THE WAY WE ARE: The New York Times broke (almost) all the rules!


Part 3—Discussed campaign coverage of Clinton:
On June 13, 2008, a rare event occurred.

Right there on its front page, the New York Times published a long and detailed analysis piece. It covered a very unusual topic:

The 1600-words piece discussed the way Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign had been covered by the mainstream press. The press corps was critiquing the press!

This is never done.

There was a reason why this unusual conduct had been allowed. That reason appeared as Katherine Seelye and Julie Bosman started their lengthy report.

Why was the press corps discussing the press corps? In this instance, allegations of sexism had ever so briefly appeared. This is the way they started, headline included:
SEELYE AND BOSMAN (6/13/08): Media Charged With Sexism in Clinton Coverage

Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and erstwhile Clinton supporters are proposing boycotts of the cable networks, putting up videos on a ''Media Hall of Shame,'' starting a national conversation about sexism and pushing Mrs. Clinton's rival, Senator Barack Obama, to address the matter.

But many in the news media...see little need for reconsidering their coverage or changing their approach going forward. Rather, they say, as the Clinton campaign fell behind, it exploited a few glaring examples of sexist coverage to whip up a backlash and to try to create momentum for Mrs. Clinton.

Phil Griffin, senior vice president of NBC News and the executive in charge of MSNBC, a particular target of criticism, said that although a few mistakes had been made, that they had been corrected quickly and that the network's overall coverage was fair.


His views were echoed by other news media figures. ''She got some tough coverage at times, but she brought that on herself, whether it was the Bosnian snipers or not conceding on the night of the final primaries,'' said Rem Rieder, editor of American Journalism Review.
As usual, the usual suspects were insisting that the coverage of Clinton’s campaign had been fair. Eventually, though, Seelye and Bosman paraded a string of horrible moments from the coverage, though a great deal was being left out:
SEELYE AND BOSMAN: Cable television has come under the most criticism. Chris Matthews, a host on MSNBC, called Mrs. Clinton a ''she-devil'' and said she had gotten as far as she had only because her husband had ''messed around.''

Mike Barnicle, a panelist on MSNBC, said that Mrs. Clinton was ''looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court.'' Tucker Carlson, also on MSNBC, said, ''When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.''

The establishment news media were faulted too. The New York Times wrote about Mrs. Clinton's ''cackle'' and The Washington Post wrote about her cleavage.

Ken Rudin, an editor at National Public Radio, appeared on CNN, where he equated Mrs. Clinton with the actress Glenn Close in ''Fatal Attraction.'' ''She's going to keep coming back, and they're not going to stop her,'' Mr. Rudin said. He later apologized.


Still, many in the news media say that sexist episodes had little effect on the outcome of the primaries. Instead, they said, Mrs. Clinton's problem was a flawed campaign.

Keith Olbermann, the host of ''Countdown'' on MSNBC, said that while there were ''individual, sexist, mistakes,'' there was no overall sexism.

Any suggestion that MSNBC ''was somehow out to 'get' Senator Clinton is false and unfair,'' Mr. Olbermann wrote in an e-mail message. ''We became a whipping boy.”
The scribes cited horrible moments involving the usual throwbacks. Piteously, Olbermann said that he and his colleagues were the ones who had been treated unfairly.

The horrific Olbermann was a strange choice for the role of guild defender. Six weeks earlier, chatting with Howard Fineman, he had dreamed of the way the Clinton campaign would have to be brought to an end.

“Some adults somewhere in the Democratic party [have to] to step in and stop this thing, like a referee in a fight that could go on for thirty rounds,” Fineman had mused.

Olbermann’s characteristic reply: "Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.”

How odd! By this time, Olbermann’s overt misogyny had been a regular feature on The One True Channel for years. Liberal careerists had talked about it, in explicit terms. But they’d only done so private.

Now, Olbermann had been selected to push back against the charge that Candidate Clinton had received sexist coverage—and he wasn’t the only major media star getting a pass this morning.

Nine days later, New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt would savage star columnist Maureen Dowd for her coverage of Candidate Clinton. Just this once, a major journalist shattered the rules:

Clark Hoyt actually told the truth about the horrific Dowd:
HOYT (6/22/08): Dowd's columns about Clinton's campaign were so loaded with language painting her as a 50-foot woman with a suffocating embrace, a conniving film noir dame and a victim dependent on her husband that they could easily have been listed in that Times article on sexism, right along with the comments of Chris Matthews, Mike Barnicle, Tucker Carlson or, for that matter, [New York times columnist William] Kristol, who made the Hall of Shame for a comment on Fox News, not for his Times work.

...[T]he relentless nature of her gender-laden assault on Clinton—in 28 of 44 columns since Jan. 1—left many readers with the strong feeling that an impermissible line had been crossed, even though, as Dowd noted, she is a columnist who is paid not to be objective.

Over the course of the campaign, I received complaints that Times coverage of Clinton included too much emphasis on her appearance, too many stereotypical words that appeared to put her down and dismiss a woman's potential for leadership and too many snide references to her as cold or unlikable. When I pressed for details, the subject often boiled down to Dowd.
“By assailing Clinton in gender-heavy terms in column after column,” Dowd “went over the top this election season,” Hoyt judged as he closed the piece which, in our view, established him as a hero.

Dowd got a pass from Seelye and Bosman. Others got off easy.

Four months earlier, the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz had gone into more detail about Matthews’ conduct. Kurtz noted the way Matthews had referred to the “witchy” Candidate Clinton—whose “loyal lieutenants are ready to scratch the eyes out of the opposition”—as “Nurse Ratched” and “Evita Peron” as the campaign unfolded.

(At this site, we had been writing about Matthews’ repellent behavior toward liberal women since early 1999. In 2008, a few of our fiery women’s groups somehow finally managed to notice his ongoing horrible conduct. Their concern about his behavior lasted about ten minutes.)

The horrible Matthews got off easy in the Seelye/Bosman piece. The horrific Olbermann and the gruesome Dowd escaped mention altogether.

Still and all, Seelye and Bosman had written a very unusual piece. The press corps was critiquing the work of the press corps! This is never done.

The front-page piece by Seelye and Bosman was extremely unusual. But it dealt, almost exclusively, with claims of sexist coverage. It didn’t discuss a larger problem—the larger problem President Clinton alluded to last April.

Here’s what President Clinton said this spring, as quoted by Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post. In these remarks, Clinton alluded to several decades of press corps misconduct—gross misconduct by the press which Seelye and Bosman ignored:
CILLIZZA (9/25/14): “If a policymaker is a political leader and is covered primarily by the political press, there is a craving that borders on addictive to have a storyline," Bill Clinton said in a speech at Georgetown University back in April. “And then once people settle on the storyline, there is a craving that borders on blindness to shoehorn every fact, every development, everything that happens into the story line, even if it’s not the story.”
Does the press corps really do that? Does the press corps really invent a “storyline” about political leaders, then “shoehorn every fact” into that storyline?

That’s precisely what E. R. Shipp alleged when she served as the Washington Post’s ombudsman in the year 2000. In a short and brilliant column, Shipp described the “storyline” the Post had selected for each of the major candidates in Campaign 2000. She then described the way facts had been invented, and disappeared, to maintain those pre-conceived narratives.

“As a result of this approach, some candidates are whipping boys,” Shipp wrote; “others seem to get a free pass.” Way back in the year 2000, Shipp had described grotesque journalistic misconduct, of a type which wasn’t assessed in Seelye and Bosman’s piece.

In June 2008, the New York Times made a (correct) decision: allegations of sexist coverage were suitable for discussion. The reporters described some horrible conduct by some major colleagues.

Quite correctly, the Times had decided that allegations of sexism could and should be explored. But President Clinton alleged a different type of misconduct this spring.

A long history of gross journalistic misbehavior stands behind his unpleasant but accurate charges. To this day, that long ugly history goes undiscussed within our careerist “press corps.”

Rachel Maddow won’t tell you about it. Christopher Hayes won’t tell you about it. Drum and Dionne won’t tell you about it. Neither will Alter and Weisberg.

You won’t hear it mentioned on Hardball. Seelye and Bosman skipped right past it in their unusual piece.

Can we talk? Seelye was an ironic choice as author of that front-page piece. In 1999 and 2000, she had played a leading role in the destructive conduct Clinton correctly described.

A very long, destructive history lies behind Clinton’s remarks from last April. He was discussing The Way We Are—the way our campaign “journalism” actually works, as opposed to the way it’s described by those in our upper-end “press corps.”

To this day, this very important topic cannot be discussed in the press. Tomorrow, we’ll offer a quick review, dating back to Teddy White’s memorable comments about the reporters who traveled the country with Candidates Kennedy/Nixon.

People are dead all over the world because of the conduct Shipp and Clinton described. A new presidential campaign approaches:

This conduct could happen again.

Tomorrow: “Storylines” and “shoehorned facts” down through the many long years


  1. Clinton, says Somerby, "was discussing The Way We Are—the way our campaign “journalism” actually works."

    Actually, Clinton was discussing the way political journalists cover policymaking by politicians. Specifically he was discussing coverage of the adoption of the Affordable Care Act.

    But it is okay to say he "alluded" to the decades of history when that history is Somerby's storyline. After all, when you have a storyline, you need to shoehorn all facts, events, and everything in history into that storyline. It is even OK to use suggest Clinton "charged" the press with "inventing" storylines, because after all, it was misuse of the word "invent" instead of "creating" which epitomizes this deadly misconduct.

    1. "Does the press corps really do that? Does the press corps really invent a “storyline” about political leaders, then “shoehorn every fact” into that storyline?"

      No, of course not. Because Somerby.

    2. Ya. Clinton knows all about the press inventing things. They invented White Water. The New York Times did. They invent storylines in elections as we all know. It's true.

    3. Making a point with overwhelming evidence, no matter how often it is done because hardly anyone else does it, is neither shoe-horning nor pursuing a "storyline." Without question, and I supported Obama for reasons that have proved wrong, the treatment of Hillary Clinton in 2008 was atrocious. This included the commentary of Brian Williams and Tim Russert, not just MSNBC. Let's hope the womens' groups will be all over it this time, and will pound the major mainstreamers into submission -- submission to doing honest journalism, that is.

    4. Are you saying, urban legend, that you supported Obama because of the sexist coverage of Clinton?

    5. No, he is saying he hoped for more change.

    6. "...and I supported Obama for reasons that have proved wrong,..."

      Holy fuck, an honest person on the internet. No "brilliant chessplaying?" "It's all the Republicans' fault"? "Everything has been a resounding success"? You won't even simply ignore his failure, and your part in supporting someone who was always, at best, a wild throw of the dice, with the odds against you (or at least, the odds against getting done the things you say you want done)? You, sir or madam, do not belong on the interwebs. In fact, you have forfeited your right to participate in any political discussion.

    7. I have always wondered why the spellcaster spammers would bombard a site with so many mind readers,

  2. There is a Catch 22 that Hillary Clinton must deal with. If she complains about sexism it appears that she cannot take the heat and is insisting there be a double-standard for press treatment in which she is given less harsh scrutiny. A woman cannot complain about being mistreated without appearing to call for "special" gender-based treatment. This operates in all fields where women are hazed in order to prevent them from participating. Politics is no different. It may be that Clinton herself tried to suppress the examination of misogyny in the campaign in order to demonstrate that she can compete without help.

    Second, the women's groups were trying very hard to elect Obama. They overlooked his sketchy record on women's health issues and his lack of support for them in the legislature (offering rationales for why he voted present on them). There was that ridiculous cover of MS magazine saying "This is what a feminist looks like" with Obama in a superman outfit. Obama got the support without ever walking the walk. This was necessary because he could not take a strong stand on feminist issues without alienating female African American voters. So Hillary Clinton's long history of support for women and women's issues was ignored by women's groups and they did very little to help her when she became the target of sexism. A lot of that sexism came from Obama supporters, not just the press, with a wink and a nod from Obama himself (You're likeable enough Hillary) and his frat-boy nose scratching, 99 problems and a ***** ain't one, etc.

    Bill Clinton cannot reopen the coverage of Lewinsky, the months where any discussion of political issues was channeled into the Monica storyline. Whining about his own past treatment lacks gravitas, so of course he is going to frame this as a problem with discussing the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, he was discussing the troubled relationship between himself, his wife and the press and he was calling out the press for its contribution, perhaps in anticipation of another run in 2016.

    When a discussion of policy in Bosnia becomes "Will Monica Lewinsky prevent the President from dealing with Bosnia," there is shoehorning going on.

    1. Please list Obama's "present" votes on women's heath issues.

      Preferably after you look into what a "present" vote actually means in the Illinois legislature.

      Obama has scratched his nose in public (although you may be alluding to a campaign appearance in Raleigh, NC, during which he scratched his cheek). This puts you in the company of nasomancers, some of whom think it means that he snorts coke.

      Obama may have been given support he didn't deserve, and HIllary Clinton may have been the subject of sexist coverage, but you'll have to do better than speculating that Obama had to strategize to keep from losing the support of African-American women.

    2. You can look them up yourself. I don't care how strategic they were. They do not constitute taking a stand on women's issues. Nor did his platform. He did the minimum and got credit for more. The representation of women on his staff was low in the campaign and still. His relegation of Michelle to housewife to emphasize his macho image is sexist. His basketball and golf games that exclude women from informal access are unfair. He has no clue about how to be fair. I think his ambivalence toward his mother gets in the way, but that is channeling Brodie. He is not and never was a feminist and the women's groups should have known better.

    3. African Americans have no interest in examining much less addressing the misogyny in the African American community. As long as black men, from Obama to teens in school, have to control women to be considered manly, there will be a problem. It is obvious in statistics. Because black women place race ahead of gender, it has perpetuated a rift based on race among feminists. That became a factor in 2008. If feminists asked Obama to treat Hillary or Michelle better, he would look weak to male constituents in general but especially to African Americans because gender equity is non-normative for them. This is obvious but not discussed. You will of course deny it.

    4. Some men find equality for women ejaculating. The more emasculated a man feels by virtue of being a member of a underpowered minority group, the more important asserting masculinity at home becomes. When that is defined in terms of controlling women, you get misogyny. It was evident in the recent focus on domestic violence and physical punishment of children. It permeates the honor culture aspects of gang and street behavior. It is reflected in low marriage and high teen pregnancy rates. Some black men define reading and schoolwork as feminine, so they can't do it without again being seen as weak or effeminate. It is also why African Americans lag in supporting gay rights. This is Obama's baggage.

    5. I typed emasculating and auto-correct changed it to ejaculating. How weird is that!

    6. What is weird is you think auto-correct is your problem.

    7. This has got to be my favorite all time Howler comment from Anonymous at 1:02:

      "When a discussion of policy in Bosnia becomes "Will Monica Lewinsky prevent the President from dealing with Bosnia," there is shoehorning going on."

      Since Bill Clinton was dealing with Bosnia in a phone call with a member of Congress while Monica was giving him head I would say there was a lot of horning going on that didn't involve footwear.

      But what do I know? I'm just part Irish, ex Catholic,
      and never lived north or east of Tennessee.

    8. @ 9:43......

      "Because black women place race ahead of gender, it has perpetuated a rift based on race among feminists."

      Some of my best friends are black women who tell me the rift was perpetuated because there are white feminists like you.

    9. You can look them up yourself

      Indeed, I can, Sparky. But this isn't my claim. It's yours. So you should have looked them up. Perhaps if you'd tried, you'd have figured out the charge was just more Republican ratfucking.

      "His platform" doesn't take a stand on women's issues?

      Bullshit. Here's what you didn't bother to look up in the Democratic Party platform:

      We understand that women's rights are civil rights. That's why we reaffirm our support for the ERA, recommit to enforcing Title IX, and will urge ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

      The document also commits the party to abortion rights and equal pay for equal work.

      If you don't think Obama has done enough to implement those planks, fine, but don't tell me his platform doesn't take a stand on women's issues.

      I'm not going to argue against the dimwitted view that Obama isn't enough of a feminist because he didn't give his wife a government position or because of the sports he plays or because you think he was ambivalent about his mother.

      I'll just give you two names: Kagan and Sotomayor.

    10. You were doing fine deadrat, until you trotted out that misleading "equal pay for equal work" canard.

      You do know that women already get 77% of the average pay for men, and that if you adjust for hours worked, education, experience and time off for making babies, we really don't know if they dont really make more.

      If fact, if you do what Bob does with test scores, and disaggregate based on race, I'd bet you find white women are doing pretty well, which is why they have time to think of themselves as feminists first instead of black, like black women do. That latter fact pepetuates things like rifts. And gaps.

    11. He says the minimum necessary to be a Democrat. A man who uses 99 problems, a misogynistic song, at a campaign event isn't fit to hold office. Giving Hillary the finger is so juvenile it had to be calculated to appeal to the frat-boysvwho originated the gesture. The ugliness of accusing a woman well past menopause of being overly emotional once a month boggles the mind. This man does not like women and that fully explains why he has done so little on women's issues. That's why the women who were around for 2nd wave feminism became Pumas after Hillary was pushed out of the race.

    12. Michelle has instructions to be nothing more than a mom and a clothes horse. She sticks strictly to gender roles, urging kids to eat right and comforting families of veterans. She has no voice. They pretend that's what she wanted but the rest of her life choices are very different, inconsistent with that. This reflects what Obama thinks women should be, not empty promises like the other promises he did not keep.

      As feminists know, the personal is political. This stuff matters.

    13. "That's why the women who were around for 2nd wave feminism became Pumas after Hillary was pushed out of the race."

      That's right! It is also why true progressives voted for Nader over Gore and Bush and why wimpy ass corporate Dem apologists like Somerby and his ilk
      claim the press beat Gore. They are afraid to admit his spineless retreat from real Democratic principles did him in.

    14. Lori Barker wrote a book on reactions of black students to Obama's election. It never occurred to her to ask female black students whether they were torn between voting for the first black president and the first female president. She didn't ask because the priorities are obvious.

    15. Anonymous @11:25P,

      Try reading for comprehension. The claim is that "Obama's" platform didn't address women's issues. Equal pay for equal work is one of those even you adjust for hours worked, education, etc. And that issue is in the platform. If you want to argue the 77% statistic, you'll have to find someone else.

    16. "I've got 99 problems and now Jay-Z is one of them."

      What does that have to do with misogyny? Or are you claiming that Obama co-wrote the song of the same name?

      If you're carefully parsing how Obama scratches his nose or his cheek, you're not a Hillary supporter; you're a member of of the Republican ratfucking squad. By the way, the middle finger gesture predates American college frats.

      Please cite where Obama blamed Hillary's menstrual cycle for her emotional reactions.

      If Obama hasn't done enough for women by your lights, there's really nothing I can do to counter an unevidenced opinion. But for someone who does not like women, he's got a pretty good track record appointing them to the Supreme Court.

      Michelle Obama, like it or not, is First Lady. This informal position has nothing to do with Obama. I'm not sure what you'd have either of them do.

      And I guess Obama's stance on women's issues is what caused all those Pumas to abandon him in the 2008 election to give the edge to McCain who only called his wife a cunt in public.

      Oh, wait. I might have got my electoral history wrong on that last one.

    17. Did McCain call his wife a cunt? I thought he said the reason why Chelsea Clinton was so ugly was because Janet Reno was her father.

    18. According to The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter.

      The Chelsea story is true as well.

    19. Some Pumas voted for McCain. I didn't. I voted 3rd party. Most did what I did or stayed home.

    20. Placing the middle finger extended alongside the nose and pretending to scratch while talking about Clinton is a disguised version invented by kids who think they're being clever while lacking the courage to use the gesture more plainly. It is craven. It wasn't funny when Obama did it. The other examples are well documented and we'll known. You can't make them go away by pretending I don't have the facts straight. They are about as disguised as that middle finger was. But at this point it doesn't matter. Obama has shown us all that he wasn't ready. Your defense of him is only showing you don't know or don't care what a sexist looks like to women who care about sexism. I'm sure you felt right at home on DKos while they trashed Clinton using the same tactics as Russert and Matthews and Dowd and Maher and Andrew Sullivan and Hitchens and the other Clinton haters. While Drum and Steve Benen and Digby watched their backs. It was ugly and we have neither forgotten nor forgiven. Something Dems should remember for 2016.

    21. @ 8:50 Way to stick to your guns. Sorry the PUMA's were not able to have the impact we Naderites had in 2008. It is sad so called progressives like Somerby won't give us any of the credit we deserve.

    22. So sorry, I meant 2000 and I don't even use auto-whatever.

    23. deadrat the Chelsea story is not true. The Clintons did not even know Reno when she was born.

    24. @9:42, when you hold a minority opinion your vote is used to express it, even if you have no hope that your candidate will be elected. In other countries where they have coalition governments, minority voices can have an impact. I know you are mocking Somerby for attributing Gore's loss to the media, but if that vote hadn't been so close, Gore would have been president, even with the impact of Nader voters. If there is never the threat that people with minority opinions will vote third party, then there is no pressure on the major parties to include measures to attract them. In this case, Obama thumbed his nose at female voters and he got what he deserved, and it turned out not to matter. I am arguing that it was done purposefully -- he jettisoned one set of voters in order to attract another that he deemed more crucial to his success. That is the nature of politics, but I won't join deadrat in pretending it didn't happen, especially when we are discussing issues of sexism that may affect 2016.

    25. @11:22,

      I'm not pretending that Obama didn't thumb his nose figuratively at women voters. I'm not persuaded by the arguments in support of that opinion, and given the gender gap in the last two elections, I'm in good company. But that doesn't mean I don't understand the contrary evidence.

      What I object to is contrary fantasy. If, like @9:07, you're carefully parsing the meaning in Obama's scratching his cheek with his middle finger at a rally in North Carolina, then you're someone looking for offense until you find what's not there.

      I don't have to pretend that @9:07 doesn't have the facts. I've demonstrated that. When I ask for the "present" votes that Obama cast in the Illinois House to undermine women's issues, I get "you can look them up." After I get the claim that Obama's platform didn't support women's issues, it's a matter of two minutes with the google to find out that's not true.

      And, of course, instead of doing the required homework to get the facts straight, @9:07 spins a fantasy about the person calling bullshit. I'm defending Obama; I don't know what a sexist is; I don't care what a sexist looks like. @9:07 even knows how I feel: right at home on DKos trashing Clinton with the other Clinton haters.

      I think that if you're gonna dis Obama for not supporting women and the issues important to them, then somehow you have to get up and over the fact that he appointed two women to the Supreme Court and the object of his alleged scorn to Secretary of State. But that's just me citing important facts. @9:07 has Obama's middle finger to obsess about.

      So as long as I'm listing things I'm not pretending, let's add to the list pretending that our opinions are equally grounded in reality.

    26. I'm not real happy with Sotomayor but Ginsburg is good. That cannot make up for his hiring fewer women on his staff, keeping them in lower positions so that women earn less than men in his administration.

    27. @10:18P,

      For someone with such a weak grasp of the facts, you hold awfully strong opinions. Clinton, not Obama, nominated Ginsburg.

      As of last July, WaPo reported that the White House staff complement of about 450 was about evenly split, with a few more women than men, but that the men averaged about $10K more per year than the women. So at least you've got a real, live fact to point to. Which is a change for the better.

      I don't propose to defend Obama's record on women's issues. Neither do I intend running the fool's errand of trying to change your opinion. I find that it's almost always impossible to use rational means to move people from positions they didn't reach by rational means.

      But let's face it. There's really nothing Obama could do to "make up" to you for defeating HIllary.

  3. You can't talk about the press coverage in the 2008 election without mentioning the egregious 10/31/07 debate "moderated" by Russert and Brian Williams, which was a two-hour assault on Ms. Clinton. Matthews crowed about it, saying that Russer "saw his chance and took it." Finally, almost near the end of the debate, NBC's hacks finally "got" Ms. Clinton, on that stupid "do you favor driver's licenses for illegal aliens?" question. That debate marked the beginning of the end for "inevitable" Ms. Clinton.

    1. Even though she gave the right answer.

    2. 9:45, why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver’s license?

    3. Because then they can get car insurance and you won't have so many uninsured drivers who cannot pay for accident damage, or so many hit-and-runs because they don't have a license or insurance and get scared and flee the scene. CA licensed undocumented drivers, then stopped, then switched back to licensing them because it works better for all to license all drivers.

    4. Good answer. That wasn't what Hillary Clinton said when she was asked that exact question by Tim Russert, which started the driver's license exchange
      back in October of 2007.

    5. In fairness, she doesn't live in CA.

    6. In fairness she was the US Senator from New York and the question was based on her statement made before the debate about a proposal made by the Governor of the state she was elected to represent.

      And in extra fairness you are the one who said she gave the right answer.

    7. Q: Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver’s license?

      MRS. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform.

      We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It’s probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.

      I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform. ...

      MRS. CLINTON: I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it. And we have failed——

      MR. DODD: Wait a minute. No, no, no. You said, yes, you thought it made sense to do it.

      MRS. CLINTON: No, I didn’t, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are driving?

    8. I didn't recall that she waffled like that. Otherwise she mentioned the accidents just like I did. Sounds like she tried to relate it to the larger immigration issue.

    9. You only got served the toasty side of the waffle. It got worse.

    10. Shucks, in the interest of noit short changing those who were around for Wave 2, here's the rest of the sexist, egregious mess:

      MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure what I heard. Do you, the New York Senator Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor’s plan to give illegal immigrants a driver’s license? You told the Nashua, N.H., paper it made a lot of sense.

      MRS. CLINTON: It——

      MR. RUSSERT: Do you support his plan?

      MRS. CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.

      Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who’s in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He’s making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.

    11. You do know that this isn't the kind of journalist behavior anyone is calling sexist. She is sticking to the right answer even though she obviously knows it won't win her any votes (except in CA). Too bad she had to sound so defensive about it.

    12. You are right. It was simply called egregious by the commenter who introduced it, not sexist. An error on my part to have added that term.

      You do know she wasn't sticking to any answer - Bush made him do it - it is not the best thing -
      following up on my non-answer is playing gotcha-I understand it-I did not say that it should be done.

    13. Egregious? Who uses that term?

    14. People who understand what it means?

    15. Anon of the KoZ-hating TribeOctober 10, 2014 at 12:27 PM

      deadrat! You are going to come over here and clean this coffee off my screen. Right now young man!!

  4. Clinton had a shipload of baggage, Obama had a briefcase full of blues.
    The neophyte has little the press can hang on him.

    1. That might be true of some criticism but you can't call being female "baggage." It neither explains nor excuses the tone the press took. Calling someone shrill is not a substantive criticism of policy or decision, for example.

    2. "You can't call being female baggage."

      Perhaps not, but someobody a few comments above yours sure enough called being black and male Obama's baggage.

    3. Those attitudes are not inevitable. Obama caters to the attitudes of his male and African American constituents, not those of women in general. That is a choice. Hillary's voice comes from physiology, not a choice. Obama can hold whatever views he wants but he cannot be considered a feminist.


  5. Thanks to Dr great for bringing back my wife,and brought great joy to my family?

    Hello to every one out here, am here to share the unexpected miracle that happened to me three days ago, My name is Success Story,i live in TEXAS,USA.and I`m happily married to a lovely and caring wife,with two kids A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my wife so terrible that she took the case to court for a divorce she said that she never wanted to stay with me again,and that she did not love me anymore So she packed out of my house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get her back,after much begging,but all to no avail and she confirmed it that she has made her decision,and she never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my wife So i explained every thing to her,so she told me that the only way i can get my wife back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for her too So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow her advice. Then she gave me the email address of the spell caster whom she visited.(}, So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address she gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my wife back the next day what an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my wife who did not call me for the past seven {7}months,gave me a call to inform me that she was coming back So Amazing!! So that was how she came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and she apologized for her mistake,and for the pain she caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster . So, was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster . So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website, if you are in any condition like this,or you have any problem related to “bringing your ex back. So thanks to Dr great for bringing back my wife,and brought great joy to my family once again.{} , Thanks.

    Are you passing through any of these problems,




























    I will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website,if you are in any condition like this,or you have any problem related to “bringing your ex back. So thanks to Dr great for bringing back my wife,and brought great joy to my family once again.{} , Thanks.