| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ubiquitous" |
| Date: |
06 Jan 2008 01:21:32 PM |
| Object: |
How the Media Hurt Mrs. Clinton |
We have long argued (most comprehensively in The American Spectator) that in
the 2004 election, the liberal media helped George W. Bush by acting as an
echo chamber for John Kerry,who was widely reported to have served in Vietnam,
particularly by uncritically repeating his claims to have been a war hero in
Vietnam, which led him to become complacent, leaving him unprepared when men
who served in Vietnam with him raised questions about his record.
It now looks as if Mrs. Clinton has fallen victim to the same sort of
media-induced complacency. The notion that her nomination (if not her
election) was inevitable was substantially a media creation, and one that must
have given her great, though false, comfort. This Associated Press dispatch
from last night shows a definite reluctance to concede how badly Mrs. Clinton
lost:
Obama, 46 and a first-term senator from Illinois, scored
his victory on a message of change in Washington. Nearly
complete returns showed him gaining 37 percent support from
Iowans. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina appeared
headed for second place, relegating Clinton, the former first
lady, to a close third...
[Mike] Huckabee's triumph was more robust than Obama's. He
was winning 34 percent support, compared to 25 percent for
Romney. Former Sen. Fred Thompson and Sen. John McCain battled
for third place...
The Democratic race was as close as the Republican contest was not.
That last sentence seems to be saying that the Democratic race was much closer
than the Republican race. But was it? Here are the percentages, according to
the Washington Post:
Democrats Republicans
Obama 38% Huckabee 34%
Edwards 30% Romney 25%
Clinton 29% Thompson 13%
Richardson 2% McCain 13%
Biden 1% Paul 10%
Uncommitted 0% Giuliani 3%
Dodd 0% Hunter 0%
Tancredo 0%
Obama finished eight points ahead of second-place Edwards; Huckabee, nine
points ahead of second-place Romney: not a huge difference. The battle for
second place was closer among the Democrats, but only because the battle for
third place was closer among Republicans.
Obama beat Edwards almost as soundly as Huckabee beat Romney. Mrs. Clinton did
worse than Romney--finishing third and nine points back. Does the AP's
portrayal of Obama as a lesser winner than Huckabee reflect a reluctance to
acknowledge that Mrs. Clinton was the night's biggest loser?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
.
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: How the Media Hurt Mrs. Clinton |
08 Jan 2008 03:42:30 AM |
|
|
In article <UuOdnUOTCror4R_anZ2dnUVZ_tDinZ2d@giganews.com>,
wrote:
We have long argued (most comprehensively in The American Spectator) that in
the 2004 election, the liberal media helped George W. Bush by acting as an
echo chamber for John Kerry,who was widely reported to have served in
Vietnam, particularly by uncritically repeating his claims to have been a
war hero in Vietnam, which led him to become complacent, leaving him
unprepared when men who served in Vietnam with him raised questions about
his record.
It now looks as if Mrs. Clinton has fallen victim to the same sort of
media-induced complacency.
Hillary Clinton is plotting a "sequel," the New York Times reports:
In trying to battle back from her loss in the Iowa caucuses
to Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, Mrs. Clinton is
recalibrating her message in hopes of producing Comeback
Kid: The Sequel--achieving the reversal of fortune her husband
pulled off with his second-place finish here in the Democratic
nomination contest in 1992.
Of course, sequels are almost always terrible. Though the two exceptions that
come to mind--"The Godfather: Part II" and "The Empire Strikes Back"--do seem
somehow apposite.
The Times reports that Mrs. Clinton is blaming the media:
Advisers said that both Clintons had miscalculated the
endurance and depth of what they called "the Obama
phenomenon." They both believed that, in the final months
of 2007, more voters would question whether Mr. Obama was
ready to be president and more reporters would pick apart
his political record and personal character. Now anger
inside the campaign at the news media has hardened; Mr.
Clinton, in particular, believes reporters will be complicit
if Mr. Obama becomes the nominee and loses to a Republican.
"Reporters will be complicit" if a Republican wins? Apparently Mrs. Clinton
believes reporters are Democratic partisans, a belief that is not without
basis in reality. But if reporters have ill served Mrs. Clinton, isn't it
because they did precisely what she did, namely underestimate Obama?
To put it another way, Mrs. Clinton would seem to be in trouble now because
she believed the narrative of "inevitability" that she put forward and the
news media echoed. As we argued Sunday, it's an example of how friendly media
breed complacency in liberal politicians.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
