Aaauugh!
This morning's headline from the BBC -- the BBC! -- was:
"Clinton Ducks an Obama Knockout"
Christ, why not just go with "Clinton Fails to Lose"?
And the NYT, under an okay-ish "Clinton Outduels Obama in Primary," runs...
...a photo of a little black child holding an Obama sign and looking utterly dejected.
Hillary, you heartless bitch!
Hey, NYT: what, the "Keep America Beautiful" crying Indian chief was unavailable? How 'bout a picture of the winner, NYT? You know how that's sort of like, y'know, a news tradition?
But, at least, it's consistent with their editorial today, which chided Clinton for making things too tough for Obama, and echoed every admonition to every bright girl to pipe down and quit outshining the boys. Boys are, you know, different. They need the attention for their fragile egos to blossom into full manliness.
Screw you, you myopic brainwashed dinosaurs.
Ok. Turning to the rest of the headlines:
"Clinton Grinds Out Victory"
"Obama Still Leads in Delegate Count"
"Clinton Takes Penn"
...She won, folks. Didn't "take," didn't "outduel," didn't "grind" (ew).
She earned it.
Where are the "She Won" headlines, then? Or, as circumstances appear to merit, "She Thrashed"? Dare we even say..."She Dominated"?
It'll never happen.
Pick an anti-Clinton article on-line, any article (and there are so, so very many to choose among). Read the comments. In about two seconds, you'll come across the phrase "that woman and her ambition." And then you'll come across it again. And then there'll be one about "that woman's naked ambition." And then two about ego, and then the carping about "ambition" starts again.
Oh, we all chuckle at those quaint little didactic exercises; you know the ones: He's assertive; she's pushy. He's under pressure; she's uptight.
But we've all moved so far beyond that, right?
Yeah, right.
She's ambitious; he merely wants to be President.
"Clinton Ducks an Obama Knockout"
Christ, why not just go with "Clinton Fails to Lose"?
And the NYT, under an okay-ish "Clinton Outduels Obama in Primary," runs...
...a photo of a little black child holding an Obama sign and looking utterly dejected.
Hillary, you heartless bitch!
Hey, NYT: what, the "Keep America Beautiful" crying Indian chief was unavailable? How 'bout a picture of the winner, NYT? You know how that's sort of like, y'know, a news tradition?
But, at least, it's consistent with their editorial today, which chided Clinton for making things too tough for Obama, and echoed every admonition to every bright girl to pipe down and quit outshining the boys. Boys are, you know, different. They need the attention for their fragile egos to blossom into full manliness.
Screw you, you myopic brainwashed dinosaurs.
Ok. Turning to the rest of the headlines:
"Clinton Grinds Out Victory"
"Obama Still Leads in Delegate Count"
"Clinton Takes Penn"
...She won, folks. Didn't "take," didn't "outduel," didn't "grind" (ew).
She earned it.
Where are the "She Won" headlines, then? Or, as circumstances appear to merit, "She Thrashed"? Dare we even say..."She Dominated"?
It'll never happen.
Pick an anti-Clinton article on-line, any article (and there are so, so very many to choose among). Read the comments. In about two seconds, you'll come across the phrase "that woman and her ambition." And then you'll come across it again. And then there'll be one about "that woman's naked ambition." And then two about ego, and then the carping about "ambition" starts again.
Oh, we all chuckle at those quaint little didactic exercises; you know the ones: He's assertive; she's pushy. He's under pressure; she's uptight.
But we've all moved so far beyond that, right?
Yeah, right.
She's ambitious; he merely wants to be President.
5 Comments:
-
Ted Frank said...
-
- 9:40 PM
-
David Schraub said...
-
- 2:41 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 8:39 AM
-
David Schraub said...
-
- 1:39 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 9:44 PM
Post a CommentNY Post headline:
TAKE THAT!
HILL SLAMS BAM
BY 10 IN PENN.
I feel like a 9.5 point victory in a state that a) she was winning by 20 after the previous contest and b) has fantastic demographics for her is not "domination" under any circumstances. ... Particularly circumstances where it doesn't actually move her any closer to, y'know, winning the nomination?
Coming, November '08: "Obama wins presidency, but McCain 'thrashes' him in Alabama with a 9 point win!"
Uh-huh. And if you can predict, with a straight face, that the NYT -- hell, any paper -- will run, with their "Obama wins" headline, a picture of a little white Alabaman child looking despondent, I'll concede you the thread.
Honestly, I'd prefer the media stop the charade that the race is still going on in any meaningful sense, because it isn't. That's the problem here. Unless Hillary took Pennsylvania by 25 points and really did something to change the fundamentals of the race, there's no news value to her winning because she didn't actually accomplish anything. It's "Dog Bites Man"; or "McCain Wins Georgia".
Cf. Charlie Cook: "Many a football team gains more yards than its opponent in a game yet loses on that important technicality called points."
But, David, that's not the media's call. Clinton is not out of the race until she takes herself out of the race. And until that point, anything can happen. Another Wright in the closet? An Emperor's Club membership? We don't know. Your guy's largely unvetted and prone to tyro slips of the tongue politic.
And until such time as my candidate chooses to withdraw, *I'd* honestly prefer the media stop with the agenda-setting function and attempt some properly reactive, even-handed coverage.
For the 99.9 percent of Americans who don't recalculate the delegate math on a daily basis -- the ones whose opinions the party leaders are ultimately going to have to consider -- there's news value in her win. So call it a win, and put her damn picture up. To do anything else is to manufacture the news, not report it; the situation isn't "Dog Bites Man," but "Tail Wags Dog."
<< Home