I am 62 years old.I have been a feminist all my life and was very active in the feminism of the 70s'. In my worst nightmares, I would never have anticipated the blatantly sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton from both the left and the right at a time when the oldest of my four daughters is turning 35 and eligible for the presidency.

Ezra:

The MSM will eviscerate Clinton no matter what she does.

It's good to see you keeping an open and objective mind.

Cheers!

it's amazing to me that supposedly hard-boiled reporters will acknowledge that they are simply doing a stupid little herd instinct behavior and feel no shame over it. what is it that reporters think their job consists of?

On the tombstone of the Republic will be the epitaph "Killed By A Story Arc".

If some genie were to magically swap the faculties, student bodies, and alumni/ae of every J-school in the country for every MFA creative writing program in the country, you either couldn't tell the difference, or you'd notice an improvement, in your daily paper.

And American literature would be deader than Kelsey's nuts.

I am an enthusiastic Obama supporter, and have a visceral dislike of Hillary.

That said, when I saw the replay of her "meltdown," I couldn't help but think that this, like her "fumble" in the Philly debate, was almost entirely a media creation. Dvis X. nails it.

One last point: can she back any of those claims that she made in the exchange? I'm pretty sure she claimed that she created S-CHIP, which was in place well before she ever held an elected office. It reminded me of Cheney's claim that he never met Edwards, which, if viewed in a vacuum, was devastating to their opponents, but when fact-checked turned out to be total bullshit.

I'm no fan of Hillary [see previous posts], but the press "meltdown" line is pure unadulterated cow manure.

The US press corp [as a whole] is bunch of step and fetchits.

In America, when a woman raises her voice to make a point (especially if the point is that she is more competent or experienced than her male opponents) she is most certainly guilty of "meltdown."

On a related note, can we talk about the lack of formality granted to "Hillary" by the MSM? Her first name alone is used probably more than that of any candidate in the history of this country. And I suspect that this has less to do with distinguishing her from her husband than with undermining her authority and credibility. it makes me sick.

In the end, this is what I think the blogosphere, and Ezra as a prime example, bring to the table - a chance to question the status quo, to do, as reporters seem to forget sometimes, actual reportage of the life on the ground. This hothouse notion of a "Hillary meltdown" does indeed sound like groupthink, and it wasn't something that saw repeated too much on the Sunday talk shows (there are moments when these "agreed upon storylines" fail to take because sanity sets in). That said, I too have felt that the press has a longstanding antipathy toward the Clintons, and that visceral dislike is driving a lot of her coverage - she can't win, even when she wins. But the again, I'm not sure I want her to win... so how angry can one be about it, if it's accomplishing something one wants anyway?

I guess all of the political pundits are upset that the media is about to end the Democratic primary season six days after it started. When Obama wins the New Hampshire primary, he wins the entire things. The MSM will definitely not support any story line that gives Clinton or Edwards the ability to come back.

That means that Obama will be the presumptive President-Elect more than a year before the inaugural.

I'm an Edwards supporter, and Obama's my second choice, but how the hell that clip is construed as a "meltdown" is beyond me (didn't watch the debate, but I can't imagine how context could have made it look more like a meltdown, if anything I suspect less so). I like the forcefulness of it most of all, I liked her command of facts and statistics. What disappointed me was the part that nobody seems to be mentioning, when she finished off by calling for lowered expectations.

"some sort of objective, or at least agreed-upon, truth that the outliers measured themselves against"

Look at the science on bird flocks and fish schools: they are maintained precisely by outliers' tendency to head for the center.

So who are the predators culling those who don't get with the program? Assignment editors, as best I can figure.

On a related note, can we talk about the lack of formality granted to "Hillary" by the MSM? Her first name alone is used probably more than that of any candidate in the history of this country. And I suspect that this has less to do with distinguishing her from her husband than with undermining her authority and credibility. it makes me sick.

Jocie, I don't think you can hang that on the media - if you go to the Senator's web site, what does the top-line graphic say?

'Hillary For President.'

Whe she ran for the Senate, her campaign used the single name then, too.

I hate the media as much as the next guy, but you can't blame them for using the same reference as the candidate herself has used for years.

What disappointed me was the part that nobody seems to be mentioning, when she finished off by calling for lowered expectations.

I found it troublesome that after talking about how she was all about change, she followed it up by saying that nobody should get their hopes up that any real change will actually happen.

I agree that it may be sexist to call her "Hillary" and I try to call her Senator Clinton.

Still, it should be note that her own bumper stickers and the top of her website says "Hillary for President."

Wait a minute. I'm curious. Has this idea of Clinton's "meltdown" appeared in any actual coverage of the debate? Or is this just a case of Mr. Klein once again doing yeoman work for the Obama campaign by injecting it into the discourse. His "worst moment of the debate" slur didn't catch, but I see that Kevin Drum has already picked up the "meltdown" meme. Well played, Joe Klein (excuse me, Ezra Klein), well played.

Much of the rote pile-on on Hillary is JUST like the way you fluff your feminist blogrollees, regardless of how many times they have been caught in outrageously bigoted and racist statements.

You refuse to do any research into this.

Why? Because you're lazy. You were apparently a so-so student in college. And you're a coward. And all of that makes you a good candidate for "Hardball!"

And so you work hard providing the expected message while extolling how revolutionary you are.

Yawn.

I thought Hillary's speech sounded desperate to sound positive, like Howard Dean did.. and even though the speech really didn't cause him to lose like people remember, it was a nail.

I felt like this was just as terrible, and even used the same 'we'll march onto New hampshire, and South Carolina, and...' style that he did.

also, can people stop using 'change agent'... no matter how many times any candidate repeats it so subliminally beat you to death with it (hello Bill Clinton, John Edwards) it doesn't make it true. your synposis of the rhetoric is spot on.

I thought Hillary's speech sounded desperate to sound positive, like Howard Dean did.. and even though the speech really didn't cause him to lose like people remember, it was a nail.

I felt like this was just as terrible, and even used the same 'we'll march onto New hampshire, and South Carolina, and...' style that he did.

also, can people stop using 'change agent'... no matter how many times any candidate repeats it to subliminally beat you to death with it (hello Bill Clinton, John Edwards) it doesn't make it true. your synposis of the rhetoric is spot on.

I have to agree with Mary Jo, above. The attacks on Clinton have been eye-opening, startling. I found John Edwards attitude toward her enraging. And Obama's condescending "You're likable enough, Hillary" was an ugly moment.

Having said that, I thought she was excellent last night. I loved her anger, her humor--the range of emotions that make her human. It is a shame that she can't do anything right for the little shits in the MSM.

What's also astounding is the double standard. Hillary has one strident line (and many pissed looks, I've gotta say), and she has a "meltdown".

But you go to the Republican side, by the now "Clinton standard", all those guys are meltdown plus! Certainly all the jabs at Romney, no matter how true they were, were much more mean-spirited than Clinton's spirited defense of the rationale of her candidacy.

But did they all "meltdown". Not in the press's eyes.

About press coverage of presidential elections, I have just six words for you: Read The Boys on the Bus. It's Timothy Crouse's classic account of press coverage of the 1972 presidential campaign. Why should you read it? Well, first of all, it is one hell of a read, with great storytelling, frequent hilarity, and a wonderful no-bullshit, gimlet-eyed view of all and sundry.

It's also incredibly revealing about the pack journalism mentality, how the journalists are manipulated by the political operatives (Nixon was the supreme master of this), and how those manipulations end up controlling the master narratives that drive elections. Among the fascinating things about that particular 1972 election is that, by the fall of 1972, many of the basic facts about Watergate had been reported, yet no one bothered to put together the whole story until much later. By which time, of course, it was too late.

Honestly, do pick it up. It's one of the very best books about politics I have ever read.

And in the meantime -- I am enjoying the hell out of this election season. So far, it has definitely been the best. presidential. election. evah!

Thanks Ezra et al for the posts. EK hits it on the head as does Kevin Drum.

Yep, Hillary did do it, in part, to herself -- failing to have a narrative, failing to describe with specificity just what her experience means. Yep, the alternative is not so bad -- actually pretty damn good -- Obama, unlike Kerry, is a great candidate to put up this fall against McCain or anyone else.

But in the end, a small bunch of unrepresentative caucusers and the Clinton-hating press had an inordinate amount of influence in deciding this thing for the rest of us. And while I'm not one to levy charges of "sexism" lightly (or at all), I can't see how everything Hillary does is somehow "cynical," "shrill," "angry," and "vicious" without thinking some double-standards are being employed.

In the end, I'll be pleased as hell with Obama. But it sickens me that Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Andy Sullivan, David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, David Broder, Barbara Bush, and the rest will be grave dancing for the foreseeable future.

Ding dong, their bitch is finally dead.

I disagree with Ezra: 2 programs does not make "a heated recitation". Perhaps it's the nature of the Senate. But it's hardly proof of "35 years of change", whatever that means. I think it's just an opportunity to repeat the words "35 years" to promote her "experience".

This shouldn't be surprising, and is nothing about the press in particular. Group psychology can be very strong.

The press likes Obama now. But wait until he gets the nomination (IF he gets it). Then they and ghe GOP slime machine will excoriate him like nothing you have ever seen. It will make the Kerry swiftboating look like child's play in comparison. That reason alone is enough for me to root for Hillary Clinton; at least she has been through this -- for 16 years no less.

Ezra, please keep speaking out on this subject. It's so important. It's sad and absurd that reporters have so little trust in their initial judgments that they back away from them when their colleagues disagree. Instead, they should cherish their final shreds of humanity and dignity and know they've not yet become an MSM clone.

What they're doing to Hillary is a travesty. It's exactly what they did to Gore, and you know what THAT brought us. Haven't they learned anything? All you Obama supporters out there, take notice: they'll be coming after him soon, too.

Thanks again, Ezra, for speaking up, and keeping the media honest.

Ezra, I commend you on your ability to see the strong points in both Clinton and Obama, and for pointing out the swarm mentality of the press. At least someone treats Senator Clinton like a human being. We should prepare ourselves for the destructive narrative to turn against Obama as soon as McCain is the Republican nominee. Chris Matthews will suddenly notice how "weak" his former heart throb appears next to the war hero, whom Matthews has already declared "deserves" the presidency.

"...the part that much of the press liked least -- her heated recitation of the programs she's fought for..." I'm so not in the loop - the press called this section of the debate a "meltdown"? I saw the clip on TPM, and what I took away was the absolute certainty that if THAT was the real Hillary Clinton, then THAT is the person I want in the hot seat when the s**t hits the fan. What is it with this country's amoral, feckless, pathetic press puppies? The woman shows some true grit in an authentic and convincing peek at who she really is, and those semen sucking lapdogs who laughingly refer to themselves "journalists" call it a meltdown? O.k.: first, clear the garbage out of the White House and Congress; then, force these sputum spewing stenographers into none-too-early retirement. Geezus, what the f*** is wrong with these jackals?

I am sitting here is a state of dismay over the things that I am seeing. Obama now has 10 point lead in New Hampshire. A massive change in 1 day with the difference being the results of the Iowa Caucus having been factored in. So much for the independent voters of New Hampshire. Considering that no Democrat but Jimmy Carter in 1976 has ever won a contested Iowa Caucus and gone on to be elected President. And considering that even in that year the good voters of Iowa preferred uncomitted to Mr. Carter, I can't for the life of me understand why the voters anywhere would allow the results of Iowa to dictate who they are going to voter for. It is clear the democratic voters in Iowa wouldn't know a winner if it smacked them in the face. I also just caught a glimpse of FOX news where they are busy gearing up to bring down Obama. I believe the comment was something like I like the guy a lot, I am just concerned by his glaring lack of experience, especially in foreign policy. This was of course questioned by no one and just allowed to pass. We are repeating the same mistake we made in 2000 and 2004. By deciding our candidate after New Hampshire we are giving the attack machine way too much time to plan his downfall. Even more this year because of the early date. The Republicans now have 11 months to plan their assault. I am starting to get very scared.

I'm a staunch Dem not committed to any of the candidates. I think the pack has it more or less right. Considered in isolation Hillary's "meltdown" was the most compelling part of the debate and really made the case for her experience dedication and successful advocacy for progressive causes - all things for which I love Hillary. But it didn't happen in a vacuum. It came after she had already attacked Obama as an inexperienced naive who offers only empty words. It was followed by all manner of other attacks. The sum of her performance was to strengthen Obama's claims to be a different kind of politician - he largely did not respond in kind and continued to stress the importance of uniting the many folks dissatisfied with the direction of the country, and also to reinforce the criticisms of Hillary - that she is "shrill", that she is more concerned with her own success than the country, that she represents the entrenched interests of the Democratic party if not Washington generally. Regardless of whether you or I are sympathetic to her arguments, the fact is that the critical NH voters she needed to win back to her side were turned off by her performance (as reflected in polls and in the Fox News focus group). I think that was predictable too, so as a political performance I think she served herself poorly regardless of the merits of her arguments or the genuine emotion behind them.

The outcome in Iowa reflects that Obama is a brilliant organizer and a capable and disciplined campaigner, as well as fine political strategist. He has so far perfectly captured the people powered politics that Kos argues for, though not so much the Kossites themselves. Hillary has failed by following the failed prescriptions of the Dem consulting class that gave us the Kerry and Gore campaigns.

I for one and I think many others Dems are content that any of Obama Edwards or Clinton would make a fine, possibly a great president, and are willing to wait and see which one can really deliver as a politician. I don't think it is unreasonable for the folks in NH to conclude at this point that Obama is the best of the bunch, his limited resume not withstanding. If he needs vetting well get on with it. I don't expect that much dirt will surface. It is pretty hypocritical to lament that Hillary gets a tough ride from the press and then disqualify Obama because of the things that they might throw at him but that haven't turned up yet.

I was viscerally angry at Obama after he brought up Social Security a few months ago, and had more or less settled on Hillary as my favored winner because of her policy positions, but I remember 2004 all too well and the general won't be played out on paper based on the objective merits of the candidates, it will be a contest between live performers asking for the support of the American people. I am coming to believe that Obama really does have something in his understanding of organizing support and the structure of his campaign and the way he presents himself that offers the potential of changing the game in Washington. He is not poised to take the nomination because the press disliked Hillary, but because he has out organized and outcampaigned her. Perhaps experience matters after all.

Question: Why was "I paid for this microphone!" not treated as a "meltdown"?

I thought the story six months ago was that the press was too busy crowning Hillary as the Dem nominee to give merit to the viability of the other candidates.

Plain and simple: HRC caved under pressure in one of the more monumental Congressional votes of the last decade. Furthermore, she has little skill to disguise her mistakes about the middle east wars as skillful political maneuvering. She started out her campaign making people think that she was the safe bet, and realized too late that her centrism wasn't winning next to Edwards' and Obama's enthusiasm. So she lost Iowa. And now the press smells blood in the water. Not a surprise, and given HRC's experience she already knows what they will do to her. Just like Barack Obama probably knows what the right wing will do to him if he becomes the nominee.

Barbara Boxer is a senator who happens to be a woman, and she voted no and has been the lead in various stands against Bush's policy (symbolic as they are). Like Boxer, HRC is from a solidly Dem state and could have voted that way, too without too many repercussions. But she didn't. She was too busy worrying about 2008. And that makes me angry -- that she IS actually an experienced, battled scarred political player, that her name and her skill gave her a certain amount of capital, and she didn't use/isn't using that strength to defend her real principles. Feeling sorry for her now feels disingenuous given that she made a lot of that bed that she's currently lying in.

She was prematurely declared the frontrunner and given all themedia attention for a year. And you are now complainign that the press is being unfair to her?

The press has tried to effectively assassinate John Edwards from the beginning of this campaign. If anyone has a beef with the media narrative, it is John Edwards.

The truth is, our media is horribly broken.

Why is anyone surprised by the fact that the media creates bogus talking points about candidates? They have been doing that - mostly to Democrats - since the 90's. I am convinced that their despicable treatment of Gore is what cost him the election. They have treated Edwards like a joke and are grossly unfair to both Clintons. What is sad is how many Democrats buy into their garbage. If Obama is the nominee, they will undoubtedly trash him, too.
That being said, I am stunned at the blatantly sexist comments about Hillary. For example, both Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson talk about her as castrating. This is from NBC, not FOX!!

I think "seeing" Hillary's "fumble" takes knowledge of context. She got a little agitated, but the *really* damning thing about that whole little episode was the way Edwards, the trial lawyers, practically set her up by very pointedly saying "everytime you try to argue for change, the forces of status quo come out to kill it." And there she was, literally telling people "don't get your hopes up."

Defeat from within. Exactly the way a whole lot of Democrats and careful observers view Bill Clinton's administration on which, like it or not, she has been basing a large part of her campaign and claims to "experience."

Hillary *does not* fight for change. Hillary fights for Hillary. That's fine, but we are not obligated to care.

Also, one more thing about liberal feminism. I have noticed, in my lowly position subordinated to the babyboom for the past 20 years, that liberal feminists think that their own agenda, revolving around their own success, is political and progressive *by definition.* They got theirs, and if they step all over you in the process, well, that's what rights are all about.

There is a grain of truth in this given history, and God knows white men don't seek to justify their success in politically progressive terms. But there is a clear distinction between developing a progressive social agenda and merely attaining success as a woman, in fulfillment of the promise of liberal individualism.

Such success is a good thing. But in politics, specifically, as opposed to the corporate boardroom or what have you, we are not obligated to support liberal individualism and the vague messages about "breaking glass ceilings" (that most of us will never approach anyway) at the cost of a more progressive *social* agenda. That's what politics and parties are for. However desperate for change babyboom women were in the 1960s, young women are currently challenged by more than mere "sexism." That *was always* true. I think white women were too slow to realize this.

Hillary needs to put that on her list of things to remember. I don't need a woman in the White House that bad, it turns out.