Post-debate criticism against Hillary: Fair? Too little? or too much?

[antiimperialist]

Criticism by Hillary Clinton's rivals, echoed by and extended to the media, may or not be deserved. Maybe Clinton deserved it due to her inability to answer a question in a straight way. Maybe these three are exaggerating and she's been attacked too viciously. Perhaps she's so duplicitous that criticism should have been even stronger.

What do you think? Choose the answer that best reflects your view.

[SteppingRazor]

1. I think some of the criticism is fair, but the media has largely exaggerated it.

A runaway nomination isn't a story. There's nothing to report on, except to say "Hillary's candidacy continues to be likely." It's boring, and it doesn't get ratings. You need the horse race. So, a lot of TV pundits latched onto the last debate in an effort to generate controversy where there was none -- or at least, where there was very little.

[rinsd]

2. By her Dem rivals? Par for the course in a primary.

[Tactical Progressive]

3. Way too much by the media, but expected

She took by far the brunt of that debate head-on. Probably an hour and a half out of two hours was attacking Hillary either directly or through questions posed to the other candidates aimed at her.

And she came through really, really strongly. I didn't think she'd do that well, but she did. Surprisingly so. I think she's getting better at this.

When they couldn't trip her up, the media, like the Republicans they represent, do what they always do against a Democrat they can't hurt - they just make shit up. They barely had time at the end but managed to paint her like she was answering both ways when she wasn't about NYS driver's licenses for illegals. She said good for Spitzer to try something on the state level, then when gotcha'd, clarified that she didn't in any way mean it as national policy, and well, you saw.

And it worked for them, because they control all of the talk afterwards, just like it worked for them against Al Gore. Suddenly, two hours of a really solid debate is a terrible performance. Again, shades of Bush v Gore debates anyone?

But it isn't going to work. Hillary will keep rising in the polls after this media-fabricated stumbling block, and might even make her appear stronger in the end.


They'd never do anything like that to a Republican. A Republican has to pretty much get caught in a felony or soliciting someone in a bathroom before the media would even think of implying something against them. But any Democrat that starts getting power - that's right, this is not about Hillary per se; it would happen to any one of the Dems if they started gaining stature - will face a whole different level of attack.

I remember back in Campaign 1992 when they were obsessed with the youthful Bill Clinton's reported affairs. They just couldn't stop. They wouldn't stop. Then a CNN reporter, Mary Tillotsen I believe, asked Bush Sr about his long-known affair with his secretary, Jean something. Now, you would think that at the very least it would be goose and gander fair, but even moreso the other way because a young candidate's dalliances are not unexpected while the staid Republican's 'family values' proclivities would be more newsworthy - the old 'man bites dog' news metaphor for the ordinary not being the story - but not so. Bush Sr said: "I'm not answering any sleazy questions from CNN!"

And that was it. Over. Never touched on again by CNN or any other news organization. Mary Tillotsen got sent to Siberia or somewhere, not to be seen for years. I thought for the longest time that CNN just had her killed for asking the question. But I saw her someplace like six years later. From the network's chief Presidential candidate correspondent, about the most coveted position in political reporting, to just gone. For just once asking the Republican a question that they all spit out continuously at the Democrat.

Just like they would go back 20 years to try to nail Clinton on a trivial land sale - that somehow ended up as Monica - but they wouldn't look at Bush Jr's blatantly corrupt business deals in more than passing reference.

I've been saying this for a while: Don't worry about the mewling, supportive stenographer media.
They'll come back, nasty and sneering, as soon as a Dem shows up in power. It's already starting.

[juajen]

4. I think the media and the opposing front runners exaggerated

almost equally; the front runners because they benefit and the media because it "sells papers". Disgusting. I hope it does not hurt the democratic cause for whoever wins the nomination.