Not everyone in the news media shows bias against Hillary Rodham Clinton, but there is enough of it going on to make you wonder if the New York senator might actually benefit from it.
As Bill Clinton often did during his political career, Sen. Clinton could portray herself as a martyr against the media hordes – who are not a popular bunch with the public anyway.
Since early November, the unbalanced coverage of Clinton has been striking. When party rivals attack her, many commentators celebrated it as evidence of tough, street-smart campaigning. But when she dares to return fire, it is often decried as nasty and unfair.
When those of us in the chattering class try to bring some balance to the coverage, we are accused of being soft on Hillary. I am not Clinton’s defender, but I do think she deserves to be treated fairly.
My guess is that Clinton’s rough treatment stems from private expectations that her nomination really is inevitable, justifying a higher standard of scrutiny. If so, perhaps she should welcome the bashing.

Comments
Craig,
Good job in speaking up about Hillary bashing. We saw you being labeled as having a soft spot for Hillary just because you tried to treat her fairly.
As for your ankle, you just have to decide if the docs are focused on your situation, or paying for their Christmas shopping sprees. It's a tough time to be laid up in your profession, but accept the fact that there's no good time, and trust the docs to know their business.
Good luck with your surgery. Just be careful not to go on Hardball while you're medicated. We wouldn't want you to lose your gig just because you told Chris Matthews the unvarnished truth.
Posted by: EdVB
| December 26, 2007 1:13 PM
Craig, why are the docs in a panic. Now I'm panicked.
A friend called and claims that Obama's a Muslim.
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 26, 2007 1:14 PM
Back to the ARG poll. I took a closer look and two things jumped out at me:
Incidence of Likely Democratic Caucus Participation: 10.3% of Democratic and no party voters.
22% of likely caucus participants are undecided (10%) or say that they could switch candidates between now and January 3 (12%).
85% of those saying they support Clinton say their support is definite.
68% of those saying they support Edwards say their support is definite.
89% of those saying they support Obama say their support is definite.
Amongst these, the first one is huge. The margin of error deals only with random error, not systematic error, and the participation factor could tip the scales.
My take-away from this is that we're probably in for a surprise. Hillary could win Iowa in a landslide, or she could come in fourth. Just can't tell from the polls.
Posted by: dnd | December 26, 2007 1:18 PM
Craig,
See rules 10 and 11.
Posted by: dnd | December 26, 2007 1:31 PM
meanwhile according to Tweety Biden is surging
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 26, 2007 1:42 PM
Is Hucksterbee going to eat that pheasant for does he just kill for sport?
And Mr Christ is Christmas he was the only candidate on tv Christmas eve and Christmas day.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 26, 2007 1:50 PM
Craig,
Please take care of that ankle. We all want you around for the new year to shine a light on the meandering political pathways.
Posted by: Jamie | December 26, 2007 2:00 PM
Those of us who are not wholeheartedly in her camp are usually defending Hillary because someone has come out with a comment about her that if you turn it around and say it about any of the other candidates, it just sounds a bit off and unfair for the circumstances.
Whether it is because of the "inevitability" factor, or the "name recognition" or being a mere female, or the years of right wing slander, it just seems as if she is often being attacked for who she is, not what she is.
I have no objection to legitimate disagreements with her positions, but putting words in her mouth or characterizing her positions purely by rumor is really aggravating.
Posted by: Jamie | December 26, 2007 2:06 PM
Someone like Jamie or kgc would be better at checking the facts, but my memory is that in 2000 the media provided the background music for "W's" inevitable march to the Republican nomination, their justification being that his war chest was too big for any Republican opponent to compete against. (It seems like he had $90 million in hand by the time he announced his run. but again this is from my memory and I don't pretend to be stating facts here.)
Yes, they enjoyed their rides on the Straight Talk Express, but those were minor detours from covering Governor Bush's coronation.
Senator Obama's early fund-raising and Senator Edwards' leg work in Iowa gave the press a reason to hope for a horse race, and we're clearly getting one, but it's clear they have not come close to giving Hillary an inch on any matter.
Clearly, Hillary did not handle the question regarding Governor Spitzer's licensing proposal well, but one convoluted answer in debate number 714 does not equal campaign meltdown, or as Rita Cosby postulated this weekend, does not prove "the Empress has no clothes."
In her defense, I'm sure Ms. Cosby was trying to be funny in her McLaughlin Group answers, but that one missed the mark. McLaughlin appeared to not even know that she was referring to Hillary as the Empress.
Posted by: EdVB
| December 26, 2007 2:08 PM
Rita Cosby was on the McLaughlin group?
How did they introduce her?
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 26, 2007 2:10 PM
Hello all! Belated Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Kwanza, Happy Pilgrimage to the Haj, I'm sure I've missed many.
Did Craig have a run-in with a martini again?
Has anyone discussed how the Dems can be very smart about all this if the ones in the running use a touch of discretion in the tenches (and I spose it's going to get worse in this next week). Some policy wonk should grab them all by the lapels (yes, even Hillary in her pantsuits) and point out to them that any swats they take at each other will just end up on Reps ads when all the dust settles.
And Tweety is just deplorable. I expect excrement like that from Tucker or Joe, but at least they are honest about their political leanings. Tweety's a misogynist (how many times have we seen him 'do the man thing' like elbowing some media type and talking as if brains and breasts get him terribly distracted) and I think he's angry that no matter how hard he tries, no matter how many times he mentions the Clinton scandal, no matter how much he whines that Hilary didn't kick him to the curb, people have stopped listening. I'm rambling a bit, but when those horrible images of Katrina ward were being shown , I remember thinking, "If Bill were still president, he'd be down there huggin everyone in the 9th ward!'.. Dems just do things better.
Posted by: tylenol
| December 26, 2007 2:21 PM
Television NewsWednesday, December 26, 2007
Judge says Rita Cosby tempered with witnesses
Howard K Stern is suing Rita Cosby for false allegations separately made about him in her new book.
By Steven Chu
Published: Nov 7, 2007, 9:26 AM EST
A judge has ruled that Rita Cosby crossed the line in writing her book about Anna Nicole Smith and false claims that Howard K Stern had a sexual relationship with Larry
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 26, 2007 2:29 PM
Lies, damn lies, and statistics
My professor friend has devised a way to supply graphs of the Intrade Presidential Futures markets for Dems and Repubs in Iowa and nationally. There will be less trading in New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc. until contests are decided in preceeding states so that is why Iowa is broken out separately.
He will be updating the graphs daily around 10 p.m. to midnight CST and will use the same link each day. He plans to update 3 times on Jan. 3rd.
It looks like there was a turning point in the Iowa dem futures market right after the Register debate and subsequent HRC endorsement. I do believe Edwards is undervalued in this futures market. He is also undervalued in most polls because the rural vote weighting is not being captured.
http://www.central.edu/publicdocs/FuturesMarketGraphs.jpg
Posted by: zoey
| December 26, 2007 2:31 PM
I may be confused on which week you guys are referring to about the McLaughlin show, but I did see Monica Crowley recently. She's sorta like Rita...
Posted by: MadMustard
| December 26, 2007 2:35 PM
Craig,
If you want to take the time, grab your x-rays and get another opinion, otherwise get the surgery. You probably need screws to hold everything in place while it heals. I know I was told if my break got worse that is what I would have to have done. I just got back from the doctor and I am healing nicely so no surgery or cast, though I am still on crutches. I have been surfing medical equipment shops today because I will need a wheelchair for caucus night.
Posted by: zoey
| December 26, 2007 2:41 PM
in answer to the point about HRC "hubris" causing media backlash -- yes, her camp can be exceptionally arrogant and difficult but they are not alone in that respect and how the media is treated by underlings should never be a factor in how we cover someone
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| December 26, 2007 2:44 PM
Guests also included McLaughlin Group regulars—Clarence Page, Laurence O'Donnell, and Tony Blankley—along with Rita Cosby, Georgette Mosbacher, Matt Cooper, Eric Alterman, Ana Marie Cox, and Margaret Carlson.
"You know for a lot of people here this is the only time of year we get to see each other," said Ms. Mosbacher, clad in an oversized suede kelly green button down and trademark huge eyeglasses. "It's great, I love it, it's the same every year. This year it's particularly great just because the weather's so nice."
It must have been the night of the vapid.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | December 26, 2007 2:46 PM
Rita v Monica... it must have been a different week then.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/index.php?s=monica+crowley
Posted by: MadMustard
| December 26, 2007 2:57 PM
"spill the dish!"
You can even use an alias ...
Posted by: Jamie | December 26, 2007 2:58 PM
You guys may be right. I thought it was Rita Cosby, but Monica Crowley does sound better. I didn't pay as much attention to her name as her answers, which were mostly attempts to be humorous, and I'll confess to laughing at a few of them. Does Monica Crowley have a raspy voice too?
I didn't notice any introductions, and have to admit when I was telling my son about the broadcast, I couldn't remember Clarence Page's last name either.
It was this week's show. First half of McLaughlin's year end best and worst categories. I apologize for the confusion, but I've been shot down by so many blondes, I've given up keeping track of their names.
Posted by: EdVB
| December 26, 2007 3:06 PM
Mad,
That was a fun link. My favorite "Bush is still effective" specious argument is that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 ...
Of course there was that 200 years before 9/11 (well outside of that little burning of the White House incident in 1812, but the British have been on good behaviour since).
Posted by: Jamie | December 26, 2007 3:10 PM
you guys are trying to get me in trouble, ha -- no, seriously, i never pay any attention to how i am "handled" by campaigns, makes no difference to me whatsoever, so i really have no dish for ya -- actually, i keep my distance from them. i even avoid talking to the candidates. access is just not my thing and never worth the compromises it usually takes to get it
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| December 26, 2007 3:13 PM
Ed, Rule 11: "Arrogance Makes an Easy Target."
Posted by: dnd | December 26, 2007 3:33 PM
Regarding how underlings treat others....it's a HUGE deal. After years of working with artists I will tell you that when anyone says anything it only goes back to the artist, not to Joe Blow, assistant to somebody. It morphs into something the star said or sanctioned. One time an assistant of Tanya Tucker's threatened to have a staffer at the Opryland Hotel fired. The situation was, in reality, that the assistant thought she should be treated like a star by association, and the hotel employee saw otherwise.
After I explained to the assistant that this would come back at Tanya, and the woman didn't back off, I flatly said I'd see to it that SHE was fired. (I might have even used a few expletives....charmin' lady that I am...) The woman sputtered around and said that I didn't even work for Tanya....but when the whole thing was thrown in Tanya's lap she backed my call. Trouble is, too much happens that the star (candidate, executive, person of power...) doesn't hear about or hears about too late.
Posted by: Patsi | December 26, 2007 4:02 PM
"It must have been the night of the vapid."
*ROTFLMBFAO*
Posted by: Julia | December 26, 2007 4:50 PM
Patsi,
You're right, it can happen with any person of power, but in some cases it seems intentional. In my work, I've seen or heard of cases, in which a tough office manager in a doctor's office threatens, or comes down hard on a patient regarding payment and the total amount of due. If the patient, or some intermediary, can get through to the doc, things get warm and fuzzy and a happy medium is struck.
Since the tough staffer doesn't get replaced, I've made the assumption that the doc doesn't mind playing good cop once in a while, but he's happy to let his staff push hard first. I wouldn't use this doctor if he was Jonas Salk, but I guess he figures as long as patients keep coming to his door, his office staff is maximizing his income.
In the case of a politician, he or she should know what the staff is up to, but there are bound to be some loose cannons out there, who get a little carried away with their perceived power, particularly when the boss isn't around to see the interaction.
Power corrupts, and the weaker the character, the easier the corruption.
Posted by: EdVB
| December 26, 2007 4:51 PM
Much as I'd love to debate Hillary's personnel choices, I can't let Huckabee's hunting photo op pass. CNN reported that Huckabee says he goes hunting 30 times per season. Think about this for a second. The season is only in the late summer to early winter. Which would indicate he goes hunting two or three times a week. Next, there's the issue of the bag limit. The photo op indicated that he's a pretty poor shot, particularly for someone who claims to hunt that much. And he has problems with his shotgun's safety!
And for those of you who've never been pheasant hunting, traipsing around in field with a noisy camera crew behind you will most likely spook any birds long before you get within range to shoot them (the birds, not the camera crew).
Posted by: dnd | December 26, 2007 4:54 PM
Sorry, that last post was corrupted by lousy proof-reading. It should have read, "the total amount due."
Posted by: EdVB
| December 26, 2007 4:55 PM
Craig,
Hasn't Hillary dropped the "Rodham" recently? All her campaign material I've seen calls her Hillary Clinton, or just Hillary.
Posted by: dnd | December 26, 2007 5:01 PM
Ed,
Interesting observation. I've seen the same in a number of situations.
Posted by: dnd | December 26, 2007 5:03 PM
There are a few things I always try to keep in mind when dealing with most campaign staffers. Generally most are fairly young, do not receive much in the way of salary, and have not had an opportunity to work other jobs to learn people skills. I know some staffers who have pretty high level positions in the campaigns that are making very low wages, especially when you take into consideration how many hours a week they work. It doesn't totally excuse them but I don't hold them to the same standard as I do people in other professions and I certainly don't take it as a reflection on their candidate unless I see a culture within a campaign that rewards bad behavior. I haven't found that to be true in any of the campaigns this year.
Posted by: zoey
| December 26, 2007 5:16 PM
I purposefully didn't tune in to Hardball until the end. Matthews thinks Hillary is just like Bush with no intellectual curiosity because she didn't request a security clearance.
The man isn't just prejudiced. He is starting to approach delusional.
Posted by: Jamie | December 26, 2007 5:59 PM
Thank goodness. We get Shuster instead of Tucker.
Posted by: Jamie | December 26, 2007 6:02 PM
Thanks dooty for saying what needed to be said.
Posted by: zoey
| December 26, 2007 6:09 PM
Jamie,
I'm not sure but I don't think as first lady Hillary could request a security clearance. Those are granted on a need to know basis. I'm sure she got one in 2003 when she became a member of the Committee on Armed Services, though I wouldn't have a clue what level of clearance she received.
Posted by: dnd | December 26, 2007 6:09 PM
Jamie,
When is MSNBC gonna dump Tucker and hire Shuster? I might start watching MSNBC again. Shuster is half-a-commie, but if one takes his bias in context, he's really a pretty good analyst.
ps. So I clicked on MSNBC to see Huckabee holding his shotgun swathed in camo. While he's wearing his orange vest. You don't have to be a hunter to appreciate that.
Posted by: dnd | December 26, 2007 6:14 PM
Just for balance, I'll say something negative about Hillary. She has one habit that her aides haven't been able to break and that drives me crazy: When making announcements or bringing emphasis, she ORATES rather than speaking in a normal tone. Someone needs to convince her that most microphones these days work fairly well.
It is not necessary to E - Nun - Ci - Ate. Her message would be much more effective if she just "talked" to people, something her husband does magnificently.
Posted by: Jamie | December 26, 2007 6:17 PM
zoey,
"unless I see a culture within a campaign that rewards bad behavior."
It would seem that there is a culture of good-cop/bad-cop in the Clinton campaign. But to her credit, she doesn't reward the bad behavior, she fires them. Though that could be a tactic too...
This may also be going on in other campaigns, but if it is, I'm unaware of it because the press only wants to cover Hillary.
Posted by: dnd | December 26, 2007 6:20 PM
dnd,
I had a secret clearance when I was in the USAF. I think they ran my name thru the police files and no unpaid warrants came back so I passed. If I saw secret info in the performance of my duties I was totally unaware of it. I am sure that a secret clearance is probably as low a clearance as you can get.
yo soy Horsedooty!
Posted by: horsedooty | December 26, 2007 6:20 PM
Doots,
The levels are:
Confidential
Secret
Top Secret
Compartmented Info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
Again, I've no clue about Sen. Clinton's clearance but one can assume that as she's on the armed services committee, it's at least TS.
Posted by: dnd | December 26, 2007 6:33 PM
While we're talking clearances, I'd guess that both Biden and Dodd have clearances. Richardson must have a DOE Q clearance as well as a DoD TS clearance.
Posted by: dnd | December 26, 2007 6:39 PM
My we are a secure crowd of anti-Bush potential terrorists. I had Secret while working on the Naval Ships' Technical Manual and was being processed for Top Secret when I left the job for a non military job in DC with the U. S. Chamber.
Posted by: Jamie | December 26, 2007 6:44 PM
I thought y'all were talking holiday clearance.
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 26, 2007 8:08 PM
I only had Creedwater clearance.......lowest on the scale, I think.......
Posted by: sturgeone | December 26, 2007 9:02 PM
(I wasnt no senator's son......)
Posted by: sturgeone | December 26, 2007 9:05 PM
Ah, CCR.
Love them.
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 26, 2007 9:30 PM
I saw Huckabee aim, fire, and a pheasant fall to the ground. At least the guy's transparent...not at all going to give up the holiday hunt just to appease the anti-hunters.
It's easy for people to say "pro basketball's fixed"! when you lose a bet, it's another thing altogether when a referee is convicted and jailed for fixing games---the games WERE fixed.
And along these lines I cannot blame anyone for dissing any assigned validity to these pre-caucus Iowa polls.
I just read the numbers Craig posted, and I want to scream "Those polls are fixed, flawed, and worthless!", but I don't the evidence like the gamblers have with a convicted pro basketball referee...it's just me not liking the poll numbers.
I saw Obama on the news tonight lamenting the fact that all his opponents are jumping on the "change" bandwagon.
He is saying things are going to stay the same unless someone changes things.
Well, let's see who wants to change things, by what they say.
HRC wants to keep a huge military presence in Iraq, even though she says she will end the war. She is lying. She gets no sympathy , she does get a huge "that's OK, we won't even question you on that anymore, dear Hillary", from the media.
We all know what Democrats will end the war and which won't. Clinton just won't, that's all . Not in her first term. How can anyone forget the "by 2013?" debate question?
It just seems the public has a malaise about the Iraq war.
But we have a chance to vote in a president who will end it quickly, and yet, it looks like we don't want to.
Witness McCain. have any of you seen his latest campaign speeches and his latest ad? He is CAMPAIGNING on his Bush-clone attitude on Iraq! To applause.
His numbers grow...he is garnering support on a pro-war stance!
So OK, you know what? Now I fully understand how Bush was re:elected.
The worst military adventure in The Republic's history , led by the worst US President in 75 years, according to Gov. Dukakis, the party standard bearer 20 years ago, is generally looked upon as a great , positive enterprise by the majority of American voters.
John McCain is insane.
Posted by: Dexter
| December 26, 2007 9:49 PM
HEEEEEEERE"S JOHHHHHNY!
(Crazy McCain in the role of the mad innkeeper)
http://politicomafioso.blogspot.com/2007/12/john-mccains-newest-tv-ad-not-easy.html
Posted by: Dexter
| December 26, 2007 9:54 PM
Thinking of you and wishing the best for your recovery from ankle break, Craig.
St. Luke the Physician
http://www.truecatholic.org/calendar/luke.jpg
Posted by: Dexter
| December 26, 2007 10:11 PM
Good catch, Dex!
I got this as a gift.
http://www.calendars.com/category.asp?PID=1&MGID=11572&cm_mmc=google-_-Bush+Countdown+Calendars-_-Broad-_-2008+bush+calendar%7C-%7C100000000000000052759&gclid=CMO4pYLLx5ACFQIUPAod7TBdWg&CE=1
Why in God's name is shotting something a good photo op???
Grrrrrrrrrrrr....
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 26, 2007 11:06 PM
Wow! Check this out.
http://www.poorgeorgesalmanac.com/
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| December 26, 2007 11:08 PM
hahahaHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA sturgeon!! that was SO funny...
Posted by: tylenol
| December 26, 2007 11:33 PM
Dex,
Great picture of St. Luke. Is the message, "One more cow, then we'll operate on Mr. Crawford?"
Posted by: EdVB
| December 27, 2007 1:14 AM
"Just one more cow, Nurse Tylenol! "
Posted by: Dexter
| December 27, 2007 1:55 AM
TT: I never trash gifts..but if someone expected me to have a desk calendar with that 43's face on it reminding me of him every moment I was at my desk...well...sorry, it doesn't work for me.
Here: try some of my Trader Joe's Peppermint Bark combo-chocolate.
And remember, tonight we have to mop and wax the floors in the Crawfordslist Parlor and move in an Ottoman for Mr. Crawford to prop his foot up on.
Posted by: Dexter
| December 27, 2007 2:05 AM
The Real Rudy Ways, or, Why Rudy can't get a cab in NYC, from SLATE :
http://www.slate.com/id/2180316/nav/tap3/
Posted by: Dexter
| December 27, 2007 2:12 AM
Craig, this is a great piece of analysis...it is so obvious how the media bashes Clinton. I have been asking myself, there is anyone that can really come up with a balanced analysis. Chris Matthews' "Hardball" is the worse of all.
Posted by: George | December 27, 2007 9:53 AM
Post A Comment