Dare We Thank Dan Abrams?
15 January 2008 11:30 am by Taylor Marsh
More Clinton attacks, this one by Nevada unions.
I hope I don’t regret this.
Dan Abrams has emerged as one of the only fair talking heads on cable willing to stand up to the rampant sexism coming at Clinton. After the back and forth we had after the Tim Russert debate at Dartmouth (see YouTube at top right corner), where Abrams basically wouldn’t let me get a word in edge wise, he’s finally realized what’s an abject fact: that sexism and misogyny has fueled the anti Clinton coverage that still remains, but at least is being noticed. Abrams even took on the race issue yesterday, dissecting the drivel into reality. But I don’t want this to sound like a back handed compliment. I whole heartedly thank Dan for still criticizing Clinton and her surrogates when they deserve it, but also being willing to call outrage when it’s due. Reader JoeCHI provided a video of proof of Abrams and even Patrick J. Buchanan caught on camera being fair! Please take the time to watch it, even enduring the short commercial. It’s how they will really know you are paying attention, through the video that comes with a paid advertisement. However, I must admit that by saying this out loud I’m also doing it waiting for this fairness trend to snap back into the Chris Matthews zone at any moment. There’s not enough history here to believe it’s going to last. Still, I’m hopeful.
ABRAMS: The reality is – this is much adieu (sic) about almost nothing. While this weekend Obama and Clinton were offering up differing plans to address an economy headed towards recession, the DC media in particular were basically ignoring the issue that voters say is most important to them — the economy. And instead mischaracterizing this comment by Bill Clinton … … Well, some inside DC media, some opportunists, some critics hollered and howled that Bill Clinton was calling Obama`s campaign a fairy tale, thereby insinuating that a black man could never be president. No. That has nothing to do with what he said. All you need to do is play it in context in particular including the sentence before that one. Now that’s a legitimate issue in question. But too many in the press were developing a story about race. And in that environment, if you even mentioned the name of the great Martin Luther King you do so at your political peril. (rough transcript via a friend)
Another (qualified) traditional media thank you goes out to Bob Herbert today. His op-ed in the Times is not only important, but stands out among some of the worst coverage I’ve ever seen of a female in the spotlight. Of course, as reader Grey points out in Hot Topics, there is more to the sexism in this country that porn and violence against women. It’s the not so subtle bigotry against strong and competent female leaders, of which Hillary Clinton stands out the tallest.
And speaking of competency, read Susan Faludi today in the LA Times.
… .. As it happens, I’m not alone in wishing for a nation run by someone whose desire for our well-being is passionate but whose actions on our behalf also exude bedrock competence, someone who lacks any flash whatsoever except the flash that keeps a person assiduously doing the hardest things in life. In New Hampshire and all across the country, many female voters seem to be thinking along the same lines. … ..
… .. That ignorance was on prominent display after New Hampshire, as analysts groped to explain the primary results and came up with explanations that were as offensive as they were phantasmagorial. One theory, admittedly far-fetched but avidly promulgated, held that Clinton’s unexpected surge of support came from lower-class voters who were secretly (that is, un-poll-ably) racist. Some pundits acknowledged that there might be a gender dynamic at work but allowed for only one possibility: Female voters were easily manipulated saps who’d let a few girl tears muddle their political sense. Pundits debated whether Clinton’s tears were “real” or “manufactured” — that is, whether she was some weak sob sister who couldn’t hack the rough-and-tumble of a man’s world, or just a power-grabbing witch who would do anything to hang on to her broomstick.
A few, such as San Francisco Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci, offered more cogent appraisals. She pointed out that female voters didn’t seem to be responding to Clinton’s tears so much as to their outrage at men’s reactions to those tears (in particular, men in the media). … ..
Also don’t miss all the Michigan links I put up in Hot Topics, which I received via email. It’s Slick Mitt’s do or die moment, that is if there is one on the GOP side.
Lots to talk about.
Hope you can join me.
