Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The press turns on Hillary

The press turns on Hillary

Not that “likeable” after all?

I had thought that the press would stand by Hillary Clinton in the same way they’ve stood by Obama—through thick and thin. After all, Obama has committed acts far worse than Hillary’s, has covered up more, and has been just as egregious in his lies. And yet I can’t recall Obama having been subjected to questions even remotely as difficult as the ones Hillary faced (and answered poorly) this week, although the press could have grilled him that way any time he appeared before them.

They chose not to do that, but they chose to ask some real questions of Hillary Clinton. Why the differential treatment?

As soon as the email story broke, the NY Times led the attack. Originally it seemed that they may have wanted to get it over with in a perfunctory way and then let her candidacy continue, or that this was being done at the direction of Obama who wanted another candidate for various reasons. But now I’ve come to think that the first reason isn’t operative (at least, not any more), and that although the second may be true, it doesn’t account for the fervor of the criticism.

Perhaps part of the reason this thing has gotten bigger is that Clinton has handled it poorly. Perhaps the MSM is piling on because they thought Hillary would be better at dealing with it than she has demonstrated so far, and they’re panicking because her performance means she will be a bad candidate come 2016. Or perhaps they know of other scandals, and they want her out before the revelations multiply (and end up reflecting poorly on their favorite, Obama, or on liberalism itself?) If they can’t put out this fire they may want to fan the flames so that the sacrifice happens more quickly and a new and more viable candidate is chosen, and they can get credit for “objectivity” (for hurting one of their own) into the bargain.

What’s more, it’s becoming clearer that they just don’t like Hillary and are tired of her. Obama—whose business it is to know these things—knew from the start that Hillary had some problems in the “likeability” arena. Remember this?:

Who’s the more likeable figure in that exchange? It’s one of those clenched-teeth conversations in which humor masks testiness; there is clearly no love lost between these two, and it’s astounding that they ever worked together.

In early 2009 Bernard Goldberg wrote a book about Obama and the press entitled A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media. That is quite descriptive, and although there have been a few tiny bumps in the road (the course of true love never did run completely smooth) that love affair has continued and has benefited Obama mightily. Without it, he might not have won in 2008, and there is an even greater chance that he would not have won in 2012.

I don’t think that Obama’s race is the reason for the love affair, although it most likely contributes to it: the desire to elect, and then not to criticize, the first black president lest one be accused of racism. Also, liberal journalists believe that Obama is ideologically one of them. But something additional may be going on, something about Obama himself—his supposed intelligence, coolness, suavity; also a bandwagon effect, and maybe even a fear of what he could do to those who cross him. Hillary doesn’t have that je ne sais quoi, although she does have the advantage of being a woman and therefore a member of a favored group whose “time has come” to be president.

It may not be enough. That doesn’t mean she won’t end up being the Democratic nominee, or even win the 2016 election. But it’s no longer looking like her nomination is such an inevitability.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The biggest difference between 0bama and Hillary is skin color, and race is indeed the MAJOR factor why the media fawns over their black messiah.

    pjm in reply to walls. | March 12, 2015 at 10:58 am

    It’s the main, if not the sole, reason he was elected.

    And he knows it. And plays it every day. And will do so until he leaves office. Then he will get even richer writing about it.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to pjm. | March 12, 2015 at 2:39 pm

      The “only” reason – so Dems could pull all their “get rich quick’ Con schemes.

Why would you think the press or the Democratic Party would stand behind Hillary? Both rejected her in favor of an unknown, unveiled, inexperienced candidate whose campaign was dripping with financial scandal, overblown promises, and outright lies. Further, the two major political newspapers in the country spiked unfavorable stories about the Obama campaign, including the strange actions by the campaign during the primaries. Of the two, the Washington Post admitted spiking stories, and the New York Times did not.

My call is that Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee. Experience tells me that the frontrunners this far in advance rarely make it through the primary process. Instead, the Democrats will flail about until they find a shiny, new object, preferably one with the right social dog whistles. It worked in the cases of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, and so they will try it, again.

Meanwhile, the Republicans should continue to point out that the Democratic Party failed in its duty the last time around, just ilke they did with Mr. Carter, and that Mr. Obama’s economic policies have been just as hurtful and inappropriate as Mr. Carter’s.

    Valerie in reply to Valerie. | March 12, 2015 at 10:22 am

    “unveiled” was not what I typed. I typed “unvetted.”

      pjm in reply to Valerie. | March 12, 2015 at 11:00 am

      Sorry, you are not allowed to post-vet your comments here 🙂

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Valerie. | March 12, 2015 at 2:43 pm

      The Liestream Media is hoping and pushing for big faker millionaire Lizzie Borden Warren – who’s as big a fake as millionaire Obama.

      Or the Liestream Media would be just as happy with un-qualified Michelle or Oprah.

      Then the “media” will be cackling like the mad chickens they are that “It’s the first woman running for president in history!”

    stevewhitemd in reply to Valerie. | March 12, 2015 at 10:53 am

    I agree. Why would anyone think the press would stand by Ms. Clinton?

    They sure didn’t in 2008. Champ destroyed her in part because the press helped him do so. They favored Champ and they did Hillary in to help pull him across the finish line for the nomination.

    One might argue that the press, seeing no alternative for 2016, would now get behind Hilde. Not a chance — the press is part of the active search for another candidate. Said other candidates, be it Senator Warren or anyone else, won’t get into the race until Hilde has been taken down, because they know her wrath and her money/influence machine would harm their nascent candidacy.

    Therefore, she’s being taken down.

    I give it to July — Senator Warren then “reluctantly” enters the race as the standard-bearer for the progressive Left so as to “save the country” and “save the Democratic Party”.

    At which point, the press will dust off the 2008 playbook for Champ, update it modestly, and use it to drag Warren across the finish line.

    Some things never change.

    inspectorudy in reply to Valerie. | March 12, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    I too don’t think hillary will be the nominee but if she is the left will coalesce around her like she is a gift from God. They will overlook every fault that she has as well as all of the lies she has told, just like they did in obama’s second election. Most people with a brain thought there was no way obama would win the last election after his disastrous first term. Boy were we wrong!

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to inspectorudy. | March 12, 2015 at 2:45 pm

      They’ll “use” her and Bill as thier bottomless money bags once again. But now it is clearly documented where all those illegal overseas contributons in late summmer, early fall of 2008 and 2012 were coming from.

      “Demcocrat politician – will work for the terrorist dollar!”

Midwest Rhino | March 12, 2015 at 11:08 am

Hope and Change won’t work, so Hillary’s best attack is “Isn’t it time we had a woman president?” Big Money surely knows/thinks they get more return from Hillary than a Walker, and are already invested. But they see now not just a stumbling unlikeable candidate, but one that will likely be under investigation even as she campaigns. She’s gone from sleazy to maybe demonstrably criminal.

Hillary personifies no hope no change, old lecherous Bill’s wife, now with more baggage than ever. Bill was called to the convention to carry Barack into the White House, but there is nothing shiny about cheated on wife Hillary, and no more sex appeal to an old man Clinton molesting interns in The People’s House.

So O’Malley is making noise, poking Hillary a little. His stock just went way up. But isn’t America really demanding the first American Indian Woman President?

I think that the reason the media turned on Hillary in 2008 was more because they saw a candidate to the left of her that they felt could be elected with their support. If they saw Obama as unelectably fringe, they would not have helped him so much and Hillary would be President.

If no candidate emerges to the left of Hillary that is deemed by the media as being electable, then they will eventually get behind her and help her win the nomination. It’s still early and they can always use their giving her a hard time now as proof that they really do their jobs while they do everything they can to promote the Clinton Corporation.

maybe they were, for once, smart enough to put 2 and 2 together and got 4 for once.
the press knows there was missing info about benghazi and, with respect to the state dept, missing info about fast and furious.
they now know she ran her own mail server and realized she did it to hide emails.
and for once they figured they could not sugar coat it so they cautiously ran with it.

Henry Hawkins | March 12, 2015 at 11:55 am

Access is the lifeblood of journalism and Hillary Clinton is a notorious hater/avoider/controller/bullier of media people.

When Bill was prez, the media loved him and in turn were nice to his harpy of a wife because they had to be while Bill held their adoring gazes and granted access. Well, Bill’s gone from the stage and they don’t have to endure his wife any longer.

It’s in the press’s best interest to have a GOP president. Then they can actually report and be relevant. No one goes into journalism with the aspiration of being a hack cog in a political machine. That’s what they’ve become. I feel sad for them (it might be measured in micro-give-a-shits, but it’s still sad).

    Ragspierre in reply to Andy. | March 12, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    Oh, I violently disagree! These pukes are part of “the arch of history”.

    They THINK they have some role they are playing, that they are on the side of angels, and that THEY are IMPORTANT.

    They are none of those things. But they ARE good Collectivists, and therefore delusional.

I gotta ask…

“What’s to like?”

This woman is one of the LEAST likeable people I’ve ever seen. She’s cold, mean as a snake, remote, detached, designing, and a profound hypocrite. I have every reason to hold her intelligence at best mediocre, and no reason to rate it any higher. She is a life-long Collectivist and overt anti-American. She hates, loathes, and despises what most Americans hold dear, including the very idea of marriage.

It is no joke to say her ONLY claim has been her decades of submissively enabling really BAD men and raking in money in a fashion that would make the comic-book capitalist villain blush.

    luagha in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    From Democrat acquaintances of mine, in person Hillary is supposed to be very warm and charming. IF you are devoted to her/working for her/not crossing her in any way. She can be a ‘retail politician’ (good at face to face) with those people who already agree with her. In every way.

    If you don’t already agree with her in every way, and if you aren’t face to face, well….

      Ragspierre in reply to luagha. | March 12, 2015 at 2:41 pm

      This may be particular…ok, peculiar…to me, but…

      there is NOTHING I personally HATE worse than being “charmed” by someone who INTENDS to “charm”.

      It is phoney and manipulative. To me, it’s insulting.

      LBJ was reputedly quite charming. Like a snake.

      (Now, it must be said that I LOVE to find a genuine lady charming. No wine more heady…)

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to luagha. | March 12, 2015 at 2:59 pm

      The previous two posts describe a maglinant narcissist pychopath to a T.

      Just saying…..

      Very good insite into these “beings” who have absolutely
      no conscience is this comment.

      “They don’t really ‘make friends’ and take a spouse;
      they take “hostages!”

      Stockholm Syndrome anyone?

        Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Not A Member of Any Organized Political. | March 12, 2015 at 3:01 pm

        Ugh. “insight”

        RE: Posts –

        Ragspierre | March 12, 2015 at 12:06 pm

        I gotta ask…

        “What’s to like?”

        This woman is one of the LEAST likeable people I’ve ever seen. She’s cold, mean as a snake, remote, detached, designing, and a profound hypocrite. I have every reason to hold her intelligence at best mediocre, and no reason to rate it any higher. She is a life-long Collectivist and overt anti-American. She hates, loathes, and despises what most Americans hold dear, including the very idea of marriage.

        It is no joke to say her ONLY claim has been her decades of submissively enabling really BAD men and raking in money in a fashion that would make the comic-book capitalist villain blush.

        Reply

        0

        1
        luagha | March 12, 2015 at 12:53 pm

        From Democrat acquaintances of mine, in person Hillary is supposed to be very warm and charming. IF you are devoted to her/working for her/not crossing her in any way. She can be a ‘retail politician’ (good at face to face) with those people who already agree with her. In every way.

        If you don’t already agree with her in every way, and if you aren’t face to face, well….

        Such people as Bill and Hill form “strategic alliances”, not loving couples. Everything they do is part of their calculus…part of their design for ascendency and predation. They can and do cheat on each other without compunction, because both know and understand that what they are doing has nothing to do with norms of love and fidelity. It’s about pursuit of ambitions.

    Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2015 at 8:46 pm

    The Clinton’s are both crooks. Normal people would have been in jail long ago. R’s would have gone to jail. The D party is just as corrupt, and protects the “dons”.

Obama played the press like a master violinist. When a scandal broke, he was first up with a sound byte or a (somewhat) plausible explanation. Whether it was objectively plausible is another issue, but he was always there to throw something at least mildly credible to the press.

Hillary, by contrast, is far too secretive; she’s not giving the press anything. When she finally appeared to answer questions about the private e-mail server, her explanation is so far-fetched and implausible that they can’t run with it and maintain any semblance of credibility.

In short, they’re grilling Hillary harder than they ever grilled Obama, directly because her answers are so blatantly contradictory. The press (rightfully) sees it as a show of contempt; Hillary is clearly expecting them to go along with anything she says, no matter how stupid or unlikely, because “Hillary”.

I don’t honestly believe the NYT will clue in to the fact that lying to the press while expecting their undying support is just what liberal “Progressives” do, but Hillary in particular has overstepped their tolerance. They’re done with her.

Not as popular as her serial rapist significant other? Ouch.

The two known successful presidential campaign strategies are:

1. a brand new day (Obama uses this with hope and change, G.W. Bush used it with ‘compassionate conservatism’)

2. back to basics (Scott Walker and Jeb Bush are using this in promising a return to basic competency)

‘I’m a woman’ is not on this list. The War On Women card is a valid attack strategy and it was used to attack Mitt Romney. That’s just a negative campaign tactic, though. It’s not a valid complete campaign basis.

In my humble opinion, the reason the press is digging in to Hillary is because they much prefer Warren. I think they are wanting to destroy Hillary, who is not a very “progressive” candidate or very far left compared to Obama and Warren, for the much more “progressive” candidate waiting in the wings. If Warren wasn’t around and it was just Hillary v. Biden vying at this point for the nomination I don’t think the press would be going after Hillary very much at all.
(And who would have thought, 20 years ago, that I would be referring to Hillary as not very far left? Oh how far we’ve strayed.)

Thanks,
Ted

    Yes. Also, I am sure that while journalists would support Hillary Clinton chapter and verse if she were the nominee, they are inwardly groaning at the prospect of yet another scandal-plagued Clinton administration they would have to defend unconditionally. Many of the older journalists remember how the media took a well-deserved beating to their credibility for being Slick Willie’s pooper-scoopers.

      “Many of the older journalists remember how the media took a well-deserved beating to their credibility for being Slick Willie’s Many of the older journalists remember how the media took a well-deserved beating to their credibility for being Slick Willie’s pooper-scoopers..”

      Disagree. It’s the reason they are “journalists”. They don’t seem to mind being “pooper scoopers” for Obambi.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Ted Bell. | March 12, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    Did you read the professor’s post of yesterday commenting on how Warren is as bad or worse than Hillary?

    “Liz Warren still running from the press”
    “Every bit as controlling as the Clintons.”

    Posted by William A. Jacobson ▪ March 11, 2015

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2015/03/liz-warren-still-running-from-the-press/

Henry Hawkins | March 12, 2015 at 1:20 pm

Charisma.

The missing element for Hillary is personal charisma (defined as general attractiveness born of personality):

Nixon, Ford, Carter – No real charisma
Reagan – Had it, in spades
Bush, Sr – Nope, not really
B. Clinton – Had it, in spades
G. Bush – Nope, not really
Obama – Has it, but it’s declining, except among lib base
Hillary – Um, NO.
Warren – Nada, nope.

RE: Sarah Palin, it was her personal charisma more than her record than scared Democrats pissless.

Plus, the shallower our political system gets, the more charisma plays a role, though it should never stand as a candidate’s only attribute.

The GOP has a great bench, most of whom we are only just getting to know, but I see 2-3 as possibily emerging with engaging, charismatic personalities, namely Cruz, Rubio, and possibly Walker, too soon to tell. Rick Perry is certainly likeable, but I’m not sure ‘charismatic’ is accurate. Jeb Bush, Jindal, and others, not so much.

Disclaimer: Talking about personalities here, not speech-making ability or electability or strength of record, etc.

A spot-on analysis! I also think a sizable portion of the media prefer Elizabeth Warren to Hillary Clinton, since they see the former as another relatively unknown identity politics candidate that a gullible public could be enticed into supporting. By contrast, Hillary has been around for two scandal-plagued decades, and having her as the face of Hope & Change Part II might be a harder sell.

And – this cannot be minimized – some journalists also see Warren as being a “purer” socialist than Clinton, which is a major selling point for our modern day Praetorian Guard media.

One factor may simply be the number of people who are email/tech-savvy nerds these days, which makes Hillary’s dodges and lies plainly obvious and easily understood except for complete technophobes and troglodytes.

Emailgate Coverup brought to you by Technophobes and Troglodytes for Hillary 2016!

Sammy Finkelman | March 12, 2015 at 2:43 pm

Almost every reporter covering Hillary has dealt with the exact same email issues themselves – and they didn’t put all their work e-mail on a personal account, nor did they have their own ISP.

Sammy Finkelman | March 12, 2015 at 2:58 pm

Elizabeth Warren isn’t going to run. She’s a fraud. The Clintons just want us to think she’s the alternative, and also maybe, if for some reason Hillary has to drop out, they’ll get behind Elizabeth Warren, who will at least protect her.

The only alternative Democratic candidate right now is Joe Biden, although almost nobody’s thinking about him anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/politics/democrats-see-a-field-of-one-heading-to-2016.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/politics/early-in-2016-race-clintons-toughest-foe-appears-to-be-the-news-media.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/upshot/imagining-2016-without-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

    AZ_Langer in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | March 12, 2015 at 8:02 pm

    Have you not noticed by now that the MSM are very supportive of frauds? They’re pretty good at indoctrinating the gullible to advance their agenda.

    In the dictionary, under Fraud, it says see Obama. Obama has to be the biggest fraud in history. You really think the press or the democrats care if there candidate is a fraud?

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | March 12, 2015 at 3:09 pm

Nice propaganda.

Henry Hawkins | March 12, 2015 at 3:38 pm

HILLARY 2016 – IT TAKES A PILLAGE

Now we learn that Hillary used federal money to pay salaries at the Clinton Foundation, that she got $16 million total from the government, some of which went to pay salaries at CF. It’s good to be the queen!

Don’t buy into the hype about “There’s No One Else!!!!111!1!!!!!”

In 1991, Bill Clinton was just some hick from a nothing state. (GHWB famously flubbed where it is on the map.) He only got the nomination because all the “serious candidates” with Ds after their name were waiting to run in 1996.

There are plenty of more likeable and more palatable Dems with at least as much experience as Bill Clinton had. The Dems *will* pick a candidate with better campaign instincts than Hillary has — someone who is a blank slate that the MSM can define for America on the national stage. And that candidate will get at least 45% of the national vote in the Presidential election.

We still need a strong candidate — and we need to not be tearing each other down too much in the primary process. I think we have a bunch of good candidates — I love the way Bobby Jindal has been handling the MSM’s faux scandals-of-the-week. He’d be a great VP.

I’m still very optimistic, but let’s not get overconfident.

Because MSM War on Women.

David R. Graham | March 13, 2015 at 12:48 am

“… something about Obama himself….”

Yes, he does not want to leave the White House. Nor do Jarrett or Michelle. They are afraid of overriding the Constitution on term limits. They are afraid of a lot, actually. So they broke this email business to take down Hillary so Michelle could run and win and he, Jarrett, Michelle and Michelle’s mother — a vastly underrated presence there — stay in the White House.

For a related reason they did the same to Dave Petraeus: keep him off any Republican ticket.

Legacy media types are playing along, for ideological reasons (Globalism, anti-USA/anti-nation state) and because they are afraid of losing “access” to White House occupiers, whom they regard as omnipotent. That is what is going on here. They know Michelle is next up and are helping clear the way for her.

But… but… but… SMARTEST WOMAN IN THE WORLD!!!

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend