Mark Halperin: Press hostility to Clinton to be even greater than in 2008

[Gallium]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/MarkHalperin

This will probably be the biggest challenge she'll face in the next year, with no Democratic competition. There's been a lot of talk from pundits that she needs to work on a better media relations strategy and be more open with the press corps, so I'm surprised that someone at the very centre of the beltway machine has come out and just said that there's essentially nothing she can do to overcome the hostility. Buckle up I guess?

[Beet]

At least he'll admit it.

The question is- why does the media hate Hillary?

[MT Treasurer]

One has to define what "hostility" means in this context. Is it the fact that the media is calling her out on her scandals (which it doesn't even completely do) or something else?

[IceSpear]

For once, Halperin is correct. And he can include himself in this as well, considering his statements about how Jeb could beat Hillary in California and how she's no longer the frontrunner because of emailgate...

[Sumner 1868]

For once, Halperin is correct. And he can include himself in this as well, considering his statements about how Jeb could beat Hillary in California and how she's no longer the frontrunner because of emailgate...

LOL. He also thinks that Jeb will be competitive in NJ if he runs a strong campaign.

Why not? He's great at fixing elections.

[IceSpear]

One has to define what "hostility" means in this context. Is it the fact that the media is calling her out on her scandals (which it doesn't even completely do) or something else?

It's not exactly a secret that the press was solidly on Obama's side in the 2008 Dem primary. It was so blatantly obvious that those noted Hillary hacks over at SNL even parodied it.

https://screen.yahoo.com/democratic-debate-000000559.html

If you need more examples, look at her book tour. The month long tour was described as a "disaster" because she made that dead broke gaffe in an interview. Was it a dumb thing to say? Yes. Would any other candidate have gotten relentless negative media coverage over it for weeks? No. It would've been a couple day long story at most.

And then of course there's emailgate. The press made complete asses out of themselves here, screaming bloody murder about how she might have to drop out of the race and that Democrats were scrambling for an alternative. Now that Hillary's polling numbers in the primary have barely budged and she's about to enter the race, they have egg on their face and look stupid as hell. But since there's no accountability for the punditry, they will continue to spin these ridiculous narratives based off no evidence due to their personal vendetta aginst Hillary.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

One has to define what "hostility" means in this context. Is it the fact that the media is calling her out on her scandals (which it doesn't even completely do) or something else?

It's not exactly a secret that the press was solidly on Obama's side in the 2008 Dem primary. It was so blatantly obvious that those noted Hillary hacks over at SNL even parodied it.

https://screen.yahoo.com/democratic-debate-000000559.html

If you need more examples, look at her book tour. The month long tour was described as a "disaster" because she made that dead broke gaffe in an interview. Was it a dumb thing to say? Yes. Would any other candidate have gotten relentless negative media coverage over it for weeks? No. It would've been a couple day long story at most.

And then of course there's emailgate. The press made complete asses out of themselves here, screaming bloody murder about how she might have to drop out of the race and that Democrats were scrambling for an alternative. Now that Hillary's polling numbers in the primary have barely budged and she's about to enter the race, they have egg on their face and look stupid as hell. But since there's no accountability for the punditry, they will continue to spin these ridiculous narratives based off no evidence due to their personal vendetta aginst Hillary.

The media was in the tank for Obama in 2008, but surely even you'll admit SNL was part of the Hacks for Hillary brigade even in 2007 (it sounded like you were being sarcastic when you alluded to that).

[CountryClassSF]

I'm sorry but Mark is in his own little world. They were hostile to her because they wanted Obama.  The press will be fully in the tank for her come next November.

The press will be friendly to the establishment GOP candidate, as they usually are, until and if that candidate steals the nomination, then the gloves come off

[Gallium]

The reasons why the media adore Jeb are practically the inverse of why they dislike Hillary: the Clintons are money-grabbing grifters from the backwaters of Arkansas who have never known their place while the Bushes are pure blue-blooded patricians born to rule (note the anger at only Hillary for the audacity to have speaking fees); Jeb is so open! and transparent! with his personal email correspondence with reporters while Hillary is characteristically private (but of course only one has reasons to be guarded); reporters can relate to Jeb's struggle of living in the shadow of a more successful sibiling, Hillary reminds them of their ex-wife.

I'm sorry but Mark is in his own little world. They were hostile to her because they wanted Obama.  The press will be fully in the tank for her come next November.

The press will be friendly to the establishment GOP candidate, as they usually are, until and if that candidate steals the nomination, then the gloves come off

Like they were with Bush vs. Gore in 2000? The same scenario will play out if Jeb is the nominee.

[IceSpear]

The media was in the tank for Obama in 2008, but surely even you'll admit SNL was part of the Hacks for Hillary brigade even in 2007 (it sounded like you were being sarcastic when you alluded to that).

Why do you think so? I'm not exactly a regular SNL watcher so I wouldn't know, but it doesn't seem like it would be a program overly friendly to Hillary at first glance.

I'm sorry but Mark is in his own little world. They were hostile to her because they wanted Obama.  The press will be fully in the tank for her come next November.

Except that doesn't explain why they're hostile to her now. Last time I checked, Obama isn't running.

[Gallium]

I should say for balance it's become pretty obvious in the past few months that the media dislike Walker, although I'm not sure if that's due to him being Jeb's main competition, or because of thinly-veiled snobbery and/or his unwillingness to play the media game.

They love Rubio though: he gets given far more attention than he deserves for someone sitting at 7th in the Republican polls.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The reasons why the media adore Jeb are practically the inverse of why they dislike Hillary: the Clintons are money-grabbing grifters from the backwaters of Arkansas who have never known their place while the Bushes are pure blue-blooded patricians born to rule (note the anger at only Hillary for the audacity to have speaking fees);

Well, that's the reason the late David Broder gave when asked why he hated the Clintons.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The media is the one force in American politics that is more vile than Hillary. You see, they hate Hillary because she is smart enough to shroud herself in mystery and not kiss the media's pretentious, self righteous ass not give them "muh big scoop!"

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're in different worlds here. I can certainly agree with you that they are not as "smitten" with her as they were for Obama, as I'm sure you would agree during the primary season.  But the email scandal got virtually zero coverage, and if it were a Republican you'd all be screaming about it.

Like I said, they'll show love for the establishmentarian candidates, and if they are foisted upon us by the Chamber of Commerce again, the second they get the nomination, the gloves come off. Watch.

Even if they dislike her, they dislike conservative America much, much more.

[Angel of Death]

The same Mark Halperin that gave us this gem.

[Ebsy]

The same Mark Halperin that gave us this gem.

He can speak authoritatively for the "chattering class" because he is chatterer-in-Chief.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're in different worlds here. I can certainly agree with you that they are not as "smitten" with her as they were for Obama, as I'm sure you would agree during the primary season.  But the email scandal got virtually zero coverage, and if it were a Republican you'd all be screaming about it.

Wait, what? The e-mail stuff was front page news on the NYT, Politico, Washington Post, etc. for weeks. The talking heads and punditry devoted large segments of time and columns to it. Morning Joe practically made it the highlight of their entire show for weeks. The coverage has weened now because there's only so many stories you can pump out of the same material, but the media was obsessed with it for the first three weeks of March.

[Gallium]

Looks like Halperin's comments were a reaction to getting an early read of this NYMag piece, out now.

"Hillary's a terrible candidate! Benghazi could ruin her! Her press conference was disastrous! She's literally Nixon! The "dead broke" gaffe made poor women PHYSICALLY UPSET! Jeb has a hispanic wife!"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's not much she can do to stop you spouting nonsense.

[The Mikado]

The Clintons are the definition of old news, the family's been in the national spotlight since Bill gave the keynote speech in 1988 and became a serious candidate for the 1992 election. After a quarter of a century in the political limelight, and with the prospect of another decade of them at the forefront of American politics, can you blame the press for wanting to talk about someone else?

This generation of the Clinton family is well past its sell-by date. Its coming of age narrative includes stories about Vietnam draft dodging, civil rights, the 1964 and 1972 elections, and the counterculture. The Clintons are part of the AARP crowd now and so are their generational compatriots, and presumably especially new media journalistic types want someone considerably easier to relate to for us post-1960s culture war types. Maybe a candidate whose biopic doesn't inevitably play "Blowing in the Wind" while zooming out on a blurry photo of a long-haired person half a century ago when talking about the candidate's origin.

[IceSpear]

The Clintons are the definition of old news, the family's been in the national spotlight since Bill gave the keynote speech in 1988 and became a serious candidate for the 1992 election. After a quarter of a century in the political limelight, and with the prospect of another decade of them at the forefront of American politics, can you blame the press for wanting to talk about someone else?

I've been under the mistaken belief that the job of the press was to report the news, not entertain themselves.

[Ebsy]

The Clintons are the definition of old news, the family's been in the national spotlight since Bill gave the keynote speech in 1988 and became a serious candidate for the 1992 election. After a quarter of a century in the political limelight, and with the prospect of another decade of them at the forefront of American politics, can you blame the press for wanting to talk about someone else?

I've been under the mistaken belief that the job of the press was to report the news, not entertain themselves.

Gasp.

[MustLuvMavericks]

t exactly a secret that the press was solidly on Obama's side in the 2008 Dem primary. It was so blatantly obvious that those noted Hillary hacks over at SNL even parodied it.

The Clintons brought negative media attention on themselves through race baiting attacks on Sen. Obama -- not too mention their horrendous surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro, Terry McAuliffe and worst of all President Clinton.

[Cory]

This generation of the Clinton family is well past its sell-by date. Its coming of age narrative includes stories about Vietnam draft dodging, civil rights, the 1964 and 1972 elections, and the counterculture. The Clintons are part of the AARP crowd now and so are their generational compatriots, and presumably especially new media journalistic types want someone considerably easier to relate to for us post-1960s culture war types. Maybe a candidate whose biopic doesn't inevitably play "Blowing in the Wind" while zooming out on a blurry photo of a long-haired person half a century ago when talking about the candidate's origin.

Yeah, just like people who actually vote in real life American elections.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The Clintons are the definition of old news, the family's been in the national spotlight since Bill gave the keynote speech in 1988 and became a serious candidate for the 1992 election. After a quarter of a century in the political limelight, and with the prospect of another decade of them at the forefront of American politics, can you blame the press for wanting to talk about someone else?

I've been under the mistaken belief that the job of the press was to report the news, not entertain themselves.

That was before the need to sink Clinton arose.

[Lurker]

The Clintons are the definition of old news, the family's been in the national spotlight since Bill gave the keynote speech in 1988 and became a serious candidate for the 1992 election. After a quarter of a century in the political limelight, and with the prospect of another decade of them at the forefront of American politics, can you blame the press for wanting to talk about someone else?

This generation of the Clinton family is well past its sell-by date. Its coming of age narrative includes stories about Vietnam draft dodging, civil rights, the 1964 and 1972 elections, and the counterculture. The Clintons are part of the AARP crowd now and so are their generational compatriots, and presumably especially new media journalistic types want someone considerably easier to relate to for us post-1960s culture war types. Maybe a candidate whose biopic doesn't inevitably play "Blowing in the Wind" while zooming out on a blurry photo of a long-haired person half a century ago when talking about the candidate's origin.

Do they show the same kind of attitude towards Jeb Bush though? He's part of the same generation as Bill and Hillary, first became a (relatively) well-known national figure two decades ago, and is part of perhaps the most succesful dynasty in US political history.

And, of course, the press hostility towards the Clintons long predates them becoming "old News" (which is a fair point).