Incensed

I'm normally not a political or news junkie but the results of the Iowa caucuses piqued my interest in the campaigns and in the press coverage of them. And so I was rather astonished and incensed to see the extent to which Hillary Clinton was and is being savaged by the media, including the New York Times, which until now I thought was somewhat balanced and objective, even for a liberal paper [except that it has hired William Kristol].

It is one thing for the Times' female columnists - I'm thinking of Maureen Dowd - to practically trash the woman for leaking a tear and showing some emotion (of course, if Hillary doesn't show any emotion, she gets beaten up for that, too). Columnists do get to write their own opinions, no matter how nasty. But there was a Times' headline on Wednesday, "Clinton Escapes to Fight Another Day" which struck me as being more of a comment on the media's incorrect forecast of an early demise of her campaign, rather than a reflection of the facts and perspective. No, she didn't win Iowa, but my goodness, it was only the first of many contests!

Skimming the major papers and the blogosphere, and not terribly methodically, the predominant tone towards Mrs. Clinton appears to be one of derision. The lack of respect in the newspapers for her attempts to get elected, and make history, is staggering. I'm not suggesting that people vote for her simply because she could be our first female president. But it would be a huge improvement if the media would stop circling her like a pack of vultures, eager to snack off of her political death, and would start writing articles that would educate voters about where the candidates stand on different issues.