• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Propertius on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    Propertius on Oh, What a Tangled Web They Tr…
    Propertius on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    Propertius on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    Propertius on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    riverdaughter on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    Beata on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    jmac on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    William on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    Beata on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    William on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    William on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    riverdaughter on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    riverdaughter on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    Beata on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    August 2022
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread
      Use the comments to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts. Facebook Twitter WhatsApp LinkedIn
  • Top Posts

A taste of how bad Hillary media has been

Following up on yesterday’s discussion of the study that showed that Hillary Clinton gets a lot more negative media coverage and a lot less positive media coverage than any other candidate- for no apparent reason other than some 23 year old smear campaign started by Sally Quinn for her own purposes- here is an oldie but goodie video from the last time we had to put up with this crap. This video was put together in 2008 and features many of Sally’s “friends” including Chris Matthews who seems to be spewing what must have been cocktail chatter he picked up at Quinn’s house.

It’s a great video by the mysterious vlogger ShuttheFreudUp. Pass it around.

Quinn Bee, Drones and Hillary

Ezra Klein tweeted a shocking revelation the other day from the Vox account. He posted the results of a study showing how negatively/positively the candidates had been portrayed by the media and found:

I find this surprising. Coverage of Trump feels *overwhelmingly* negative to me, much more so than of Clinton:


Ezra is confused. Coverage of Trump falls into the train wreck observer category. Even the Political Gabfest Trio sound like they’re watching a tsunami from a different country and have that “Oh, those poor souls, someone should do something” attitude. They make references to Hitler and Mussolini but in a detached way. It’s nothing personal.

With Hillary, it is. She’s just not exciting. Oh, sure, she’s competent and everything but can we trust her?

Nobody wants to say anything nice about her. EVER.

That graph up above shows the kind of candidate the media prefers. Kasich presents as a kinder, gentler, less radical Republican. We know he’s nothing of the sort. He’s just better at being not in your face about his radicalism.

And then there is Bernie, who is attracting all of the creative class people, to which class the media types cling desperately so they don’t lose their youth and beauty.

Even Vox, after looking the evidence in the face tosses it off as just a manifestation of the media going after the perceived frontrunner. Except, we know that’s only partially true. In 2008, Hillary was the frontrunner early in the primary and she was hammered relentlessly. Then when the party refused to credit her Florida and Michigan delegates, that made Obama look like the frontrunner. But as David Plotz admitted a couple of weeks ago, the media treated him with kid gloves because they were “totally in the tank for him”.

So, frontrunner syndrome is not equally applied and Clintonistas have known this for a long time. Decades, in fact.

What happened decades ago that would have made the Clintons so incredibly unpopular with the press? From what we can tell, it all started when uber narcissist Sally Quinn, self-appointed Queen Bee of Washington establishment and party set, condescended to invite new first lady Hillary Clinton to Georgetown to meet the other DC ladies who lunch. Here’s how Hillary’s welcome to DC went according to Harry Jaffe who wrote a scathing piece called “The Not So Mighty Quinn”:

All of this reporting and writing prepared Quinn for her true calling: being a hostess and party girl. “She would go to the opening of an envelope,” says one socialite. She positioned herself as the Perle Mesta of the 1990s. She reveled in inviting the usual suspects in the political and media world to her Georgetown manse, then leaking gossip from the parties to reporters at the Post. It was a cozy relationship that depended on Quinn’s ability to reel in big-name guests, especially the biggest of all, the first couple — which brings us to the root of Sally’s beef with Hillary.

According to society sources, Sally invited Hillary to a luncheon when the Clintons came to town in 1993. Sally stocked her guest list with her best buddies and prepared to usher the first lady into the capital’s social whirl. Apparently, Hillary didn’t accept. Miffed, Sally wrote a catty piece in the Post about Mrs. Clinton. Hillary made sure that Quinn rarely made it into the White House dinners or social events.

In return, Sally started talking trash about Hillary to her buddies, and her animus became a staple of the social scene. “There’s just something about her that pisses people off,” Quinn is quoted as saying in a New Yorker article about Hillary.

Quinn’s antipathy to Hillary became the subject of a New York Observer piece in 1996 that turned the spotlight on Sally, now 56. “No longer a journalistic star, Ms. Quinn seems restless and unsatisfied,” wrote Mary Jacoby, “despite her wealth and prominence and her Georgetown mansion with swimming pool and tennis court, not to mention her house in the Hamptons.” Wondering about the roots of Quinn’s spat with Mrs. Clinton, a younger and more powerful woman, Jacoby wondered if Quinn was “frightened” that her good looks were fading and “bitter because she’s no longer on center stage.”


“There’s a very incestuous relationship between the New York-Washington journalistic elite,” says Washington columnist Chuck Conconi, who edited Quinn at the Post. “They take care of each other. It shows.”

To summarize, Sally Quinn, is the Queen Bee of Washington. The ultimate Mean Girl, she is, like all narcissists, insanely envious of people who have something that she has not. Now, what would Sally Quinn, who has “friends” and influence in DC, homes in Washington, Maryland and The Hamptons, possibly be envious about? Let’s see, Hillary is a smart and academically accomplished lawyer. Sally majored in drama at Smith College and wrote a party column in the Washington Post. Hillary was a trusted advisor to her husband, a president. Sally was originally her husband’s mistress before he reluctantly married her. Hillary plans policy with her husband. Sally plans guest lists. Who knows if Ben Bradlee had any input into that. He probably left it to Quinn as it was her little hobby.

Come to think of it, Sally was probably better off NOT having Hillary attend her soirees so many years ago before the animosity started. Hillary would have attracted a lot more attention from her other guests while Sally would have been relegated to refreshing the drinks. Here we see a sharp divide in generations. Sally is only 6 years older than Hillary but she represents a generation with a different set of expectations for men and women. Sally wanted what Hillary had: a growing respect from policy makers for her intellect, but she couldn’t make the leap from party girl and wife. So, Sally unleashed the only weapon she had available to her to take out her rage at potentially being ignored: ostracism. Better to nip it in the bud early and make sure Hillary was persona non grata than to suffer the ignominy of realizing that DC entertainer was just not that interesting to the people who came to her cocktail parties. Sally had to be the center of attention so Hillary had to be excluded. Thus began Sally’s smear campaign against Hillary.

Maybe Sally’s notorious injury from Hillary turning down lunch with her was calculated. Knowing there was no way to compete with Hillary, did Sally set her up? Did Sally pick an inconvenient day, like the time when she scheduled her son’s wedding to conflict with her husband’s granddaughter’s wedding on the same day so that wedding guests would have to choose? Did Hillary think lunch with a bunch of society doyennes was not the best use of her time because she was moving into the White House and supervising staff?  Who knows? But narcissists are really good at setting themselves up to look like victims and then making sure that everyone hears about how they were slighted. They can hold a grudge forever. Note Jaffe’s comment that there is an incestuous relationship between DC and NYC media and Maureen Dowd’s viciousness towards Hillary makes sense.

But wait! There’s more. Remember Ken Starr, the independent counsel who was appointed to dog the Clintons for years without end and distract them from doing the things they were elected to do? Jaffe writes:

There’s also a reason why Sally Quinn is an apologist for independent counsel Kenneth Starr. “In some way,” she said on “Meet the Press,” “Ken Starr has become to Clinton what the evil empire, what the Soviet Union was to Ronald Reagan.” What she doesn’t say is that Ben Bradlee is indebted to Starr, then a judge, for ruling that the Post was not guilty of libel in a celebrated case in the 1980s.

There you go.

But, you say, what does that have to do with today? All that stuff happened 20+ years ago. Neil Gabler recently wrote about how it all filters down to the present day in The Media Have a Hillary Story and They’re Sticking to It. He also references the slight that Hillary dealt Sally and notes how Sally’s character assassination of Hillary has taken on a life of its own:

Still, false or not, once the virus was loose, every reporter caught it, fancying himself a would-be Woodstein. Remember Travelgate? Of course you don’t. Or the scandal over the Rose legal files? I rather doubt it. Or the Vince Foster suicide? Maybe you still think Bill Clinton pulled the trigger, which is an oldie-but-goodie being shilled to this day on righ-wing sites.

Whatever you may think of the Clintons, the scandals didn’t create the meme of untrustworthiness about them. The meme of untrustworthiness created the scandals.

All, in the final analysis, were non-stories, some of them cooked up by partisans and spread by the press to accomplish exactly what the Republicans wanted to accomplish: to create a vague nimbus of guilt around the Clintons.

The operative word is “vague.” The press should have been a firewall against these allegations. Instead, they were an accelerant, not only because they didn’t like the cornpone Clintons, but because they knew the truth was likely to be far less interesting than the suspicions of wrongdoing. The media, after all, are in the reader business, not the truth business.

The bigger point is this: whatever you may think of the Clintons, the scandals didn’t create the meme of untrustworthiness about them. The meme of untrustworthiness created the scandals. The media just kept hunting for those scandals as confirmation of what they had already determined. That is how so many in the MSM work — backwards from presumption to incident. It also happens to be the surest path to career advancement for journalistic opportunists.


No, Hillary Clinton isn’t without sin. No candidate is. But she has been deliberately and unfairly abused by the press for years, her motives always impugned, her gaffes blown out of proportion, her missteps always attributed not to miscalculations or ordinary human foible but to deep character flaws. (Just Google “Hillary Clinton” and “character.”)

To be fair, the press are usually cynical about everyone — theirbrief Marco Rubio obsession notwithstanding. That is the new cool. And they would be cynical about Bernie Sanders, too, if they thought he mattered, which they clearly don’t. But the Clintons, who they do think matter, got on the wrong side of the press long ago — not haute enough for the Sally Quinns of this world — and they can never get on the right side. And besides, the idea of their nefarious misdeeds makes such good copy that any reporter would really hate to give them the benefit of the doubt.

So, there you have it, Ezra. The reason why the negativity bar goes off the chart for Clinton is because the media is relentlessly negative on her but also unaware of this tendency in themselves. It’s been conventional wisdom for 20+ years that if you want to succeed in journalism, you need to be mean to Bill and Hillary. It all started with Sally’s fit of narcissistic rage and it has ballooned into robotic bashing to the point where no one knows where assassination of character intersects with the real thing anymore. Hillary has become completely dehumanized by the media.

One thing is for sure. If Hillary ever does make it to the White House, it’s going to be difficult for her to forget how the media has treated her all these years. It will take a person of extraordinary character to treat them fairly. The media has given her no reason to trust it. You’re not paranoid if they really are out to get you.

But I look forward to Sally Quinn getting what’s coming to her for letting a contrived slight to her fragile inner self unleash a distracting legal firestorm that strengthened the radical right and brought misery on millions of regular Americans.

When Hillary takes office, maybe we can look forward to something like this from Sally, the drama queen:



Nitecap and the Marquise de Merteuil

You guys probably have a head start on me.  I just got home from work after spending hours on a frakin’ Excel spreadsheet.  I HATE Microsoft.  Every app is so damn kludgy.  I need a drink.  Rico!  Some tequila please?

In the meantime, let me direct your attention to this excellent smack down of Sally Quinn by Bob Somerby titled The Wages of Quinn.  Somerby dissects Quinn’s most recent column where the Queen Bee of DC threatens the Obama’s with her own personal brand of divine retribution for being lousy hosts.  “Pretty nice administration you got there.  Wouldn’t want anything to *happen* to it.”  As Somerby points out, Sally and her droogs don’t pick on Republicans for being celebrity struck social climbers like the Reagans or intellectual and sleepy boors like the second round of Bushes.  She saves her attacks, and at this point, they seem awfully close to domestic terrorism, for Democrats.  Clinton really frosted her crockies because right after his first election, he called her and the Villagers on their little cliquey games.  Quinn holds a grudge and her vengeance knows no boundaries of decorum.

I don’t know why Sally gets away with it except that she’s married to Ben Bradlee.  She sounds to me like a frustrated woman who should have been a CEO of something but was born 30 years too soon.  So, she is forced to channel her intelligence and thwarted ambition into middle school variety power plays that are approved by her class as being appropriate for her gender and station.  Oooo, the shackles of conformity must be rubbing her raw after sooo many years.  Nevertheless, she will not be ignored.  But someday, probably soon, she will be discarded.  Everyone gets old, eventually.  She will be replaced by a newer version of herself.

In the meantime, she’ll continue to scheme and stab people in the back and help the Villagers take down another Democrat.  Hey, Obama’s a pretty weak president.  It’s not going to be hard for Sally and her posse to take him down.  I’m just sick of people indulging in ruining other people for sport.  Besides, Obama’s doing a pretty good job of ruining himself without Sally’s help.

Someday, I hope Sally gets what’s coming to her.  In my fantasy, it goes a little bit like this:

Saturday: When Hillary met Sally

We have never understood the irrational hatred of the press towards Hillary Clinton.  We know why the Republicans couldn’t stand her husband, Bill.  It was because he was actually the one in charge during the nineties and they never accepted him as legitimate.  Besides they were on a roll with Movement Conservatism.  Yeah, all that hard work was paying off, once they made up their minds to fight their exile into the wilderness after Barry Goldwater’s defeat. That never explained viciousness of the media towards Hillary though.

As far as we have been able to trace, the nastiness started in earnest just after the Clintons arrived in Washington and Sally Quinn attempted to pull Hillary into her social circle.  But it seems like Sally was playing quite a different career game than Hillary.  I imagine it was a little like what happened on Mad Men between Peggy, the newly promoted junior copywriter from the steno pool, and Joan, the office manager who saw her job as a route to domestic bliss in the suburbs with a man she snagged from one of the corner offices:

And then Hillary proceeded to dismiss the White House travel office staff who was collaborating with the media for sweet travel deals and gossip.  We think that was approximately the time the $%@# hit the fan.  Oh, sure, the Republicans gave both Clintons a colonoscopy with 8 years of investigations.  It was relentless and brutal- and categorized in minute and embarrasing detail on the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times.  Seven years of the worst president in history, a president the media helped to put in power, was not enough to curb the media’s enthusiasm for trashing Hillary.  When the primary season started, they picked up right where they left off.  Hillary was the media’s favorite punching bag.  She almost won too.  It drove them NUTS.

We’ve known for more than a year now that the media has a sycophantic hard-on for Obama.  So, it came as a shock yesterday when Paul Krugman, who is generally well liked in PUMA circles, wrote the following in his blog, The Conscience of a Liberal:

The crisis isn’t the only scary thing going on. Something very ugly is taking shape on the political scene: as McCain’s chances fade, the crowds at his rallies are, by all accounts, increasingly gripped by insane rage. It’s not just a mob phenomenon — it’s visible in the right-wing media, and to some extent in the speeches of McCain and Palin.

We’ve seen this before. One thing that has been sort of written out of the mainstream history of politics is the sheer insanity of the attacks on the Clintons — they were drug smugglers, they murdered Vince Foster (and lots of other people), they were in league with foreign powers. And this stuff didn’t just show up in fringe publications — it was discussed in Congress, given props by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and so on.

What it came down to was that a significant fraction of the American population, backed by a lot of money and political influence, simply does not consider government by liberals (even very moderate liberals) legitimate. Ronald Reagan was supposed to have settled that once and for all.

The good thing is that Krugman acknowledges the irrationality of the attacks on the Clintons.  What he *doesn’t* acknowledge is that much of it comes from his neighbors at the NY Times, not the Wall Street Journal.  Did Krugman read any of the stuff from Frank Rich during the primaries?  And does anyone know what bug Maureen Dowd has up her ass about Hillary? (BTW, Maureen, we still aren’t voting for him and we don’t really care what you think.)

We’ve often heard it said that Hillary’s campaign was nasty towards reporters. But I used to sit in on those conference calls between the media and Howard Wolfson.  I often came away impressed with Wolfson’s comparative composure.  The venom that flowed from the likes of Andrea Mitchell was astonishing in its sarcasm and sheer unmistakable contempt for anything Hillary said or did or planned.  After 15 years of this stuff, I wouldn’t have liked the media much either.

Paul has been hanging out with his buds at the NYTimes too long.  He has started to believe what ever new fantasy they are promoting these days.  This new meme about voters longing for Ronald Reagan is pretty stupid.  I don’t doubt that some of McCain’s fans are waxing nostalgic for the Great Communicator but I suspect the real source of their discontent is similar to ours on the left who can’t stand Obama.  It’s like we didn’t have any choice in the matter.  The media did the picking of our nominee this year.  The voters were superfluous.  We on the Democratic side were steamrolled if we wanted Hillary Clinton.  We’ve been told that neither our opposition or our votes are legitimate.  Both the DNC and the media had a hand in stripping us of our ability to affect the election.  But our resistance to Obama is not about Hillary anymore.  It’s about preserving our right to self determination.

Now, Republican voters are getting a taste of that same media fueled Obama juggernaut.  Those of us on the left who experienced the “Hillary can’t win, it’s mathematically impossible” haka that began in February recognize the “It’s over.  Obama won!” haka of October.  But Republican voters have yet to connect this meme with the intense psychological warfare that David Axelrod is throwing at them with the media’s help.  And Krugman is completely wrong when he connects the agitiation of the anti-Obama voters with Reagan.  I survived the Reagan years as a college student.  There is nothing about Reagan that I liked, admired or wish to have again.  I loathed the guy.  In fact, I really wish both McCain and Palin would drop the lavish praise of Reagan.  Whenever he is mentioned, I lose whatever tepid warmth I have for the Republican ticket.

Today we see a new media frenzy over Sarah Palin’s Troopergate problem.  I guess I’ve been watching the Hillary vs Sally problem long enough to know that it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans and no one but the media and the cognitively dissonant in the Obamasphere will care.  So, she tried to get her brother in law fired after he did some things that would get most people fired.  So she went about it the wrong way.  The way the media is behaving, you’d think the only reason she ran for governor was so she could use the full force of her office to torment and harrass this one man.  It reminds me of the massive amount of ink that was wasted on Hillary’s missing billing records and the federal case that was made out of that.  Or the unintentional exaggeration she made of one of her Bosnia trips.  Or her firing of the White House travel office.  Who frickin’ cares?

They all pale in comparison to Obama’s campaign staff intimidating and threatening delegates at the convention and invalidating the primary election results in 57 states.  It can’t hold a candle to the manipulation of the primary results by the DNC on Obama’s behalf that he accepted without protest.  It doesn’t come close to the fraud, verbal and physical bullying that happened during the caucuses.  It’s not nearly as enraging to voters as the Obama surrogates who accuse us of racism while they undermine us with sexism. The media barely covered any of this so we’ve had to document the atrocities on our own.  Obama may be their darling, but he isn’t ours

What I can’t understand is how it is that Krugman, the Princeton economics professor with the massive brain that crunches data without effort, can’t understand what’s really going on with voters at McCain rallies who resent the media’s interference with their ability to make a decision and have it count.

Go figure.

Some other folks who didn’t get the memo…

So Hillary is out of the race now, supposedly. I have no idea where she is. I hope she is on vacation somewhere far away, completely insulated from the media’s continuing attacks. And they are continuing, even though the media and the DNC have supposedly ended Hillary’s presidential bid. Here are just a couple of examples.

A couple of days ago, the lovely and talented Monica Crowley of MSNBO, while she was guest-hosting The Laura Ingraham Show. talked about what Hillary would do to political enemies who backed Barack Obama.

You know, if you’re backing the “hope” guy, well, that’s too bad for you, and it will be too bad for you because girlfriend will cut you. She will strap you into the electric chair. Then she will waterboard you. Then she will slowly and methodically pull off each one of your toenails. Then she will deprive you of sleep by blasting “The Best of the ’80s Hair Bands” at you, and then she will cut off your manhood, and then she will throw the switch. This is what Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Bill Richardson, Oprah, and Maria Shriver all have to look forward to. None of them should be starting their personal cars in the morning.

There is lots more of Crowley’s rantings against both Clintons at Media Matters.

And then there’s this charming column from long-time Clinton hater Sally Quinn. Quinn advises Hillary to go away for awhile (one gets the feeling she would like it to be a very long time) on a mindfulness retreat where she can find herself, which Quinn condescendingly claims Hillary has never had the chance to do.

She gave up a promising career as a Washington lawyer to move with him to Arkansas. She changed her name. She married him knowing about the other women in his life.

She helped him run for president, first as the “buy-one-get-one free” co-president who wasn’t going to spend time having teas and baking cookies, then as the “stand-by-your-man” little woman on “60 Minutes” after the Gennifer Flowers story broke.

Once in the White House she changed her hairdo, her style of dressing and her mannerisms so often that it seemed to some that she was suffering from multiple personality disorder. She was the health care maven, then the hostess, then, after Monica, the victimized wife again, standing by her man.

When she ran for Senate and won it was largely because of her marriage to Bill Clinton. When she ran for President she had the same problem. It was never just Hillary Clinton.

The incomparable Bob Sommerby eviscerated Quinn here.

If you have other examples, please share them in the comments, or use this as an open thread.