I don't think there's any doubt when you compare coverage of Obama vs Hillary. It is what it is and it is much tougher for Hillary for a jillion reasons... most of which are not legitimate, understandable or unavoidable reasons.

Behind most of the tougher, more negative coverage of Hillary is the simple fact that our national press corps is no better than a bunch of 13 year old girls carping and gossiping and bitching about the girl they don't like and that they will never be BFF with. Our national press corps, in short, is a shallow, immature, dunderheaded, shameless, completely self-absorbed disgrace. In this case that disgrace produces a much more negative and/or tough coverage of Hillary, but the main point is that they are a disgrace.

I dunno, has anyone (except john dickerson) done any kind of followup on Clintons claims that she's tested and ready? She's never had a primary challenger before and the Republican opposition she faced in both of her Senate elections has been a joke. Yet, she's supposedly ready.

Likewise, on the experience front, she's largely gotten a pass on her claims. No big expose about the nature and depth of her legislative experience--just a general assumption that she's prepared to be president. Why? Who knows. She says she is and that's where we are.

I get that Clinton has gotten some unfair media coverage, but I also know that she's gotten some highly favorable coverage as well. The Hsu story went nowhere (even though he was acting at her direction to raise funds for folks like Vilsack). The tax returns is a big non-starter even though there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the press should be digging into it. And the bullshit spin they put out everyday. Not once has anyone called them on it--like the NAFTA mailer flip out. No one point out the blatantly dishonest mailers she's used prior to EVERY contest since New Hampshire. But she complains loudly of bias and the media, predictably, decides that it must ramp up the same type of bullshit on Obama (your Rezko piece today is case in point--nothing new, but yet you potray it as if there is something there while admitting that there isn't).

So, in the end, the press has been more of an allay that an enemy. And today of all days should demonstrate that.

I'd really be interested in some reactions to the new dimension that Greenwald, Digby, and (belatedly) I are trying to articulate here -- that the debate over which candidate the media has been "tougher" on is basically meaningless, and that it's only a matter of time until the same bogus "toughness" starts being applied to Obama.

Hillary has never really had to answer the tough questions about a little matter of corruption, let alone her supposed experience.

The clearest example is her amazing cattle futures trading.

"You're just picking on a woman" is the usual response.

Be certain that nonsense would not likely suffice in a a presidential contest with John McCain though Bush got away with more.

Best, Terry

More than half of Democrats say feel that the Media has not been tougher on Hillary than on Obama.

That means, using Greg Sargent logic; A majority of Democrats think Hillary is full of shit. Give her a mega enema, for cripes sake, so she will stop her constipated whining.

You are asking the wrong question here. It is not about the press being harder or easier on any of the 2 candidates, but about the fairness of the press with respect to the candidates.

Let me put it like this: over the last 60 years, has the press been harder on Hitler than on Churchill? Hell yes! Has the press been unfair to Hitler compared to Churchill? Hell no!

So if you ask the question like that: Is Press Harder On Hillary?, the answer is: Justifiably Yes. It is justified to be harder on a candidate that's 100 delegates behind and whom at some moment had to lend her campaign $5,000,000.

But if you ask the question Is Press Unfair to Hillary? well, then I don't know.

But I have at least one meta answer to it: how can you say the press is unfair to Hillary when you just swallowed her talking points about being harder on her, although that is not the correct question to ask.

I do like the way, that the Clintons have, once again, steered our attention on the important campaign issues of the day.

And the "bullying" press is obliging them!

It's pretty absurd to claim a media bias, and every pundit I've seen weigh in on this issue has missed what seems to me to be the central question - has the coverage been accurate and fair? Fairness does not mean that for every negative piece about one candidate, you must have a negative piece about the other. Nor does fairness mean that you cannot write negatively about either candidate. Fairness means - are you accurately reporting on what each candidate is up to?

If one candidate is making more negative news, deploying more negative tactics -- if one of them is just generally doing more ridiculous things, and telling more falsehoods than the other candidate -- then shouldn't the coverage reflect that?

Since we cannot expect that the two candidates are are actually the same people, doing and saying the same things in the same ways, we should not expect that the reporting on them should be the same.

For every example that Clinton holds up that the press is being unfair to her, there is another that Obama could (but generally isn't) holding up. A handful of examples. I've seen far more coverage of Rezko than Hsu. Obama would not be permitted to still be in this race if he'd lost 11 straight by an average of 33 points subsequent to Super Tuesday. The cable news shows are littered with Hillary surrogates repeating her talking points until they begin to set in as 'common knowledge' (including this one about her being treated unfairly by the press). Where was the coverage of Hillary's blatantly-lying mailers attacking Obama on abortion? They've been going out since Iowa, and continue to. Where was Matthews trying to nail a fringe Hillary surrogate on the question of what she's accomplished in the Senate? When has there been any questioning of her achievements, or her claims to being 'tested' and 'ready' as commander-in-chief? Where is the skepticism about and research into her claims of 35 years of experience?

There are several factors at work, here - first, there is the horse race aspect - it is in the networks' interest to have a prolonged and tumultuous campaign. Second, there is the general sloppiness of the 24-hour cable news cycle with its frenzied attention-deficit disorder, in which there is only time to slop distorted regurgitations of 20-second talking points at each other - I believe Hillary's team has proven better at providing fodder for this, and, for all their well-documented incompetence in other areas, its a credit to them.

Also, I believe many are mistaking op-eds for articles, confusing opinion for coverage. I think that distinction gets lost on the Internet and on cable news. In a newspaper, it's clear from which page you're looking at what the context of the piece is - either a professional report, or someone's unabashed opinion. Don't confuse the two.

I'll repeat what I think is the most important point, though - of course one of the candidates will, on balance, have fewer negative things written about him or her, because one of the two candidates will be doing and saying less negative stuff than the other.

If we're not careful we'll get into question-begging (in the proper sense of that much-abused term) on this issue.

If there is more unfavorable material published on X than on Y, does that necessarily mean that X is getting more scrutiny or that X has more unfavorable material to be reported on?

Must we invent stuff about Y to make for "a level playing field"?

I think democrats are conditioned to thinking the press is unfair to the Clintons because of what happened during impeachment. The press was truly hideous to them during that time.

There was that instant warm response to Hillary when she said during the Texas debate about how everyone knows she went through some crises during her life. I felt it too, though it was fleeting. I think the feeling of outrage at the press is one the Clintons want to evoke again, but it's not the same this time around.

The press in general is superficial. They may like Obama more but how much of that has actually helped him? The storyline on him has and continues to be that he has no substance, no matter what the guy says. They may dislike Hillary but how much of that has hurt her? After a month of losing, she is still considered a formidable candidate and she's polling well in tomorrow's contests.

After impeachment, Bill said correctly the public is smart because they saw through all that bad press. I don't think Hillary can continue to blame her losses wholly on press bias.

The fact that this "issue" is even an issue directly contradicts the issue's issueness. This is really just one more indication of how the Clinton campaigns owns and operates every media cycle. Beginning w/ the last debate and moving throughout the week and weekend, it's been all above proving or disproving Clinton's dissatisfaction with her press coverage and its alleged bias. My opinion?

Who cares what she says?

The Clintons have cultivated over time a deep antipathy between the press and themselves through their own insistence on misrepresenting inconvenient little roadblocks like facts over and over again. We're well into Decade #2 of this. Why pretend the Clintons are innocents? They're not.

And they're doing it again, btw, by literally disparaging the press to gain favor with it. And the press play right into it.

March 3, 2008
Limbaugh urges listeners to vote for Clinton
Posted: 04:51 PM ET
Limbaugh wants the Democratic race to continue.
Limbaugh wants the Democratic race to continue.

(CNN) – As Hillary Clinton battles to keep her presidential bid alive, she may be getting help from an unlikely source: conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh has been actively urging his Texas listeners to cross over and vote for Clinton in that state's open primary Tuesday, arguing it helps the Republicans if the Democratic race remains unsettled for weeks to come.

I think the press has been absolutely unfair to Hillary. And she was NOT who I wanted to win the nomination. She has faced bigger scruitiny and bigger smears from the pundits than any of the other candidates. Obama is now getting a little bit of negative attention but the timing is such that it was only after the SNL skit aired.

McCain has gotten a huge pass from the press. The only ones following up on McCain's lobbying issues are the progressive blogs and websites. Instead media has smeared the NYT.

The media unfortunately is absolutely influencing who our choices will be in a big and special way. Where was the coverage on Biden, Dodd or Richardson? Even Edwards was largely ignored as was pointed out, rightly so, just before he called it quits. The media seems to want an Obama/McCain matchup. Unfortunately, I think they're going to get it since too many Americans don't pay enough attention. Pretty frightening that our media that focuses so much attention on if Britney Spears has shaved her head, or whether Paris Hilton will spend time in jail, is actually have a significant influence on the biggest election in my lifetime.

In my opinion, yes Hillary has received the more offensive press. Bill's comments were claimed to be racist when they weren't, the likes of CNN removed Begala and Carville at the request of the Obama campaign but kept all the Obama supporters, especially the black ones like Roland Martin. You have the likes of most stories about Hillary always starting with a negative. Most of the complaints she has about him have been treated with the mantra of she is tearing apart the party, while comments he makes about her are treated as if he is someone hard done by having Hillary complain about him or even question his experience. His coverage is mostly of "change", "inspiration", "bipartisan" while she is usually classified in derogatory sexist terms of "shrill" "shrew", talking about her hair and clothes and laugh. This race is exactly where it is today with Obama ahead because that is what the media long ago decided would be the outcome. Sorry, those are my personal opinions, and if you disagree, then that is your right to do so as to how you see the coverage from the viewpoint of who you support. I also want to say, in any election, I have never heard such hatred towards a person as I have seen on many blogs. The votes are split pretty even so why on earth should she drop out? She has every right to stay in this race as long as she wishes.

it's pretty hilarious how this is the only way the Clinton campaign can manipulate the press. the entire "the media are picking on me" narrative is designed to do 2 things: stir up sympathy from voters, obviously, but just as importantly and thus far completely overlooked is as a distraction of the media from the preceding narrative (e.g. "how can Hillary possibly stay in this race?" and the various meltdowns and missteps of her campaign) by giving them their favorite subject, themselves, to feast upon.

a candidate that says "let's talk about the issues!" is literally doing everything she can to prevent the media from focusing on "the issues" by urging them to refocus on themselves, which of course they are more than happy to do. there's nothing Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews and David Gregory (let alone bloggers, most of whom depend on their names for their very survival) enjoy more than talking about Tucker, Chris, and Dave and how well they are doing their jobs or how offended they are at the idea their networks have been outlaying unequal treatment.

its the same general concept as what she has been trying to do to Obama over the course of the campaign (but with decidedly less ease and success): put your target on the defensive by leveling barely tenable accusations that force them to defend themselves. and rather than simply ignoring it, or deflecting it with a short, deft answer (the way Obama has been), the media by its very nature MUST engage, and thus spend its energies on what is not an actual issue.

I thought that in that last debate, Tim Russert was going to smack Hillary with that booklet. His face looked so intense, with his eyes bulging and staring at her so intense. He looked furious as he shook that book at her and accused her! She quickly took the air out of his argument with her response, but his attack was downright personal! The bias, the downright hostility was readily apparent to anyone, even a rabid Obamamite should have seen it.

Later, he claimed he threw a question out about Iraq and didn't direct it to her but she "took" it. If you saw the other view of it, you'd see he was again bug eyed and looking right at her when he "threw it out there". It was clear he was asking her yet again. But having his back to the audience, he thought he could cover that up.

The SNL skit on that debate was dead on accurate.

I think overall the press has been harder on Sen. Clinton. I think they press is finally starting to take a critical look at Sen. Obama, which is good. I think the SNL skit may have shamed them into action.

There is an interesting article arguing that despite the media hype, Sen. Clinton will be more electable in a general election than Sen. Obama. You can find it at:

http://thepragmaticdemocrat.blogspot.com/

Members of the media ("media" does not act in concert)have reported on the Obama phenomenon for what it is: a surprising movement led by a charismatic leader.

In the meantime, with the urging of Clinton surrogates, he has also endured constant repetitions of unfounded accusations about his religion, race, patriotism, and even whether a phrase out of his speech was plagiarized. His past associations have been questioned, his wife's patriotism from a minor slip of the tongue has been featured, and even a ridiculing photo has been circulated through five news cycles.

Despite 20 years of impressive experience, the false impression has been allowed to stand that Clinton has "35 years" of relevant experience when 35 years dates back to her graduation from law school and includes minor attorney positions with the government and a long partnership with a corporate law firm that represented everything except the public interest. When she panders for votes based on gender, news people beam and nod while such blatant racial appeals would disqualify Obama.

Now, on the eve of the Texas and Ohio primaries, Clinton gets plum spots on Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show, while Obama is forced to respond to one hyped accusation after another (including a direct appeal to fear right out of the Rove playbook).

Bias against Clinton? This is a candidate who would never even have been considered for the Senate much less the presidency were it not for her husband. Up against the actual news story (Obama has caught fire while she has not)the bias revealed in most news stories is that she has any legitimate reason to still be in the race.

The latest "bias" claim by Clinton's cynical campaign team is just one more example of the Clintons' ability to obfuscate the truth to their advantage. I fear these tactics work -- but I am happy that they have come late in the game -- too late to resurrect a disingenous politician.