Patterico's Pontifications

5/30/2006

More Hillary-As-Centrist

Filed under: Media Bias — Patterico @ 10:02 pm

Whee! It’s another Big Media portrayal of Hillary-as-centrist. Before it was the L.A. Times (see here and here). Today it’s the Washington Post. This one is actually a little more nuanced than the L.A. Times was, but it still basically maintains the fiction that, as the headline puts it, she is “A Politician Not Easily Defined.”

Depends on whom you ask. It’s easy for me.

(Via Allah.)

15 Responses to “More Hillary-As-Centrist”

  1. she is “A Politician Not Easily Defined.”

    The Definition is not difficult

    Chameleon.

    Dan Kauffman (0cf47b)

  2. Madam Cattle-futures.

    dearieme (34c83d)

  3. Well, Imus is doing his part to demonize Senator Clinton:

    On the May 24 edition of MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus referred to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as “Satan” 11 times, once calling her “that buck-tooted witch, Satan.” During an interview with NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell, Imus even claimed that Clinton was “worse than” Osama bin Laden, but then partially retracted his statement, saying: “Well, that’s a little strong.” During the same interview, Imus called former Vice President Al Gore “the phoniest bastard on the planet,” adding that Gore is “a horrid human being.” http://mediamatters.org/items/200605250001

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  4. Reading Psyberian’s post above, I want to call Imus and ask, “Gee why didn’t you just come right out and say what you really think.” Buck-toothed witch is a bit strong, but I think a significant number of folks here in the States would argue that Imus was not far off the mark with his characterizations of either Hillary or the former Vice President now turned Ranter in Chief.

    Mike Myers (3a4363)

  5. Well, Imus is doing his part to demonize Senator Clinton…

    As a key participant of the VRWC, no doubt?

    Or then again, perhaps he is just parroting some of the more insightful comments of Sens Schumer and Kennedy regarding any number of conservative judicial candidates.

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  6. “For now, she is defined by a combination of celebrity and caution that strategists say leaves her more vulnerable than most politicians to charges that she is motivated more by personal ambition and tactical maneuver than by a clear philosophy.”

    Yup, precisely. Speaking as both a registered Republican and as someone who nonetheless frequently adopts non-GOP stances on things, the list of people against whom Ms. Clinton represents a palatable choice for president is pretty short, and this is a big part of why.

    Bobby (194852)

  7. Hillary’s centrism is as sincere as a $25 hooker’s orgasm.

    David (1f4f5e)

  8. “The debate about Clinton’s beliefs is linked to one about her electability. Many Democrats fear she carries so much baggage that, if she becomes the party’s standard-bearer in 2008, she would prove too polarizing and lead it to a third straight defeat.” Bingo.

    That opinion is catching on in Democrat circles, and it isn’t only Imus who’s trashing Hillary. Some of the big shots at the NY Times and in MSM are working her over pretty good too. It looks like a coordinated effort to weed out the “unelectable” Hillary early in the process so the old boys can have a clear field. Could it be she’s being set up to take the same sort of fall from grace as Howard Dean following his “I have a scream” meltdown?

    Headline for the linked article reads: Hillary Clinton: Dead Candidate Walking?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5538

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  9. Oddly enough, among left-wing activist circles, Hillary Clinton is disliked almost as much as Joe Lieberman is. Not that that makes her a centrist, per se, but the left doesn’t like her and doesn’t want her.

    aphrael (e7c761)

  10. That doesn’t mean they won’t nominate her, however. They may well, on the theory that Hillary The Centrist is the most electable. Kinda like John Kerry, the guy who could beat Bush in 2004.

    Xrlq (f52b4f)

  11. It’s impossible to redefine her for me. That said, I honestly cannot decide if the Left actively hate her, or if they are actively trying to convince US of that to burnish her “centrist” bona fides. (Even if I believed her to be centrist, that’s a dirty word in my book.)

    Either way, there are 2 people I will never vote for no matter what: Hillary!, and McCain.

    Peg C. (bf276f)

  12. XRLQ – the people who would be nominating her wouldn’t be the left wing, just as the left wing broke for Dean in 2004.

    aphrael (e7c761)

  13. Peg – i’m somewhat more in the center than the Leftists who hate Hillary, but from what i’ve observed, their dislike of her is real.

    I don’t hate her; neither am I convinced that I should vote for her. I would have voted against her, had I lived in New York, because I dislike carpetbaggers; but she won, and she’s done a decent enough job as Senator that I would consider voting for her for that office.

    But President? Nobody has sold me on a compelling story as to why I would want her in that office. Heck, nobody has even tried.

    aphrael (e7c761)

  14. Calling Hillary a centrist puts that term on its head. Exactly which issue does Hillary lean to the right on to counterbalance her leftist views on abortion, gay marriage, the environment, etc., etc.? Given her 95 percent rating by Americans for Democratic Action (a leftwing group who should know what “left” and “centrist” mean), I would think painting Hillary as “centrist” for electibility purposes is just another Clinton lie.

    sharon (fecb65)

  15. It depends on what your definition of “defined” is.

    McGehee (5664e1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2181 secs.