I regard Hillary's campaign as being both incompetant and despicable. She lost because she ran a bad campaign. The media was easy on her in that she and her husband really weren't vetted for their post 2000 financial dealings. One could make the case that her determination to stay in the race received support from big media as well. But there was a lot of sexism in the way that she was covered that people should find troubling. Here are some examples:

She was asked in the NH debate why she wasn't as well liked. A man would never have been asked that question.

In coverage of her changing attacks on Obama, the media often credited it to her mood swings. If she were a man, there wouldn't have been any talk of moods; rather, it would have been seen as that strategy it was: find something that would stick.

When describing her attacks, often media people would talk about her "showing her claws". Again, presenting her behavior as irrational.

On this blog, some people referred to her as the dumped girlfriend who would not go away. I don't think a male candidate would be described as a jilted boyfriend.

Again, I think she lost because she ran a bad campaign. And the media cut her some major breaks. No one should cry for her. But coverage of her was rife with sexism which was not helpful to her and degraded women in general.

Posted at June 16, 2008 2:57 PM in response to Was The Media Unfair To Hillary? Here's Our Rundown.

Tim violated NBC news policy by taking money from outside groups. He was a highly sought after speaker and charged high fees for his appearances. Of course, he was such an institution at the network that he was never disciplined and he kept going out there and collecting money. So much for avoiding a conflict of interest.

His image was of an affable working class guy from Buffalo. He certainly was affable and I don't doubt that he was a decent friend and colleague. But regular guy he was not. He had a vacation home on Nantucket that was close to 7,000 square feet.

From the interviews I witnessed of Bush and Cheney, he didn't ask tough questions of the current administration. Speaking truth to power doesn't get one far in television "journalism" these days, and certainly doesn't help one to fund a lavish lifestyle. His career is symbolic of an age in which the world of business, politics, and Washington news reporting converged to the point where it became difficult to determine the boundaries between them. Consequently, independent journalism suffered.

It's certainly sad that a pleasant fellow like him died so suddenly. But he was a media celebrity more than he was a reporter. So I'm not going to get so worked up over this. I'm hopeful, actually, that Meet the Press will improve with a new host.

Posted at June 14, 2008 8:52 AM in response to Tim Russert Has Passed Away

About the Tsongas business: a friend of his told me that when Tsongas called Clinton to let him know that he was dropping out, he asked him why he lied about him. Clinton's reply was, "Grow up. That's how the game is played."

Posted at June 7, 2008 8:42 AM in response to Andrews Goes Silent After Accusing Clinton Camp Of Racially Divisive Strategy

liberal historian: you are right, sir.

Posted at May 23, 2008 10:31 PM in response to Hillary Invokes RFK Assassination While Describing Why She's Staying In Race

All this VP stuff is merely a negotiating position. She doesn't expect to get the VP. She probably wants some package that the combination of some of the following: having her debt covered, a guarantee of a seat on the Supreme Court or a cabinet position, and the placement of one of the Clinton DLCers as party head.

Obama is a cool customer, so I wouldn't expect him to give her much of a deal. Better to let her keep swinging in the wind and further alienating people.

Posted at May 23, 2008 10:28 PM in response to Hillary Supporter Dianne Feinstein Pushes Her As Veep

You really are a moron. Worst president in the 20th century? Worse than Nixon? Worse than Hoover? Worse than Harding? And you're clearly a scumbag. Only a complete scumbag would place such little value on the monumental corruption of the Nixon and Harding administrations to place the heads of those criminal operations ahead of Carter.

Posted at April 13, 2008 8:30 PM in response to Carter: It Would Be A "Very Serious Mistake" For Super-Delegates To Overturn The Primaries

There's a name for what Clinton is doing. It's called "molehill politics". Making issues out of non-issues distracts voters from real issues, and enables the politician to run an essentially substance free campaign. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

Posted at April 12, 2008 8:16 PM in response to Obama: "I Deeply Regret" Offending Anyone

About Philadelphia: according to Time's Swampland blog, Obama has refused to provide "walking around money" to his organizers. It's a Philly tradition -- also a NJ one, I think -- to flood neighborhoods with $20 bills to get out the vote. It's unorthodox, to say the least, to eschew this system. I give him credit for taking the high road -- indeed, if he provided the money, that would hardly have been consistent with his message -- but I can't imagine it can have anything but a negative effect in one of the areas where he has to win big.

Posted at April 12, 2008 7:49 PM in response to Obama: "I Deeply Regret" Offending Anyone

Nice avatar, leroyS

Posted at April 12, 2008 7:40 PM in response to Obama: "I Deeply Regret" Offending Anyone

Actually, there's a bit more to that story. Very few senators came to campaign on Lamont's behalf. Kennedy came up. So did Edwards. I don't recall anyone else, and that's pretty stunning. Even leaders in the state party supported Lieberman in the general election.

Posted at April 9, 2008 4:06 PM in response to Lamont's Internet Director Speaks Out On Getting Cleared Of Lieberman Hack Attack