Even though my political views are in opposition to Senator Hillary Clinton's, it is impossible to ignore the stark unfairness of treatment she continues to receive from the mainstream press.*
One can see the bias directly in the press treatment of Clinton's campaign and indirectly in the lack of negative commentary on Rep. Ron Paul's continuing bid for the Republican nomination.
1. Sen. Clinton's Campaign. The Oregonian's front page treatment of Hillary Clinton's landslide win in West Virginia (140,000 vote, 41% spread) was a little note saying to go to page 11. In comparison, the following day, the Oregonian gave front/top-of-the page coverage to John Edwards' endorsement of Sen. Obama.
More recently there was the Oregonian's front page/color photo treatment of Sen. Clinton's apology for remarks about Robert Kennedy's campaign for president only ending with his assassination in June of 1968.
In comparison, Sen. Obama's April remarks about Pennsylvania voters clinging to their guns, religion and anti-immigrant feelings were never in danger of the same kind of Oregonian front page/color photo treatment even after the story received some coverage in the New York Times.
The Oregonian's dismissive, negative treatment of Sen. Clinton is an example writ small of the broad mainstream press bias against her.
Under the guise of “analysis” Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, PBS, Meet the Press, you name it, are consumed with how hopeless Clinton's bid is, how mean, racist and disgusting her campaign and former President Bill Clinton's remarks are, and how she is damaging the Democratic party.
We keep hearing/reading that Sen. Clinton can't possibly win the nomination without the superdelegates going against the popular vote (oops, scratch that now), the primary delegate count, or cheating by considering Florida and Michigan votes.
How much analysis have you heard that Sen. Obama can't possibly win the nomination without the superdelegates going against the popular vote or denying the legitimacy of the voters in Florida and Michigan?
Since when has the Democratic party or the press held the view that rules that keep votes from counting are more important than votes cast? If it wasn't such a body blow to their principles, it would be funny that the Democrats and the media are standing against everything they have trumpeted for decades—not to mention about the 2000 election.
2. Rep. Ron Paul. When is the last time you heard any analysis, let alone indepth analysis, by mainstream press reporters or commentators on why Rep. Paul needs to drop out of the race because a) he can't possibly win or b) he is hurting the chances of the Republican nominee? Unlike Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain actually does have way over the number of delegates he needs to win the nomination. But, Rep. Paul keeps campaigning--with no negative comment from the press or pundits.
If, Rep. Ron Paul, had posted a 41% victory spread in a primary (or even gotten 41% of the vote anywhere), would it have gotten page 11 treatment? But, that's what Sen. Clinton got.
To all you Clinton supporters out there, welcome to the conservative reality. And Senator Clinton, my hat is off to you for your courage in the face of this massive negative media barrage.
*Previous posts on anti-Hillary bias in the press are here and here.