More intentionally negative press for HRC -- this time from WP's Dana Milbank

[Rageneau]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2008/01/07/VI2008010700846.html

The hate of the MSM for Hillary is as fervent as their love for Bush was during the run-up to war.
This video is a very recent example of that.

It exemplifies the absolutely CORRUPT media coverage of HRC that is issuing even from supposed paragons of journalistic objectivity, such as Milbank and the Post. This video has no news value whatsoever. It is a hit piece masquerading as journalism. It was produced specifically to damage Hillary's campaign.

No other candidate of either party is subject to anything like this, and she gets it day after day from direction after direction, with almost no corresponding positive press to offset it.

Watch this piece of shit video by the supposedly liberal-leaning Dana Milbank of the supposedly liberal-leaning Washington (whore) Post, and ask yourself -- even if you are a Hillary hater -- isn't this coverage unfair? Isn't it prejudicial? insulting? purposefully damaging?

Then ask yourself "WHY?"

Why is the same media that universally hounded Bill and universally felliated Bush now universally and gratuitously attacking Hillary?

Gratuitously, because in this video Hillary herself does and says nothing that Milbank could find to be critical of. So he "spun" his report to make it appear she was boring people, turning them off. He dishonestly used selected video shots to do so. He even used a "tired, bored" announcer voice-over.

Think about it: The same media people who hated Bill and loved Bush now hate Hillary.

Doesn't that tell you something?

[peacebird]

1. "No other candidate of either party is subject to anything like this, and she gets it day after day"

and you then ask Doesn't that tell you something?

Well - it tells me a lot of progressives don't like her, and a lot of republicans don't like her, and a fair number of independents don't like her.

Tells me that she really should NOT be our candidate. We don't need a candidate that is this polarizing. Even to dems.

[Rageneau]

11. Except that it's not progessives and independents who control the MSM.

When it is the PRESS that doesn't like her, it does not matter how progressives and independents feel about her. Most may like her fine, but if all they ever hear are the lies of the national media, they will never know what she stands for and/or who she truly is.

It is not up to the press (it SHOULD NOT be up to the press to decide whether progressives or independents or republicans like or don't like a candidate. Their job is to tell the truth about each one. When they don't -- as Milbank does not in this piece -- the electoral process itself is tainted, disturbed, changed, corrupted.

When that happens, it is you and me, not Hillary, who is the final victim.

That has happened before, by the way, every year in your memory.

Only twice did the corrupt press NOT decide the presidential election.

The two times Clinton won.

[rodeodance]

2. not surprized at all--coming from Milbank!!

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Millbank used to muse about how cool jr was & how fantastic the Iraq war

was working out for him. Millbank isn't worthy of shining the Clinton's shoes.

[paulk]

4. tells me that the MSM has decided they don't want HRC

to be the Dem nominee and are doing everything in their power to make it so.

[Vincardog]

5. Is that the same media that has been forcing HRC candidacy down our throats for the last 18 months?

Grow a clue. The establishment wants HRC to win so she can cover for jr just as Bull covered for big GHWB. If we get Hill we will never see justice for the last 7 years of frauds and felonies

[Cameron27]

8. No, it was actually

the same MSM who kept pumping out stories about Clinton thinking she was inevitable, so that voters would feel the same way you do.

[thereismore]

6. Millbank is a kind of an all-around asshole. He just doesn't like anyone but himself. nt

[Egnever]

7. It may be unfair

But I think the clintons brought it on themselves. They started this campaign trying to browbeat people into supporting them something I think the press was not to happy with. its coming back to bite them in the ass.

Gore had the same problem the press didnt like him. One would think a leason was learned there.

[Rageneau]

10. Like you people accuse te Clintons of all sorts of stuff they don't do.

The reason why it is open season on the Clintons in the public is because it is always open season on them in the press.

You say they had negative news coverage coming beause they tried to "browbeat" people into supporting them. They didn't browbeat me. Did they browbeat you? Can you name a single person they supposedly "browbeat?"

As for the press trying to 'shove her down our throats,' it always seemed to me that the subtext of those stories about her 'inevitability' was "Hey, look out! We'd better stop her while we have a chance," and "Be sure to show these Clinton bastards that they're wrong about her being inevitable."

[Renew Deal]

9. That's absolutely one of the worst MSM pieces I've ever seen.

That borders on unprofessional and shouldn't be presented as news. That's less than opinion. It's an amateur hit piece. They've could have communicated the same thing without being so over the top.

I'd be pissed too if I were a Clinton supporter.

[Sulawesi]

12. I support Obama...but that is a disgusting piece...

To the extent that it is true, it is piling on in a mean way...it is not funny.

[Eurobabe]

13. Ouch!