the media, Hillary and jeb

[mercuryblues]

After spending weeks pouting over lack of access and whining that she was doing nothing but talking to people in living rooms and coffee shops instead of telling the country what she planned to do, the press declared her speech boring and tedious filled as it was with dull policy prescriptions (also known as “telling the country what she planned to do.”) If one didn’t know better, one would think Clinton just can’t please these people. But it was probably wise for her to take a page out of Bill Clinton’s book and speak about a laundry list of specifics. The media always hates those speeches but the public always loves them. Media criticism aside, it appeared to be a good launch for the next phase of her campaign.

But if we were looking for a sign that it’s game on, then Bush’s long awaited speech was the official blowing of the dogwhistle. (That’s right, he actually used Ronald Reagan’s line endorsing Barry Goldwater in 1964: “it’s a time for choosing." A bunch of old GOP dogs sat up and howled at the moon when they heard that one.) And the early media reviews were very, very good. Here is a typical reaction:

Bush’s prepared speech didn’t mention immigration but when confronted with protesters wearing t-shirts that said “legal status is not enough,” he shut them up by saying, “The next president will pass meaningful immigration reform so that that will be solved — NOT by executive order.” The media swooned with excitement. Whereas Clinton’s speech had been criticized for being boring and specific while at the same time failing to spell out the exact process by which she planned to enact these changes, Bush merely asserting that he would pass meaningful reform (with a Republican Congress that is now pondering the idea of stopping even legal immigration) was seen as more evidence of his rather impressive gravitas.

more at: http://www.alternet.org/surprise-surprise-media-treating-jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-very-differently-0

[mercuryblues]

1. the mansplaining

Electing the first female candidate will not hold the same importance as electing the 1st AfAm candidate. It is not only that they don't notice woman. Women like HRC don't fit the mold that they have assigned to women.




As Michael Tomasky wrote when addressing this same subject, the only reason people don’t see the significance of this moment for many women is because they apparently don’t notice women:


People aren’t going to love her like they loved Barack Obama. Actually, check that, in part: There are in fact millions of Americans who adore Clinton. I saw them in 2000, too; mothers at upstate county fairgrounds, waiting an hour on the rope line to introduce their daughters to Hillary. You don’t become America’s most admired woman in 17 of the last 20 years without lots of people loving you, but somehow this cohort doesn’t register much on the Washington radar screen.

[ismnotwasm]

2. Typical

great article