BETWEEN THE LINES
Jonathan Alter, Newsweek (3/3/08) 
Hillary Should Get Out Now

"Is the media biased against Hillary,
or is she just too fat?"

Summary: The news media's biased coverage of the Democratic campaign has made Barack Obama virtually untouchable while everything about Hillary Clinton and her family is fair game. A college professor analyzes the coverage and calls it "shameful."   02-28-2008

orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/views/orl-dibacco2608feb26,0,7365559.story

OrlandoSentinel.com Media has shameful double standard on coverage of Hillary Clinton 
Thomas V. DiBacco,
 Special To The Orlando Sentinel
February 26, 2008
      It's shameful that the media over the past several months has not leveled the playing field in covering Hillary Clinton's quest for the Democratic presidential nomination.
     Clinton's every misstep has been highlighted, from staffing to campaign budgeting, and even when she has performed better than her opponent, Barack Obama, the thumbs-up from commentators goes to Obama.
    One example: the final debate before the Super Tuesday elections. By any reasonable yardstick, Clinton was the more articulate and knowledgeable about issues and legislation, some of which she had a hand in crafting during her seven years in the U.S. Senate. Yet pundits, with few exceptions, singled out Obama's performance because Obama hammered his opponent's voting in support of the Iraq war, no matter that he had the luxury at that time of not being a member of Congress.
     To be fair, my disclosures: I'm a Republican, and the last Democrat I voted for was Jimmy Carter in 1976. For more than 28 years in the nation's capital, I served as a debate and election-night commentator for local TV and radio stations.
     I was not a fan of President Bill Clinton, although as a media analyst at his first inaugural, I was favorably impressed with his speech, as illustrated by my commentary for the Orlando Sentinel of Jan. 21, 1993.
    Throughout Bill Clinton's eight years in the White House, I was critical of many of his actions, most notably his reprehensible conduct with a young intern that led to his impeachment trial. I didn't give much thought to Hillary because she was the other half of Bill, often having to defend him.
   All that has changed as a result of this election season's extensive coverage of campaign events, including debates, accompanied by an avalanche of broadcast spin. And what has concerned me is that Barack Obama is getting a free ride.
    Obama's resume is thin -- and that's obvious when supporters have to talk about his record at law school, a strategy appropriate for first-year job seekers but scarcely for presidential candidates. His eight-year career in the Illinois Senate is lackluster, marred by voting "present" 129 times, thereby avoiding the difficult choice of "yes" or "no" on proposed legislation.
    Even his 70 percent vote margin in his 2004 U. S. Senate bid cries for a downgrade. He defeated a GOP nobody, perennial candidate for public office, Alan Keyes, who took over the candidacy after the real winner of the primary stepped aside as a result of a sex scandal.
   Obama's speaking ability is exceptional only if the denominator of expectation is low. Shouting is scarcely an oratorical plus, nor are the "ands" and "uhs" that punctuate Obama's often rambling extemporaneous remarks.
    Nor do campaign stops provide concise specifics about his proposals, more akin as they are to celebrity, touchy-feely, anything-I-say-is-OK performances. His safe-harbor, oratorical retreat ("and that's why I'm running for president of the United States of America") is overused and overvalued.
    As for Obama's lifting sentences from other speakers, at a minimum that illustrates laziness. Comedian Chris Rock was right when he noted during a performance at Madison Square Garden last year that African-American comedians can criticize whites all they want, but the reverse is not tolerated. And that regrettable tendency has been applied to the presidential race.
    Bill Clinton's criticism of Obama is a classic case in point. Not only did the former president have every right as a husband and obvious adviser to dig into Obama's record (the media surely wasn't doing that investigative job), but he was roundly denounced for raising the "race" issue.
    No matter that the 42nd president was the strongest advocate for African-Americans of any chief executive in recent history. Having tippytoed in terms of criticism of Obama because of his race, the media have lost sight of the special quality of women that makes Hillary Clinton what she is.
    Women are the nation's caregivers -- from childhood that nurturing trait has been stressed. And Hillary Clinton's passionate pursuit of universal health care is in the best tradition of that quality, as illustrated by her poignant remarks near the close of last Thursday's debate: "The hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. . . . I resolved at a very young age that I'd been blessed, and that I was called by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted."
    Shame on the media. In terms of grace, proposed programs, energy and enthusiasm, knowledge and abilities, and executive demeanor, Hillary Clinton can hold her own among any of the candidates in both parties -- and she does so in high heels.

Thomas V. DiBacco is professor emeritus at American University in Washington, D.C. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.