Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
Clinton, Obama and double standards
December 19, 2007
Are the media treating Hillary Clinton more harshly than Barack Obama? Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post:
Clinton’s senior advisers have grown convinced that the media deck is stacked against them, that their candidate is drawing far harsher scrutiny than Barack Obama. And at least some journalists agree.
"She’s just held to a different standard in every respect," says Mark Halperin, Time’s editor at large. "The press rooted for Obama to go negative, and when he did he was applauded. When she does it, it’s treated as this huge violation of propriety." While Clinton’s mistakes deserve full coverage, Halperin says, "the press’s flaws — wild swings, accentuating the negative — are magnified 50 times when it comes to her. It’s not a level playing field."
The article cites plenty of instances. I think there’s no question that Obama has been given an easy ride. It struck me throughout the televised debates that Clinton was generally declared the winner, but by a narrow or less-than-commanding margin–whereas in fact she nearly always trounced him. Quite a few commentators have called her slip over driver’s licences for illegal immigrants in the Philadelphia debate a turning-point: since then she’s been in trouble, they say. But Obama made a complete fool of himself on the very same issue in the next debate, by which time Hillary had sorted out her line, and he got away with it. Yes, the press is failing to be objective. Yes, it is treating Hillary quite harshly, while fawning over Obama.
But is this sentiment peculiar to the press, I wonder, or a feeling in the country at large? I suspect the latter. The United States may have doubts about Obama’s policies (if it knows or cares) or lack of experience (compared with Hillary’s such as it is), but it likes him. He is new, and the country is giving him the benefit of the doubt. When it comes to Hillary, there is no such instinct. She is asking for eight years in the White House–another eight years, as her claim of greater experience keeps reminding people–and people seem tired of her already.
Bill makes this worse. Predictably, with problems in Iowa and her national numbers starting to slide, he is playing a more forward role. David Warsh, author of the indispensable Economic Principals, drew my attention to this column by Alex Beam in the Boston Globe:
In 1999, after almost seven years of Bill Clinton’s rule, the commentariat christened a new buzzterm: Clinton fatigue. The peccadilloes, the double-dealing, the outright lying had overwhelmed the American public. "The Clintons have finally worn out their welcome," wrote columnist Linda Bowles. "There is a prevailing sentiment that it’s time for them to go, and to take their baggage with them."
Clinton fatigue. With the presidential election less than 11 months away, I am feeling it already.
I’m not talking about Mrs. Clinton…
My Clinton fatigue is about Bill. I am getting sick of him.
Bill’s problem is that he has no idea of how to be a political wife. Right now, Michelle Obama is the best in the business. Smart, accomplished, articulate, and capable of projecting empathy, she moves the Obama campaign forward with every appearance. She fills the stage without stealing the spotlight from her husband, from Oprah, or from whoever she appears with. With Bill Clinton, it’s just the opposite…
[An angle suggested by Herald columnist Margery Eagan:] Is Bill "The Underminer," as defined by the hilarious book of the same name by Mike Albo and Virginia Heffernan? The underminer is your "friend" who waxes enthusiastic about your fabulous trip to New Zealand, and then lets slip that he was hang-gliding there in the early 1980s, you know, before all the American tourists arrived.
Mainly, I think Bill makes his wife look weak. Otherwise, why would she need his help? And he reminds people just how long this double-act has been in business. When it comes to policies, Hillary may in fact be more of a "change candidate" than Obama (see Paul Krugman on this), hard though it is to say, ahead of time, how either presidency would work in practice. The point is, with Bill at her elbow, she does not look or sound like the change candidate. The more she relies on him, the more stale and diminished she will seem.
How could anyone over the age of 12 seriously think that the biggest issue facing America is whether Hillary or Obama is more “likable”, or, on the Republican side, whether Huckabee or Romney is a better Christian in a religiously and ethnically diverse country whose constitution forbids establishment of religion? This, while almost 2 million minority and elderly subprime borrowers are at risk of losing their homes and savings in a hurricane of lending fraud scandal that has grown to Katrina-like (or Enron-like) proportions.
Certainly, much of the media may be biased against Hillary, who has been made out to be a latter day Lady Macbeth). But what can explain the almost total media blackout on John Edwards, still a very viable candidate who has been discussing important economic issues such as income inequality more honestly and openly than anyone else? And when are we going to have a presidential debate on torture, government secrecy, spying, reditions, secret CIA prisons, Guantanamo and the other abuses of power that are endangering the foundations of American democracy?
Roger Algase
Posted by: Roger Algase | December 20th, 2007 at 6:03 am | Report this commentNew York NY
All the discussion over the presidential candidates’ “likability” and “faith”, or whether they have good political spouses, is nothing more than window-dressing obsuring the real issues of income inequality, abuses of executive power, militarization of American society, and the spread of racism disguised as concern over illegal immigration, all of which will determine whether this country remains a democracy. When will these fundamental issues be openly debated?
Of all the presidential candidates, only John Edwards has come close to discussing any of these issues openly and honestly, but his campaign is being all but ignored by the media.
Posted by: algaselex | December 20th, 2007 at 6:19 am | Report this commentObama looks weaker than Clinton with Oprah coming to his rescue.
Posted by: pwashburn | December 20th, 2007 at 5:08 pm | Report this commentWhat was Obama thinking?
A Caucus or a Soap Oprah? — Phil Linehan
Personal conviction, says Oprah, explains her support for Barack Obama.
But will that, one can only ask, go down well in Alabama?
Is that the same conviction that led her to praise as a must read smash
what turned out to be a book best be described as trash.
A Million Little Pieces was a total fraud
Yet Oprah could hardly wait to it applaud.
She then plugged a cook book by the wife of a famous star
though its resemblance to an earlier one is truly bizarre.
Of course, backed by Oprah’s heavyweight clout,
It sold like the hottest of cakes, as if that was ever in doubt.
How could a grateful author show appreciation?
To a charity, perhaps, make a donation?
No, the wife in question, thankful for the interview,
gave Oprah a $20,000 gift with a twist that was new.
She was presented with 21 pairs of designer shoes
of the latest fashion and in many hues.
What words can best such a gift describe?
A lubricant, a payoff or perhaps a bribe?
What does acceptance say about Oprah’s judgement call,
as she sets out the voters to enthral?
Never mind, she is now on the campaign trail
hoping that with voters she can prevail.
She presents her man as the very best choice
and tells voters if they pick him they can rejoice.
Because Obama presents himself as being black not white
the white family that raised him is never in sight.
That is one thing that many find perplexing
as his canditorial qualifications he keeps projecting.
His black father abandoned him when he was just a tot
still tossing about in his baby cot.
Though he never even got to see his little boy play
not a word of reproach is Barack heard to say.
So what hope has a candidate who is half black and half white?
Will black voters consider him a shade too light?
Will the white think it is a pity he is less than pallid
so they might consider his appeal to be a bit more valid?
Meanwhile with Oprah he will continue to campaign
Posted by: Phil Linehan | December 20th, 2007 at 7:14 pm | Report this commenthoping that sufficient support he will be able to gain.
If he succeeds then Democratic voters can proudly boast
that their nominee was chosen by a talk show host.
Bravo Clive … would only disagree that the virus his column depicts as “Clinton fatigue” has advanced to a more serious stage requiring urgent injections of truth, integrity and credibility. Hopefully the electorate will administer the dose in the upcoming primaries. Someday the suspension of Bill Clinton’s license to practice law in Arkansas and argue cases before the Supreme Court will expire. Until then look for more mind-boggling spin and self-serving half-truths from the man who is lauded by fellow Democrat Senator Bob Kerrey and former Clinton staffer George Stephanopolous as an amazingly adept and skilfull liar. The man who didn’t inhale looks pretty ridiculous next to someone who frankly admitted to experimenting with more serious drugs in his youth. The rest of America can only wonder what kind of Faustian bargain was struck by Bill and Hil before the launch of this campaign … Bill might have promised to keep his zipper zipped but he should perhaps have applied a similar restraint to his public statements which seem to be backfiring right and left … his opposition to the Iraq War “from day one” can easily be refuted with written and video evidence. If Barak Obama is a “roll of the dice” as Bill claimed on Charlie Rose’s show, then Hilary is a stacked deck full of familiar jokers dealt by professional croupiers who know how beat the house.
Posted by: John Driscoll | December 21st, 2007 at 2:13 am | Report this commentDear all,
Over the holiday season the comments posted to the blog will be pre-moderated by FT staff. This may result in a delay in your comment appearing, but we will keep these delays to a minimum. We will return to post-moderating comments at the start of 2008.
Many thanks for all your contributions, and best wishes for the season.
Posted by: Damian Carrington, Interactive Editor, FT.com | December 21st, 2007 at 2:24 pm | Report this commentAn additional reason for the popularity of Obama, as well as Huckabee on the Republican side, is that voters are tired of the establishment politics that Clinton and Giuliani/Romney represent. There is evidence that evangelical Christians are supporting Huckabee, not because he is necessarily more of a believer than his rivals, all of whom should be taken at face value as men of faith, but because his economic policies are more in tune with the interests of average Americans. Nor is a some of the Christian compassion that Huckabee has shown for immigrants for exactly a liability, not only with Hispanic voters, but with the great majority of Americans who reject the shrill demagoguery of people like (former) presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, or not yet fallen TV icon Lou Dobbs.
Posted by: algaselex | December 21st, 2007 at 6:30 pm | Report this comment