Race Advantage

Media has shameful double standard on coverage of Hillary Clinton
Thomas V. DiBacco Special To The Sentinel
February 26, 2008

It's shameful that the media over the past several months has not leveled the playing field in covering Hillary Clinton's quest for the Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton's every misstep has been highlighted, from staffing to campaign budgeting, and even when she has performed better than her opponent, Barack Obama, the thumbs-up from commentators goes to Obama.One example: the final debate before the Super Tuesday elections. By any reasonable yardstick, Clinton was the more articulate and knowledgeable about issues and legislation, some of which she had a hand in crafting during her seven years in the U.S. Senate. Yet pundits, with few exceptions, singled out Obama's performance because Obama hammered his opponent's voting in support of the Iraq war, no matter that he had the luxury at that time of not being a member of Congress.
To be fair, my disclosures: I'm a Republican, and the last Democrat I voted for was Jimmy Carter in 1976. For more than 28 years in the nation's capital, I served as a debate and election-night commentator for local TV and radio stations. I was not a fan of President Bill Clinton, although as a media analyst at his first inaugural, I was favorably impressed with his speech, as illustrated by my commentary for the Orlando Sentinel of Jan. 21, 1993. Throughout Bill Clinton's eight years in the White House, I was critical of many of his actions, most notably his reprehensible conduct with a young intern that led to his impeachment trial. I didn't give much thought to Hillary because she was the other half of Bill, often having to defend him.
All that has changed as a result of this election season's extensive coverage of campaign events, including debates, accompanied by an avalanche of broadcast spin. And what has concerned me is that Barack Obama is getting a free ride.Obama's resume is thin -- and that's obvious when supporters have to talk about his record at law school, a strategy appropriate for first-year job seekers but scarcely for presidential candidates. His eight-year career in the Illinois Senate is lackluster, marred by voting "present" 129 times, thereby avoiding the difficult choice of "yes" or "no" on proposed legislation.
All that has changed as a result of this election season's extensive coverage of campaign events, including debates, accompanied by an avalanche of broadcast spin. And what has concerned me is that Barack Obama is getting a free ride.Obama's resume is thin -- and that's obvious when supporters have to talk about his record at law school, a strategy appropriate for first-year job seekers but scarcely for presidential candidates. His eight-year career in the Illinois Senate is lackluster, marred by voting "present" 129 times, thereby avoiding the difficult choice of "yes" or "no" on proposed legislation.Even his 70 percent vote margin in his 2004 U. S. Senate bid cries for a downgrade. He defeated a GOP nobody, perennial candidate for public office, Alan Keyes, who took over the candidacy after the real winner of the primary stepped aside as a result of a sex scandal.Obama's speaking ability is exceptional only if the denominator of expectation is low. Shouting is scarcely an oratorical plus, nor are the "ands" and "uhs" that punctuate Obama's often rambling extemporaneous remarks.Nor do campaign stops provide concise specifics about his proposals, more akin as they are to celebrity, touchy-feely, anything-I-say-is-OK performances. His safe-harbor, oratorical retreat ("and that's why I'm running for president of the United States of America") is overused and overvalued. As for Obama's lifting sentences from other speakers, at a minimum that illustrates laziness.Comedian Chris Rock was right when he noted during a performance at Madison Square Garden last year that African-American comedians can criticize whites all they want, but the reverse is not tolerated. And that regrettable tendency has been applied to the presidential race.Bill Clinton's criticism of Obama is a classic case in point. Not only did the former president have every right as a husband and obvious adviser to dig into Obama's record (the media surely wasn't doing that investigative job), but he was roundly denounced for raising the "race" issue. No matter that the 42nd president was the strongest advocate for African-Americans of any chief executive in recent history.Having tippytoed in terms of criticism of Obama because of his race, the media have lost sight of the special quality of women that makes Hillary Clinton what she is. Women are the nation's caregivers -- from childhood that nurturing trait has been stressed. And Hillary Clinton's passionate pursuit of universal health care is in the best tradition of that quality, as illustrated by her poignant remarks near the close of last Thursday's debate:"The hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. . . . I resolved at a very young age that I'd been blessed, and that I was called by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted."Shame on the media. In terms of grace, proposed programs, energy and enthusiasm, knowledge and abilities, and executive demeanor, Hillary Clinton can hold her own among any of the candidates in both parties -- and she does so in high heels.

Thomas V. DiBacco is professor emeritus at American University in Washington, D.C. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.
_______________________________________

I Was Too Busy Running for President -Updated-
by Fleaflicker, Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:57:11 AM EST
In last night's debate Hillary mentioned that Obama was Chair of the subcommittee that has oversight over NATO. And that while Chair of that Subcommittee Senator Obama held not a single substantial meeting. Not one. When confronted with this Obama's excuse was that he had only been Chair since 2007 and he has been busy running for President since then. Hmmm... we have soldiers dying in Afghanistan and Senator Obama is too busy running for President to hold a single meeting? Did I miss something? Surely I need a hearing aid. He didn't just state that the reason he hasn't held a single meeting of oversight was because he was too busy out raising money and running for President.
Say it ain't so O!
While searching through the web I have read some of Obama's supporters come to his defense with the typical bait and switch. "Well Hillary hasn't done anything while she has been running for President." Oh really? What about The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act? Just what has Carl Levin said about Hillary's legislative accomplishments?
Noting Senator Clinton's leadership, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today noted that Senator Clinton has introduced more legislation to address the problems facing wounded servicemembers than any other Senator.
And somehow Hillary managed to do this in 2007 when Obama was too busy running for President to spend any time holding oversight meetings of NATO while our young women and men were being killed in Afghanistan. Too busy!
_______________________________________
The Slant Against Hillary
Stephen Schlesinger

What was astonishing about last night's debate was that the very bias which the Clinton campaign has frequently complained about against her candidacy and in favor of Obama's campaign was once again plainly and unashamedly in evidence. It was embodied in the way Tim Russert, an angry scowl on his face, honed in on Hillary Clinton on the NAFTA issue -- and kept bullying her after every answer she gave. In contrast, he kept his fury in check when addressing Obama about the same issue. The only time he really focused some ire on Obama was over the Farrakhan issue
Russert raised the idea of Obama rejecting Farrakhan rather than simply denouncing him but then never pursued it when Obama deflected the question with a non-answer. Finally it was Hillary Clinton who got Obama to agree to reject Farrakhan rather than simply denounce him. Next time Mr. Russert should watch Saturday Night Live on his own NBC network to find out what NBC's own highly regarded show thinks about the continuing bias against Hillary.
_______________________________________
Even Paranoid People Have Real Enemies
Gina Nahai

I'm not one of those women who see a male-dominance conspiracy at every corner. And I understand that Hillary has baggage, while Obama doesn't (never mind that's because he hasn't been around long enough or done much). I realize that he's taller, younger, more charming than she, and that the American people tend to vote for the taller, younger, more charming candidates. I'll confess readily to being a Hillary supporter -- because she's smart, and tough, and the most qualified of the two; because to get to where she is, she's had to be at least twice as smart and tough and dedicated as any man. But I can't believe anyone could watch last night's debate and not come away with the conclusion that the Hillary camp is right when they say that the press goes out of its way to give her a hard time, and again goes out of its way to give Obama a free pas
Just one example, and then we can move on: that NAFTA question. The aggressive manner in which Tim Russert kept interrupting Hillary as she tried to say that she would renegotiate NAFTA instead of opt out of it. Then the same question is posed to Obama, and he gives the same answer -- to a word -- with only one gentle interruption.
OK, one more: all the "this is what Hillary has said about you, how would you respond?" questions. Was this a debate, or a "let's give Obama free air-time to answer the attack ads"?
And let me tell you, I do think she's getting this treatment because she's a woman. I don't believe Russert would give himself permission to use that tone of voice with a male candidate, or to interrupt him as many times.
And I also think the reason many Democrats have gone over to Obama's side is because he's not a woman. His positions on major policy issues are very much like Hillary's. He has less experience and an obnoxious wife (remember Theresa Heinz Kerry?). And yet people (men and women -- this is the sad part) say they're voting for him because he has more charisma, or because they "just don't like" Hillary, or he's more electable. I think much of that "charisma" is in fact Obama's "maleness". Or, rather, Hillary's femaleness.
So what? You say. What's wrong with electing someone with charisma -- no matter what the source of it? So what that the press and the media happen to like Obama more than they like Hillary, and therefore give her a harder time?
So Republicans voted for GW, in spite of his lack of experience, because he was more likable. Look where that got us.
And the press gave GW a free pass for an eternity because they were either trying to curry favor with him so they wouldn't be locked out of the White House press room, or they found his jokes funny and were amused by the nicknames he had for each of them. Look where that got the press -- and us.
All you Obama-voting Democrats out there who think you're smarter than the Republicans who voted for Bush or gave him a free pass, take heed.
The truth is, I don't know if Obama can beat McCain, or what kind of president he would be if he were elected president. I do know that voting for someone because of what he sounds like or looks like is what's brought this country to where we are at the moment: behind countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, India, and Liberia where the electorate has been enlightened enough to choose the more qualified candidate -- even if she is a woman.