Eric Bohlert at Media Matters looks at the recent history of Democratic party conventions (h/t Susie at Suburban Guerrilla.) And guess what, boys and girls? Hillary Clinton is being treated very differently by the media than any other presidential candidate in recent American history!
What’s so startling in watching the coverage of the Clinton convention-speech story has been the complete ignorance displayed about how previous Democratic conventions have dealt with runners-up like Clinton. It’s either complete ignorance or the media’s strong desire to painstakingly avoid any historical context, which, in turn, allows the press to mislead news consumers into thinking Clinton’s appearance (as well as the gracious invitation extended by Obama) represents something unique and unusual. Something newsworthy.
Based on previous conventions, if a candidate had accumulated as many delegates and votes as Clinton did during the primaries and then did not have her name placed into nomination, that would represent a radical departure from the convention norm.
Read the whole thing to re-live all of the ugly accusations and obscene language of the primary coverage, in its new, improved summer 2008 version! Aside from showing once again that there’s nothing that anyone can’t say about the Clintons, Bohlert provides plenty of evidence of the misogyny that has been characteristic (rather than exceptional) in the coverage of Clinton’s presidential campaign. I don’t know why Bohlert continues to claim that he doesn’t understand the origins of this media hate-fest:
Even after all these months, I still don’t completely understand why Clinton’s essentially centrist campaign for the White House ginned up so much open contempt from the press corps, which has felt completely comfortable addressing her in an openly derogatory and condescending manner. The issue of her convention involvement simply allowed the press to whack her around like a piñata one more time, regardless of the facts.
The allegations and accusations about Clinton and her character are usually fact-free, mutually contradictory, and make no sense–but we’re not supposed to notice, because she’s a monster. A woman who seeks that kind of power is clearly not a woman, but a she-devil who can embody any monstrous contradiction we can imagine. Remember these golden oldies?
- Clinton was having a hot affair with Vince Foster before she killed him, because in fact she’s a frigid lesbian. (I think there are 4 contradictions right there!)
- Clinton is clearly a radical feminist and therefore a danger to the Republic, but not at all a good feminist role model, because after Yale Law School she ditched good job offers to follow some jerk down to Arkansas (Arkansas?!?!) to be a traditional political wife.
- Clinton is obviously mad for political power, which is why she didn’t leave her philandering husband, but she’s also clearly a weak person, which is why she didn’t leave her philandering husband.
- She’s too weak to effectively wield political power because she cried, but of course she’s just being manipulative and sneaky when she cries.
- Feel free to add more to this list–I’m sure you can think of plenty more!