Hillary: "The media made me do it."

Dateline: Fri 11 Jan 2008

Some fascinating analysis is coming out of Tuesday's primary, notably the line from editorial writer Froma Harrop and other media mavens (Marie Cocco) that the savage sexist coverage from the MSM drove women voters to Hillary.

"The woman was the diligent worker, studying the minutiae of health care, terrorism and taxation, but portrayed as an over-the-hill broad, who every 10 minutes had to answer a question about why people didn't like her..." writes Harrop.

The overall point about media bias is well taken. The pundits and the TV journalists on the floor did not seem to like Clinton. Polls that she was sliding in NH were reported with enthusiasm. However, the notion that this all has something to do with her looks -- she was portrayed by Chris Hitchens on Slate as "an aging and restentful female" or that a photo appeared on Drudge of her face, looking puffy, weary, etc. --- is utter nonsense.

First, as a friend pointed out, Hillary looks damn good, better than most of her sisters. As Rush Limbaugh and other certain sexist men have noted, Hillary is a babe. But since when was this relevant?

If women flocked to her because she was being savaged, if they voted with their emotions, so be it.

But before the election cycle is over, perhaps the pundits will get a listen. They've spent years covering Hillary. Maybe there's a reason so many journalists do not care for Her Ladyship and can't hide their disdain. And it's not just because Barack Obama is the antidote, either.

Perhaps it has to do with her arrogance, sense of entitlement and the notion that she alone has the answers and the passion to govern. Are we really ready to revert to "Mother Knows Best"? How 1950s can you get?


Comments are closed.


or Register


Syndicate Blog