The View has tried, with marginal success, to go easy on the Hillary articles, at least until it is clear that she is to be the Dem’s candidate of choice for the 2008 presidential election. Let’s just say that her candidacy, if it occurs, is sure to be a target-rich environment, so why jump the gun. But last Sunday, the Boston Globe proved once again that there is no length to which it will not go to demonstrate its partisan support. Using its lead editorial, the Globe rushed to defend Mrs. C. because, in its opinion some of the remarks she made during an interview with the Globe editorial board on October 10th were so “badly twisted” and “magnified” that it felt compelled to reprint a segment of the interview transcript in an attempt to straighten out the record.
The case in point involved Hillary’s contention that while she has many ideas for new government programs, she recognizes the need for fiscal responsibility and claims to have a funding scheme for each program. Ideas? She has a million of them. How about the $5,000 baby- bond for every baby born in the United States? Oops, never mind. And while she makes several references to “her” capacity to pay for them, we all recognize that it will be the taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill. What she really means is her ability to earmark specific tax revenues for her own proposals.
Putting its best spin on the interview, the Globe claims that what Hillary was actually saying is that she “opposes big government spending.”
The Clinton strategists recognize the need to run a centrist campaign so as to appeal to the moderate voters as well as the liberal base. Politicians of all stripes have long used similar strategies to broaden their appeal. But in her case, the veneer of the new moderate Hillary has a monumental task in papering over a long and well-documented history of left-wing orientation. The voters, of course, must look beyond campaign rhetoric to try to determine just what a particular candidate’s true values might be, a handy thing to know when you are voting someone into a powerful office for four years. To do so, we rely on an un-biased media. By leaping to Hillary’s defense in this case, rather than letting her comments stand on their own, the Globe not only does a disservice to its readers, but also lends support to the long-held contention of many that the Globe is a shill for the left.
This campaign, which already seems to have been going on forever, still has a long way to go. There will be ample time to frame the choices voters will face. At the same time, be careful, be very careful, where you get your information. In the meantime, for a good critical analysis of just what the globe did print Click Here
and read what Harry at Squaring the Boston Globe had to say.The case in point involved Hillary’s contention that while she has many ideas for new government programs, she recognizes the need for fiscal responsibility and claims to have a funding scheme for each program. Ideas? She has a million of them. How about the $5,000 baby- bond for every baby born in the United States? Oops, never mind. And while she makes several references to “her” capacity to pay for them, we all recognize that it will be the taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill. What she really means is her ability to earmark specific tax revenues for her own proposals.
Putting its best spin on the interview, the Globe claims that what Hillary was actually saying is that she “opposes big government spending.”
The Clinton strategists recognize the need to run a centrist campaign so as to appeal to the moderate voters as well as the liberal base. Politicians of all stripes have long used similar strategies to broaden their appeal. But in her case, the veneer of the new moderate Hillary has a monumental task in papering over a long and well-documented history of left-wing orientation. The voters, of course, must look beyond campaign rhetoric to try to determine just what a particular candidate’s true values might be, a handy thing to know when you are voting someone into a powerful office for four years. To do so, we rely on an un-biased media. By leaping to Hillary’s defense in this case, rather than letting her comments stand on their own, the Globe not only does a disservice to its readers, but also lends support to the long-held contention of many that the Globe is a shill for the left.
This campaign, which already seems to have been going on forever, still has a long way to go. There will be ample time to frame the choices voters will face. At the same time, be careful, be very careful, where you get your information. In the meantime, for a good critical analysis of just what the globe did print Click Here
2 comments:
The Globe? Favoring the Left? That's crazy talk.
For right wing wackos like me, the run up to the 2008 Presidential Election is going to be a treat. That's becuase the Dems appear to be leaning toward nominating Hillary.
I can't wait to watch her mix it up in a national race. It will all cuminate in some bizarre "Dean Scream" moment, when she just completely melts down and rips off her mask to reveal that she is, in fact, a monster from Hell. And that my friends, will be worth 16 straight months of Boston Globe "reporting".
Hat tips are a common courtesy in the community of bloggers.
Post a Comment