A Candid Revelation About Hillary Clinton’s Public Image


Rove-ClintonEverything you need to know about coverage of Hillary Clinton is contained in this short NYT quote:

In recent weeks, Crossroads [brainchild of Karl Rove and other leading Republican strategists] has begun carving a niche for itself in attacking Hillary Rodham Clinton, the presumed Democratic front-runner. The group will use polling data and opposition research to paint her as “a typical politician who would say or do anything to get elected,” said Steven Law, president of Crossroads.

It’s rare to get such a candid description of the process by which anti-Hillary frames are created and spread. This is the central theme I’ve explored in a series of posts about the character attacks directed at Hillary:

Pwning Hillary: Inside the Innerati’s Clinton Obsession
The Swiftboating of Hillary Clinton
Hillary Decoder: The Guide to Anti-Clinton Memes

One of my objectives has been to illustrate how the major anti-Hillary memes are generated by GOP opposition research groups and disseminated (wittingly or unwittingly) by the mainstream media. Hillary’s opponents and critics parrot these memes without a clue about their origin:

  • POLARIZING
  • CALCULATING
  • SECRETIVE
  • DISINGENUOUS/INSINCERE
  • TOO AMBITIOUS
  • WILL DO ANYTHING TO WIN
  • REPRESENTS THE PAST
  • OUT OF TOUCH
  • INEVITABLE
  • ENTITLED/OVER-CONFIDENT
  • DEFIANT

In my “Hillary Decoder” post, written weeks before the Crossroads quote linked above, I said the following:

The various narratives and frames (“calculating,” “secretive,” “polarizing,” etc.) paint Hillary Clinton’s actions in the most negative possible light. These are carefully crafted and patently false scripts, many of which were concocted years ago in GOP oppo shops to demean and dehumanize her. Distinct from legitimate policy critiques, these lazy shortcuts have seeped so deeply into traditional media coverage that it is virtually impossible to read anything about Hillary Clinton without encountering them.

Crossroads’ president openly admits that the group is artificially concocting an attack against Hillary “using polling data and opposition research to paint her” as craven and unscrupulous, willing to do “anything to get elected.”

For anyone who doesn’t fully understand the obstacles Hillary faces in her quest to shatter the ultimate glass ceiling, they should take note of this Crossroads revelation. When the mainstream media, in a two week period, peddle terms like “Machiavellian, musty-smelling, stale, secretive, calculating, imperious, paranoid, petulant, defiant, devious, scrambles in the dirt” to describe Hillary, voters need to understand that there is a systematic process of character destruction going on behind the scenes.

Notably, the “she’ll do anything to win” frame has a deeply sexist subtext, transforming an attribute that would be defined as laudable ambition and achievement in a man into nefarious scheming by a woman. As my fellow Hillary Man Tom Watson and I have argued, sexism in 2016 will rear its ugly head in unexpected ways, often cloaked in attacks that are not directly centered on Hillary’s gender. Our mission during this campaign season is to continue to expose the mechanisms by which Hillary’s detractors work to distort and destroy Hillary’s public image.

The Swiftboating of Hillary Clinton


John KerryIn the early months of 2004, I sent an alert to the senior staff of John Kerry’s presidential campaign. I was alarmed about a growing online movement questioning his Vietnam service. Sites like Winter Soldier, Free Republic, and others were buzzing with anti-Kerry activity and I sensed a storm heading Kerry’s way. My role as the campaign’s online communications advisor was hazy to some of the old-school strategists. Blogs were a novelty to them and if it wasn’t on the evening news, it wasn’t news.

Since my alert was about a threat to Kerry’s military career, I was directed to the leadership of his Veterans team. I informed them that trouble lay ahead and that we should begin to fight back immediately on the forums where the attacks were happening. The campaign’s decision was to monitor the online situation carefully. By August it was too late – the attack that later entered the political lexicon was about to explode through the media into the public consciousness and deal a gut-wrenching blow to Kerry’s image.

Part of the reason I joined Kerry’s team was my respect for a man who volunteered to serve his country when others were scrambling for deferments. Having grown up in a war zone in Beirut and been conscripted into the Lebanese Forces militia at 15, I was keenly aware of what it was like to be in the line of fire. The fact that Kerry was being savaged for his time in the military – a time that he chose to place himself in harm’s way – was despicable to me. It was painful to be working in his war room for the duration of the swift boat attacks and to see the aftermath.

hillary-clintonFast forward to 2015 and I’m watching a similar process unfold, this time with Hillary Clinton. And just as I did in 2004, I have a personal stake in the outcome. The crux of my professional career has been my work with the Clintons. I’ve been a long-time advisor to the Clinton Global Initiative and was Hillary’s digital media strategist for several years. [I use her first name only because her current campaign does, otherwise I would refer to her as Secretary Clinton]. I lived in her 2008 war room and slept with my (then) Blackberry under my pillow for all of 2007 and half of 2008. My daughter is a Clinton campaign baby and for her sake I vowed to do my part to help elect Hillary as America’s first woman president.

The point of this post is simple: The 2016 election is not a replay of 2012 (the data election); it is not a replay of 2008 (the dueling histories election); it is a replay of 2004 (the swift boat election). The well-coordinated assault on the Clinton Foundation, the pillar of the Clintons’ many achievements, is analogous to the brazen assault on the pillar of John Kerry’s career, his decorated military service.

A superficial reading of swiftboating is that it is an attack on a candidate’s strength. The truism that emerged from the 2004 campaign, and that Democrats are always eager to trumpet, is that you should never leave an attack unanswered for fear of magnifying it. Hit back early and hit back hard to protect your reputation. That may be true, but swiftboating is a far more complex process, an intricate interplay between the conservative oppo/attack infrastructure and the mainstream media. In 2004, the Internet was a factor insofar as blogs were a nascent force. Today, social platforms are a mass amplifier that make swiftboating easier and faster.

The Kerry attacks were about planting seeds of doubt about his service. The media’s role was one of legitimation and magnification. Under the rubric of what they believed was justifiable news reporting, the major outlets gave the swift boat attacks the legitimacy they lacked on Free Republic.

Similarly, the full-scale barrage hitting the Clinton Foundation is the result of a complicated interplay among conservative oppo shops, rightwing authors, GOP politicians and the mainstream media, with the latter acting, once again, as a legitimating force. I am not impugning the integrity or motives of reporters. What I am saying is that they are playing a central role in the anti-Clinton attacks.

The unacknowledged hallmark of true swiftboating is that we fail to recognize the damage before it is too late, primarily because of our natural human tendency toward denial. We simply cannot fathom that a foundational element of our self-worth is being dismantled before our eyes. Unlike previous Clinton faux-scandals, this is about the very core of Hillary’s positive impact in the world.

We need to call the attack on the Clinton Foundation what it is: the swiftboating of Hillary Clinton.

Paul Waldman elaborates:

Clinton opponents, with the enthusiastic cooperation of the news media, have been [successful] at taking a charitable foundation that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on worthy causes and turning it into something that is widely assumed to be shady and suspect by its very nature.

The Clinton Foundation and CGI have saved millions of lives. The Clinton family are rightfully proud of the immense good they’ve done in the world through their foundation. Despite mountains of digital ink, not a shred of wrongdoing has been demonstrated on the part of the Clintons or their staff. As it was with John Kerry, this is all about the so-called “appearance of impropriety,” not any actual impropriety. It is a partisan political attack designed to hobble Hillary’s election prospects.

The playbook to deal with this attack is not from the data-driven 2012 Obama campaign nor from the grassroots movement-building of 2008. It is from the long summer of 2004.

Three Cornerstones of Hillary Clinton’s Candidacy


The consensus is that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign rollout has been a success. But that doesn’t really matter. What matters are the three cornerstones of her candidacy:

  • Hillary Clinton is far and away the most qualified, experienced and prepared candidate among the announced and unannounced candidates for president in 2016, Democrat or Republican.
  • On a broad array of issues that really matter, from climate change to the economy to human rights to campaign finance to health care, Hillary Clinton’s policies will be better for America than those of her Republican rivals.
  • America deserves – history deserves – a woman president after nearly a quarter millennium of men holding that office. Specifically, a woman president who has consistently placed the rights of women and girls atop the global agenda.

As a veteran of two presidential campaigns and several congressional races, I know how difficult it is to stay focused on the real issues at stake in an election when the first law of political coverage takes hold:

Process over policy is the principle that governs campaign coverage in modern politics.

With Hillary Clinton, that law is pushed to extremes of absurdity. As Eric Boehlert explains:

After “news” broke that Clinton, en route to Iowa to meet with voters, stopped in at an Ohio Chipotle for lunch and that the order was captured on film, the press corps basically went bonkers, treating it like a Tupac sighting and going all-in with fevered reporting. The New York Times first got hold of the security cam video and reported that Clinton’s order “included a Blackberry Izze drink, a soda and a chicken salad, and was filled just after 1 p.m.” (1:20 p.m., to be exact, according to the New York Daily News.) Who carried the tray after payment? Clinton herself, the Times explained to readers.

It is not just the national media who bear responsibility for this silliness. In a previous post I introduced the term “innerati” for lack of a better word to describe the people who determine what America talks about: The “innerati” are a motley group of high achievers scattered along the Acela corridor — reporters, pundits, bloggers, politicians, strategists, opinion makers, operatives and insiders who frame the national debate. By luck, effort or circumstance, they are in a position to determine what America thinks and talks about. And more than anything, they want to talk about Hillary Clinton.

The innerati are focused primarily on the ‘how’ of a campaign. The vast majority of coverage and commentary in 2016 will be about how Hillary planned this speech or prepared that video; how she and her advisors parried this attack or rebutted that critique; how she prepped for this debate or did a photo op with that voter; how she hired this staffer or consulted that strategist. Even when the topic is ostensibly about policy, readers will be tempted with process, the obsessive desire to get ‘behind’ and ‘inside’ the story, distracting from what really matters, namely, that America is in the process of choosing a president who will be responsible for managing a portfolio of life and death challenges.

For Hillary supporters, these distractions will be hard to avoid. After all, it is only natural to look where everyone is pointing. Chipotle-mania is not the only kind of distraction Hillary supporters will have to contend with. There will be gratuitous political attacks that are given far more play than they deserve, and books that cash in on the Clinton name, laden with false aspersions and breathless innuendo. One of those books is now being touted as the NBP (next big problem) for Hillary. It will fade, like all the others.

In the months ahead, there will be a concerted effort among the innerati to place the focus on anything and everything but the three cornerstones of Hillary’s campaign that I enumerated above. It will be the task of Hillary’s supporters to stay hyper-focused on what really matters and not to get caught up in the process frenzy.

Dawn of The Hillary Man


HRC NEWPeter Daou and Tom Watson – writers, strategists, consultants, and long-time political collaborators – declare the dawn of the Hillary Man.

PETER:

America is embarking on a historic journey that should culminate in the election of our first woman president, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The journey will be long and tortuous, marked by emotional highs and political lows, attacks, counterattacks, stumbles, missteps, manufactured controversies, mud-slinging, hand-wringing, door-knocking, phone-banking, delegate-counting, Periscope and Meerkat moments, debate debacles, email avalanches, big data, small data, smart data, information overload, geekfests, trollfests, money bombs, Tweetstorms, scoops, leaks, media transgressions, polling obsessions, breathless headlines, baseless predictions, and dizzying twists and turns that will captivate us until the final moments of the campaign.

I make no secret about my personal investment in the process. It has been a life mission of mine to help elect a woman president and one day I hope to tell my young daughter that I did my small part in achieving that goal.

I was a senior staffer at Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign and an advisor before that. I have done a decade of consulting for the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation. In all my encounters, I have been treated with the utmost integrity and respect by the Clinton family, staff and advisors. These are good people, dedicated to changing the world for the better. They are tireless and focused, disciplined and intelligent. The best that America has to offer.

I think of friends and former campaign colleagues like Adam Parkhomenko, Karen Finney, Neera Tanden, Mandy Grunwald, Nick Merrill, Robby Mook, Andrew Bleeker, Huma Abedin, Katie Dowd, Matt McKenna, Bari Lurie, Guy Cecil, Cheryl Mills, Jonathan Mantz, Valerie Alexander, Minyon Moore, Jamie Smith, Jennifer Palmieri, Patti Solis Doyle, Jessica O’Connell, Burns Strider, Ann Lewis, Nathaniel Pearlman, Maggie Williams, Craig Minassian, Tracy Sefl, Dennis Cheng, Jennifer Hanley, Jake Sullivan, Adrienne Elrod, Caroline Adler, Kiki McLean, Philippe Reines, Dana Singiser, Blake Zeff, Fabiola Rodríguez-Ciampoli, Traci Otey Blunt, Brian Deese, Jon Davidson, Angel Urena, Haley Stevens, Capricia Marshall, Laurie Rubiner, Mike Henry, Seth Bringman, Kevin Thurman, Crystal Patterson, Jove Oliver, Tamera Luzzatto and so many others. All heads down, results oriented, hardworking individuals. Decent people. Hearts in the right place.

There’s something more. During this campaign, we will witness the dawn of the Hillary Man. There is much talk about the important role women will play in the 2016 race. Just as crucial is the contribution of men who reject the rampant sexism and misogyny plaguing our world, the pervasive oppression of women and girls that stains every corner of this planet.

I have written extensively about this greatest of human travesties:

  • One out of every three women will be a victim of violence in her lifetime.
  • Women and girls ages 15 to 44 are more likely to be maimed or killed by men than by malaria, cancer, war or traffic accidents combined.
  • In some parts of the world a girl is more likely to be raped than to learn how to read.
  • Murder is a leading cause of death for pregnant women.
  • The children most at risk of attempted abduction by strangers are girls ages 10 to 14.
  • Every year, 60 million girls are sexually assaulted at or on their way to school.
  • Every 2 minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted.
  • 97% of rapists will never spend a day in jail.
  • Femicide is the leading cause of on-the-job death for women.
  • Only about one third of countries around the world have laws in place to combat violence against women, and in most of these countries those laws are not enforced.
  • In addition to sex-selective abortions, millions of girls and women are killed after birth through starvation and violence, forced abortions, ‘honor’ killings, dowry murders, and witch lynchings.

One thing is for certain in the 2016 campaign: the ultimate glass ceiling will not give way without a Herculean effort. As Tom and I both understand, sexism will rear its ugly head in myriad, unexpected ways. But if anyone can mount a successful assault on that glass ceiling, it’s Hillary Clinton.

Standing with her at every step will be the Hillary Men across America, who will help smash that ceiling, understanding both the symbolism and practicality of a women’s rights champion like Hillary Clinton in the White House.

TOM:

We are at the start of the most important feminist election cycle in American history. It’s not just that the most qualified female candidate is likely to win the nomination of her party for President for the first time ever. It’s not just that the score in national U.S. politics remains a complete shut out, at 44-0. It’s not just that Hillary Clinton is the most admired woman in the United States and a liberal Democrat with more than three decades of public service behind her.

It’s that this time around – next year in fact – an explicit gender lens will be applied to a national election for the first time in the nation’s history.

As men with public voices who have observed, commented on, and been allies of the growing and powerful network of organizers, social activists, and policy-makers that comprises the modern push for civil and economic equality for women, Peter and I are committed to seeing that gender lens applied appropriately.

We are committed to having that discussion about women and politics, about the great global civil rights struggle of our times, and about the nature of power that has excluded or limited half the population for far too long.

And yes, we have a candidate. We are both Democrats, both believers in progressive public policy and the power of government to help people – and we are both committed to the work of the social sector and the belief that a helping hand is part of what builds both small communities and great nations.

We are Hillary Men.

And yes, very specifically we are *men* for Hillary Clinton. We are consciously appealing to our brothers in public life and public speech, in party politics and corporate leadership, and on the broad social commons to apply their own gender lens to the 2016 election – and to commit to supporting an eminently qualified women to be our next President.

Just as there were Roosevelt Men and Kennedy Men, we believe there will be Hillary Men – men who answer history’s call to change the score, and help elect a woman to the highest office.

We understand that sexual bias in public life – and in the media – remains a barrier to the Presidency. We know that while Hillary Clinton has distinct advantages, she also faces a higher bar.

Our commitment in 2016 is not about the realization that sodden gender bias is as accepted in American politics as being left-handed. It is about the future and chance before us now – in our case, as politically active men. And while we intend to call out overt sexism and more subtle gender bias when we see it, our main goal is to make the ongoing case for electing the first woman President – and to argue that electing her is a vital and legitimate political and cultural goal for American men.

Rarely in U.S. political history has a prospective candidate come to the starting gate in a presidential campaign with as much experience, knowledge, and insight into the workings of government as Hillary Clinton does ahead of the 2016 campaign. As a liberal who has long fought for the rights of the disenfranchised, and who has battled to extend the American social contract, Hillary Clinton can and should lay claim to the mantle of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson – as well as to the political legacy of the two great Democrats she’s worked most closely with: Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

To be clear, neither of us believes in perfect alignment in political life. We disagree all the time on issues. We sometimes disagree with President Obama, we sometimes disagreed with President Clinton, and we disagree on occasion with Hillary Clinton. Our personal views on policy, both foreign and domestic, place us firmly in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Yet we both know that Hillary Clinton is a strong liberal who is committed through a lifetime of service to the ideals that form the foundation of our own liberalism. In short, we march under the same banner.

This is a singular moment in American political history – but it also arrives at a crucial time for the world. As I’ve written before, over the last quarter century, Hillary Clinton has succeeded in placing the interests of women and girls atop the global development agenda. She didn’t do it alone — her partners included a network of brave human rights leaders around the world, as well as global and regional NGOs and the United Nations. But two aspects of this journey cannot be denied, even by those who dislike Clinton for political or personal reasons: she used every facet of every office and position she had to pursue this effort — from First Lady to U.S. Senator to the State Department—and her name is synonymous in the global movement for equal rights for women and girls with that ongoing fight for justice.

This matters. Indeed, it helps to define and legitimize the explicit gender lens we are suggesting men of goodwill place on the 2016 presidential campaign. Political enemies like to ask derisively: “what has Hillary Clinton ever accomplished?” This is the answer – and it’s also the challenge: can we support the most accomplished woman in U.S. politics in achieving the nation’s highest office – a role she is obviously qualified for – with the intent of changing the national scorecard?

And can we (again, as men) do this for our daughters, our mothers, our sisters, our spouses, our colleagues, our families, our friends? I think we can, and I think we must.

Politics is not blind to race, to class, or to gender. Every fiber of American electoral history tells us that. In 2008, many of us wept openly at the sight of an African-American man speaking on Election Night – not just because we admired him (though we did) but because his victory was (and is) part of a long, imperfect, often frustrating but deeply important struggle for justice in this country.

This is another moment that reaches into that human part of us that demands justice, and calls us to action. It is a time to make history once again – and what a privilege that is.

So yes, we are Hillary Men. We are applying an explicit gender lens to this election. We are speaking out and we will continue to do so.

Hillary Decoder: The Guide to Anti-Clinton Memes [UPDATED]


decoderNOTE: Updates are at the end of the post.

The national media have never been more primed to take down Hillary Clinton (and, by the same token, elevate a Republican candidate)Politico

My intention here is simple: detail the various narratives and frames (“calculating,” “secretive,” “polarizing,” etc.) that paint Hillary Clinton’s actions in the most negative possible light. These are carefully crafted and patently false scripts, many of which were concocted years ago in GOP oppo shops to demean and dehumanize her. Distinct from legitimate policy critiques, these lazy shortcuts have seeped so deeply into traditional media coverage that it is virtually impossible to read anything about Hillary Clinton without encountering them.

Every public figure is subject to criticism. What is unique in Clinton’s case is that personal attacks which would normally be the province of political opponents and critics are promulgated by the mainstream news media.

To illustrate the convergence, I’ve put together two word mashups. The first is a list of adjectives describing Hillary Clinton drawn from two articles in the conservative publications Townhall and National Review. The second is a compilation of terms from just two weeks of Clinton coverage in supposedly non-partisan media outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, and NBC News. Both yield a grotesque caricature of the actual person, but it is hard to say which is more egregious.

National Review & Townhall: “Lovecraftian monster, the Cthulhu of American politics, short of clever, too old and out of touch, edifice to deceit, slithered out of Washington, Faustian, passion-quelling pantsuit.”

Mainstream media: “Machiavellian, musty-smelling, stale, secretive, calculating, imperious, paranoid, petulant, defiant, devious, scrambles in the dirt.”

Each journalist or media source will justify their particular choice of terms, but the net effect is that mainstream media coverage of Hillary Clinton is soaked in veiled (and sometimes explicit) sexism, politically-charged framing and character assassination. When a New York Times or Washington Post article is indistinguishable from a rightwing publication, you know something is amiss.

None of this is meant to place Hillary Clinton above reproach, simply to illustrate the complex process by which these memes are regurgitated, repeated and reinforced.

For example, a reporter may attribute a negative frame to a political opponent, then subtly echo the same attack line.

Example from the New York Times:

And for someone who has so long been lampooned, and demonized on the right, as overly calculating, playing up her gender as a strength would also allow her to demonstrate her nurturing, maternal — and newly grandmotherly — side to voters whom she may have left cold in the past.

The reader is first primed with the narrative that Hillary Clinton is “overly calculating” then told she is “playing up her gender,” which echoes the theme of calculation. [For a more detailed explanation of how this process works, read about Inoculation Theory.]

National Journal reverses the order, going with the attack first and the priming second:

The media and the American public are familiar with the stale Clinton tricks, which now only play into the GOP caricature that Hillary Clinton is calculating, paranoid, and wholly political.

Memes spread through repetition. In the examples above, the repeated word is “calculating.” Another favorite is “secretive.”

USA Today alludes to Hillary Clinton’s “reputation for secrecy.”

Mirrored by the Washington Post: “her penchant for secrecy.”

NBC News: “Folks, this is the Clinton Way. Secretive.”

TIME: “penchant for secrecy.”

The Hill: “a paranoid, secretive politician.”

New York Times: “[T]he imbroglio could grow into a problem if Mrs. Clinton comes to be seen as unduly secretive or imperious in the months ahead.”

Remember, these instances are from two weeks of coverage in major news outlets. The recursive effect is obvious: the more the word “secrecy” is associated with Hillary Clinton, the more reporters and critics will use it, the more it will be associated with her, the more… you get the point.

A common feature of these memes is that other people’s criticisms are ascribed to Clinton as a negative personal trait. The term “polarizing” is typically peddled by people who are attacking her, thus creating the very polarization they are lamenting. Case in point, from The Hill: Clinton fails to calm email storm. The entire article is about the fact that her opponents intend to keep attacking her. How is that Hillary Clinton’s failure?

Politico uses the same technique, opening an article by calling her “devious” then concluding it by asserting that “it’s hard to win if you’re constantly on the defensive.” See the trap? Attack her, then claim she’s on the defensive.

Similarly, the ‘inevitability’ frame is an artificial perch that others place her on and then try to knock her off. And when her behavior doesn’t conform to the media’s expectations, she is “defiant.”

From The Hill:

While Clinton kept a calm demeanor throughout the press conference, she appeared defiant on one point.

NBC News:

A Defiant Clinton Brushes Off Email Controversy

It goes on and on. Coverage of Hillary Clinton is littered with references to her hair, fashion, health and family – innuendo and insinuation that have no direct relevance to her policies. The terminology used to describe her would be unacceptable for any other respected public figure.

A Washington Post reporter appearing on MSNBC made reference to “Clinton, Inc.” (the implication is obvious). Politico uses the term “Machiavellian” to describe her team’s strategy. Not to be outdone, TIME waxes poetic, describing her response to an attack as a “scramble in the dirt on the crabbed limbs of legal compliance.” The Washington Post compares her to a “stale, musty” old car. The New Yorker prefers the blatantly sexist “petulant.”

Below are the top anti-Clinton memes. See if you can spot them the next time you read about her. Better yet, see if you can find any Hillary Clinton coverage that doesn’t use some version of the following:

  • POLARIZING
  • CALCULATING
  • SECRETIVE
  • DISINGENUOUS/INSINCERE
  • TOO AMBITIOUS
  • WILL DO ANYTHING TO WIN
  • REPRESENTS THE PAST
  • OUT OF TOUCH
  • INEVITABLE
  • ENTITLED/OVER-CONFIDENT
  • DEFIANT

____________

UPDATE 1:  A classic lede from Patrick Healy, one of the masters of anti-Clinton memes:

On one side is a crowd of Republicans trying to look presidential. On the other side is a lone Democrat trying to look normal.

Translation: Hillary Clinton is abnormal but trying to manipulate perceptions to appear normal.

UPDATE 2:  From US News:

Clinton is trying to keep the media at bay but at the same time avoid public bursts of anger at them or displays of petulance, which would lessen her likability.

UPDATE 3:  Under the guise of the insulting question, “Can you be a bad person but a strong leader?” David Brooks employs convoluted logic and fake interrogatories to spread a cornucopia of anti-Clinton tropes:

They tend to have sleazy friends … Their pride is bloated and sensitive … They keep an enemies list and life becomes a matter of settling scores and imagining conspiracies … Maybe once upon a time there was an environment in which ruthless Machiavellians had room to work their dark arts, but we don’t live in Renaissance Italy … They don’t have to think through the dangers of tit-for-tat favor-exchanges with billionaires.

UPDATE 4:  Patrick Healy strikes again, with a tutorial in anti-Clinton memes titled (believe it or not) Hillary Clinton Shows New Willingness to Run a Divisive Campaign. In a remarkable illustration of the power of framing, Maggie Haberman, another NYT reporter, tweeted a link to Healy’s piece saying, “a more confident Clinton this time around.” Contrast her choice of words and Healy’s and ask why he avoided her more positive framing. [An hour after I posted this update and tweeted at Healy and Haberman, the headline was changed to: “Hillary Clinton Shows New Willingness to Tackle Risky Issues”]

If the headline isn’t bad enough, consider the terms that appear in this article: “get under her skin, cold, cautious, scandals-be-damned attitude, barreling ahead, not every day that a lawyer like Mrs. Clinton discovers a new constitutional protection, Hillary unbound, twisted herself into knots.”

It’s important to understand the process here: the overall article may make valid political points, but it is delivered in a way that leaves the reader with a negative impression of the subject of the story. This is a quintessential example of how the mainstream media engage in character destruction with Hillary Clinton.

UPDATE 5:  Sexist insinuations and gratuitous editorializing from a NY Times article:

Unlike in 2008, when Mrs. Clinton’s regal bearing was brought low by Barack Obama’s insurgent campaign …

Magically animated from a wax museum to claim what is rightfully hers.

And here’s the tweet the reporter posted as a link to his story: “Queen Hillary and the Everyday Americans of the Round Table”

So much for just reporting the facts.

Pwning Hillary: Inside the Innerati’s Clinton Obsession


hillary-clintonHillary Clinton is indomitable. Famous. Funny. Fearless. The Euclidean center of political gravity. Because of who she is and what she is, because she is a woman in a world where women aren’t supposed to be Hillary Clinton, because she is the yardstick against which the innerati measure their own accomplishments, the slightest whiff of vulnerability triggers a feeding frenzy.

The “innerati” are a motley group of high achievers scattered along the Acela corridor — reporters, pundits, bloggers, politicians, strategists, opinion makers, operatives and insiders who frame the national debate. By luck, effort or circumstance, they are in a position to determine what America thinks and talks about. And more than anything, they want to talk about Hillary Clinton.

Their obsession with her is not just about political rivalry, clickbait, or journalism. It is rooted in their need to belong.

The innerati speak about Hillary Clinton in tones that betray ambition, frustration, admiration, insecurity, envy, and competitiveness. Will she run or won’t she? Is she the frontrunner or isn’t she? How much money does she make? Does she use a private email account or doesn’t she? Who gets to be on the inside with her? Who’s out? Who has access? Who doesn’t?

The innerati want to be ‘in’ for existential validation. To them, Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of ‘in.’ They gravitate to her like moths to light, yearning to be part of her orbit. Falling short, they try to cut her down.

Schoolyard antics shaping our public discourse.

Forget her unparalleled record on women’s rights, the astonishing scope of global good done by the foundation that bears her family’s name, the example of self-discipline and achievement she sets for girls around the world.

No. For the innerati, it’s all about process. Not the what but the how. Not the substance of emails, but the servers. Not the facts but the optics.

For decades, the innerati have indulged in one Hillary Clinton feeding frenzy after another, methodically constructing mountains, only to see them crumble like molehills. With each episode, there’s the breathless hope that she’s finally been taken down, cut down to size, put in “her place.” A “woman’s place.”

But something funny keeps happening. Hillary Clinton only becomes stronger, more respected, more significant, and more popular.

The public sees beyond the negative frames. The chasm between the real Hillary Clinton and the caricature, between the person and the portrait, has become clear. The pervasive and predictable anti-Hillary themes have failed. “Too ambitious.” “Represents the past.” “Will do anything to win.” “Calculating.” “Secretive.” “Polarizing.” These tropes have served the innerati for so long that they instinctively return to them. They’re doing it now. To no avail.

I have a personal take on why Hillary Clinton’s reputation is so resilient. Early on a Sunday morning in the summer of 2006, a week after she had hired me as an advisor and after an outbreak of violence in the Middle East, my home phone rang. “Peter, it’s Hillary, I was just calling to make sure your friends and family in Lebanon are OK.” It immediately struck me: the reason Hillary Clinton has so many fiercely loyal friends and advisors, so many fans and supporters, is because of her character, her friendship, her loyalty.

It sounds tautological but she is who she is because of who she is. A singular human being, a unique combination of inner fortitude, intelligence and vision.

During a particularly vicious sexist attack in 2008, Hillary Clinton used the phrase “tip of the spear” to describe her role as a woman aiming at the ultimate glass ceiling.

That glass ceiling hasn’t been shattered in a quarter millennium for a reason. The innerati’s obsessive quest to dull the spear, to pwn Hillary Clinton, may not be gender-biased on an individual level, but the collective effect is to try to set up insurmountable obstacles, to block her path.

That’s what the institutional sexism that has kept that glass ceiling intact will look like if Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016. Not a direct attack on her gender, not cheap shots about her hair or clothes, not vaguely misogynistic insinuations, but a gleeful mob effect at the slightest suggestion of weakness.

If she runs, for the sake of my young daughter, I hope she powers through it. I hope the spear finally hits its mark.

America unhinged: Palin and Boehner equate Quran-burning with mosque-building



Illustrating the power of one individual to hijack the national spotlight, Pastor Terry Jones’ plan to burn the Quran has compelled Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama to weigh in:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask you about Pastor Terry Jones. He gave a press conference today. Says he’s going to go through with burning the Korans. Is there anything you can say to him to convince him not to?

OBAMA: If he’s listening, I just hope he understands that what he’s proposing to do is completely contrary to our values of Americans. That this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance. And as a very practical matter, as commander of chief of the Armed Forces of the United States I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. We’re already seeing protests against Americans just by the mere threat –

Republican leaders have also spoken out against the planned Quran-burning. President-in-exile Sarah Palin and Speaker-to-be John Boehner chose a different approach, equating the burning of a religious book with the construction of a mosque and cultural center.

Boehner:

“To Pastor Jones and those who want to build the [so-called Ground Zero] Mosque,” Boehner said (drawing an equivalence between Koran burning and the Cordoba House Project in lower Manhattan) “Just because you have a right to do something in America, does not mean it’s the right thing to do. We’re a nation of religious freedom — we’re also a nation of tolerance. I think in the name of tolerance, people ought to really think about the kind of actions they’re taking.”

Palin:

Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.

Digby elucidates:

Boehner basically defines religious tolerance as not inflaming passions on both sides. What that means in practice is that Christians shouldn’t burn Korans and Muslims shouldn’t build mosques. Can we see what’s wrong with that picture?

It’s distressing, but the public discourse in the Obama era is even more unhinged than it was under Bush. Any hope for a return to sanity and rationality is out the window. The rightwing noise machine is at full throttle and Orwell would be proud of our strides backward:

  • George W. Bush is steadily and surely being rehabilitated and now the question is how much gratitude we owe him.
  • Sarah Palin can move the public discourse with a single tweet, promoting a worldview consisting of unreflective, nationalistic soundbites.
  • Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Fox are dominating the national conversation, feeding a steady stream of propaganda packaged as moral platitudes to tens of millions of true believers.
  • In the face of overwhelming evidence, climate deniers are choking the life out of the environmental movement and willfully condemning humanity to a calamitous future.
  • From ACORN to Van Jones, liberal scalps are being taken with impunity.
  • Feminism is being redefined and repossessed by anti-feminists.
  • Women are facing an all-out assault on choice.
  • Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy is being co-opted by a radio jock.
  • Schoolbooks are being rewritten to reflect the radical right’s anti-science views.
  • The rich-poor divide grows by the minute and teachers and nurses struggle to get by while bankers get massive bonuses.
  • We mark the end of a war based on lies with congratulations to all, and we escalate another war with scarce resources that could save countless lives.
  • An oil spill that should have been a historic inflection point gets excised from public awareness by our own government and disappears down the memory hole (until the next disaster).
  • Guns abound and the far right’s interpretation of the second amendment (the only one that seems to matter) is now inviolate.
  • Bigotry and discrimination against immigrants, against Muslims, against gays and lesbians is mainstream and rampant.
  • The frightening unconstitutional excesses of the Bush administration have been enshrined and reinforced by a Democratic White House, ensuring that they will become precedent and practice.
  • Girls and women across the planet continue to get beaten, raped, ravaged, mutilated, and murdered while sports games induce a more passionate response.

You can add to the above list equating building a place of worship with burning a religious book.

Imam Rauf, the man behind Park 51, appeared on Larry King Live and spoke about his objectives and the controversy around the “Ground Zero mosque.”

Contrast Imam Rauf’s appearance with Pastor Jones’ CNN interview:

Palin and Boehner don’t see the difference?

America, a deeply religious nation, is becoming unhinged from reality. There are numerous indications: the success of climate deniers is a glaring example. An increasing percentage of the population is willing to risk the future of humanity for no good reason other than to spite environmentalists.

The Republican Party, marching in lock step with the radical right, embraces illogic, courts cognitive dissonance, defies common sense. Unfettered, they’d return America to the 19th century. Democrats, mortified of appearing weak, more often than not refuse to resist, refuse to seize the moral high ground, refuse to fight for rationality.

How else to explain this:

Among other policies, the Obama national security team has authorized the C.I.A. to try to kill a United States citizen suspected of terrorism ties, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas corpus lawsuits challenging the basis for their imprisonment without trial, and continued the C.I.A.’s so-called extraordinary rendition program of prisoner transfers — though the administration has forbidden torture and says it seeks assurances from other countries that detainees will not be mistreated.

I shudder to think of where things are headed with this leadership void.

The fierce urgency of defending Obama — against the left


As a lifelong Democrat and progressive activist, I’ve spent years going after Republicans and conservatives. I worked for John Kerry and went head to head with my counterparts on the Bush team. I marched in countless anti-war protests and incurred the wrath of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders. I’ve canvassed door to door for environmental groups and had doors slammed in my treehugging face. I’ve engaged in flame wars in conservative forums. I’ve blogged since the beginning of blogs, attacking Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage, O’Reilly.

But never have I seen a more fierce reaction than from fellow Democrats when I criticize President Obama. It is a visceral anger, deeply personal, and sadly, it is directed at progressives who set party aside and critique the White House on principle.

I’ve finally realized the crux of the problem: it’s that many of Obama’s defenders are ignoring the difference between campaign mode and governance mode. In campaign mode, my job as a Democrat is to cheer my candidate on, to work overtime to get them elected. That’s exactly what I did when my former employer, Hillary Clinton, dropped out of the race and endorsed Obama. I was in constant contact with my friends on Obama’s campaign, helping (informally) with blog outreach and strategy. I did everything I could to help elect him and when all was said and done, here’s what I wrote:

As a Democrat who left one career behind in 2001 and made politics my new one after Bush was elected, who vowed to fight every wrong-headed policy foisted on America by the Bush administration, I feel a profound debt of gratitude to Sen. Obama and his family, his campaign, his tireless and devoted staff, and his volunteers and supporters across the country. As well to Hillary Clinton – who was true to those who respect and love her, proving the detractors wrong and crisscrossing the country on behalf of the Obama-Biden ticket – and to her supporters, volunteers and staffers who joined hands with their primary opponents and worked around the clock to arrive at this amazing day.

…What I didn’t yet know was how centered, thoughtful and disciplined Sen. Obama would prove to be in the fierce storm of a presidential election, competing with two formidable opponents. As others have noted, it augurs well for his presidency (should tonight’s results turn out as anticipated). Most importantly, I couldn’t possibly know the stamina and dedication of his strategists, staff, volunteers, donors and supporters, who are poised to finally slay the dragons that defeated Gore and Kerry.

So today, as I vote for President Obama, with history at my fingertips, I want to say THANK YOU to everyone who worked so damn hard to elect him and Democrats across the nation.

On the day he took office, I switched from campaign cheering mode to fulfilling Obama’s request that we “hold him accountable.” I take those words and that duty seriously. It’s my job as a citizen. Since 2008, I’ve used the written word to tug at the administration from the left.

I truly respect and admire Obama. I’ve worked in past campaigns with a number of his staffers. I know they are good and decent people trying to improve their country and working tirelessly under extreme stress. There’s no denying that they’ve racked up an impressive list of accomplishments and they deserve credit for it. But that doesn’t mean I should set aside the things I’ve fought for my entire adult life. It doesn’t mean I should stay silent if I think the White House could do a better job promoting a progressive vision. And it doesn’t mean I should stand aside if I think mistakes are being made. Sure, I’m just one individual with an opinion, but why the fierce urgency of defending Obama whenever I express it?