Media Notes Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |  E-mail Kurtz  |  Style Section
Page 4 of 4   <      

Please Don't Go

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

"Okay, there's also the time Obama, after a particularly tough exchange with Hillary, told a crowd, 'You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out.' . . .

"In the interest of fairness, I should note there were a few other such isolated incidents -- columnists decrying her 'frigidity' and 'inability to keep Bill on the porch'; the Washington Post's Robin Givhan writing about her cleavage; Randi Rhodes calling her 'a [expletive] whore'; Maureen Dowd claiming that she 'has turned into Sybil'; MSNBC reporter David Schuster asking whether Chelsea was being 'pimped out'; Katie Couric asking Hillary to confirm that her 'nickname in school was Miss Frigidaire'; cartoonist Pat Oliphant depicting her crying while facing hostile foreign leaders (and Osama bin Laden expressing, 'she's so sensitive, I had no idea!'); Chris Matthews declaring that 'the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around'; comments from an unnamed Democratic party official that her effort once she fell behind in delegates was 'the Tonya Harding option'; magician Penn Jillette declaring on MSNBC that Obama's success in February was due to Black History Month and Hillary's subsequent success could be attributed to 'White Bitch Month'; an audience member at a debate asking her if she prefers diamonds or pearls; and John Aravosis of AmericaBlog posting pictures of Monica Lewinsky with her mouth wide open every time Hillary irked him.

"But other than that, there is no evidence that sexism played a role in Hillary Clinton's defeat."

In Time, Joe Klein gives HRC her due:

"The Clinton campaign has been a revelation. Her early insistence on a conservative, consultant-driven campaign was revealed as anachronistic and too synthetic in the sparkling intensity of this year's election. Her husband's strengths were humbled by his flaws; his wholesale bitterness overwhelmed his retail campaigning. But the greatest revelation was Hillary Clinton herself--a fabulously skilled candidate and a compelling human being, one of the very rare politicians who found her soul during a campaign, rather than losing it. She needs to find a way to savor that now, without standing in the way of her party's future."

Here is the first of probably a couple thousand polls on race:

"Barack Obama's historic quest for the White House is creating a mix of hope and concern among fellow African-Americans, raising expectations that the presumptive Democratic nominee will be able to improve race relations -- and anxiety over whether his success will ignite a racially divisive fall campaign . . .

"In the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, taken May 30-June 2, 75% of blacks believe Obama as president would improve race relations like no other candidate . . .Seven of 10 blacks predicted that Republicans were likely to make race an issue, while less than one-half of non-Hispanic whites thought so."

A bit of soul-searching from Atlantic blogger Marc Ambinder:

"It might not surprise you to learn that the overwhelming majority of e-mails I receive are from supporters of Barack Obama. That's great, actually. I suspect that there's some correspondence between the demographic that Obama attracts and the demographic that would trust The Atlantic for their political fix.

"But I confess to be slightly uncomfortable with the content of a good portion of those e-mails. Many e-mail correspondents chastise me for departing from an orthodoxy; they cannot understand why or how I could possibly post something that reads as favorable to Hillary Clinton or to John McCain; they treat as provocative any post that originates outside a fairly narrow comfort zone. They seem genuinely confused about what I do and what I don't do."

Among the possible reasons:

"(1) Maybe I am a liberal masquerading as a post-partisan, post-modern journalist/blogger hybrid.

"(2) Maybe the blog's content is generally quite liberal regardless of my intent.

"(3) Maybe I try to sublimate my bias, but it shows up, and it turns away folks who don't share whatever views I seem to have."

Maybe he spends too much time reading his e-mail.


<             4


© 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive