I hope everyone takes the time to actually read the article by John Heilemann (no Clinton enthusiast) that Kos cites in his recent blog post - all the way to the bitter, pointed end. It's a devastating indictment not only of much of what takes place on this site, but also of Kos's posts themselves.
As Kos decided to reference the article in a favorable light, I wonder if he reflected on the role that his post(s) and the DailyKos itself play in validating the misleading double standard that is imposed on Hillary Clinton in comparison to Barack Obama. Kos, you are not an innocent bystander.
Let me be clear, I'm not exonerating the Clinton campaign for its many mistakes in this campaign so far, which the article amply chronicles. But Heilemann's broader point is that she really has not been treated fairly by any objective standard. As a sometimes lonely Clinton supporter on this site (who still likes Obama), I see this biased treatment of her playing out...Daily...at this place.
Here are a few extended quotes from the Heillman article. First, the general thesis:
Divergence in tone is one thing, double standards are another. And it’s the latter that most galls the former advisers to the other, now-departed, Democratic candidates. "Obama has been able to get away with a stunning amount of hypocrisy that would get called on her," says one such operative. "They’ve run the nastiest, most deceptive pieces of paid media: the mailer they did lying about her health-care plan, with the Harry and Louise look-alikes. The idea that it took Hillary growling Tony Rezko’s name in a debate to get any national coverage. How he complained in Iowa about 527s and then had them supporting him like crazy in Nevada and California. And nobody says a peep about it. It’s fucking comical!"
More examples of the double standards:
There are countless other examples of this syndrome, both large and small. The way that Clinton’s famous fumbling of a question about whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to have driver’s licenses in a debate last fall was hammered on for weeks—whereas Obama’s flubbing of the same question in the next debate was essentially let slide. The way that Obama’s evisceration of his rival in his stump speeches was applauded by the media—whereas Clinton’s plunge into negative territory was widely condemned. The way that Clinton was roundly criticized for being inaccessible, and thus unaccountable, to the press—when Obama has since January been even less available for questioning than she.
Again, I'm not excusing actions by the Clinton campaign that have fed this perception. On the other hand, isn't it exactly our responsibility as progressives to see through the unfair treatment?
The implication of our collective failure, in how it biases the way this campaign is viewed:
The implications of Obama’s and Clinton’s respective meta-narratives for their press coverage have been profound. For Clinton, the inability to change the story line meant that any vaguely negative maneuver was interpreted in the darkest possible light, for it reinforced a preexisting supposition. For Obama, however, any criticism could be fended off as a manifestation of grubby old politics. And any act he committed that could be perceived as nefarious created cognitive dissonance. As Just points out, a prime example is the case of Tony Rezko, the now-indicted Chicago fixer and slumlord to whom Obama has been linked for many years. "There was no way for the press to believe it wasn’t true—because, you know, it looks like people are going to jail," she says. "So instead the press dismisses the story as an aberration."
Lest Obama supporters think your candidate can skate by forever and never face the music, please read Heilemann's concluding paragraph carefully.
The trouble for Obama is that the Republicans aren’t terribly likely to let that dismissal stand—nor the polite avoidance of discussing his controversial minister, his wayward youth, or, indeed, his blackness itself. Again and again, as Clinton often points out, the GOP has proved painfully adept at taking compelling, carefully honed meta-narratives and blowing them to pieces. In ways too numerous to mention, Obama has been toughened up by the primary process. But no matter what his handlers say, the notion that he’s been subjected to the most withering press scrutiny imaginable is—how to put this?—a fairy tale. His success has turned in no small part on his skill at avoiding such flyspecking, and on his rival’s inability to muster the same kind of dexterity. If Obama winds up facing John McCain, a man whose meta-narrative is spun from pure gold, he is unlikely to be so fortunate again.
Thanks, Kos, for pointing me to the article. It's one of the most insightful and balanced I've read analyzing the campaign. But instead of using one paragraph that disses the Clinton campaign to further your recent bashing...instead of looking around and saying 'who me?'...how about a little introspection.
Please, progressives, stop demonizing Hillary Clinton and recognize the role you are playing in the distortions and fundamental unfairness that is taking place. We need to do better, collectively.