Media Matters for America (MMA) has a thorough look at the hit piece that the WaPo did on Hillary Clinton and wonders where the comparable piece on Republican front-runner (and male) John McCain might be. I'll only note that I blogged this before MMA did.
MMA notes that, A month and a half after a Washington Post/ABC News poll found that possible 2008 presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) had a 54 percent favorability rating; that 57 percent of respondents would definitely vote for her or consider voting for her in 2008; and that strong majorities of Americans find her to be a "strong leader," "an open and friendly person," and "honest and trustworthy," the Post ran a front-page July 13 article that purported to look "[b]eneath these positives" and sought out Democrats and independents expressing the "evidence of unease" surrounding Clinton found in that poll. In the same poll, respondents were asked about their views of another possible 2008 presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who had a nearly identical favorability rating to Clinton's -- 55 percent. Media Matters for America asks: Will the Post also seek out Republicans and independents expressing unease about McCain?
As Media Matters for America noted when the May 11-15 poll on the favorability of Sen. Clinton was released, Post staff writer Dan Balz wrote: "Hillary Clinton has a populist streak that sometimes takes on an angry edge, in contrast to her husband." However, Balz offered no evidence or documentation to support this assertion. In fact, the poll indicated that strong majorities of Americans do not view Clinton as "angry" -- 67 percent of respondents did not think Clinton "seems to be an angry person," and 58 percent considered her "an open and friendly person." Balz also failed to mention Clinton's 54 percent overall favorability rating.
MMA also points out that Moreover, the May 11-15 poll cited by the Post also asked for the public's view of McCain, another presumptive 2008 presidential candidate. According to the poll, McCain and Clinton had almost identical favorability ratings (Clinton's 54 percent compared to McCain's 55 percent).
MMA also explains that, One of the Clinton critics was quoted as saying he was "bothered" by 15-year-old reports that Clinton "was verbally abusive to employees." The Post could investigate how Republican voters react to reports of McCain's quick temper and poor treatment of colleagues. On December 13, 1999, the Boston Globe's Walter Robinson reported:
But here in Arizona, some prominent Republicans echo the concerns of the former Democratic mayor. Recent public notice about McCain's temper, they believe, has obscured a larger issue voters ought to ponder when they measure him against the demands of the Oval Office: It is not so much the temper, they say, but what prompts him to lose it: His frequent unwillingness to accommodate dissenting views, even those of average citizens; his sometimes bullying insistence that other politicians do his bidding; and his tendency to treat those who disagree with him as disloyal.
[...]
But even some of McCain's supporters, among them politicians whose endorsement of his candidacy is prompted in part by fear of his temper, say they wish the underlying discontent could be so simply explained away.
MMA doesn't metion, but I will, that since Clinton's spouse's marital missteps are apparently grist for the mill, one wonders where the reports focusing on the fact that McCain's wife stole money from the children's relief agency she ran in order to feed her addiction to painkillers might be. McCain, himself barely missed losing his seat due to his involvement in the savings and loan scandal. Surely that's worth as many mentions as Whitewater, in which, let's remember no wrongdoing was ever found.
So, WaPo, what about it? Where's the hit piece on McCain? This is your second hit piece on Senator Clinton in several months.
No comments:
Post a Comment