Is Politico in the tank for Hillary?
posted at 5:15 pm on October 23, 2007 by Bryan
I wouldn’t have thought so until this post about a new angle coming from the Obama campaign. Obama’s campaign has sent out a postcard that differentiates his position on Iraq from someone else’s, whom he doesn’t get around to naming, but we all know it’s Hillary because she’s the front-runner. She’s also evidently The Candidate Who Must Not Be Named. Here’s how Politico’s Mike Allen describes it.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) takes a sharp shot at Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in a colorful, oversized postcard being sent to Iowa voters on Tuesday.
His message of being a fresh, inspiring change has left him lagging in the polls as Clinton hammers home her experience.
So Obama’s word is now “judgment” — and he says his is better than hers on Iraq and Iran.
“Barack Obama is the only major candidate for president to oppose both the Iraq war from the very start and the Senate amendment that raises the risk of war with Iran.
“While others went along, Obama opposed Bush’s war plans,” the mailing charges in big letters under the address.
“Others”! That’s a sharp shot at Clinton, who has been on the defensive in Iowa for her Sept. 27 vote on a hawkish resolution calling on the Bush administration to declare Iran’s 125,000-member Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization.
Since when is “others” a “sharp shot?” He doesn’t name her or call her something ugly, like “Cankles” or “Hilldebeast.” The words “Whitewater” and “billing records” and “Peter Paul” and “Norman Hsu” — her actual record, in other words — never come up. Just “others.” That’s so vague it could be a reference to Lost, fercryinoutloud. Here, by the way, is the sharp as a stick Obama attack. It’s just a picture of him with the text that Allen finds so sharp. If that’s as sharp as Obama’s going to get, well, I have a set of butter knives that’ll outslice him.

By way of contrast, here’s how Politico covered the remarks of Rep. Pete Stark. You remember him, right? He just finished up apologizing for saying that President Bush likes to send people to Iraq to get their heads blown off for his own amusement. Now that sounds like a sharp attack. Stupid, but sharply worded. The Politico didn’t see it that way though. Not to get Clintonian, but I guess this all comes down to what the meaning of “sharp” is.
House Republicans objected today to comments made by outspoken liberal Democratic Rep. Pete Stark of California on the Iraq war during debate on the override of President Bush’s veto of the children’s health program…
Earlier in the SCHIP debate, Stark had made other spirited remarks…
Responding promptly and harshly to Stark, the National Republican Congressional Committee declared he had “trampled on the sacrifice of our troops.”
So remarking that the president sends people off to violent deaths for his own jollies is “spirited,” but a vague reference to Hillary Clinton without actually naming her is “sharp.”
Lame, Politico. Very lame.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
That Obama “attack” on Hillary is so vague and so mild that he’s acting like someone who’s running for the number 2 spot on the ticket, or at least attempting to leave that option open. He’s trying to promote the fact that he was against the war from the start without resorting to going negative against Hillary. He has basically conceded already.
Zetterson on October 23, 2007 at 5:21 PM
As for the Politico’s choice of words… Unsurprising. The amount of ammo that the MSM has to use against Hillary is infinite. The rug they are using to sweep all of it under has got to be freekin’ enormous.
Zetterson on October 23, 2007 at 5:24 PM
He didn’t even call her anything like “Her Thighness, Hillary Rotten”.
Anyway, I’ve been dubious about Politico since the outset. Who coined that theory that any organization which is not overtly conservative will inevitably, inexorably become leftist? Maybe it was Derbyshire.
Kensington on October 23, 2007 at 5:24 PM
I have a feeling it is more than Politico in the tank for Hillary. The entire Democratic field seems to be just letting her coast along with no real opposition. It’s almost like her and then a competition to be her VP pick.
bj1126 on October 23, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Indeed, Politico’s climbing Mount Douchebaggery on this one. How about using the same strike zone for each team? (And yes, I did feel like totally mixing metaphors there.)
ReubenJCogburn on October 23, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Now that’s a Lost conspiracy theory I haven’t heard yet. Hmmm…..
tikvah on October 23, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Let’s see, a political website run by 2 former WaPo reporters? Nah, they couldn’t be Clinton democrats, could they? That would be so…obvious.
Rational Thought on October 23, 2007 at 5:36 PM
I think it’s hilarious when Politico gets annoyed when the Democrats make an undeniable stupid mistake. Politico deems itself as the Dems pesonal Dear Abby and the politico bloggers start pumping out advice posts rather than you know, blog about news.
Topsecretk9 on October 23, 2007 at 5:39 PM
What’s a Politico?
RushBaby on October 23, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Wait till the general election. Every single mild effort of the Republican to criticize her positions will be billed as a harsh personal attack. Remember Rick Lazio?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 23, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Sounds like Obama is in the tank for Hillary too. Candidates on both sides need to start mixing it up.
Valiant on October 23, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Not being in the tank for hillary might gitcha ya hurt or even kilt!
Besides tons of ill-gotten cash she has a network of goons (including judges) that can put pressure where it is needed.
TheSitRep on October 23, 2007 at 5:59 PM
What do you think the straw man candidates are for? In the tank for Hillary Matters and media, not even a valid question. Why has no one asked Hillary Matters what she would do about illegal immigration — Because she doesn’t want you to know.
tarpon on October 23, 2007 at 6:08 PM
That’s the second of Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics.
Ed Driscoll on October 23, 2007 at 6:29 PM
What you talking bout Willis ?
William Amos on October 23, 2007 at 6:51 PM
And while we are on the subject…notice how Bill OR is kissing up to Hillary? Tell me he isn’t begging for a chance to interview her. Never mentioning in any real way her campaign money issues, starting to say how many people thought Bill was a good president, how she is being mis-represented, how smart she is…he is starting his campaign to interview, sending signals to her camp that he is willing to bargain.
He used Sharpton to get Jackson, now he is setting the stage for Hillary.
Just an observation…
right2bright on October 23, 2007 at 7:12 PM
In the photo on the card Obama looks like a muppet.
BJ* on October 23, 2007 at 8:03 PM
The Politico is lame all around. Some of the movement conservatives seem to like it, but I think that’s becuase it’s essentially a DC gossip rag. Or because their journo friends write for it. At any rate, I’ve yet to see any writing of substance there.
Missy on October 23, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Obama looks like he’s about a quart low on testosterone. Years ago, Maureen Dowd said that Al Gore was “so feminized,” he was “practically lactating,” but Gore strikes me as being unusually masculine for a Democrat Presidential candidate.
Kralizec on October 23, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Maybe they mean it like this: “How dare he lump her in with the rest of the candidates? She’s not one of the others, she’s in a class by herself, and Obama is the one who is one of the ‘others!’”
Yeah, I know, not likely.
James on October 23, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Of course media organazations/individuals have their favorites. And Politico does, very subtly, lean left. I noticed it myself. That they lean, very subtly, towards Hillary is no supprise.
I do not think Laura Ingraham has come out for Rudy but her softball interview spoke for itself.
Theworldisnotenough on October 23, 2007 at 11:05 PM
My initial impression of POLITICO was that it was Liberal, a mostly pro-Democrat site. My conclusion’s not set (yet), however, but the vast majority of comments there are from Liberals and the inevitable Paul people, to a point of exhaustion.
One can read there the same Liberal naysaying (mostly, the equivalent of “Republicans are evil,” and “Bush is bad” along with the word, “nazi” thrown in with predictable frequency) that can be read in comments sections associated with all political so-called “reporting” “news” sites. They DO display a persistent Liberal bias, with critical reports limited and always directed to and about Republicans and complaints by Conservatives.
That is, the only “news” on POLITICO is when a Republican doesn’t express enthusiasm about Reid, Pelosi, Hillary or their politics. BUT, there are a congregation of Conservative and Republican commentors there, so it keeps me reading.
The Paul people, inevitably, go for ruin about any and all Republicans. Cross them and you get accused of being “a Democrat” and “for Hillary” and other nonsense. I honestly don’t understand why POLITICO doesn’t ban the most offensive of those on that site — all of them are supporters of Paul or Obama — but, they do tend to indulge them, unfortunately.
So, looks possible, at least, that they’re operating “for Hillary” — in other words, another Liberal site posing as “news.”
S on October 23, 2007 at 11:06 PM