After reading an excerpt from our new book "Whitewash" at National Review Online, the Hillary lovers are fighting back. In his "Horse's Mouth" blog at Talking Points Memo, liberal blogger Greg Sargent accuses us of "amusing mendacity" for taking former Time reporter (and gushing Hillary fan) Margaret Carlson out of context. We wrote in the book (and the NRO excerpt):
They have shamelessly served as cheerleaders for Mrs. Clinton from the moment she emerged on the national scene in 1992, with Time’s Margaret Carlson describing her as "an amalgam of Betty Crocker, Mother Teresa, and Oliver Wendell Holmes."
Sargent asserted: "Wow -- did Margaret Carlson really describe Hillary in such gushing and cringe-worthy terms? Well, no, as it turns out. No, she didn't. The original article Carlson wrote is still online," and he used a larger quote:
Friends of Hillary Clinton would have you believe she is an amalgam of Betty Crocker, Mother Teresa and Oliver Wendell Holmes. She gets up before dawn, even on weekends, and before her first cup of coffee discusses educational reform. She then hops into her fuel-efficient car with her perfectly behaved daughter for a day of good works.
Fortunately, Hillary Clinton, the latest wife to be challenged to fit perfectly into the ill-defined role of political spouse, is more interesting than that.
This leads Sargent to boast: "As you can see, Carlson was actually mocking Hillary supporters for presenting her in such glowing terms. But Bozell and Graham cheerfully told National Review's readers that Carlson herself had presented her in these terms. Even more amusingly, they held this up as proof of the media's liberal bias. I know, I know, this is just garden variety wingnut mendacity. Standard fare. Low-hanging fruit. Still, it was definitely worth a quick laugh."
Before we even address the entirety of the article, let’s just address the two paragraphs in question. Margaret didn’t quote some friend asserting Hillary was a saint of the Calcutta slums, a mythical cake-baking icon, and a historic jurist. She wrote that herself. As we wrote, she described Hillary that way, and we think it's emblematic of the pro-Hillary media goo. Was it a toasted marshmallow of a literary flourish striking the note that her friends are intensely loyal to Hillary and brag on her? Yes. The "Friends say" in Hillary stories are always gushing, ridiculously positive. (Would Hillary the control freak assign them to talk to reporters if they did otherwise?) But Margaret then says Hillary is "more interesting" than merely being a perfect wife, mother, lawyer, and lover of the downtrodden. Margaret's protesting that it's unfair that everyone expects candidate spouses to fit some male-chauvinist mold. Isn’t that text in isolation an awfully positive introduction to the country for Hillary?
Let’s put aside for a moment the point that Hillary doesn’t come anywhere close to Betty Crocker (she wouldn’t be caught dead making Bill’s dinner every night, when there are servants for that), or that she may think she loves the poor like Mother Teresa did, but Mother Teresa wasn’t a fan of the abortion industry, and Mother Teresa never made a mysterious 100 grand in a month on the cattle-futures market. Sargent’s point actually evaporates as you read on. Let’s pick up precisely where Sargent left off in the Carlson article, and see if anyone thinks this isn’t a cheerleading article:
At her home, Christmas Eve dinner for longtime friends and family was more potluck than Bon Appetit: it consisted of chili and black beans supplemented by leftovers from an official dinner. She plays pinochle and Pictionary with such vigor that friends have to remind her they're only games. She succumbs to yuppie overdoting on her daughter, 11. "There is Chelsea standing on a chair singing Angels We Have Heard on High at the top of her voice, and Hillary runs for a camera," says a friend, Diane Blair, a political science professor at the University of Arkansas.
The former Hillary Rodham grew up in Park Ridge, a Chicago suburb, where her father owned a textile company. She earned every Girl Scout badge, pulled a wagonful of sports equipment to her job at the park every summer, was elected president of her high school class and earned so many honors that her parents recall "being slightly uncomfortable at her graduation." She organized circuses and amateur sports tournaments to raise money for migrant workers. "Mothers in the neighborhood were amazed at how they couldn't get their boys to do much, but Hillary had them all running around," says her mother.
By now, it's become clear that Margaret sounds exactly like the "gushing and cringe-worthy" Hillary friends that get sent out to spin the media. She never needed to be spun. After the obligatory official Clintons-meet-cute, Bill-talks-to-her-about-Arkansas-watermelons story – Carlson resumed the cotton candy-making as Hillary left Washington after working to impeach Nixon:
When that job ended in 1974, she decided to see whether she could adjust to life in flyover country. Like Doc Hollywood, she discovered small-town life was O.K.: "I liked people tapping me on the shoulder at the grocery store and saying, 'Aren't you that lady professor at the law school?' " She and Clinton got married in 1975, and Hillary kept her maiden name. But Clinton lost a bid for a second term as Governor, in part because voters resented a feminist living at the Governor's mansion yet refusing to use his name. "I gave it up," she says. "It meant more to them than it did to me." [Which is why she picked the "Rodham" right back up at Bill's inauguration?]
She hasn't given up much else, demonstrating that while men put together careers, women put together lives. "I am pursuing the goals I always envisioned, perhaps with more success here," she says. Twice named one of the top 100 lawyers in the U.S. by the National Law Journal, Hillary Clinton is now a top-dollar litigator at the old-line Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, earning about three times her husband's $35,000 salary. She serves on 17 civic and corporate boards, hardly ever missing a softball game or school play.
And it ended with a plea for everyone to just ignore Gennifer Flowers, since the Clinton marriage is too loving and yet mysterious for anyone to judge:
With her marriage being held up to the light for cracks, Hillary Clinton wonders how much of her intimate life a political spouse has to offer up. "My marriage is solid, full of love and friendship," she says, "but it's too profound to talk about glibly." In recent years, political reporters have come to think themselves as qualified to analyze a marriage as they are to sort out the deficit. But of course a marriage is infinitely more complicated. "Maybe this time the candidate and the press will get it right," Hillary says. "The public can learn enough to know whether a candidate is a decent person without having to pick you apart so much that there is nothing left at the end."
If Greg Sargent thinks after all this that Margaret Carlson’s intent in this article was to mock Hillary and her friends, or that using one-sentence shorthand for this gooey article is out of context, then he should try reading everything Margaret wrote on Hillary for Time magazine in those early years. Perhaps he should read our whole "Whitewash" book. Or call Margaret up and ask her if she felt like Hillary was her feminist "mascot." That’s what she said. That’s also in the book. "Mendacity" it is not.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
My first thought, on
November 14, 2007 - 07:45 ET by motherbeltMy first thought, on reading that paean, was that Carlson was using the "friends say" or "some say" tactic that liberal writers love to use, to shorhorn their own opinions in while making them sound like a consensus.
How she could write this drivel without going into sugar shock is beyond me. All that's missing is HRC saying "Oh, pshaw, I didn't do anything that any other blindingly intelligent, amazingly gifted woman couldn't do, if she put her mind to it."
She earned every Girl Scout
November 14, 2007 - 08:40 ET by rimskyShe earned every Girl Scout badge, pulled a wagonful of sports equipment to her job at the park every summer, was elected president of her high school class and earned so many honors that her parents recall "being slightly uncomfortable at her graduation."
There is nothing wrong with earning Girl Scout badges, having a summer job that is mostly pointed toward community service, being elected high school class president, and on, and on... it's just that for Hillary, it's always been done in this I-am-better-than-you mode, which makes all her 'honors' so phoney and self-serving. Early in her life she figured out the things that she had to do to be the center of attention, and it has just never stopped. Nothing she has ever done or been 'honored' for qualifies her to be POTUS.
In order to discern the
November 14, 2007 - 08:49 ET by TEIn order to discern the fact that Greg Sargent is an uber kook fringe leftist freak and fool, just note that Sargent is one of Howard Kurtz's favorite darlings. In his online column, Kurtz routinely and lovingly quotes Sargent without any challenge.
Tim, Looks to me like you
November 14, 2007 - 08:56 ET by LeonTim,
Looks to me like you blatantly manipulated a quote to say something the original quote didn't say simply to bolster your argument.
Looks pretty disingenuous to me. Sargent was dead on in his analysis of that quote.
You say:
Margaret didn’t quote some friend asserting Hillary was a saint of the Calcutta slums, a mythical cake-baking icon, and a historic jurist. She wrote that herself.
I'm just curious as to how you know this. How can you back this claim up? How do you know who she spoke to 15 years ago? Is that a matter of public record? Can I google it?
You took the quote waaaay out of context. It's interesting to me when you guys engage in the same shady presentation/manipulation that you accuse the MSM of doing every day.
What gives? You barely even try to defend your behavior in this post. Wow.
Yep.
November 14, 2007 - 09:26 ET by dervishA more accurate quote from that passage would be:
Hillary is described as "more interesting than ... an amalgam of Betty Crocker, Mother Teresa and Oliver Wendell Holmes."
How could you so shamelessly distort the spirit of Carlson's writing?
A basic rule of journalism:
November 14, 2007 - 23:40 ET by CortillaenA basic rule of journalism: If you don't attribute a statement to someone, you are making it yourself. The "friends/some/people/aliens say" routine is a standard tactic used by poor journalists to spout their own opinions without having to take responsibility for them. Unfortunately, too many people go along with the game, ignoring the rule above. For those of us who bother reading critically and using that lump of matter in our skulls, since Carlson didn't attribute the opinion to a specific person or group, it is considered to be his own. This is elementary journalism.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Analysis not your strong suit
November 14, 2007 - 10:15 ET by Hunter12Leon, Had the rest of the article contained points describing why HRC was not a saint, genius, etc., the contention of sarcasm by Carlson might have had merit. Instead we get little scenes from her life to affirm that she is indeed all things implied by "friends". The people I know who knew her personally in college or in DC tell me she's a dyke [Apologies to my Gay friends who aren't hiding in closets for any offense at the term used.]. That's why she doesn't get mad at Bill for things like GF and ML. Plus the power, of course.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
It's in context
November 14, 2007 - 11:51 ET by Tim GrahamLeon, I did not say that none of Hillary's friends said she was Betty Crocker. I said Margaret didn't quote one of them saying it. So if you think the quote is "waaaay" out of context, then are you saying that this Carlson article was hostile to Hillary?
Out Of Context
November 14, 2007 - 11:13 ET by mattm"Wow* -- did Margaret Carlson really describe Hillary in such gushing and cringe-worthy terms? Well, no, as it turns out. No, she didn't."
Well, even if that statement is true...i.e. MRC misread the article...(which is doubtful), it doesn't change the truth of the fact that HRC worshippers think of her as "an amalgam of Betty Crocker, Mother Teresa and Oliver Wendell Holmes."
Without delving too deeply into such a minor issue, it seems to me that Sergeant is nit-picking and taking things out of context at least as much as he accuses MRC of doing.
Typical of Liberal arguing techniques, Sergeant fails to adequately provide the context he claims MRC is missing and descends into mockery and insult. Why? Obviously because, as this post clearly demonstrates, when you provide the entire context, Sergeant's point "evaporates" and MRC's point is made.
The funny part is that his "low hanging fruit" comment is more accurately applied to his own inane arguments.
* "Wow" is typically used by Libs as a rhetorical tactic of discrediting someone by expressing extreme disbelief that anyone of any reason or intellect could possibly believe such a thing.
From what I've seen of Tim
November 14, 2007 - 15:11 ET by Chris NormanFrom what I've seen of Tim Graham and Brent Bozell, they are pretty cautious and concise people, who aren't given to taking quotes out of context to make wild attacks. In fact, I'd say Tim is nothing, if not understated, in his discussions of media bias. If this is the best arrow Sargent can aim at "Whitewash", I'd say his quiver is empty.
You Got Caught
November 14, 2007 - 19:40 ET by blogonatorI'm no Hillary booster but you are wrong and Sargent is right. If you're going to pretend to accuracy be accurate and correct things when correction is due.
"I'm no Democrat,
November 15, 2007 - 00:08 ET by Cortillaen"I'm no Democrat, but..."
"I'm no liberal, but..."
"I'm no Hillary booster but..."
Starting a post off like that tends to make people believe exactly the opposite, pal.
Now, as I pointed out above, Carlson's statement, being without a true source ("friends" is not a source, sorry), is correctly attributed to... Carlson. That media ploy was worthless when it was invented, and it shall continue to be so forevermore. If you have trouble seeing this, I fear for your intellectual safety against the more devious tricks our non-reporters cook up.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Intellectually DISHONEST
November 15, 2007 - 01:56 ET by KeithI see that vapid kool aid drinking isn't a province solely of the left!There is NO friggin' way that ANY quote that starts, "FRIENDS OF HILLARY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE", can be attributed to the author. Man how dishonest can you be? Are we to become like THEM (he retches at the thought)? Don't you know "Friends of Hillary" who assert just that? JOE lying ass KLEIN would be one and yes M Carlson would be another, only problem is SHE DIDN'T SAY IT. And you can juxtapose the alleged intent of your MISREPRESENTATION with the subsequent body of the article for similar sentiments all you want but YOU LOSE. You're no better than they are when they take sentences which were PARAGRAPHS apart and string them together without ellipsis, thereby distorting the meaning of BOTH halves of the new "quote". Shame on you.
Keith, for the last time,
November 15, 2007 - 08:55 ET by CortillaenKeith, for the last time, if a journalist does not provide a specific source for a quote, then that line is their own. Using "Friends say..." is not a specific source. If Carlson had used something along the lines of "Friends such as [insert name here] say...", it would be different. Again, if you don't cite a source, it's your own creation (or plageurism), and the "friends say..." routine is just a ploy used by journalists to insert their own views without having to take responsibility for them. Mr. Bozell and Mr. Graham are dead on in pointing out this constantly-used trick, but I'm a bit discouraged by how many people get taken in by it.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Nonsense.
November 15, 2007 - 10:43 ET by blogonatorKeith, for the last time, if a journalist does not provide a specific source for a quote, then that line is their own.
Ridiculous. So if a journalist goes to Afghanistan and reports that anti-American sentiment is high in Kandahar without quoting someone he himself is necessarily anti-American?
I'm not sure if you are
November 15, 2007 - 11:23 ET by CortillaenI'm not sure if you are intentionally twisting what I'm trying to say here or if you really don't get it, because the example you give isn't even remotely related to the issue. If a journalist reports that people are saying certain things with examples (in the form of quotes attributed to specific people), then there is no problem. However, if the reporter says "Anti-American sentiment is running high," without providing a person or group who said that, then it is purely the reporter's statement. The statement being true or false is completely irrelevant to the issue. This is a matter of basic journalistic responsibility: If you don't cite a source, you are the source. Basically, anything a reporter says must reference someone else, or it is the journalist's statement alone. Simple, right? Well, thanks to journalism long since abandoning objectivity, they feel the need to try to mask their own opinions, so they use the "friends/people/some/Democrats/Republicans/[insert general group here] say..." to remove themselves from a statement without having to actually cite a real source. People need to wake up and start seeing through this ploy.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
so they use the
November 15, 2007 - 19:05 ET by blogonatorso they use the "friends/people/some/Democrats/Republicans/[insert general group here] say..." to remove themselves from a statement
Of course. They do not ordinarily say "Friends would have you believe", meaning that the comparison of Hillary with three avatars of homemaking charity and legal brilliance should be viewed with skepticism.
Idiots would have you believe that Cortillaen will understand this point as he is a brilliant man.
I understand your point
November 15, 2007 - 19:52 ET by CortillaenI understand your point perfectly. It's just that you're wrong.
A couple extra words do not change the reality of this issue, which happens to be that trying to attribute a comment to "friends" or some other non-descript, generic group is a media ploy. If they don't give a name with the quote, it's their own statement until proven otherwise. What's so hard to understand about this? It's a simple matter of journalists not wanting to take responsibility for what they say or write.
Oh, and thank you for the sarcastic attack on my intelligence. Cheapening yourself that way doesn't hurt my position any.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
With all due respect, Cortillaen...
November 15, 2007 - 21:04 ET by JerWith all due respect, Cortillaen...blogonator's assessment is on the mark, and it is you who is not "getting it". Actually, you are correct in part [Ms. Carlson's unquoted, nonspecidic sourcing does indeed make the words her own], but that part is not the critical issue. The pivotal question is whether or not the author is adopting the import of the words as her own. Put differently, does Carlson agree or disagree with the opinion expressed or implied within her opening statement--regardless of whether those words are a direct quote, a summary or composite of overheard remarks, or just her reasonable assumption from uncited evidence?
"Friends say...." may very well be a journalistic ploy, but that doesn't necessarily make it inappropriate, and it certainly doesn't prove the author's concurrence with whatever sentiments the words may aver. My guess is that more often than not the usuage of a devise such as this serves as a prelude to a contrasting view--that is, establishing a point of distinction followed by elaboration and illustration, which is precisely what Carlson did in this case.
That said, was the piece in question favorable to Hillary...even "cheerleading"? Absolutely! And Tim and Brent could have selected from myriad other examples within Carlson's article to support their thesis. Unfortunately, they didn't.
Of course, it's not so unusual for the "liberal media" to publish flattering stories about a First Lady--Democrat or Republican--particularly during the early months of her husband's administratiion. Check out these from Time. They might just as well have been composed by Laura Bush's press agent [or me, since I greatly admire her]. Note that one of the two articles was also written by Margaret Carlson.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998902-1,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001581,00.html
Jer
I fail to see what it is
November 16, 2007 - 00:04 ET by CortillaenI fail to see what it is you think I have wrong here. My contention is that Carlson using the "friends say..." approach does not remove her responsibility for her description of Hillary, nothing more, although making the case that Carlson is cheerleading for Hillary is so ridiculously easy, I suppose I can spend a bit of time on it later. Whether or not the statement is true is irrelevant to my issue entirely, and whether or not Carlson holds the stated view (the rest of the article certainly makes it seem that way) is merely more evidence to mistrust this ploy. Generics like "friends", "people", and "some" are not acceptable journalistic sources for viewpoints or statements unless a specific example is picked out of the group (never mind the likelihood that an selected example doesn't represent the group like so-called Republicans on a certain panel...). I'm sick of media hacks spouting whatever they feel like via non-sources like this, trying to lend their own jaded views credance by pushing them off on anonymous groups without having to actually cite real sources. There are plenty of loons espousing the same views to quote, so playing this game is both lazy and less-than-honest.
"this serves as a prelude to a contrasting view [...] which is precisely what Carlson did in this case." I beg to differ. Read the article again and take a tell me where the contrasting view is found. The closest thing I saw was the beginning of the next paragraph: "Fortunately, Hillary Clinton, the latest wife to be challenged to fit
perfectly into the ill-defined role of political spouse, is more
interesting than that." To expand the view of Carlson's article you expressed, Carlson doesn't think Hillary is "an amalgam of Betty Crocker, Mother Teresa and Oliver Wendell Holmes", Carlson thinks the former First Lady "is more interesting than that" (note that Carlson did not even bother with the "friends say" this time; this part is all Carlson's stated opinion). If this is an acceptable example of point and rebuttal in the media, we've a rather large problem to deal with. All told, nothing in the article is less than praising of Hillary, so when people try to tell me that Carlson's view of Hillary isn't represented by the terms Carlson used, yeah, I'm not "getting it". More accurately, I'm not "buying it".
In reality, Mr. Bozell and Mr. Graham's use of that particular quote seems a bit off to me simply because it is the prelude to Carlson's real cheerleading for Hillary, but Carlson obviously needed somewhere to start building her monument to Hillary, and a non-quote attributed to anonymous "friends" is easier to make fit your agenda than paring and splicing something together out of real people's words.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Indeed.
November 16, 2007 - 13:17 ET by blogonatorI fail to see what it is you think I have wrong here.
Cortillean, based on your
November 16, 2007 - 15:11 ET by JerCortillean, based on your previous posts, I am not particularly confident you will agree with the following analogy, but it's worth another shot.
Let's assume Bill O'Reilly decides to write a highly negative column concerning Bill Clinton, and begins it with these observations:
Some critics of Clinton suggest he lacked the intelligence to cope with the various challenges confronting the President of the most powerful nation on the planet. But, this view is not merely simplistic, it is simply wrong. The failures of Clinton were not the product of an intellectual deficiency, but flowed from a lack of character, a casual and indifferent morality, and a breathtaking disregard for the ethical standards that should govern the behavior of a Chief Executive of the United States. In short, he was a reckless scoundrel, a charlatan, and an utter disgrace, etc., etc.,....
Now, if I were compiling evidence of an alleged anti-Clinton bias at Fox News, would it be appropriate for me to contend Bill O'Reilly had written that Clinton was "unintelligent". Of course not. To do so would completely misinterpret the central point of O'Reilly's commentary. But, the column as a whole would clearly qualify as vilification of Clinton, and thus support my underlying bias hypothesis.
In my opinion, this illustrates the nature of the mistake made by Tim and Brent with respect to Carlson's article on Hillary, and I don't see how there can be any other reasonable conclusion.
[Of course, my larger point was that the media did just as much (or more) 'cheerleading' for Laura Bush, as partly evidenced by the articles I linked earlier. I am sure the NewsBusters community strenuously disagees with me however.]
Jer
You're right, I don't agree
November 17, 2007 - 01:02 ET by CortillaenYou're right, I don't agree with you. Your analogy contains two disparate view of the reasons behind Clinton's actions, and uses the key phrase, "it is simply wrong" to describe the first view given. For this analogy to be accurate, Carlson would have had to both negate her initial presentation of Hillary (the closest Carlson came was building up Hillary as much better than that) and provide a second view which was separate from the first. Instead, Carlson simply built off of the first view, indicating that she agreed with it as a basis. If she had provided a contrasting view, I would be less inclined to take her "friends say" as just a journalistic ploy, but she didn't, and I'm not.
By the way, regarding, "Of course, my larger point was that the media did just as much (or more) 'cheerleading' for Laura Bush": Trying to say the media is as nice (or more) to Mrs. Bush as they are to Mrs. Clinton seems foolish to me. If you think the media wouldn't jump all over the President pardoning her relatives or sealing records of her communications with him, you might want make a reality check.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Cortillaen, I'm still not
November 17, 2007 - 17:52 ET by JerCortillaen, I'm still not ready to declare this a lost cause. [After all, your college 'friends say' you are very astute.]
You assert that for my "analogy to be accurate, Carlson would have had to both negate her initial presentation of Hillary...and provide a second view which was separate from the first."
Well, not exactly. It's not necessary the initial presentation be thoroughly "negated", just that it's different. [It was.!] And as for providing a "separate second view"...[Carlson did!--one she describes as "more interesting".] A reading of the entire article by Carlson makes it clear that Carlson had interviewed actual friends of Hillary...she quotes them. Accordingly, the opening 'Betty Crocker, Mother Teresa, Holmes amalgam' was apparently Carlson's assessment of their opinion--not her own. That Carlson's portrait could be construed as even more flattering, does not change that fact. The argument that Carlson's view differed is further strengthened by her usage of the phrase "friends would have you believe..." which suggests her opinion doesn't precisely coincide with the premise. Thus, the fact that it may ultimately prove to be even more positive is irrelevant.
In the final paragraph, Carlson asserts political reporters have come to think themselves as qualified to analyze a marriage as they are to sort out the deficit. Does that mean Carlson considers this objectively true since those are "her" words? Her very next sentence makes it clear the answer is "no".
Look, much of my disagreement with Tim and Brent in this specific instance is semantical and not substantive. This was a puff piece! But, 1) their manner of presenting this particular evidentiary example was inappropriate 2) these types of First Lady puff pieces are not unusual--(once again, refer to the Laura Bush links, and 3) I guess I'll need to read Tim and Brent's book, because I dispute their core assertion.
With respect to #3, what does your comment about not "jumping on the President" (Bill Clinton) have to do with the media's treatment of Hillary? Second, the media has in fact been critical of both of the actions [relative pardoning and record sealing] you cite. Third, being a college student, I assume you at most are in your early twenties, and as such I wonder how much you recall of the nature of the media's treatment of the Clintons in the early and mid 90's? My opinion is this: Since Bill Clinton left office, both he and Hillary have generally received favorable press by the MSM. On the other hand, during Clinton's presidency, both he and Hillary--but especially Bill Clinton--were nowhere near the 'darlings of the liberal media' that most Republicans and virtually the entire conservative-Limbaugh-Newsbusters wing of the GOP would have one believe. But we can get into that some other time.
Later, Jer
Your mind is obviously
November 17, 2007 - 19:19 ET by CortillaenYour mind is obviously already made up, as you try to refute my statement with "Well, not exactly" and proceed to claim that the two examples are compatible even though they treat their respective subjects differently. Such being the case, I'm not going to waste any further time repeating myself in new words.
However, there are three things from your post that need addressed: First, you say, "After all, your college 'friends say' you are very astute." I sincerely doubt that you know any of my friends, and, by extension, you would have no idea what they may or may not say about me. Such a statement belongs to you alone, not them. I also take issue with you implying that someone will be persuaded to your view if they are astute. Suggesting that anyone who maintains the opposing view is of lesser intelligence is not an appropriate debate tactic. Second, regarding "being a college student, I assume you at most are in your early twenties, and as such I wonder how much you recall of the nature of the media's treatment of the Clintons in the early and mid 90's?". I can assure you, I am quite capable of reading past articles, and nothing I have seen persuades me that the media has had an abrupt change of heart in its view of Hillary shortly before I began following political news roughly ten years ago. It appears to me that there was substantially less material covering her back then, but the tone doesn not seem to have been negative any more than it is today. Third, regarding, "I guess I'll need to read Tim and Brent's book, because I dispute their core assertion." Reading the book will be pointless if you do so with the mindset that they are wrong. If you do so, any example they give will be met with similar dismisal as this one was, and any example to the contrary will become far overpowering in your mind. Try reading it without a bias in either direction.
www.rhjunior.com/CC/ Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Cortillaen...First of all,
November 18, 2007 - 00:39 ET by JerCortillaen...First of all, I never question anyone's intelligence, and certainly not yours. You are obviously very bright. The "astute" remark was simply a little play on the whole "friends say" issue. And, of course, I know nothing about you or your friends, other than what is contained in your profile which indicates you are a college student.
As such, I doubted you were old enough in the early years of the Clinton administration to be very interested in his or Hillary's relationship with the media.
Regarding my personal bias, I am a Democrat, but not an ideologue. I have always tried to keep an open mind and expose myself to different viewpoints. I read conservative journals as well as liberal. If you ever check out my previous posts, you'll note that I consider Reagan to be the best President of the past half-century. Several of my favorite political thinkers are conservatives. I prefer facts and common sense, not partisan dogma.
So I'll follow your advise and my own long-held inclination and continue to read everything "without bias in either direction". I hope you will too.
Jer