While mainstream media members do a collective standing ovation for presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama's choice for his running mate, something seems desperately wrong with their reports.
After all, they're supposed to be the great supporters of women's issues and equal rights.
This obvious hypocrisy has gone largely unnoticed as liberal reporter after liberal reporter jumped on a man's bandwagon despite a clearly more qualified and experienced woman being in the race.
Yet, as the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol pointed out in a blog posting Saturday evening, the final Democrat act of misogyny and sexism was Obama picking Biden as as his running mate, a man that received virtually no public support for his presidential bid as compared to Hillary Clinton who got roughly 18 million votes:
Joe Biden manages to persuade a few thousand (if that) Iowans to support him. And Barack Obama selects Biden? Normally, if the VP pick came from that year’s presidential field, it's the runner-up (Kerry-Edwards in 2004, Reagan-Bush in 1980, Stevenson-Kefauver in 1956). (Lyndon Johnson in 1960 hadn’t entered the primaries.) And Biden wasn’t even the third most successful candidate this year (hi, John Edwards!), or fourth (Bill Richardson, I suppose), or fifth (Dennis Kucinich!).
What’s more, Biden and Hillary have basically comparable foreign policy “experience” (such as it is in either case). Nor is Biden clearly more knowledgeable in foreign affairs than Hillary. And they have pretty similar foreign policy views. So no advantage to Biden there. And, unlike Jack Reed, for example, Biden didn’t serve in the military. So no advantage over Hillary there. Nor does he outshine her in executive experience (unlike Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine or Kathleen Sebelius)--neither Biden nor Hillary has any.
In the end, supposedly feminist media members submarined the efforts of the first serious female candidate for president, and are so fixated on getting the man they supported in the White House that they can't even bring themselves to be disgusted by how Obama didn't even consider Clinton as a vice presidential option.
Maybe they'll recognize the atrociousness of their behavior if "Saturday Night Live" does a skit on the subject.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Noel's working overtime :)
August 23, 2008 - 23:16 ET by Logic over emotionHere's a consideration too. Maybe she told him right off the bat that she wasn't interested. She'd much rather Obama lose so she could be a contender in '12.
In fact I think allot of them told Barry, "No Way" (except maybe suck up Kaine). It seemed, especially with the botched text messaging, that they couldn't find anyone till the last moment.
Who wants to get into a leaky canoe?
With no oars.
Seems to me that liberals
August 23, 2008 - 23:24 ET by Clear thinkerSeems to me that liberals would kill their own Moms to be on the ticket with the Messiah.
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goal
Ct
August 23, 2008 - 23:46 ET by Logic over emotionYou're right of course but I just don't understand why he'd pick Biden. Every conservative friend I know was hoping he'd do just that while my liberal friends reactions were, "What? Oh well, I guess that's OK."
Slo Joe
August 24, 2008 - 06:04 ET by 10ksnookerDid Joe win 1% of the vote? Or even raise $10 in the Presidential campaign? Sounds like the public wrote Joe off early as just a non-serious buffoon. He sure isn't any expert in foreign poilicy, or anything else for that matter.
The media is in the tank
August 23, 2008 - 23:23 ET by lumpyfor Obama and they aren't even pretending to be impartial in their election coverage.
But--they forgot one thing. The majority of American voters don't like unfairness, they distrust the mainstream media, and they resent the media trying to influence the election. There will be a backlash--the msm is actually hurting Obama's chances.
experience
August 24, 2008 - 00:53 ET by MattHey Noel,
I know the copy from Bill Crystal's article broke down the experience qualifications between Biden and Hilary, and his point was Hilary garnered more votes than Biden ever did, but isn't he one of many that said being married to the president doesn't qualify her to hold office when she was the front runner?
I ask this because you stated she was CLEARLY more experienced than Biden, and am a little confused how she went from not qualified to clearly more qualified than a man who's experience in the Senate is 3 or 4 times hers.
I would never vote for Obama no matter who was running with him, but since conservatives as a whole believed Hilary was not qualified, isn't it a bit of a stretch to suddenly say she is more qualified than anyone when the goal now is to expose more media bias?
If she truly was not qualified to begin with, as was shouted out from most corners during the primary-- how is she more qualified now than my 5 year old son? I'm starting to suspect some bias right here at home.
matt
Matt
August 24, 2008 - 01:20 ET by Noel SheppardMatt,
I think her almost eight years in the Senate, along with defending her seat in a re-election bid, makes her more qualified than Obama who ran uncontested in 2004, and has been campaigning for president ever since.
I'm not suggesting she's qualified. I'm suggesting she's more qualified than this empty suit. ns
Noel, I see your point,
August 24, 2008 - 02:53 ET by MattNoel,
I see your point, but we are not discussing her qualifications for president vs. Obama.
My point is consevatives (me included) were adamant when she was the front runner that she was not qualified to be president. I wonder why now, you try to show media bias by her being overlooked for VP over Biden. If she wasn't qualified to begin, why is she so experienced and qualified now when it is convenient to show how ridiculous the MSM is with their coverage.
There has to be consistancy in proving MSM bias. I do not believe we can attack her qualifications to prove bias when she is the front runner for the Democrat nomination, and then celebrate her qualifications to prove the same regarding Obama's vp choice.
Just a little confused and will probably remain so.
matt
Qualifications
August 24, 2008 - 04:55 ET by TruestarMatt-
I think you've made a very salient point. However, perhaps in Noel's defense, I would suggest that Noel was highlighting the fact that Hillary is woman, and presumably a feminist. Certainly she has been trumpeted by feminists as perfectly qualified to be President, and in fact far more qualified than Obama himself. Thus, it could be argued that Hillary had the qualifications, as well as the votes of many millions of women, feminists or not, who would simply vote with their genitals in mind---and voted Obama. It would have been arguably a controversial stategy on Obama's part, but then, Obama is purportably all about CHANGE. Correct?
And speaking of change---how does Biden represent change? This guy helps to promote Obama's clarion call for change? The man has been in Congress since 1972! He's always been a mouthy jerk, and a certifiable loser at running for President. Obama has chosen a well known MALE jag off over the likes of Hillary or Sebelius. Not that Dems care a wit about qualifications, but I suppose Biden should have some after 36 years. But since when did qualifications matter to the Dems? Look at Obama!!!
All that said, as a conservative, I think Biden is the perfect selection for Obama because it means Obama will lose. There are any number of Dems who would have better fit Obama...Clinton, Richardson and Sebelius come to mind. But Biden??? Wow. That's some real transparent and schizoid political thinking.
Yup, if I were a feminist, I can't imagine being thrilled with the likes of Joe Biden.
Well, the Obama may get it
August 24, 2008 - 06:03 ET by motherbeltWell, the Obama may get it back, when the PUMA's decide to sit this one out in revenge.
Matt
August 24, 2008 - 10:43 ET by Noel SheppardMatt,
"we are not discussing her qualifications for president vs. Obama."
Maybe YOU'RE not, but I am. The point in my third paragraph was that media were potentially demonstrating a misogyny and sexism by jumping on Obama's bandwagon despite Hillary being more qualified. I do believe she's more qualified for the job than this poser. Don't you?
Then, much as Kristol pointed out, the next sexist misogynistic act was Obama not even considering as a running mate a woman that got more votes than him. And, a supposedly feminist media not pointing out the potential sexism and misogyny is just a continuation of their own sexism and misogyny in jumping on Obama's bandwagon in the first place.
As to Hillary's qualifications vs. Biden's, I think he's far more qualified than she. Frankly, he was the most qualified of all the Dem candidates BY far. But that's irrelevant to my point. I hope this clears up the confusion. ns
ns
August 24, 2008 - 13:35 ET by MattOk, I guess I got confused due to the title of your post. This title indicated the post was about the VP selection, not the Dem primary.
I see where you are coming from now.
Thanks,
matt
Matt,
August 24, 2008 - 13:47 ET by DEVILDOCMOMI agree with your posts and have read Noel's responses. I read everything just as you did, thanks for your thoughts.
devildocmom
August 24, 2008 - 14:09 ET by MattThanks for the thumbs up-- I was feeling a little alone in this.
matt
Yes,
August 24, 2008 - 03:50 ET by RESTLESS 1...but is she more qualified than Biden? That is Matt's question, and if not, then you can't have it both ways. You can't say she is less qualified than Biden to be a front runner in the primaries, then turn around and say she is more qualified to be the veep.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Thanks Restless. I am
August 24, 2008 - 05:12 ET by MattThanks Restless.
I am starting to see a bias right here in the heart of all that claim to hate bias.
That was my original point.
Restless and Matt - I think you misread Noels statements
August 24, 2008 - 08:00 ET by Dee BunkHe didn't say that Hillary was clearly more qualified than Biden, he said she was clearly more qualified than Obama.
Bill Crystal said that Biden and Clinton were similar in foreign policy experience and held similar views which is true. Neither one of them have very much experience and they both voted for the war and then criticized it.
It's very possible to
August 24, 2008 - 08:22 ET by MidAmericaIt's very possible to be qualified and unqualified at the same time. It all depends on the observer. In the minds of conservatives, hillary is not qualified based on experience, knowledge, and ideological temperment. But.... if you are a liberal leaning democrat she is fully qualified, in fact more qualified than biden who, on his own, cannot get more than a sprinkling of votes to be President. You can't be President without the ability to get people to vote for you.
Ahem, why would you think
August 25, 2008 - 08:28 ET by dscottAhem, why would you think Biden is more qualified than Clinton in terms of the Dem nomination process? Is Biden a member of any victim group the Dems gather people into? The Dems qualification process (standards) is based on victimization and pandering there to. Being a member of a victim group trumps pandering. Biden can only pander while Clinton is a member of a victim group - females. Therefore Clinton is eminently more qualified than Biden to represent victims and their concerns. This is why the Dems chose Obama, they believe he can identify more believably with victims than Clinton.
Is Clinton qualified in terms of what we conservatives consider basic rudimentary experience or attitude??? NOT on your life! NOR is Obama or Biden, all three of them are simply not qualified to be POTUS based on their second guessing of the GWOT and putting politics before the security of the country. So yes, Noel can have it both ways because there are two standards in play, the Dems versus the real world. In terms of the Dem party qualifications, Clinton should have been the VP nominee as a female. The MSM is covering up for Obama because they don't want to rock the boat for their candidate of choice and because they are tired of the Clintons. The Clintons are just so 90s.
If the MSM can side with a political party (Dems) then they can also pick a candidate, they did - Obama. And they can also unpick the ones they don't like - Clinton.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Hillery is
August 24, 2008 - 09:20 ET by docbless qualified -unless you count her husbands CV, she never got 18 million votes unless you use her 'fuzzy math', she campaigned for McCain with the '2 speeches comment', she got ONLY 3 Bills signed into law but named a lot of buildings, she lied about many of her experiences, stretched her importance as 1st Lady, she has no foreign policy experience, and she lied about Bosnia, used the race card, victim card, and sexism card and still lost. She had a machine, name recognition, expres hubby, and money...She blew it all.
Biden has many years as a fighter for womens rights, she does not.
Noel, your bias is abysmal!!!
docb - this post is abysmally baised and doesn't address Noel's
August 24, 2008 - 10:16 ET by Dee Bunkpoints or Kristol's.
You claim she never got 18 million votes unless one uses fuzzy math, but what kind of math do you have to use to make Biden's number anywhere comparable to hers? No fuz will do it.
The rest of your attacks have nothing to do with the article or Noels comments on it.
Noel said she had more experience than Obama -not Biden. The article claims that Biden and Clinton's foreign policy experience and positions are similar (neither has much experience).
Either Biden or Clinton are more experienced than Obama - that's a given. Just about anyone whose ever run for President is more experienced than Obama (other than John Edwards).
docb - well I can agree with a lot of what you say.
August 24, 2008 - 10:42 ET by acaiguanadocb - well I can agree with a lot of what you say.
She did all of the above. Fortunately, she isn't running for anything right now. With a little luck, she will never run for anything in the future either.
Defending Biden is like replying to someone who accuses a friend of eating children and beating their wife.
"My friend does not eat children."
Biden is personally responsible for the continuation of funding a government agency slated under Reagan for dissolution, the Legal Services Corporation. He tacked the requirement onto many 'continuing resolutions' passed by the Democrats in the early '80's when they refused to pass a budget that Reagan kept threatening to veto.
This agency alone funds attorneys who in violation of both the spirit of the law and its intent continue to pursue political agendas (Liberal) in our courts to attack agricultural business; prevent the automation of stoop labor crop harvesting; prevent landlords from cleaning up crack neighborhood housing areas; maintain a research center that dwarfs private resource legal representatives; and finally create new law through court action rather than through the legislative process.
Other than that, I am sure many here can come up with some of the other 'great' Liberal causes that Biden has championed that have added undue burdon upon the local economies where unintended consequences have caused job losses; small business failures and wrecked rampage and destruction on the pursuit of the American dream.
I personally do not like Biden, but that is beside the fact.
I see the Biden 'fix' by Obama as another step down the road to self destruction by the Democrats in this election.
ACA
...
Chat Moderator
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
ACA - is back!
August 24, 2008 - 10:54 ET by Dee BunkWelcome and congrats on your engagement!
docb loves anything Obama does and if he'd have picked Hillary he'd be defending that.
Biden and Hillary are actually very very similar in personality and positions but I believe Hillary is more intelligent and would have brought more money and power to the table. I'm glad he didn't pick her.
I forgot when criticizing docb above that he says Hillary campaigned for McCain with the two speeches thing but ignored how Biden did the same thing by trashing Obama's experience and lauding McCains
Dee, you can't tell a woman anything.
August 24, 2008 - 11:08 ET by acaiguanaDee, you can't tell a woman anything.
I should never had let on. Can't keep secrets.
ACA
...
Chat Moderator
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
Secrets smecrets
August 24, 2008 - 11:24 ET by Dee Bunkthe only good secrets are ones that save someone from humiliation or harm.
It wasn't really a secret was it?
I was just being ornery. ACA
August 24, 2008 - 11:38 ET by acaiguana...
Chat Moderator
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
I remember that about you ACA! ; )
August 24, 2008 - 11:51 ET by Dee Bunkit's the teddy bear kind of ornery, the good kind.
Hillary demonstrated she was
August 24, 2008 - 10:56 ET by pumapurrHillary demonstrated she was more qualified by winning the popular vote. (She did- you've got to get over that.) Biden could not have come close even if it had been only Obama and Biden out there. Obama had the Media and the Money and the DNC in his pocket and would have run over Biden like a steamroller in that match-up. But, with all that stacked deck, Obama couldn't steamroller Hillary. That shows she is more qualified in the estimation of actual voters, not pundits or bloggers - they would not have supported Biden. It means everything.
Hillary also demonstrated political maturity and gained important experience in this race while Biden sat at home reading Time magazine. Like many, my respect for her grew from observing this race. Fair minded people (e.g. Noel) give her credit for this experience and growth and are able to reshape their opinions. Many Americans trust and respect her (including McCain) and I think even Rush(!) has a tiny begrudging respect that wasn't evident before this race. Sorry if that conflicts with your myopic view of shouting from "most" corners. (You need to check some more corners- not just the corners you like.)
And comparing her to your son shows exactly where you are coming from. Hillary could cure cancer and you'd refuse the treatment on your death bed. The bias that needs exposing is your own.
Exactly
August 24, 2008 - 01:11 ET by jpatchJoe Biden is chock full of contoversial negatives; not to mention that he has the most sh*t eating grin you've ever seen in your life. That's what I could never get about people who were serious with the George W. Bush being some fascist evil genius criminal President mastermind thing - when he smiles, you can just tell that he's a man that, although not terribly deep, is crystal clear in his intentions. He says what he means and he means what he says, popularity or fame be dammed.
What no one is really talking about is how much George W. Bush's "War on Terror" (U.S. Military Personell, including the NYT's and MoveOn.org's favorite, "General Betrayus"...please take a bow, you all have earned it) has seriously kicked some Islamic exremist ass. Iraq is starting to become a real country...with a HUGE surplus. Can someone tell me, is America going to be repaid in any way for her efforts? Iraq should use 50 billion of their oil surplus for infrastructure and police and military, and schools, and use the other 30 billion to pay back America. Let's keep it real.
Rock on everyone on this website!! You all have kept me sane for the last 3 years. It's good to know that there are real Americans out there still, that understand the nature of the reality. Liberalism, as a whole, is an ideology based upon the idea of satisfying every emotional desire and condition; whereas conservatism is an ideology focused on individual obligation, responsibility and control over human emotions, in favor of choosing a course of action that is more pragmatic and/or that is morally just.
My family never talked politics when I was growing up. I swear, if I had any politcal predisposition at all, it was heavily democratic. And yet, me being the lone political science major in my family, I also happen to be the only conservative. Funny how that works out. The sad part is, most of my family believes that they are democrats because they are "middle class". My father, a Vietnam Veteran with 2 Purple Hearts, who holds an M.A. in Public Policy, thinks that "republicans lowered oil and gas prices recently for the election".
You can't argue with that type of logic; it's a mindset, not a logical set of conclusions. I feel hopeless sometimes when I hear things like that. But I know that I can break through, if I just keep on hammering home reality and truth. 9/11 woke almost everyone up, but our prosperity and our way of life has put most of us back to sleep again. We don't need to live in a constant state of fear, but instead in a constant state of awareness and preparedness. America is the light of the world, and it's ours.
What are we going to do with it?
jpatch - GREAT GREAT POST !!
August 24, 2008 - 02:38 ET by MrShyReally wonderful post. Very moving, and I'm nearly moved to copy-paste it (with your consent, of course ;)) to my own modern liberalism-brainwashed relatives.
Although, knowing me, I will fall just short of throwing caution to the wind, as they ARE family.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
"final Democrat act of misogyny and sexism was Obama picking.."
August 24, 2008 - 02:10 ET by TexndocMisogny and sexism was Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews viciously (and in some instances to the point of spittling at the camera) attacking Hillary for have voted "yes" for the Iraq War, and then having nothing but glowing praise for a fellow Senator having voted exactly the same.
I wonder if Hillary supporters such as James Carville, Paul Begala, or Geraldine Ferraro would ever consider sitting down with those two now; one of the beautiful thing about this story is Keith and Chrissie's bordering-on-weird obsessive love for their man has very much turned off half of what little audience they had. I recently saw an article that the Huffington Post (!) had on it's front page that said Fox News' ratings as this election season starts are going through the roof, while MSNBC languishes in 3rd, INCLUDING the 25-30 demographic that Olbermann cares about because it's the only one he comes within a mile of O'Reilly. Obama/Biden/Matthews/Olbermann finished in 2009? Oh, happy day.
Misogny and sexism was
August 24, 2008 - 06:12 ET by motherbeltMisogny and sexism was Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews viciously
(and in some instances to the point of spittling at the camera)
attacking Hillary for have voted "yes" for the Iraq War, and then
having nothing but glowing praise for a fellow Senator having voted
exactly the same.
You are right; I noticed that in their hosannas to Joe Biden, that was the one thing they did not talk about.
That fact will go down the Memory Hole, of course.
What do you think are the chances of anyone in the MSM asking Biden if he now regrets that vote? Or of asking Obama how he came to pick a VP at odds with him on that issue?
Oh, I know, he will say Biden has pledged to support him now. And they will all nod. That wouldn't, however, be good enough for them to accept Romney, if he pledged to uphold McCain's pro-life policies; they would beat him to death with his previous stand.
Come on now
August 24, 2008 - 02:11 ET by Logic over emotionPartners, you're becoming too cerebral. The main question here is:
Does Ludicrous do another song about Joe and does Joe dance and sing in the video?
Thank God that Hillary's
August 24, 2008 - 11:08 ET by lotrThank God that Hillary's finally out (or is she?).
Insight to why Biden was the choice of the Chosen One........
August 24, 2008 - 12:04 ET by XBOLTSI caught this in an AP release from a "Clinton delegate":
Susan Castner, a Clinton delegate from Portland, Ore., said she sees some of Clinton's qualities in Biden. She likes his experience, especially on foreign policy.
"It really kind of humanizes Barack Obama," Castner said. "He has this air of perfection, and Joe Biden is more down to earth."
There you have it - Biden was picked to give the Messiah a more human appeal, otherwise He is too "perfect".
Where is my bucking farf bag............