We are more than seventeen months away from the 2008 elections, and the Washington Post actually published an article Tuesday by Howard Kurtz that began with the following sentence (emphasis added throughout, h/t Glenn Reynolds):
Hillary Clinton is inevitable.
Nice way to begin an article about a presidential race months before the first primary, dontcha think? Kind of like saying that the Yankees are inevitable before spring training starts.
Granted, the inevitability dealt with Clinton winning the Democrat nomination. However, as that is not apparent until one reads the body of the article, and as many readers only peruse titles and ledes, this point is almost irrelevant given the second paragraph:
That, at least, is the consensus view of media wizards, strategists, pollsters and other kibitzers, that HRC is a virtual lock for the nomination. An official with a rival campaign told me that Hillary has an 80 percent chance of being the party's candidate, and most neutral observers would probably go with a higher number.
What is it about liberals always wanting to throw the “consensus” term around? In fact, isn’t Kurtz somewhat advocating the inevitability by using phrases like “consensus” and “80 percent chance?”
Furthermore, though Kurtz ended up quoting a number of journalists concerning problems that Hillary has with feminists inside her Party, her wishy-washy position on the war, and her unlikeability, nowhere did Kurtz share specific polling data addressing how she does against Republican candidates in the general election.
Instead, Kurtz danced around the subject with this quote from a Los Angeles Times article:
By a wide margin, several polls show, voters want a Democrat to win -- yet when offered head-to-head contests of leading announced candidates, many switch allegiance to the Republican.
Yet, Kurtz chose not to share actual data concerning this issue. For instance, Real Clear Politics is currently showing Rudy Giuliani with a lead of 2.3 percent over Clinton in an average of all the recent polls out there. And John McCain, who has been plummeting lately, is remarkably still ahead of Hillary by 0.8 percent.
Conceivably more concerning for Clinton is that RCP has her up by only 5.5 percent over Fred Thompson, and he hasn’t even entered the race yet.
As such, Howard, could you make that opening sentence read “Hillary Clinton is the inevitable Democrat presidential nominee,” as that’s the only thing that appears close to inevitable looking at this race 17 months out.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Kurtz's lede is much better
June 19, 2007 - 10:22 ET by balboaKurtz's lede is much better than yours. In hooks you into the article.
Balboa
June 19, 2007 - 10:24 ET by Noel SheppardB,
What would you suggest? I'm all ears, and this can be edited.
C'mon, B. Here's your chance to play journalist, and re-write my lede.
Are you up to the challenge? ns
I wouldn't rewrite yours; I
June 19, 2007 - 10:28 ET by balboaI wouldn't rewrite yours; I'd keep Kurtz's because it's more interesting, attracts more attention, gets the reader into the second sentence.
Oh PLEASE!!
June 19, 2007 - 10:31 ET by OldSailor88Kurtz's headline makes a sane person retch into the paper and toss it in the s**t can where it belongs.
I'd say that depends heavil
June 19, 2007 - 10:33 ET by balboaI'd say that depends heavily on your definition of "sane". :-)
That's easy!
June 19, 2007 - 10:38 ET by OldSailor88Definition is simple!
sane
1.free from mental derangement; having a sound, healthy mind: a sane person. 2.having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense: sane advice. 3.sound; healthy. Usage: Liberals are not sane.
You ol' sea dawg you!
June 19, 2007 - 10:40 ET by balboaYou ol' sea dawg you!
Balboa
June 19, 2007 - 10:33 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Cop out. You can't just intimate that someone's writing is inferior and not accept the challenge of suggesting improvement. I'm mightily disappointed. :--( ns
My point is there's no need
June 19, 2007 - 10:36 ET by balboaMy point is there's no need for a replacement for Kurtz's lede. His is just fine the way it is. "Hillary Clinton is the inevitable Democrat presidential nominee" is fine, but I like Kurtz's better. His can get a reader to think "what does that mean?" and traipse off into the next sentence.
Kurtz's lead gets you into
June 19, 2007 - 10:51 ET by motherbeltKurtz's lead gets you into the story, sure, but by deception. It's like those teasers for the 11 o'clock news that say "A new study linking XXX and breast cancer. Find out if you're at risk." And, of course, the answer, when you see the report is : NO. The story was hyped, and you find out the actual study was only mildly suggestive, and the risk is less than minimal.
But the lede got you to watch the news, didn't it? Shoddy journalism.
His question of you was not t
June 19, 2007 - 11:04 ET by BinxlyHis question of you was not to re-write the Hilary article, it was to re-write his own lede. I'm not going to get incendiary on this but you can be just as bad as some of the 'la la la Im not listening la la la' right wingers on here. Given, I have found you to have a good point once in a blue moon (simply cause we disagree on issues) but at least answer Noel's question. There's no shame is saying you can't come up with a better lede. Perhaps its my annoyed state at work today but I'll admit I can't. No shame in the truth.
Balboa
June 19, 2007 - 11:10 ET by Noel SheppardB,
I realized what lede you were referring to as I was cooking breakfast.
Of course his is better. But is it honest?
If it's all about drawing readers in, why not lead with: Hillary Clinton is lesbian? That would draw in a lot of readers, too, but be conceivably just as disingenuous.
Errrr...maybe not. :-) ns
Please! The word is "lea
June 19, 2007 - 11:52 ET by JohnMPlease! The word is "lead". From the American Heritage Dictionary (online):
lede: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/search;_ylt=AvflVP_ARJjZDL3yE9es7BCqgMMF?p=lede
NOT FOUND
lead: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/lead;_ylt=AvxZI0nEJCqcjBNpJ.yQbj.ugMMF
(Jump to definition #7)
NOUN:
1.
a. The first or foremost position.
b. One occupying such a position; a leader.
c. The initiative: took the lead in setting the pace of the project.
2. The margin by which one holds a position of advantage or superiority: held a lead of nine points at the half.
3.
a. Information pointing toward a possible solution; a clue: followed a promising lead in the murder case.
b. An indication of potential opportunity; a tip: a good lead for a job.
4. Command; leadership: took over the lead of the company.
5. An example; a precedent: followed his sister's lead in running for office.
6.
a. The principal role in a dramatic production.
b. The person playing such a role.
7.
a. The introductory portion of a news story.
b. An important, usually prominently displayed news story.
OK, with that out of the way, please continue. Thank you!
(I'll be posting other comments further down the page...)
P.S. I apoligize for being cranky about this; reading anything that contains "Hillary" and "inevitable" in the same sentence gets me very agitated...
try this link
June 19, 2007 - 11:56 ET by LionKingHere is an alternative link.
[It appears that the arcane spelling of lead (lede) is being intentionally used.]
OK, thanks - sorry to have mi
June 19, 2007 - 12:03 ET by JohnMOK, thanks - sorry to have missed the irony. (I didn't think Safire is considered to be conservative, or even moderate...)
It is being used more and mor
June 19, 2007 - 12:05 ET by Dan The Man 2It is being used more and more in Journalism circles to indicate an emphasis of the main idea of a story or article. We can consider it an industry jargon as many industry jargon starts. Sort of like the word I use a lot "profile" which in my world means the elevation shown.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
It's not 100% accurate, but b
June 19, 2007 - 19:40 ET by balboaIt's not 100% accurate, but because it is explained in the next sentence, all is well. I've seen this in many articles. You read the first sentence, think "What?!", then get to the next sentence and say "Ohhhh! I get it!"
Inevitable
June 19, 2007 - 10:39 ET by acumenCop out.
Speaking of "inevitable"....
Can I try? How about this a
June 19, 2007 - 10:30 ET by MightyMouthCan I try? How about this ala TAWP:
‘Hiwawee Clinton is Inevwitwable’
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Breaking Washington Prostit
June 19, 2007 - 10:30 ET by Right2thePointBreaking Washington Prostitute used their influence to get Embroidered Blankets with their initials in Lincoln Bedroom, Film at 11.
Right2thePoint
June 19, 2007 - 10:42 ET by Cool ArrowWhere is your evidence Maya Angelou tried to do this?
How about this Noel
June 19, 2007 - 10:31 ET by Cool ArrowCannibals agree "Hillary Clinton is inedible"
Hillary, the Miracle Mets, an
June 19, 2007 - 11:11 ET by TeamcheeserHillary, the Miracle Mets, and the '68 Jets; New York's Three Best Bets
With her gritty fighter's attitude, Clinton hopes to overcome longshot odds to gain the Presidency
(I make myself sick...)
Forgot one cheeser
June 19, 2007 - 11:15 ET by Cool ArrowAll's well in New York City - 09/10/2001
“Inevitable”Kinda makes y
June 19, 2007 - 10:32 ET by Jimbo“Inevitable”
Kinda makes you wonder what will happen in the election cycle when the nation is reminded in detail of the corruption laden spring break years of the Clinton White House and the potential to repeat those sad times.
Also Kinda makes you wonder what the Democratic party will do when they finally come to grips with the realization that there is a real likelihood that Hillary is not electable on the national scale and whether or not they want to make her their candidate of choice.
Likely to get the Democratic nomination? Maybe. Likely to get elected President? Hardly. “Inevitable”? Maybe in a Democratic pipe dream.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Hillary would be great news f
June 19, 2007 - 13:54 ET by TruthMongerHillary would be great news for the Repubs - there would be no point in the election really...
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
haha absolutely correct! Ho
June 19, 2007 - 15:11 ET by Binxlyhaha absolutely correct! However, IF Hillary won, oh my lord, I'd have to question the overall common sense of our nation. That being said, the likelyhood of her getting the presidency is about as likely as John Edwards cancelling his breck lifetime haircare subscription. :-P
Actually she will probably wi
June 19, 2007 - 15:24 ET by TruthMongerActually she will probably win just like Gore did...in fact I guarantee it...
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
Well c'mon TM, it's not like
June 19, 2007 - 15:39 ET by BinxlyWell c'mon TM, it's not like we can win an election without rigging it. *extreme sarcasm* I actually have a box of FL votes for Gore at home that I use as a footstool. It's quite handy.
I am really sure the dems j
June 19, 2007 - 10:39 ET by Right2thePointI am really sure the dems just want to get on that Merry Go Round again where the Lady and the Tramp ending up dancing to their own drummer and end up spending half their time in court discussing the meaning of "is" and un godly numbers of "I do not recall".
I would find it hard to believe that many wish on their side to grant power to someone who has a high possibility of immitating a toxic waste dump to poison the swamp that Nancy still hasn't found the drain valve to.
Kim Jong Il: Now you see, the
June 19, 2007 - 10:48 ET by Roger the ShrubberKim Jong Il: Now you see, the changing of the worrd is inevitabre!
Lisa: I'm sorry, it's what?
Kim Jong Il: Inevit, inevitabre.
Lisa: One more time.
Kim Jong Il: [shouts] Inevitabre! Things are inevitabrey going to change! Goddamnit, open your f***ing ears!
Bad, Bad Roger
June 19, 2007 - 10:52 ET by Cool ArrowI think you are ripping off a line from a Bluce Ree movie.
Bill just Told Hillary the ot
June 19, 2007 - 12:41 ET by JayTeeBill just Told Hillary the other day........The Erection is not over yet !!
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
"Inevitable" - just
June 19, 2007 - 10:48 ET by mattm"Inevitable" - just like death and taxes....
And here's me thinking the ha
June 19, 2007 - 10:51 ET by Jack BauerAnd here's me thinking the harpie was intolerable...
Thanks Howie.
Well if that is the case lets
June 19, 2007 - 10:56 ET by Airforce_5_OWell if that is the case lets just make Obama her vice-prez and swear them in on July 4th. Why even hold elections. We will just make it "The Peoples Republic of Clinton" and eat chesse while dancing in our goat leggings.
Give me a Break!!!
Howard; pull your head out son.
I think that Howard Dean coul
June 19, 2007 - 11:09 ET by BruzillaI think that Howard Dean could explain the certainty of inevitable victory, based on having 80% of the conventional wisdom, to Mr. Kurtz.
Here's another example I sa
June 19, 2007 - 11:12 ET by motherbeltHere's another example I saw, of the same kind of deception: Tabloid story with Brittney Spears on the front page, big headline "Brittney Guilty of Child Abuse!" Sounds like she's been beating on the little one, no? Down in the lower right hand corner, in tiny print, it says "Docs charge." When you get to the actual story, it turns out that she didn't want the kid vaccinated for something or other (as a lot of parents don't) and they had several doctors who disagreed with her decision and considered that negligent.
The "hook" gets you, but at the cost of journalistic integrity. Howard Kurtz should be above that.
I'd rather listen to Colone
June 19, 2007 - 11:59 ET by Phan of TruthI'd rather listen to Colonel Kurtz.
Obviously, pure agenda. Just like all of the reports that constantly trash Rudy, because they know he would win head-to-head. The democratic strategists come on after the Republican debates and say McCain was the clear winner over and over again. Huh? The more they use words like "inevitable," the harder the fall is going to be. Then what? Recounts and riots?
I find that referring to Hill
June 19, 2007 - 12:00 ET by JohnMI find that referring to Hillary as "Clinton" sets my teeth on edge. It brings back clear memories of what it felt like to have a different Clinton in office, and it does not make me feel good.
I've noticed in several other threads, where names of libs are listed, that Bill Clinton is not mentioned anymore. Why? Have we lost sight of who is behind Hillary? Is anyone else concerned that this fact should not get lost?
We're not just resisting her thoughts and ideas, but his as well! Don't let it slide!
Argh, I gotta go barf.
chillary
June 19, 2007 - 12:04 ET by bsmarjWishing she was inaudible!!!!!
general election headlines
June 19, 2007 - 12:14 ET by CurtSubway series - Guiliani v. Clinton
Curt
Hillary picks theme song
June 19, 2007 - 12:21 ET by RJHillary picks theme song:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/song/
And spoofs the Sopranos in announcement
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/?splash=1
YO ! ..Washington Posto Note
June 19, 2007 - 12:26 ET by JayTeeYO ! ..Washington Posto Note.....
Hillary couldn't get Elected as a Den Mother to a Girl Scout Troop
The Wash-ing-Tun Post doubles as a Poochie Scoop
The Voters will decide, when the Election is over,
Rewrite your Headlines along about October
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Who reads just the headline t
June 19, 2007 - 12:46 ET by mvfreemanWho reads just the headline to get their news and info? I've seen some misleading headlines but this one should be filed under "making mountain from mole hill".
Actually the purpose of a hea
June 19, 2007 - 13:03 ET by Jack BauerActually the purpose of a headline is to entice the reader -- so if they read no further than that and the first paragraph they are left with a powerful message that gets over the point.
I agree with your first point
June 19, 2007 - 13:26 ET by mvfreemanI agree with your first point. But a knowledgeable conservative would read that headline and say "Are you serious!" and read the article and a knowledgeable liberal would read it and say "Really!!??" and read the article.
People who are left with a powerful message after reading just a headline aren't too bright regardless of their political inclination.
Sadly there is no shortage of people who are too lazy to become informed by actually reading an entire article. Can't put all the blame on the headline writer.
I don't think we are disagree
June 19, 2007 - 13:31 ET by Jack BauerI don't think we are disagreeing. But I wouldn't overestimate the attention span of most people. Don't forget, people on here are news junkies.
That's not the norm.
Glancing quickly to review t
June 19, 2007 - 13:45 ET by JohnMGlancing quickly to review the list of topics, I mis-read the title and groked it to say "Hillary Clinton is inedible"
oops
Hillary Clinton is inevitable
June 19, 2007 - 15:51 ET by bigtimerHillary Clinton is inevitable.
Earth to Kurtz....
Everybody is replaceable....including you and all your silly little leftist ilk.
Some of us out here are working on it....balance would be nice...that is all I care to see...fair and balanced in the msm.
Hillary isn't inevitable...that is YOUR empty-headed opinion.
She has already been Prez...not going to be again...which by the way was also Impeached...
You know being a political whore will get ya' everytime...no matter the sex of the being.
Lol!
You know what I think Noel?
June 19, 2007 - 17:43 ET by LeonYou know what I think Noel?
I think all this Hillary is going to win automatically, it's inevitable nonesense is actually a strategy being enacted by her enemies. If I was trying to beat Hillary in '08 the best thing I could think to do was start the lie that Hillary's going to win as early in the process as possible.
Because in my mind, the longer you have to imagine the possibility of Hillary Clinton as president, the more you hate the idea. I would never ever vote for Hillary Clinton (but my reason has nothing to do with anything she's actively done)
Listen, I'm going to speak frankly, and I'm sure there will be some anger, but...I'm not comfortable with the idea of a woman president. I want a man to run America. No particular reason, it just makes me feel better.
Russia and China are going to be a problem again. When the time comes for the power struggle, I want a man to be leading my country.
So, I think all this Hillary talk is possibly the greatest strategy ever put forth in a presidential campaign. I wish I had thought of it. The more you can force people to think of Hillary, and the less they'll want to vote for her.
"Take it away, Leon, tak
June 19, 2007 - 19:11 ET by Del Dolemonte"Take it away, Leon, take it away!"...Bob Wills, 1936 (the same year Bob's fellow Texan Lyndon Johnson climbed into bed with "Dick Cheney's" Halliburton)
Unfortunately your logic overlooks an important truth-Hillary! owns the mainstream media. They'll never question her on hard issues, or expose any negatives about her. And her personal news channel CNN (Clinton News Network) recently partnered with Clinton suck-ups to produce fake polls for them.
Remember, Newsweek's Evan Thomas guaranteed that the national media would give Jean-Claude Kerry an additional 10 to 15 percentage points in the 2004 election, simply by biasing their coverage his way and ignoring troubling stuff from his past. They totally failed to report his Empty-Suit non-record as a US Senator, then ignored the Swift Boaties, and also failed to note his SATs and college grades were actually lower than Bush's.
As a result of the media being in the tank for Kerry, he came oh-so-close (one state?) of winning in 2004. And remember, the media called Florida for Gore before the polls had actually closed in the western part of the state in 2000.
This so called "objective" media then rushed to Florida to do their own recounts to try and prove Gore won. Would they have done so if the election results had gone the other way? No way, especially since over 70% of the media identify themselves as D's.
Yeah but you're forgetting on
June 19, 2007 - 19:51 ET by LeonYeah but you're forgetting one insturmental fact. The MSM is stupid. They like the Hillary will win talk b/c they actually think she will win.
That's why the strategy is so brilliant. You get the MSM to kill it's own dreams and you get the common man to fully realize his hatred of Hillary (and the idea of a female president)
hillary is a woman?
June 19, 2007 - 19:16 ET by Pragmatic-ManNeeding some DNA confirmation that Hillary is actually a woman. Might be that some libs think she is the best man for the job.
On a serious note, I do not get a sense of feminism from her at all. I am not inferring her as a lesbian, but instead just a lack of feminism. Maybe it's the pantsuits.
It's been noticed by many others, Pragmatic Man
June 19, 2007 - 19:21 ET by RJHillary's masculine traits have been noticed by many others, Pragmatic Man. In fact, the feminists are upset with her because they think she's deliberately behaving like a "man" in the belief she must do that to be elected.