For a little while, I thought that when Barack Obama was finally elected to be POTUS 44, that perhaps the media would let up on Hillary Clinton. Maybe it was my post-election euphoria about potential Supreme Court nominations that clouded my judgment, but I guess I should have known better. Criticizing Hillary Clinton is such a popular cable news sport I’m not sure they’d know what to do if that was off the table.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews continues the private drumbeat of anti-Clinton sentiment (no matter the first name), even though he has had some public moments saying she could be great.
The media aren’t letting up, but why? Is this really about her qualifications? Or her ability to be loyal? No one should question the loyalty thing after what she’s been through in her personal life. Some are tossing out her vote on the Iraq War as evidence that she can’t possibly be a good Secretary of State since Obama, even though he wasn’t in the Senate at the time, opposed the war.
If that’s the test, then I guess Joe Biden shouldn’t be the VP-elect and we should all be questioning his ability to carry out Obama policies in a loyal way, as well. I’m not holding my breath on that one.
All this talk about Clinton isn’t about her qualifications. It’s about the deep sentiment that runs through a lot of people who will NEVER, EVER give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt. Not even if she were to win Dancing with the Stars, take over for the late Mother Theresa, and start her own miracle skin care line that would erase our wrinkles forever.
Hillary may have her own agenda (don’t we all?). But what would she really gain by undermining Barack Obama and running, as many pundits claim, a parallel government from her office at the State Department? The only thing that gets her is the vow of most of the Democratic party not to be behind her if she wants to consider a run for the White House in 2016.
Is it really all that difficult to embrace the notion of trying to use an opponent’s weak spots during a campaign, but coming together to work for the greater good given the current situation the whole world finds itself in right now?
And I thought I was cynical.
I’m not sure if the continual Hillary-bashing is a sexist thing or a Clinton thing. But I’d love to see the pundits be a little more even-handed when it comes to talk about Hillary from here on out. Come on, guys, let’s move on to a new topic that’s worthy of all this airtime, like, say, the Top Chef finale.
And in case any of the networks or cable outlets are looking to replace some of those pundits who can’t seem to get off that anti-Hillary note and could be a bit more even-handed, I have a little spare time! And I know a lot of other really smart women who do, too. Heck, a few fresh faces could even improve your ratings!
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
And another question is will the media ever let up on Sarah Palin?
Look, she’s just a nice hard working woman who has been reasonably successful. ‘They’ are still after her about her campaign clothes.
As my savvy girlfriend said – ‘They’d rather have a black man in the White house than a woman.’
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
To answer your question: no.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I couldn’t agree more with you Pundit Mom.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
No, they won’t, nor will they let up on Palin. It is a sexist thing that curiously crosses gender lines because their are women in the media just as determined to undermine.
We can pat ourselves on the back for having elected a black president. Frankly it was quite the feat given the prejudice that still exists in pockets of our country, but we are nowhere near where we should be on the issue of gender equity (look at Obama’s new WPAish plan – where are the jobs for women?) and the media is partly to blame. They will not allow a women to come close to viability as a leader without attacking her on issues unrelated or tenuously so. We quit fighting for our liberation too easily. They threw us a few bones and proclaimed victory. This is our ultimate reward for that – our most worthy women (and I am not counting Palin because she has a LOT more to learn about a lot of things) are raked over the media fire when they “over-reach”.
The media thing is about keeping us in our place.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
That’s why I don’t believe people when they say they hate Sarah Palin because of her “qualifications.”
If it’s about qualifications why couldn’t women, men, the media get behind Hillary Clinton?
We have two political ideologies that are polar opposites and both women take the exact same public thrashing.
Um, cause it’s not about experience and qualifications – at all.
We don’t like our women too ambitious.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:04 am
I doubt they will. And at this point I’d say it’s a toss up about whether it’s sexism or just plain old Clinton hating. During the primary I do think a lot of it was sexism.
And I agree about MSNBC (and NBC, for that matter)! David Gregory for Meet The Press? Pleaseeeeeeesssss …
BAC