English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

"...Reporters who have covered the hyper-vigilant campaign say that no detail or editorial spin is too minor to draw a rebuke. Even seasoned political journalists describe reporting on Hillary as a torturous experience. Though few dare offer specifics for the record--"They're too smart," one furtively confides. "They'll figure out who I am"--privately, they recount excruciating battles to secure basic facts. Innocent queries are met with deep suspicion. Only surgically precise questioning yields relevant answers. Hillary's aides don't hesitate to use access as a blunt instrument, as when they killed off a negative GQ story on the campaign by threatening to stop cooperating with a separate Bill Clinton story the magazine had in the works. Reporters' jabs and errors are long remembered, and no hour is too odd for an angry phone call. Clinton aides are especially swift to bypass reporters and complain to top editors..."

cont.

2007-11-12 11:29:31 · 8 answers · asked by Yak Rider 7 in Politics & Government Politics

"They're frightening!" says one reporter who has covered Clinton. "They don't see [reporting] as a healthy part of the process. They view this as a ruthless kill-or-be-killed game."

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6e01fdce-ad97-4dab-a07d-bf98dc52f681

2007-11-12 11:30:04 · update #1

8 answers

Not only the media...but anyone who gets in thier way. Just ask Vince Foster...oh, that's right..he got the Clinton Special Treatment !

So will your freedoms and your wallet !

2007-11-12 11:34:43 · answer #1 · answered by commanderbuck383 5 · 1 2

ok, the two the two have a actual looking threat, and if this financial stimulus kit does no longer artwork, a democrat is extremely probable to win the white living domicile, yet elections and the financial gadget is a diverse undertaking. the two have comparable stances on all the substantial concerns. inspite of claims, fairly on line, the two are actual looking liberals, with Hillary frequently criticized for being too conservative between democrats. Obama's perfect potential is Hillary's perfect weak spot, and that's in concept. Hillary is percieved to be divisive, and a great form of republicans hate her, inspite of the undeniable fact that folk who artwork at the same time together with her look to party at the same time together with her ok. Obama at different hand works great with republicans. Obama has had republican cosponsorship on each bill that he has signed onto. in case you learn his books, he takes concerns that democrats help, seems on the conservative grievance of those concerns, and makes use of that grievance to come back back to a working answer that the two activities tend to conform with. the area it particularly is equipped in as substantial for a president, is that if the two a form of two wins the nomination, they're probable to lose administration of the senate after 2 years, indoors the midterm elections. Obama is lots greater suited arranged to artwork with a republican congress than Clinton. Clintons potential over Obama is journey. in my view journey does no longer count form form too lots. 4 of our least experienced presidents have been FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Lincoln. All considered great. the two in simple terms suited republican has greater journey than Hillary or Obama, and her journey might prefer to now no longer be touted as an asset in a customary election.

2016-12-08 20:04:50 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Now why would she need a strategy for crushing the Media. Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox or Faux News) is funding her Nazi-like ***. The worst part is, most media might try to make her look bad, but they don't even mention that tidbit of information.

2007-11-12 11:41:51 · answer #3 · answered by Ted S 4 · 1 3

Fifteen years of most notorious daily anti-clinton narrative
has trained their defense, swiftened the smack-backs etc.
You don't like? Tough. Why train them then in first place?
Echo automatic. If it would be new, they even might care.

2007-11-12 11:46:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Hellooooo??... Have you ever actually LISTENED to Dana Perino, Tony Snow, ect ect??

Clinton was press access DREAM compared to the bunker mentality of these guys.

Tell me now that you don't remember the "aluminum tubes" BS

You people are LOONS

2007-11-12 11:35:54 · answer #5 · answered by captain_koyk 5 · 1 3

shed rather attack the person and leave the media bias alone...aka peter paul, billy dale, etc. she loves liberal media bias and knows how to play it so i dont see her attacking what benefits her wiles.

2007-11-12 11:46:06 · answer #6 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0 1

Are you ranting about the same old "liberal media" of yesterday?

Which is it?

The media is liberal and loves her?
or
The media is Fox and they hate having to be nice to her?

You KoolAid guzzlers need to make up ur minds...

2007-11-12 11:35:07 · answer #7 · answered by rabble rouser 6 · 1 3

Why would she crush the media? The media is Left/ Liberal.
Don't you watch your Faux News. Listen to their talking points.

2007-11-12 11:36:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

fedest.com, questions and answers