TODAY, which is expected to see the end of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidential nomination, is a good time to ask this question: Remember when she was the “inevitable” nominee?
For the Clinton campaign — and probably for Clinton herself — the assertion of inevitability was no more than a political pitch intended to convince voters that she not only could be, but must be elected. But in truth, Clinton was never inevitable.
In ways, she was the most vulnerable of the Democratic candidates. She had strong name recognition on her side, but the name was also a problem. Her husband, Bill, was a popular president, but by the time he left office, he had managed to disappoint and embarrass many of his strongest supporters. His appearances for his wife on the campaign trail produced mixed emotions — nostalgia for his early promise and regret for the bad choices and lies that sapped his political strength and damaged his party.
On her own, Hillary Clinton was a strong candidate, but her husband complicated matters. She could not lean too heavily on him in the campaign because she had to be seen by voters as an independent force. But she could not distance herself from his presidency because those years were the foundation of her claim of long experience in government.
The riddle of Bill Clinton — was he baggage to drag her down or a balloon to lift her above the common fray — was a problem for Hillary Clinton. But a greater problem was her gender.
As a woman, she was expected to maintain a standard of campaign conduct never demanded of men running for president and at the same time, prove herself worthy of office in ways that would never be required of a man. Would any of the male candidates feel compelled to down a shot and a beer for the cameras in a working-class bar in Pennsylvania to prove that he was “one of the guys”? Not likely.
Such embarrassments were unavoidable. Clinton was breaking new ground all the way through her campaign. By being the first woman to conduct a serious race for the nomination of a major party, she was drawing her own map as she went along. Her entire campaign was the search for an answer to the question: How does a woman get elected president? She came close to finding the answer.
Months ago, before the Iowa caucuses, it seemed as though she had found the answer — the appearance of total self-confidence and the assertion of the inevitability of her nomination.
The tactic seemed to be working. Even after Barack Obama’s surprising win in the Iowa caucuses, many in the media continued to assume her inevitability. But once it became obvious that Hillary Clinton would have to fight hard to have a chance at the nomination, the media turned on her and transferred her cloak of inevitability to Obama.
This media shift was not simply a matter of opining that Obama now had the better chance for the nomination. When the media ceased to worship Clinton, they began to attack her. The overt partisanship of campaign coverage has been disturbingly reminiscent of newspapers back in the days when there was any expectation of journalistic objectivity.
The question is not when and why the media stopped rooting for Clinton and began rooting for Obama. The question is, why are these reporters and commentators — who provide so much of the political coverage for the nation — rooting at all?
Should they not try, at least, for objectivity?
Viewed objectively, Hillary Clinton was a good candidate and she ran a good campaign.
She deserves the respect of her party and the nation — even of the media.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 7, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well written editorial, Mr. Kelley. I find it ironic, however, given the open and unapologetic manner in which the Gazette favors left leaning candidates for all offices, both on its editorial pages, but more disturbingly, on its news pages.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on June 7, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, Jayhawker, I, too, noticed an unusual degree of objectivity and lack of bias in that editorial. Normally, the Gazette leans so far to the left I have to tilt my head to read it.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 8, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, I was stunned by the objectivity of this article also. Somebody must have stolen the Keith Olbermann statue/idol from the Gazette offices.... LOL
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on June 8, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yak! Good one, open_eyes! You made me laugh.
Posted by under_score (anonymous) on June 9, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear. Mr. Kelley,
Where in the f*&% do you get off writing an article against media bias? That is truly the pot calling the kettle black.
You are truly a bigger idiot than I thought if you actually think someone with half a brain is going to take this article seriously!
Posted by Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) on June 9, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm curious, how many of you agree with Fox News' assertion of offering "fair and balanced" reporting?
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on June 9, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I suppose it would be just as fair to ask how many think CNN or MSNBC on the cable side or how many think network news is "fair and balanced."
Your question seems to assume that Fox News isn't fair and balanced. I suppose that's true. I think it's just as true to assume that the other news outlets aren't fair and balanced, either. The same is true for newspapers and periodicals. The days of objective journalism have almost completely faded. Today, advocacy journalism is the norm.
Media bias is a reality, but it's also in the eye of the beholder. I think it would be very easy for someone who watches Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann to assume that they are observing objective journalism at its best while Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are nothing but pure spin. The same would be true for those who watch Lou Dobbs or Jack Cafferty vis a vis others. In addition, I think we would all like to claim objectivity for ourselves and then relegate those with whom we disagree the unenlightened, subjective view. We may not like to admit it, but we all have biases and we tend to gravitate toward those who confirm or support them.
Your question prompted some questions for me to ask of you:
1. Do you believe that Fox News' bias is "conservative?"
2. Do you believe that "conservatives" are unenlightened?
3. Do you believe that you have any biases or do you believe that you are completely objective in your views?
Posted by Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) on June 9, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The only reason I asked that is because Fox News itself purports itself to be "fair and balanced" and wondered if others agreed. Why are you going off of the deep end, loafer?
Posted by Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) on June 9, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I prefer to listen to BBC News.
Posted by Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) on June 9, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess I should answer your questions before I get ripped for not doing so...
1) I assume Fox News is conservative because it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a self-proclaimed conservative.
2) I believe anyone that is closed-minded is unenlightened, conservative or liberal.
3) Though I try to be objective, I am human, therefore I have biases.
I hope this helps you out, loafer. I hope you reveal yourself sometime so that we can really talk.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 9, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First of all, I don't believe ANY of the major media outlets anymore are purely objective and unbiased.
I will say this about Fox News: Many (maybe even most) of the discussions they have involve people from BOTH points of view - for instance, they always have someone from both party sides, or from opposing points of view, and allow them both to get in their 2 cents worth. While the commentator may clearly be more in agreement with one side or the other, at least they have the kahuna's to present both points of view. I believe that is what they mean when they refer to themselves as "Fair and Balanced" - that they nearly always, on the shows mentioned above, have someone presenting both sides. Now, that may be more for entertainment purposes (watch them start getting heated and slugging it out) - but at least I hear both sides.
And what is so terribly wrong and biased about that?
Try it sometime. Try putting your own preconceptions about who is right and who is wrong aside for an hour, during, say, Bill O'Reilly, and simply mark down, as they go from topic to topic, how often the topic of discussion involves 2 opposing points of view (whether it be Dem or Rep, conservative or liberal). I'm not talking about spots with Dennis Miller or the like, I'm talking about issue discussions. Nor am I talking about the host him/herself, just what views are being aired.
And compare that to how often they do the same thing on, say, MSNBC.....
Personally, I like hearing both sides, even when the side I don't agree with seems to me flat-out-crazy. Like for instance, just to pick a topic at random that has been on alot, the Rev Wright fiasco - personally, I think anyone that would defend that guy is as crazy as he is, but, guess what, Fox News still puts them on and they get their say, along with the opposing side. I'm not saying they do this in every case, but more often than I've ever seen on any other networks....
Ever watch the mail segment at the end of O'Reilly? Every night, there are at least 2 letters, one accusing him of being way too overtly conservative, and another accusing him (on the same story) of being way too overly liberal.....
Too many people decide a news outlet is fair or unfair purely based on whether they agree with the side it favors.
I prefer, (to borrow a slogan from Fox) - to see both sides, and, being a view, "let the viewer decide".
Beauty (or in this case, objectivity) is in the eye of the beholder....
Ok, let the left-wing ripping of Fox News begin..... (because they DARE allow conservative viewpoints to be aired as well).....
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on June 9, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Denise
I'm a conservative in the stream of politics and statesmanship of Edmund Burke, Fred Kagan Fred Kagan on geo-politics, F.A. Hayek in economics, Augustine and Aquinas in theology, or Phillip Yancey on contemporary Christianity and culture, and Bill Buckley on apologetics.
I read the Emporia Gazette, the Jerusalem Post, The Washington Post, the Kansas City Star, and the Los Angeles Times.
I don't watch a lot of TV news. When I do it is either C-Span, PBS, or occasionally Fox.
I like to read the journalistic work of Christopher Hitchens, Charles Krauthammer, Peggy Noonan, Marvin Olasky, Thomas Sowell, E.J. Dionne, George Will, and David Broder.
My favorite books are the Bible, "Witness" by Whitaker Chambers, "One Man's Meat" by E.B.White, "Animal Farm" by George Orwell, "City of God" by Augustine, anything by C.S. Lewis, "The Lord of the Rings" triology by J.R. R. Tolkein, "The Stranger" by Albert Camus, "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Erich Remarque,"Lord Jim" by Joseph Conrad.
Blogs I frequent are "Mideast Web" (author is Israeli peace activist Ami Isseroff), "Slate (particularly Fred Kaplan)," "Townhall.com," "Christianity Today."
People in public life, living and dead, I admire - Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama, John McCain, Pope Benedict XVI, Billy Graham, C Everett Koop, Condoleezza Rice, those who serve in our military, Colin Powell, Dr. Martin Luther King, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, etc. etc. etc.
I have plenty of biases. Some I'm aware of, some I'm not. Those who disagree with me or don't know me are aware of many more, for which I am exceedingly grateful.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oops, I totally forgot to mention the "& Colmes" part of "Hannity and Colmes". As most people do when blasting Fox News and complaining about it being biased. Why is that? Alan Colmes pretty much presents the opposite view of Sean Hannity on most subjects, and seems to get about equal voice time on the show, yet he's never mentioned when people complain about Fox. Isn't splitting a show down the middle and giving 2 opposing sides equal voice somewhat "balanced"? Or, is it only "Fair", if Sean Hannity has no say? Is it only "balanced" if only guests that support Alan's views are brought on the show?
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The media has had a liberal bias for years and years. Yet, when one network (Fox) presents both sides, the liberals claim it is biased. What a world that we live in.
Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
lib·er·al·ism
1: the quality or state of being liberal : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties dcapitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
con·ser·va·tism
a: the principles and policies of a Conservative party b: the Conservative party a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We use the terms liberal or conserative to both identify and villify those around us. We assume all democrats are liberal and all rebulicans conservative. I tend to think most people are closer to the middle. The media is slanted only in the sense that the people presenting the news are a product of their own beliefs. Attacking the other side is always counterproductive. Today, we havent the time for that nonsense. Working together, as a novel concept as that may be, is the only way we move forward as a society.
Posted by Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW! A lot of information. I'd much more prefer to sit down face-to-face to share. This online communication in the shadows is interesting...
Though I don't agree with some of your opinions, I respect your opinions and would some time (not here), like to hear how and why you reached these beliefs. I'm also curious as to what events in your life led you to your beliefs. We all are a culmination of our individual pasts. I'm not making judgments, just interested.
I didn't ask my question about Fox to start a firestorm about conservative v. liberal. Fox news channel advertises itself to be fair and balanced; I do not believe any of the other news channels advertise as such, nor does the Gazette. I was simply curious as to whether you believe Fox is as it says it is. You have answered that question and then some.
Personally, I don't think any national news outlet, print or video, truly presents the news anymore. It's all about entertaining the masses and pandering to one mindset or another in order to sell their product.
Peace to you all.
Denise
Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Denise i agree with you completely. Shock and awe is the mainstay of the media. It attracts viewers and increases ad revenue. The news media is no different than any other entertainment outlet.
Posted by Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great point, lycomu!
I agree that attacking liberals or conservatives is not the way to move forward. Spending so much time on negativity and pointing out our differences wastes time and energy that could be better spent working toward the positives and common ground.
Peace to you all and have a great day!
Denise
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good discussion. Thanks for introducing the topic, Denise.
As to the labels (liberal and conservative, left wing, right wing), I agree with lycomu that they are sometimes used as a slam at those with whom we disagree. However, I think that they are useful as a shorthand to describe a philosophy, since we all know generally what they mean. Context is important. It does not offend me to be called a conservative, although I admit that the right wing label does imply extremism. Depending on how liberal one is, he/she might consider me to be extreme and therefore not intending a slam in calling me a right winger, even though I do not consider myself that way. Civility is the key. Sometimes we look for excuses to be offended. Those of us who have chosen to participate in these blogs need a little tough skin because some who disagree with us will be rude. That's just the way it is, although we should all guard against being that way toward others.
Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah civility where are you now? We have forgotten how to be civil, how to have a conversation. We tend , instead, to have confrontations. Is it not the commonality of us that bring us together and the differences in us that allow us to grow?
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen, lycomu. We might all be surprised to find out how much we can learn from each other. Even from those with whom we strongly disagree. If you close your mind to new ideas, you will not grow.
Posted by lycomu (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Winston Churchill said “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.”
Posted by Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks, Jayhawker!
I agree that civilty is the key. We all have the right to our own opinions on various things. Slamming each other gets us no where, creates more division and is non-productive. I also would like to suggest doing so gets us spiritually out of whack with the world and with God.
I must admit a couple of years ago I actually called someone on the telephone for writing a politically-charged letter to the editor that upset me greatly. Though I didn't know this person except for what he wrote, I ranted and raved at him making very personal remarks. I am still embarrassed and ashamed for doing this. However, I learned a lesson that day; taking others opinions that differ so personally is spiritually wrong and acting upon it puts you out of sorts with the world.
Everyone has the right to their opinion. Expressing a differing opinion should always be done so civilly and with respect for the other person.
I hope you don't mind my sharing this very personal event in my life.
Denise
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Trust me, Denise, all of us who have strong opinions have our stories about which we are embarrassed. I admit to being a "Clinton hater", and did not appreciate how wrong I had been until the "Bush haters" came along later. I realized that I was just as unreasonable then as they are today. Hating someone for his beliefs is just wrong. It is fair to disagree, but out of line to personally attack.
Posted by Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you again, Jayhawker! This online conversation today has really raised my spirits.
Sometimes, I read the commentaries on here and wonder how problems in the world can ever be solved when even here in this small, mid-western town we can't even find common ground.
We did find common ground this lovely spring morning. I hope and pray this peace can be found in the hearts of many people in this town and eventually spread across this state, this nation and the world.
Yes, I know this probably appears naive and silly, but I have faith this is what we are put on this earth to do. Our world could become a better place if we just return to our purpose for being here; treating our neighbor as we would wish ourselves to be treated.
Peace to you and yours,
Denise
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on June 10, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Aha! So this is where the intelligent, educated, socially adept bloggers hang out! I enjoyed reading all your entries above. Good thoughts and well presented. Thanks.
Posted by Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) on June 11, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't you wish all of the threads at the Gazette could be like this!
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)