Here are some of my rants out there in web-land. I know I sound like a nut, but anyone following the coverage every day from December through early March knows that this is but a fraction of the stuff to complain about in the press. This does not include everything I have written...yikes.
THE NEW REPUBLIC
Disputations: Was '3 A.M.' Racist?
by Orlando Patterson
Orlando Patterson responds to Sean Wilentz on race and the '08 campaign.
Post Date Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Posted by susan k. (NYC)
If [you say] her ad was attempting to evoke a criminal element, why not say she is being sexist [rather than racist] since she does not show any grown men in the ad? After all, crimes (including burglary) are overwhelmingly committed by men. Frankly, I think it is a refreshing argument to say that we need a woman in the White House because females tend NOT to be power-hungry and tend NOT to commit crimes. Forget race. I am perhaps a sexist: I think it is about time a female led this country. Men have caused enough damage.
[NB: I actually think that projecting a criminal element onto this ad is absurd in the first place; I was just s'posing.]
Disputations: The '3 A.M.' Fight Continues
by Sean Wilentz
Post Date Thursday, March 13, 2008
(my post is in response to some of the other posts)
Posted by susan k. (okay,kruglinski) (NYC)
The Jesse Jackson Jr. clip: To see it google-video "jesse jackson hillary katrina" Evoking Katrina evokes race, since no one can talk about it without mentioning that mostly blacks were affected. Whether that is a fair leap of logic or not (to assume that it is a racial issue), Jackson obviously knew what he was doing when he ODDLY brought it up, and it was a low blow.
Disputations: The '3 A.M.' Fight Continues
by Sean Wilentz
Post Date Thursday, March 13, 2008
(my post is in response to some of the other posts)
Posted by susan k. (okay,kruglinski) (NYC)
The Jesse Jackson Jr. clip: To see it google-video "jesse jackson hillary katrina" Evoking Katrina evokes race, since no one can talk about it without mentioning that mostly blacks were affected. Whether that is a fair leap of logic or not (to assume that it is a racial issue), Jackson obviously knew what he was doing when he ODDLY brought it up, and it was a low blow.
And for that matter, implying that HRC's MLK quote was offensive--which came out of Obama's mouth: "Senator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement.She is free to explain that"--THAT was the lowest blow of this entire campaign, and it came directly from the candidate. Sure, at the next debate Obama took it back..."Oh, gee whiz, I know Hillary's not a racist (chuckle)"...but the damage was done and it certainly affected votes.
The demonizing of Bill Clinton, one of the most popular and successful presidents in history ("fairy tale" and "Jackson won in SC" were both comments that were in bounds as much as anything Obama has said...the media swallowed the Obama campaign's interpretation like a bunch of children swallowing candy); this Obama-in-ethnic-garb-photo silliness; Bob Herbert's "Hillary said Obama is not a Muslim AS FAR AS SHE KNOWS"--a complete twisting of her words...the list of twisted facts and interpretations in the mainstream press is endless. I cannot believe how naive, unprofessional, irresponsible and unethical the press has been over the past several months. A fair and ethical press is an essential element in democracy--ours is practically doing as much damage as the scheming of the Bush administration (which it somehow didn't notice until too late).
And RE: Hillary being a bitch and power-hungry: Stop casting the Iraq vote in black and white (29 democratic senators in total voted "yea"...were they all casting a vote so that they could run for pres?). Clinton was personally given incorrect info from the highest authorities, she was the senator of the state that had lost thousands of lives to terrorism, Saddam lowered people into acid and gouged the eyes of children...he was evil, the info was that he had WMD, he would certainly unhesitatingly use them...the vote was about putting pressure on him to let inspectors in, which he did...the vote was NOT as simple as everyone makes it out to be. Jumping on the long-standing right-wing Billary-are-evil bandwagon is as naive as jumping on the Obama-is-a-saint bandwagon. Life is complex...grow up.
The Opinionator, New York Times
March 13, 2008, 2:20 pm
A Sermon’s Echoes Threaten Obama
By CHRIS SUELLENTROP
[they did NOT post my comment, but it was something like:]
You posted Taylor Marsh's words out of context and changed the meaning [to a pro-Obama slant]. And as I write, this blog entry is the top story on the Politics page of the NYT site. Check it out, public editor.
The Opinionator, New York Times
March 7, 2008, 1:05 pm
A Silence at the Clinton Library
By TOBIN HARSHAW
Once again, all is not as black and white as pundits like to pretend it is.
From the USA Today article that this blog entry is based upon, a more nuanced view of what’s what:
“In 2002, Clinton sent a guidance letter to his library that urged quick release of most White House records but retained the confidentiality prerogative covering advice from his staff. Still, Clinton said the restriction should be interpreted “narrowly” and allowed that certain records detailing internal communications could be made public if reviewed and approved for release by his designated legal agent…
“The William J. Clinton Foundation, which Lindsey helps oversee, said in a written statement that the National Archives is responsible for deciding which records are withheld under the Presidential Records Act. Archivists were exclusively responsible for “determinations with respect to these materials,” the statement said.
“Clinton’s guidance to the library goes beyond his predecessors, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, in urging that most of his presidential records be released quickly, according to Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, a research institute at George Washington University that collects government records for public use.
“Blanton noted that Lindsey’s refusal to review the withheld documents could be viewed as an effort to ensure the archivists’ independence. “He’s saying the professional archivists get to make this determination; it’s not a political determination.”
“The archivists’ decision to withhold records that could be construed as confidential communications between Clinton and his advisers is more consistent with the Bush administration’s hard line on the release of White House records, Blanton said.
“President Bush signed an order in November 2001 that broadened former presidents’ prerogative to block the release of internal White House records. That order, which Bill Clinton opposed, also allows a president’s immediate family to assert the privilege.
“In 2004, Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, went to court to force the Bush administration to release Justice Department records on Clinton’s pardons, and a federal judge ordered that the records be opened. But the administration, which argued that such releases would undermine a president’s ability to get confidential advice, blacked out most of the documents it made public.
“Christopher Farrell, a Judicial Watch director, noted that the pardon records blocked by the library also included all Justice Department reports that were sent to Clinton with recommendations on which clemency requests he should deny. He said it was “ridiculous” to withhold clemency petitions over privacy concerns. “These are people who were convicted in a court, and those cases are a matter of public record.”
— Posted by susan k., NYC
The Caucus, New York Times
February 25, 2008, 9:15 pm
Time to Count the Doughnuts
By SAM ROBERTS AND GRIFFIN PALMER
Going First Most of the Time
By David D. Kirkpatrick and Kitty Bennett
February 27, 2008
(news article, not Op-Ed)
To the Editors:
The entire premise of this article is based on an incorrect fact. Senator Clinton was obviously not complaining about being the first to answer a question in each debate. She was complaining about always being asked the first question of each back-and-forth round of questioning. When she made that statement, it was actually the SECOND overall question of the night (the first being about her change of tone--"Shame on you, Obama," etc., the second being about NAFTA). Being questioned first in any round of questioning has a clear disadvantage in that the second person gets to reflect and criticize the first answer, and due to time constraints the second person also often gets the last word.
May I add that the continual twisting of the facts in your news coverage of the democratic race is shameful.
-------------------
The New York Times added the following paragraph after my e-mail (but did not note the error):
"And in the one-on-one debate last Thursday, she received the first question on the overwhelming majority of topics and thus spoke first about twice as often as he did."
CORRECTION:
The article states:
"As the debate turned to trade agreements, Mrs. Clinton interrupted the discussion to chastise the moderators, saying she was always asked the first substantive question."
What she said was (from your transcript):
"SEN. CLINTON: Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind. I -- you know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious,"
What she was obviously referring to was the fact that she is constantly asked the FIRST question in the back-and-forth of questioning on each topic, which give her opponent the advantage to challenge her initial statement, and to often get the last word on the subject due to the time constraints. She was NOT saying that she is opposed to being the first one in a debate to be asked a substantive question, as your writer reports.
Thank you for correcting this.
The New York Times added the following paragraph after my e-mail (but did not note the error):
(In fact, in their two other one-on-one debates, Mrs. Clinton was asked to answer the first question and then was asked more questions over all.)
To the Public Editor
RE: clinton coverage/debate article (Feb. 22)
Dear Mr. Hoyt:
While it is bad enough that the bias of the paper's opinion writers has led to a relentless attack in a flimsy but startlingly vicious way, I am even more troubled by the fact that the news department, covering the election in general, is also biased against her.
I notice in today's article "Debate Takes on Contentious Air for Democrats" (Feb 22), the writers lean towards attacking Clinton, even though the coverage in other outlets (such as CNN, who broadcast the debate) was far more even-handed.
This paragraph is evidence of this:
Mrs. Clinton, who is girding for March 4 Democratic primaries in Texas and Ohio that aides say she must win, alternated between high notes early in the debate — smiling and nodding at Mr. Obama, pitching her economic plans for the umpteenth time — and pointed criticisms that she has been making somewhat fruitlessly for weeks now, like portraying Mr. Obama as all talk and little action.
"Upteenth time"? "Fruitlessly"? Aren't those Dowd-like extrapolations that fall squarely in the "opinion" camp?
But the most egregious problem with the article is that the writers chopped off the ending of the concluding quote by Clinton. She received a standing ovation for that statement (not mentioned by your writers even though it is unusual in a debate and most other outlets are mention it), but your writers only included the beginning of it, throwing off the entire meaning of the quote, making it sound self-indulgent. Your writers end the quote with:
“You know, no matter what happens in this contest, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored,” she said, reaching over to shake her rival’s hand. “You know, whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.”
Here's what they left out:
"I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that's what this election should be about." (standing ovation)
In general, it is clear that this newspaper writes almost exclusively "feel good" articles about Obama, and nothing but attack articles or news articles with a thinly veiled bias against Clinton. That would be fine if she were Hitler, but this is not the case and I believe readers deserve a more even-handed treatment of campaign events. By twisting the truth or leaving out part of the picture, you are changing the written history and influencing the outcome of this election to the individual writers' liking.
And at the bottom of all of this bias is the "why?" question. To say it is because of sexism ellicits rolling eyes and "oh please" comments. And yet, if the roles were flipped, and Clinton were the one getting this much support from a news department, certainly the idea of racism would be thrown at your newspaper. It is difficult to otherwise explain the phenomenon.
Thank you for reading,
Bob Herbert, New York Times
Confronting the Kitchen Sink
March 8, 2008
To the Editor and Public Editor:
Mr. Herbert writes about Clinon's response to rumors about Obama being Muslim:
"In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: 'No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.'
As far as I know."
Herbert is unprofessionally and unethically taking Senator Clinton's words out of context, twisting the meaning. The full text shows that there is no wavering in her conviction that Obama is NOT a Muslim.
The full back-and-forth with Senator Clinton was this:
KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?
CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.
CLINTON: Right. Right.
KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim --
CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? There's no --
KROFT: -- or implying, right?
CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It's just scurrilous --
CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.
Bob Herbert should be ashamed to mess with the truth as he has in this column, painting Clinton as sleazy when she was being the opposite. Talk about sleazy and "kitchen sink"...how ironic Mr. Herbert. It is one thing to have lively, extremely opinioned Op-Ed writers, another to have several writers on staff who consistently twist the facts to suit their presidential candidate of choice.
Maureen Dowd, New York Times
To Catch a Thief
February 20, 2008
To the Editor:
Dowd claims that “Yes, we will,” a stump-speech chant (incorrectly referred to as a slogan) used by Clinton, is a “theft” of the Obama slogan “Yes, we can.” Actually, parodying or rephrasing the opponent's words is a common strategy used by all of the candidates, including Obama, as any five year-old paying attention to the stump speeches can tell you. Dowd then implies that “Americans still have that can-do spirit” is similarly a theft. I'm pretty sure that was not a slogan, either; that it is simply a sentence uttered by Clinton that includes the word “can.” Perhaps your fact-checkers could be pitching in so that Ms. Dowd does not embarrass the newspaper by stretching the truth like Silly Putty? But then, why should she or the other opinion writers stop doing that when it so effectively gives them the power to change the course of a presidential election?
Present Perfect
Abner J. Mikva
February 16, 2008
Mr. Shipley,
Is it not a conflict of interest to have Abner Mikva writing an opinion piece about Barack Obama? Obviously they worked together at U. of Chicago, and Mikva has been a close advisor to Obama for years (see references below, which I found in about one minute of googling). Shouldn't this have been at least acknowledged in Mikva's bio?
I have been extremely disappointed in the Op-Ed section of the times, which has been tabloid-like, unprofessional, and shockingly uneven. I have already written to the public editor about the tabloid-level writing. I look forward to future analysis of the media coverage of this democratic race, which will surely exposure the double standard (protection of an ethnic minority, exaggerated fault-finding of a female) that has been prevalent in the media (including among female writers). There is no other way to explain the stomach-turning pile-on against Clinton, and the lack of any critical commentary for Obama, and The New York Times may be the leader in this use of double standard.
Thank you for reading this.
For Obama and Mikva connection, see:
"Correction: February 16, 2008
Earlier editions of this article failed to disclose that the author serves as an informal adviser to the Obama campaign."
Stanley Fish, New York Times
February 17, 2008
When ‘Identity Politics’ Is Rational
I am not a Stanley Fish groupie, but it is so refreshing to read a columnist in the NY Times who writes carefully considered essays full of substance and fresh ideas, rather than parroting tabloid-style accusations or magically mind-reading the intentions of the candidates, with no evidence to back up their claims. The fascinating responses to this column are a testament to that. I’d like to see Dowd or Rich try to drum up this kind of intelligent discussion. They cannot. Their columns can only elicit “I feel the same way,” or “You don’t know what you are talking about/Please stop trying to pull a fast one on the readers, we are not morons.” (And thanks also to Krugman when he discusses policy.)
As far as identity politics, if we are going to say it is legit, let us not forget that women tend NOT to be power-hungry, tend NOT to commit crimes, tend to be more helpful and choose careers where they are helping others. And recently it has been shown (repeatedly) that when women in Third World societies are given control over the community’s money or policy decisions, they uplift their community (helping children, improving education, health care, resources, etc.). I believe Clinton’s career is evidence of this, and I know everyone is now going to write about what a weaselly bitch she is, but I believe the vilification of HRC is all bluster (first from the right, now from the Obama camp) and no substance.
For another op-ed with substance–and that is critical of both the Clinton and Obama camps–see E.J. Dionne’s “Can Clinton Bounce Back?” in the Wash Post (reprinted in The Record).
— Posted by susan k., NYC
Roger Cohen, New York Times
A Realist Called Obama
February 18, 2008
“Obama…is best placed to seize and shape a new world of such possibilities. He has the youth, the global background, the ability to move people, and the demonstrated talent for reaching across lines of division, even those etched in black and white.”
Global background? Youth? Transcending black and white? More puffery, little substance.
“A romantic view of Clinton might be that she has the guts and savvy to free herself of her husband’s coterie of the world’s rich and famous, with its dubious deal-making from Kazakhstan to Colombia, and ensure that a White House with a president and ex-president in it projects U.S. renewal rather than the tawdrier sides of Clintonism.”
Umm, let’s see, Clinton was not part of any international scandals, he presided over peace, under him our military strategies were well-thought out and executed, he was admired by the leaders of other nations (as was his wife)…Could you and all of the other columnists bashing the Clintons PLEASE be more specific? Because you love shouting the punch lines but continually fail to provide the lead-up.
But I do have a feeling that Obama could have serial killers for parents and you guys at the Times would still somehow conjure up some kind of positive spin on it. Just please know that many of your readers are nauseous from your complete inability to criticize a single thing about Obama, and your complete obsession with burning HRC at the stake, fanning the flames day after day, week after week, with the flimsiest of arguments. I literally meet people every week who say they are sick to their stomach about the coverage. These people tend not to be the ones loading up the comments boards with their propaganda, pretending to be kind old veterans and whatnot (amazing how many posters keep mentioning their advanced age lately when they rave about Obama! What a coincidence!).
— Posted by susan k., NYC
The Opinionator, New York Times site
Wonky Enough
By Chris Suellentrop
2. To argue that you want to go with the person who repeats the word “hope” over and over above the person who actually knows what she’s doing/talking about is the same as voting for the guy who you’d most like to have a beer with. We did that eight years ago.
3. The Iraq vote was very complex…Edwards, Kerry–in all 29 democrats in the Senate–voted Yea. Were they all selling out? Did they all want to send Americans to their death for selfish political reasons? Were they all horrible people because of that vote, which was made on the judgment of many many lies from the Bush cabal–lies having to do with the threat of a truly evil dictator at the level of Hitler and Stalin, a man who could acquire much control over the Middle East, post-9/11? If the Iraq resolution vote is the only reason you “detest” HRC, then you are falling for the Obama campaign rhetoric. His never casting a vote (because he couldn’t) means squat now and in the future if he becomes our pres.
4. Obama’s character: So you want to vote for the saint in this campaign, huh? The saint who played the race card in the most underhanded way, implying that HRC and Bill Clinton said things that were racially charged when in fact they had not? (MLK/Johnson and Jesse Jackson comments were NOT racially charged…there was nothing wrong with those statements…they are perceived that way because of how the Obama campaign spun them…THINK ABOUT IT). The saint who was getting mushy over Ronald Reagan…Gee, he wasn’t lying through his teeth there to win over votes, was he? If you don’t see the slickness in Obama’s campaign, then you are as naive as a newborn pup. And if you think about it, HRC’s campaign has pulled NOTHING equivalent…she only argues policy, she has so far only fought on the fairest of terms. Just because people are screaming “cheater” (the likes of cheerleading princess Maureen Dowd, towering football star Frank Rich, and the rest of the Happy Days gang) doesn’t make it real.
5. If all of this warped thinking is not the result of a “cult of personality” i don’t know what is. We are like Rome before the fall. We all want the tall, handsome smooth-talker, who somehow can do no wrong, instead of the person who actually is best qualified to make a fast, sharp 180 degree turn with this half-sunk ship.
Once again I ask you supposedly smart Op-Ed writers of the NYT: WHY exactly should I vote for Obama, and WHY exactly should I NOT vote for Clinton? I’m not a moron…I”m not voting for someone because they have charisma (let’s have a beer!). So please stop insulting my intelligence and, if you writers are indeed clever enough to actually comment on the differences between the two candidates, please do so.
Tell me who would realistically survive the election if they are their party’s nominee, who would be able to execute their goals quickly and efficiently as president, who would be the best choice as an international negotiator, etc.
I am more than willing to change my mind and vote for Obama if someone would please make a good case for Obama and against Clinton. So far this hasn’t happened, and I feel pretty strongly that, even if we assumed both were equal in every other way, Obama will get flattened like a pancake by the Republicans because of his dicey background, which is bound to have a few skeletons that will be spun hard (and expertly) by the other side…as they always do. (Read Obama’s memoir?).
SLATE
can't find article, was part of XX Factor on Slate
more meaningless bashing
by sak
01/27/2008, 5:08 PM
"As women, we always knew Hillary would have a rough time getting beyond being the missus.."
...And then the rest of the article proceeds to do exactly that...no issues addressed, no solid pieces of evidence to bolster the argument, just an inabilitiy to get past seeing her as the missus. Nice.
"Hillary wants it both ways. She wants to be on his team and to make it on her own. She wants credit for her successes and credit for his. She wanted him on the sidelines in this campaign until she needed a soccer hooligan."
She does? Evidence? Can you read minds? Has she spoken words to this effect? Evidence in her conduct that would lead us to believe this?
"One of the qualities in Hillary Clinton that scares me most is her lack of a fixed sense of self...this Clinton campaign has also reinvented itself almost weekly since January: We’ve had Falling to Pieces Week; Finding Our Voice Week; Unloading a Carton of Whupass Week; and then Heh, Heh, That Bill Is a Maniac Week."
Actually, all of those "reinventions" have nothing to do with how she has acted or her message. They are the media's interpretations of non-events (like her choking up, as all human beings do, including male candidates who are currently running) that the media have blown out of proportion. The media, such as Slate and the NY Times, ignore the issues to focus on tabloid-style bashing and, in the process, distract the voters from thinking about who would actually make a better president.
"Hillary has some stuff to work out in her marriage before she works it out with the rest of us. Any woman in public life inevitably still struggles to define herself in opposition to men. But Hillary has an even bigger cross to bear: She’s still defining herself in opposition to Bill."
Wow. What century is this again? Thanks for perpetuating prejudice against women, girlfriend.
NEW YORK TIMES
The Opinionator, New York Times
March 13, 2008, 2:20 pm
A Sermon’s Echoes Threaten Obama
By CHRIS SUELLENTROP
[they did NOT post my comment, but it was something like:]
You posted Taylor Marsh's words out of context and changed the meaning [to a pro-Obama slant]. And as I write, this blog entry is the top story on the Politics page of the NYT site. Check it out, public editor.
[NB: They did run several other posts about the out-of-context quote/slant, but there was no reason not to post my comment which including the info about where the story was positioned on the web site.]
The Opinionator, New York Times
March 7, 2008, 1:05 pm
A Silence at the Clinton Library
By TOBIN HARSHAW
Once again, all is not as black and white as pundits like to pretend it is.
From the USA Today article that this blog entry is based upon, a more nuanced view of what’s what:
“In 2002, Clinton sent a guidance letter to his library that urged quick release of most White House records but retained the confidentiality prerogative covering advice from his staff. Still, Clinton said the restriction should be interpreted “narrowly” and allowed that certain records detailing internal communications could be made public if reviewed and approved for release by his designated legal agent…
“The William J. Clinton Foundation, which Lindsey helps oversee, said in a written statement that the National Archives is responsible for deciding which records are withheld under the Presidential Records Act. Archivists were exclusively responsible for “determinations with respect to these materials,” the statement said.
“Clinton’s guidance to the library goes beyond his predecessors, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, in urging that most of his presidential records be released quickly, according to Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, a research institute at George Washington University that collects government records for public use.
“Blanton noted that Lindsey’s refusal to review the withheld documents could be viewed as an effort to ensure the archivists’ independence. “He’s saying the professional archivists get to make this determination; it’s not a political determination.”
“The archivists’ decision to withhold records that could be construed as confidential communications between Clinton and his advisers is more consistent with the Bush administration’s hard line on the release of White House records, Blanton said.
“President Bush signed an order in November 2001 that broadened former presidents’ prerogative to block the release of internal White House records. That order, which Bill Clinton opposed, also allows a president’s immediate family to assert the privilege.
“In 2004, Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, went to court to force the Bush administration to release Justice Department records on Clinton’s pardons, and a federal judge ordered that the records be opened. But the administration, which argued that such releases would undermine a president’s ability to get confidential advice, blacked out most of the documents it made public.
“Christopher Farrell, a Judicial Watch director, noted that the pardon records blocked by the library also included all Justice Department reports that were sent to Clinton with recommendations on which clemency requests he should deny. He said it was “ridiculous” to withhold clemency petitions over privacy concerns. “These are people who were convicted in a court, and those cases are a matter of public record.”
— Posted by susan k., NYC
The Caucus, New York Times
February 25, 2008, 9:15 pm
Time to Count the Doughnuts
By SAM ROBERTS AND GRIFFIN PALMER
(article about how much Clinton spent on donuts)
Many people here have said “Lighten up, it’s just a joke article,” and yet people like Frank Rich take this kind of info and use it in their articles to convince people to vote for Obama (see his Audacity of Hopelessness column last Sunday). So actually, this kind of fluff–sadly, in this election–does seem to have serious impact when you have big-time highly paid writers including it in their well-read columns in complete seriousness.
— Posted by susan k., NYC
Many people here have said “Lighten up, it’s just a joke article,” and yet people like Frank Rich take this kind of info and use it in their articles to convince people to vote for Obama (see his Audacity of Hopelessness column last Sunday). So actually, this kind of fluff–sadly, in this election–does seem to have serious impact when you have big-time highly paid writers including it in their well-read columns in complete seriousness.
— Posted by susan k., NYC
Going First Most of the Time
By David D. Kirkpatrick and Kitty Bennett
February 27, 2008
(news article, not Op-Ed)
To the Editors:
The entire premise of this article is based on an incorrect fact. Senator Clinton was obviously not complaining about being the first to answer a question in each debate. She was complaining about always being asked the first question of each back-and-forth round of questioning. When she made that statement, it was actually the SECOND overall question of the night (the first being about her change of tone--"Shame on you, Obama," etc., the second being about NAFTA). Being questioned first in any round of questioning has a clear disadvantage in that the second person gets to reflect and criticize the first answer, and due to time constraints the second person also often gets the last word.
May I add that the continual twisting of the facts in your news coverage of the democratic race is shameful.
-------------------
The New York Times added the following paragraph after my e-mail (but did not note the error):
"And in the one-on-one debate last Thursday, she received the first question on the overwhelming majority of topics and thus spoke first about twice as often as he did."
NB: The next day pundits and bloggers started talking about how HRC was wimpy because she does not want the first question of a debate, which is clearly not what she was talking about...I knew this would happen, that's why I wrote about this.
Democrats Clash on Trade, Health and Tactics
By Patrick Healy and Jeff Zelleny
February 27, 2008
(news article, not Op-Ed)
Democrats Clash on Trade, Health and Tactics
By Patrick Healy and Jeff Zelleny
February 27, 2008
(news article, not Op-Ed)
CORRECTION:
The article states:
"As the debate turned to trade agreements, Mrs. Clinton interrupted the discussion to chastise the moderators, saying she was always asked the first substantive question."
What she said was (from your transcript):
"SEN. CLINTON: Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind. I -- you know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious,"
What she was obviously referring to was the fact that she is constantly asked the FIRST question in the back-and-forth of questioning on each topic, which give her opponent the advantage to challenge her initial statement, and to often get the last word on the subject due to the time constraints. She was NOT saying that she is opposed to being the first one in a debate to be asked a substantive question, as your writer reports.
Thank you for correcting this.
The New York Times added the following paragraph after my e-mail (but did not note the error):
(In fact, in their two other one-on-one debates, Mrs. Clinton was asked to answer the first question and then was asked more questions over all.)
To the Public Editor
RE: clinton coverage/debate article (Feb. 22)
Dear Mr. Hoyt:
While it is bad enough that the bias of the paper's opinion writers has led to a relentless attack in a flimsy but startlingly vicious way, I am even more troubled by the fact that the news department, covering the election in general, is also biased against her.
I notice in today's article "Debate Takes on Contentious Air for Democrats" (Feb 22), the writers lean towards attacking Clinton, even though the coverage in other outlets (such as CNN, who broadcast the debate) was far more even-handed.
This paragraph is evidence of this:
Mrs. Clinton, who is girding for March 4 Democratic primaries in Texas and Ohio that aides say she must win, alternated between high notes early in the debate — smiling and nodding at Mr. Obama, pitching her economic plans for the umpteenth time — and pointed criticisms that she has been making somewhat fruitlessly for weeks now, like portraying Mr. Obama as all talk and little action.
"Upteenth time"? "Fruitlessly"? Aren't those Dowd-like extrapolations that fall squarely in the "opinion" camp?
But the most egregious problem with the article is that the writers chopped off the ending of the concluding quote by Clinton. She received a standing ovation for that statement (not mentioned by your writers even though it is unusual in a debate and most other outlets are mention it), but your writers only included the beginning of it, throwing off the entire meaning of the quote, making it sound self-indulgent. Your writers end the quote with:
“You know, no matter what happens in this contest, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored,” she said, reaching over to shake her rival’s hand. “You know, whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.”
Here's what they left out:
"I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that's what this election should be about." (standing ovation)
In general, it is clear that this newspaper writes almost exclusively "feel good" articles about Obama, and nothing but attack articles or news articles with a thinly veiled bias against Clinton. That would be fine if she were Hitler, but this is not the case and I believe readers deserve a more even-handed treatment of campaign events. By twisting the truth or leaving out part of the picture, you are changing the written history and influencing the outcome of this election to the individual writers' liking.
And at the bottom of all of this bias is the "why?" question. To say it is because of sexism ellicits rolling eyes and "oh please" comments. And yet, if the roles were flipped, and Clinton were the one getting this much support from a news department, certainly the idea of racism would be thrown at your newspaper. It is difficult to otherwise explain the phenomenon.
Thank you for reading,
Bob Herbert, New York Times
Confronting the Kitchen Sink
March 8, 2008
To the Editor and Public Editor:
Mr. Herbert writes about Clinon's response to rumors about Obama being Muslim:
"In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: 'No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.'
As far as I know."
Herbert is unprofessionally and unethically taking Senator Clinton's words out of context, twisting the meaning. The full text shows that there is no wavering in her conviction that Obama is NOT a Muslim.
The full back-and-forth with Senator Clinton was this:
KROFT: You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?
CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.
CLINTON: Right. Right.
KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim --
CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? There's no --
KROFT: -- or implying, right?
CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It's just scurrilous --
CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.
Bob Herbert should be ashamed to mess with the truth as he has in this column, painting Clinton as sleazy when she was being the opposite. Talk about sleazy and "kitchen sink"...how ironic Mr. Herbert. It is one thing to have lively, extremely opinioned Op-Ed writers, another to have several writers on staff who consistently twist the facts to suit their presidential candidate of choice.
Maureen Dowd, New York Times
To Catch a Thief
February 20, 2008
To the Editor:
Dowd claims that “Yes, we will,” a stump-speech chant (incorrectly referred to as a slogan) used by Clinton, is a “theft” of the Obama slogan “Yes, we can.” Actually, parodying or rephrasing the opponent's words is a common strategy used by all of the candidates, including Obama, as any five year-old paying attention to the stump speeches can tell you. Dowd then implies that “Americans still have that can-do spirit” is similarly a theft. I'm pretty sure that was not a slogan, either; that it is simply a sentence uttered by Clinton that includes the word “can.” Perhaps your fact-checkers could be pitching in so that Ms. Dowd does not embarrass the newspaper by stretching the truth like Silly Putty? But then, why should she or the other opinion writers stop doing that when it so effectively gives them the power to change the course of a presidential election?
Present Perfect
Abner J. Mikva
February 16, 2008
Mr. Shipley,
Is it not a conflict of interest to have Abner Mikva writing an opinion piece about Barack Obama? Obviously they worked together at U. of Chicago, and Mikva has been a close advisor to Obama for years (see references below, which I found in about one minute of googling). Shouldn't this have been at least acknowledged in Mikva's bio?
I have been extremely disappointed in the Op-Ed section of the times, which has been tabloid-like, unprofessional, and shockingly uneven. I have already written to the public editor about the tabloid-level writing. I look forward to future analysis of the media coverage of this democratic race, which will surely exposure the double standard (protection of an ethnic minority, exaggerated fault-finding of a female) that has been prevalent in the media (including among female writers). There is no other way to explain the stomach-turning pile-on against Clinton, and the lack of any critical commentary for Obama, and The New York Times may be the leader in this use of double standard.
Thank you for reading this.
For Obama and Mikva connection, see:
WBEZ Chicago public radio:
"Abner Mikva is a political ally, advisor and friend of Barack Obama. "
NPR:
"Privately, Obama was discussing the issue with friends and political mentors like Abner Mikva."
Washington Post:
In a life-history piece about Obama: "For advice, Obama sought out older Democrats like former Congressman Abner Mikva and tapped ties at the University of Chicago, where he taught constitutional law."
"Abner Mikva is a political ally, advisor and friend of Barack Obama. "
NPR:
"Privately, Obama was discussing the issue with friends and political mentors like Abner Mikva."
Washington Post:
In a life-history piece about Obama: "For advice, Obama sought out older Democrats like former Congressman Abner Mikva and tapped ties at the University of Chicago, where he taught constitutional law."
[Shipley Blackberried me personally to apologize and correct this.]
"Correction: February 16, 2008
Earlier editions of this article failed to disclose that the author serves as an informal adviser to the Obama campaign."
To the Public Editor
Dear Mr. Hoyt:
The New York Times has tremendous influence over votes, not just in NYC but nationwide. That is why it has been so disappointing to read recent New York Times columns about the presidential race. As I try to decide who to vote for in the primary, my questions include: What are some of the interesting insights to come out of the debates or stump speeches, in the experts' opinions? How honest are the candidates being about their past? What are some significant details of a candidate's political history and career? What have they achieved or attempted to achieve? Where have they gone wrong in their political careers? For which issues have they been flexible or steadfast in their political convictions? Politically, who specifically have they worked with, successfully or unsuccessfully? Who are their allies or enemies? Who might they appoint to their cabinet, should they win? What might happen within the first year of their presidency? How realistic are their political goals? What will they need to execute their plan for this country? What problems might they have, long-term, if they become the nominee for their party? What are some obstacles they may face? How might they represent this country to the rest of the world, considering their backgrounds and histories?
I have been searching for answers to these questions in the pages of the New York Times, and instead I have found essays about campaign strategy, superficial likeability, isolated minor events in the race (that would be meaningless but for their coverage), the current state of feminism and racism, etc. Usually these essays are based on little information, big guesses, personal projections, or reflections from other media. This is tabloid fodder. The New York Times, in its Op-Ed columns, is following the presidential race as if was a high school cheerleader popularity contest, not a race to obtain the challenging and incalculably important *job* of being a world leader, President of the United States, in a time of crisis. I ask that the paper please stop insulting our intelligence.
Thank you for reading.
The New York Times has tremendous influence over votes, not just in NYC but nationwide. That is why it has been so disappointing to read recent New York Times columns about the presidential race. As I try to decide who to vote for in the primary, my questions include: What are some of the interesting insights to come out of the debates or stump speeches, in the experts' opinions? How honest are the candidates being about their past? What are some significant details of a candidate's political history and career? What have they achieved or attempted to achieve? Where have they gone wrong in their political careers? For which issues have they been flexible or steadfast in their political convictions? Politically, who specifically have they worked with, successfully or unsuccessfully? Who are their allies or enemies? Who might they appoint to their cabinet, should they win? What might happen within the first year of their presidency? How realistic are their political goals? What will they need to execute their plan for this country? What problems might they have, long-term, if they become the nominee for their party? What are some obstacles they may face? How might they represent this country to the rest of the world, considering their backgrounds and histories?
I have been searching for answers to these questions in the pages of the New York Times, and instead I have found essays about campaign strategy, superficial likeability, isolated minor events in the race (that would be meaningless but for their coverage), the current state of feminism and racism, etc. Usually these essays are based on little information, big guesses, personal projections, or reflections from other media. This is tabloid fodder. The New York Times, in its Op-Ed columns, is following the presidential race as if was a high school cheerleader popularity contest, not a race to obtain the challenging and incalculably important *job* of being a world leader, President of the United States, in a time of crisis. I ask that the paper please stop insulting our intelligence.
Thank you for reading.
Stanley Fish, New York Times
February 17, 2008
When ‘Identity Politics’ Is Rational
I am not a Stanley Fish groupie, but it is so refreshing to read a columnist in the NY Times who writes carefully considered essays full of substance and fresh ideas, rather than parroting tabloid-style accusations or magically mind-reading the intentions of the candidates, with no evidence to back up their claims. The fascinating responses to this column are a testament to that. I’d like to see Dowd or Rich try to drum up this kind of intelligent discussion. They cannot. Their columns can only elicit “I feel the same way,” or “You don’t know what you are talking about/Please stop trying to pull a fast one on the readers, we are not morons.” (And thanks also to Krugman when he discusses policy.)
As far as identity politics, if we are going to say it is legit, let us not forget that women tend NOT to be power-hungry, tend NOT to commit crimes, tend to be more helpful and choose careers where they are helping others. And recently it has been shown (repeatedly) that when women in Third World societies are given control over the community’s money or policy decisions, they uplift their community (helping children, improving education, health care, resources, etc.). I believe Clinton’s career is evidence of this, and I know everyone is now going to write about what a weaselly bitch she is, but I believe the vilification of HRC is all bluster (first from the right, now from the Obama camp) and no substance.
For another op-ed with substance–and that is critical of both the Clinton and Obama camps–see E.J. Dionne’s “Can Clinton Bounce Back?” in the Wash Post (reprinted in The Record).
— Posted by susan k., NYC
Roger Cohen, New York Times
A Realist Called Obama
February 18, 2008
“Obama…is best placed to seize and shape a new world of such possibilities. He has the youth, the global background, the ability to move people, and the demonstrated talent for reaching across lines of division, even those etched in black and white.”
Global background? Youth? Transcending black and white? More puffery, little substance.
“A romantic view of Clinton might be that she has the guts and savvy to free herself of her husband’s coterie of the world’s rich and famous, with its dubious deal-making from Kazakhstan to Colombia, and ensure that a White House with a president and ex-president in it projects U.S. renewal rather than the tawdrier sides of Clintonism.”
Umm, let’s see, Clinton was not part of any international scandals, he presided over peace, under him our military strategies were well-thought out and executed, he was admired by the leaders of other nations (as was his wife)…Could you and all of the other columnists bashing the Clintons PLEASE be more specific? Because you love shouting the punch lines but continually fail to provide the lead-up.
(in which Kristoff goes to Kenya and meets Obama's step-grandmother, who does not speak English and who Obama has met about three times in his life, and who refuses an interview with Kristoff...The piece is about how cool it is that Obama has Kenyan relatives (and yet it doesn't go much beyond this one step-grandmother who he had not interviewed) and implies that this makes for a good presidential candidate.)
I have absolutely nothing negative to say about Obama’s family since I don’t know much about them (althoug surely his childhood was not as tidy as he spins it in his memoir), and I don’t think a person should be penalized for their family. (Including when their husband was one of the most popular and successful presidents in history…what a monster that guy was, fighting for middle and lower income people, creating a balanced budget and economic expansion, creating positive relationships with national leaders all around the world…sheesh, don’t let him get anywhere near the White House again.)
I have absolutely nothing negative to say about Obama’s family since I don’t know much about them (althoug surely his childhood was not as tidy as he spins it in his memoir), and I don’t think a person should be penalized for their family. (Including when their husband was one of the most popular and successful presidents in history…what a monster that guy was, fighting for middle and lower income people, creating a balanced budget and economic expansion, creating positive relationships with national leaders all around the world…sheesh, don’t let him get anywhere near the White House again.)
But I do have a feeling that Obama could have serial killers for parents and you guys at the Times would still somehow conjure up some kind of positive spin on it. Just please know that many of your readers are nauseous from your complete inability to criticize a single thing about Obama, and your complete obsession with burning HRC at the stake, fanning the flames day after day, week after week, with the flimsiest of arguments. I literally meet people every week who say they are sick to their stomach about the coverage. These people tend not to be the ones loading up the comments boards with their propaganda, pretending to be kind old veterans and whatnot (amazing how many posters keep mentioning their advanced age lately when they rave about Obama! What a coincidence!).
— Posted by susan k., NYC
The Opinionator, New York Times site
Wonky Enough
By Chris Suellentrop
February 14, 2008
1. Obama is a risk. Plain and simple. We really don’t know how he would do, because he hasn’t had enough experience (community org, lecturer at a university, student president of a JOURNAL do NOT count as presidential experience). So if you are thinking “I’d rather have a guy whose judgment I suspect is similar to mine based almost entirely on the evidence that he spoke against the war way back when” (and without knowing how he would ACTUALLY have voted if he had to vote), then you are taking a big risk. With the U.S. in shambles, now is the worst possible time to take a risk. We are talking life and death: How we exit this war, how we deal with terrorism and threatening nations, health care, the economy, etc.
2. To argue that you want to go with the person who repeats the word “hope” over and over above the person who actually knows what she’s doing/talking about is the same as voting for the guy who you’d most like to have a beer with. We did that eight years ago.
3. The Iraq vote was very complex…Edwards, Kerry–in all 29 democrats in the Senate–voted Yea. Were they all selling out? Did they all want to send Americans to their death for selfish political reasons? Were they all horrible people because of that vote, which was made on the judgment of many many lies from the Bush cabal–lies having to do with the threat of a truly evil dictator at the level of Hitler and Stalin, a man who could acquire much control over the Middle East, post-9/11? If the Iraq resolution vote is the only reason you “detest” HRC, then you are falling for the Obama campaign rhetoric. His never casting a vote (because he couldn’t) means squat now and in the future if he becomes our pres.
4. Obama’s character: So you want to vote for the saint in this campaign, huh? The saint who played the race card in the most underhanded way, implying that HRC and Bill Clinton said things that were racially charged when in fact they had not? (MLK/Johnson and Jesse Jackson comments were NOT racially charged…there was nothing wrong with those statements…they are perceived that way because of how the Obama campaign spun them…THINK ABOUT IT). The saint who was getting mushy over Ronald Reagan…Gee, he wasn’t lying through his teeth there to win over votes, was he? If you don’t see the slickness in Obama’s campaign, then you are as naive as a newborn pup. And if you think about it, HRC’s campaign has pulled NOTHING equivalent…she only argues policy, she has so far only fought on the fairest of terms. Just because people are screaming “cheater” (the likes of cheerleading princess Maureen Dowd, towering football star Frank Rich, and the rest of the Happy Days gang) doesn’t make it real.
5. If all of this warped thinking is not the result of a “cult of personality” i don’t know what is. We are like Rome before the fall. We all want the tall, handsome smooth-talker, who somehow can do no wrong, instead of the person who actually is best qualified to make a fast, sharp 180 degree turn with this half-sunk ship.
— Posted by Susan Kruglinski
If there is something to say about Bill Clinton’s behavior on the campaign trail messing with Hillary’s chances, I missed it in all your slashing and burning of Hillary and Bill.
Once again I ask you supposedly smart Op-Ed writers of the NYT: WHY exactly should I vote for Obama, and WHY exactly should I NOT vote for Clinton? I’m not a moron…I”m not voting for someone because they have charisma (let’s have a beer!). So please stop insulting my intelligence and, if you writers are indeed clever enough to actually comment on the differences between the two candidates, please do so.
— Posted by Susan K.
February 9, 2008
Sorry, I am a fan of your column, I predicted you would win the Pulitzer because of your incredible writing about woman, but I have to say about this column:
Gee, ya think? Suddenly the NYT columnists are feeling guilty about bashing Hillary and seeing how absurd and sexist it is? A little late for that. Oh well, we’ll just have to roll the dice with Obama, whose health care plan and Iraq pullout make little sense, and who we know almost nothing about as far as executing duties of the office of president. Thanks to the media for the relentless bashing of the person most qualified to be president. You did a great job keeping a gal down.
Gee, ya think? Suddenly the NYT columnists are feeling guilty about bashing Hillary and seeing how absurd and sexist it is? A little late for that. Oh well, we’ll just have to roll the dice with Obama, whose health care plan and Iraq pullout make little sense, and who we know almost nothing about as far as executing duties of the office of president. Thanks to the media for the relentless bashing of the person most qualified to be president. You did a great job keeping a gal down.
— Posted by susan k.
January 19, 2008
I greatly respect your writing, but am disappointed in the flimsiness of this Op-Ed, as I have been lately with all NYT Op-Eds about the pres. race. Could somebody please tell me in plain English why I SHOULD vote for Obama and why I should NOT vote for Clinton? Don’t quibble about what they were like in fourth grade, who has worked in the trenches and been a do-gooder (they both have), or who has more charisma (let’s have a beer!).
Tell me who would realistically survive the election if they are their party’s nominee, who would be able to execute their goals quickly and efficiently as president, who would be the best choice as an international negotiator, etc.
I am more than willing to change my mind and vote for Obama if someone would please make a good case for Obama and against Clinton. So far this hasn’t happened, and I feel pretty strongly that, even if we assumed both were equal in every other way, Obama will get flattened like a pancake by the Republicans because of his dicey background, which is bound to have a few skeletons that will be spun hard (and expertly) by the other side…as they always do. (Read Obama’s memoir?).
— Posted by Susan K.
SLATE
can't find article, was part of XX Factor on Slate
more meaningless bashing
by sak
01/27/2008, 5:08 PM
"As women, we always knew Hillary would have a rough time getting beyond being the missus.."
...And then the rest of the article proceeds to do exactly that...no issues addressed, no solid pieces of evidence to bolster the argument, just an inabilitiy to get past seeing her as the missus. Nice.
"Hillary wants it both ways. She wants to be on his team and to make it on her own. She wants credit for her successes and credit for his. She wanted him on the sidelines in this campaign until she needed a soccer hooligan."
She does? Evidence? Can you read minds? Has she spoken words to this effect? Evidence in her conduct that would lead us to believe this?
"One of the qualities in Hillary Clinton that scares me most is her lack of a fixed sense of self...this Clinton campaign has also reinvented itself almost weekly since January: We’ve had Falling to Pieces Week; Finding Our Voice Week; Unloading a Carton of Whupass Week; and then Heh, Heh, That Bill Is a Maniac Week."
Actually, all of those "reinventions" have nothing to do with how she has acted or her message. They are the media's interpretations of non-events (like her choking up, as all human beings do, including male candidates who are currently running) that the media have blown out of proportion. The media, such as Slate and the NY Times, ignore the issues to focus on tabloid-style bashing and, in the process, distract the voters from thinking about who would actually make a better president.
"Hillary has some stuff to work out in her marriage before she works it out with the rest of us. Any woman in public life inevitably still struggles to define herself in opposition to men. But Hillary has an even bigger cross to bear: She’s still defining herself in opposition to Bill."
Wow. What century is this again? Thanks for perpetuating prejudice against women, girlfriend.
