 01:12 pm: |
|
And just what does what Hillary wears have to do with her ability? What would you suggest she wear? A house dress and an apron? She doesn't dress any worse than any other female politician. puleeze.
(As any fool should know, in the age of television what a candidate looks like can sink him or her.
Remember Nixon in the debates in 1960? People who HEARD the debate on the radio thought Nixon cleaned Kennedy's clock. Those who saw it on TV (Nixon fidgeting, lip sweating) thought he lost it.
What is the use of living almost 120 years if you don't remember the past?
What are you doing when you should be sharing your accumulated wisdom with the young.
I guess the operative word is "wisdom"
SHEESH! And to think I offered to make you my mistress! |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11731
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 02:22 pm: |
|
Oh Puleeze. What do you know about this subject, chrishayden?? What Hillary wears is very professional. Very board-room chic. Both her hair style and make-up are also very appropriate. I guess you think she should dress like fashion plate Jackie Kennedy, all decked out in little Chanel suits and pill box hats and bouffant hair-styles.You're so behind the times. And Nixon's attire had nothing to do with his bad image; it was his bad make-up. You need to shut up. Especially when it comes to even entertaining the idea that I would remotedly consider being anything to you. EU. |
Nels
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Nels
Post Number: 1071
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Chris --
"She is toast. If she gets past Obama, McCain will clean her clock."
I'm inclined to agree.
Cynique --
"What Hillary wears is very professional"
Oh really! She looks more like a cross between Miss Piggy and Sponge Bob. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11740
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 11:08 pm: |
|
Maybe Hillary should hire you and Chrishayden to be her fashion consultants, Nels. You can bring all the expertise that you've acquired in the course of being closet cross-dressers.  |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11742
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 11:24 pm: |
|
McCain is a doddering old man. He's constantly putting his foot in his mouth. Guess that's why chrishayden relates to him, Nels. And you of course can't think of anything better to do than to agree with an old fart like chrishayden. |
Nels
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Nels
Post Number: 1073
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 03:08 am: |
|
Miss Piggy and Sponge Bob... Yuk Yuk Yuk. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11743
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Has your Vogue magazine arrived in the mail yet, Nels? I know you can hardly wait for it to come so you can flip through its pages and check out the latest styles. I'm sure the new spring line will be just divine! The color "red" is in. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9979
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 03:47 pm: |
|
Before the primaries even begun Hillary was proclaimed by EVERYONE in the media to the the Democratic nominee.
Ironically, a BIG part of why Clinton is in trouble is because they very arrogantly conducted a campaign whereby they, buoyed by all the favorable press and polling, assumed she had no real competition. That arrogance exposed chinks in her armour. And Obama & Company have ripped those suckers open.
So timeout on the woebeme bitching about what's going down now. Because, just like a pendulum, media bullshit swings BOTH ways. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11748
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 05:13 pm: |
|
People remember different things different ways. I don't recall the media proclaiming Hillary Clinton as a shoo-in for the nomination when the race started. The field was very crowded and she was just another candidate. She only moved to the forefront when everybody else started to drop out, unable to compete with the political war chests she and Obama had accumulated.
The ascendancy of Hillary and Obama had more to do with what they were, not with who they were; a black intellect and a white "b i t c h". This was a ready-made strategy for Obama's people to exploit.
Obama should be grateful to Hillary because had she not been in the race and he had had to compete with white male candidates who hadn't supported the war, he might not have the broad appeal he now enjoys. |
Yvettep
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 2728
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 06:15 pm: |
|
Cynique, I remember the media taking a kind of "Oh, isn't that sweet" approach to Obama's early candidacy. They practically fell over themselves with praise for HRC's clever spot announcing her candidacy announcing her candidacy. I agree with ABM that Sen Clinton's camp may have assumed she was or would emerge early as a front runner in that the strategy consisted of throwing all the resources at the races leading up to and including Super Tuesday. As has been written elsewhere that was, in hindsight, perhaps an error. (But of course, this race is not yet over...)
I really do not think any of the other candidates got anyone very excited. Edwards was perhaps the strongest name. As good as some of his ideas were, Edwards was part of a previous lackluster (loser) Dem team. So maybe the emergence of Clinton and Obama was a matter of who/what they were, but only in contrast to other less appealing candidates IMO.
But, as you say, people do remember things differently--and our memories can play tricks on us based on our current needs... (There is a good line, often repeated, in King's book about memory. I won;t say it here in case you're not to that point yet  ) |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9980
Registered: 04-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 06:30 pm: |
|
Yvettep,
If this had been about qualifications and accomplishments, neither she, Obama or Edwards would have had a snowballs chance in hell of winning.
Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and, ESPECIALLY, Richardson are much more 'qualified' to be president if you're looking strickly at their resumes.
Hell. Richardson has been a legislator, presidential cabinent member and he's a successful governor of an up and coming state (New Mexico).
So when I witness Hillary wax on about how so much more 'qualified' she is I 'bout laugh my ass off. I'd argue the press has really been remiss about allowing her to continuously spew that lie.
As I said elsewhere, this started out a popularity contest. At the start of the school year, Hillary considered to be most popular by a younger, more charismic kid came along and is by year-end threatening to be voted Most Popular. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 11749
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 07:26 pm: |
|
Well, Yvette, at first, me or anybody I knew took Hillary's candidacy seriously. We thought she was just a nuisance factor, just somebody trying to make a statement and play with the big boys.
I agree that none of the other candidates were exuding a lot of excitement, and this included Obama. But every time another guy dropped out, Obama came more into focus, giving a good accounting of himself. Once he and Hillary started to clash, that ignited the chemistry between them, all of which made very good copy for the media - and the rest was history. IMO. 
Hillary had a built-in capacity for under-estimating Obama. She seems to have an inherent sense of entitlement. I think she deemed him a worthy opponent. Seems to me what she under-estimated was the the open-mindedness of people of her own race.  |
Email This Page