The Scrutiny Phase: Hillary Clinton’s Negativity Challenge

Speaking of media negativity toward Hillary Clinton, the drawing last week of her by the NYT with Hillary Clinton the dead wicked witch of the East, in the opinion column no less, was disturbing to say the very least. I am well aware that soon the new narrative will be 'women who cry sexism are playing for sympathy', but this was misogynist, plain and simple and I wasn't the only one to notice. Anyone can google nyt hillary clinton wicked witch of the east and they might come to the same conclusion. Shame on you.

The major problem for Ms. Clinton is when she generates her own news. It's rarely good and never endearing.

Oh yes, she's gotta lose lose Guernica as her press conference visual backdrop. It simply fails to evoke the whistle of a happy tune. Those faces contorted in agony are not screaming "Vote for Hillary!"

Nancy Pelosi is the highest ranking govt official to come out against the Republicans using this politically, saying it has nothing to do with her emails, if it weren't for that it would be her hair. Do you plan on writing about that? That actually is news.

All the lifetime spent by the press and the repubs on dissecting Hillary Clinton's emails, all the time and tax revenue squandered on dissecting her role in Benghazi, on Whitewater, on the travel 'scandal!', and so forth, is nothing but a kind of hostile foreplay of her inevitable run. I wish she would announce already and then her 'team' whatever that is will be able to support her and not let her handle her own affairs, mistakes, goofs, gaffes, misstatements, misquotes.

Gaaaack. I will never vote for the dimwitted right wing repub candidates currently on offer, but is Hillary all there is? Obama is going to be a hard act to follow. In addition to 'honing her debating skills' so that she just might hold her own against the whistle brained republican candidate, another democratic candidate just might have the brain, managerial talent, well-coordinated team and temperment to get my vote. Like Obama did in 08.

There are usually a couple of outlets that are happy to serve up negative stories about Clinton. For example, the NYT wrote an article write after the email "scandal" that "Emails remembered as status", it was one of the most bizarre pieces I've read in the Times. They never mentioned who it was remembered by, who "coveted" it and overall it made no sense. It was gratiituous negative article. Then you have MSNBC who lives for bashing Hillary Clinton, ah the makes of a manufactured scandal for ratings and readership. (and maybe, just maybe an outlet or 2 it's personal). No small part of her that the media was able to make it a circus, but the fact that Jeb Bush did EXACTLY the same thing, and coverage of his was about 2% of what the coverage of hers was makes it clear, the double standards, outlets who are more than happy to get a negative story in about her whenever they can, makes it clear the greatest foe is the media. I can only hope people wise up to it.

It's the NYT that is trying to create negativity for Mrs. Clinton based on the bias of its editors and owner and in its reporting.

The NYT has focused and scrutinized all that's Clinton ad nasium even today featuring two stories on Monica Lewinsky, really...she is headline news?

The NYT and so much of the mainstream media hold Mrs. Clinton to a unrealistic, double standard and lets her possible looney Republican opponents skate free.

We NYT readers who are not filled with hate just want the NYT to report the news fairly. We can make up our own minds and opinion, thank you.

Half of the news is neutral? Where and which half? Possibly the professor realizes that a challenge for HRC is that news outlets like the NYT trot out stories about Monica Lewinsky on the same day that they talk about HRC's negativity challenge. Neutral indeed! I assume I am not alone in thinking that Lewinsky is a sad and dead issue. Of all the compelling people the NYT could talk to about cyber bullying, they pick her. Why? Doubtless someone as vetted as HRC is going to receive more negative press than Scott Walker, but the fact the NYT is willing to interview Monica Lewinsky at this stage shows they will sacrifice any form of neutrality. Maybe this is the half of the reporting that is not "neutral"....

Mrs. Clinton , as is well noted in this article, has no real competition as of yet. The good news is that it is still early in the primary process. The bad news (for Mrs. Clinton) is that she is so well known for both her exemplary job as Secretary of State, and for her arrogance toward the press and indeed the American people. Her personality leaves much to be desired, her positions on key issues are yet to be defined and for better to worse, Americans, in general, have an already opinion of her. I suspect that she has "peaked" much too early in the campaign process. There is nothing new to learn about her. Except, perhaps the upper limits of her profound
indifference to the issues confronting the office of the President of the United States.

Perhaps if the news media had an occasional story about where candidates stand on the issues, and analysis of their specific policy proposals, this will generate a lot of positive buzz around Clinton. But the author hasn't even imagined that the political press would mention something like that.

A interesting article on the technical aspects of campaigning stages. Ms. Clinton email problems stem from combination attitudes and issues directly related to the "Clinton" political brand and the increasingly obvious Democratic Party's strategy / acquiescence in her sole nomination. It may turn out to be a strategic mistake by Ms. Clinton and the Democrats to have squelched any other democratic politician's chances of offering a different perspective or counterpoint for the Presidential nomination.

Ms. Clinton and the Democrats may find they have a very long path to her anticlimactic nomination at the Democratic Convention and subsequently to the November 2016 election. During all that time the glare of national politics will be exclusively on Ms. Clinton while the Republicans will be able to diffuse the glare and heat across several candidates and provide at least the appearance of a choice.

If Ms. Clinton doesn't wither in the intense media attention of sole undisputed Presidential candidacy, her constant presence in the media may cause her to "white out" in the background. It is similar to a play where one character stays on stage through the entire play with nothing new or fresh to contribute. By the second act the audience may tire or worse ignore the ever present character.

The Democratic National Party seems to have ignored the fact national politics is as much about drama as it is about national issues.

I think the media, both liberal and conservative, have been clearly on the attack for weeks now, looking for anything and everything to attack Mrs Clinton for. It's how the media business works these days. They can't get ratings and readership unless there's drama, and networks and print sites are giving Broadway's best playwrights a run for their money. Every time I turn on the TV, there's a Hillary story in the mix, always negative in tone, but never with any solid facts or evidence to back up what the story is suggesting. The lead is always a question like "Did Hillary Clinton violate the law by using her own email server?" Or "Could emailgate derail Hillary's presidential hopes?" Then, there's a panel of experts, spouting opinions instead of facts. So far, it has been a whole lot of nothing, fueled by the Republicans and that insatiable, rabid 24 hour TV news cycle. I have also noticed that the print media sites are going out of their way to use unflattering photos of her in their coverage. Overall, I think it's amazing that Clinton has any support at all given how outrageously slanted the reporters are being in their coverage. But I think this is one very strong woman who obviously has no intention of giving up. I also think it's clear that the GOP has no one to get behind at this point. So, all they can do is hope they can create a scandal big enough to destroy her. It's all rather pathetic.

I don't like Hillary because her voice reminds me of a nagging relationship I had 35 years ago. I know it's not rational but I think I would prefer deafness if she becomes President.

The NYT might have broken the story on Hillary's email habits but no follow up at all such as an editorial asking for a independent third party to examine the server. Nor any questions to Hillary why if she has nothing to hide does she not welcome or even insist on an independent third party.

Of all the good, honest people the United States of America has to offer, how is it possible that the 2016 presidential election might come down to a Clinton v Bush contest? It's mind boggling.

Chelsea Clinton is about to become the first American in history to have had both parents as President of the United States.

Meanwhile, while I'm in the Warren camp, she's more effective in the Senate. So is Sanders, a real man of the people if there ever was one.

Further, Hillary Rodham Clinton has the entire GOP running scared, because she's a woman, highly educated, a law expert, hawkish than most liberals, has made health care for all a focused goal, has distinct foreign policy experience, and is otherwise the American version of Angela Merkel.

The Republicans won't win, no matter who they run, and no matter the extent or frequency of negative press reports.

And everyone, including those who don't want to, knows it.

I don't see what this story has to do with NCAA brackets.

more often than not, the nyt' 'scrutinizing' political candidates, seems to come down on the left -even though, or perhaps, or because its own voice is on the left!

the nyt broke the story of hillary clinton's email policies while she was secretary of state. however, as first reported by nyt times' mr. schmidt, others have done a much better job, giving a chrnonology of changes to law and regulation and policy on emails at STATE and in federal departments in general, and how ms.clinton's actions were not out of sync with former predecessors at STATE and with same as they applied to her during her tenure at STATE.

it would seem that by cherry picking facts about email records, the nyt has built a theme thatit is now time for ms. clinton's candidacy to udergo a complete background check---AGAIN!!!!

at the same time, a lead article in the nyt, seems to find no need to go over the smaller public record--two terms as governor of florida--of the currently media proclaimed republican front runner jeb bush who is treated to a fluff piece by the nyt on his becoming a catholic two decades ago.

i submit that if ms. clinton had been the converted, it is more likely that the nyt would be doing a series of articles on the flawed upbringing, lack of religious teaching, need for character building that lead to her conversion, and the sins of her parents for providing spiritual conflict in two sons , both jeb and george jr. you have a lot to report on nyt!

This is silly, you are saying that the media has no control over the type of coverage the give a candidate. So you are incapable of being balanced or impartial? Give us a break.

I, for one, would like to say something positive about Hillary.

Uhh ...

Oh, never mind.

Articles like this frustrate me when they make an assertion such as this:

> What is different for Mrs. Clinton is that as someone who has
> been on the national stage for more than 20 years, she will
> have no honeymoon in the 2016 campaign.

The unspoken assumption seems to be that, by contrast, the Republican candidates *WILL* have a honeymoon. But if they do, it's entirely because the media chooses to provide the champagne. Jeb Bush *HAS* been on the national stage for nearly as long as Mrs. Clinton as has Chris Christie. Scott Walker hasn't been on the national stage quite as long but he's a well known viper in Wisconsin state politics. Ted Cruz has been a national embarrassment since 2012.

I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, but quite honestly, you folks are just making it all up to suit the narrative you want told.