Stanley Fish and Bill Press

Stanley Fish has an updated column to his piece last week regarding the irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton. One thing he makes clear, as I have, is that OBAMA istoking these fires regarding how divisive Clinton is. Not a speech goes by that he doesn't mention that, or cite polls about how HE is the one to beat McCain because Clinton is too divisive. So much for the Unifier guy - just more and more like Geroge W. Bush every day, if you ask me...Here is the link: http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/

And Bill Press, the man in the middle of the David Shuster storm, has a piece in the huffingtonpost.com, a bit shocking considering how anti-Clinton THAT site is. I am including that piece below.

As I keep saying, both articles highlight the blatant anit-Clinton bias in the media, as well as the ratchet response to allow the most rabid among us, as well as Republicans, to determine our nominee. Craig Crawford said recently that the anti-Hillary hatred is bordering on mental illness. By allowing the lowest common denominator to determine our nominee IS mental illness. It is a phenomenon seen in many churches, synagogues, non-profit organizations, and other systems, and one Rabbi Friedman, a psychiatrist, spoke of often. In essence, if the healthy people overfunction for the unhealthy people, it brings EVERYONE down. And that is what is happening now. Even people who LIKE Clinton, and WANT to vote for her, are afraid to do so because they are buying into the ranters and ravers. Sigh.

Bill Press

Caught in the Middle of David Shuster's Screwup
Posted February 9, 2008 | 01:54 PM (EST)

Meet the man in the middle. MSNBC's David Shuster was suspended for a question about Chelsea Clinton he asked -- me!

Appearing as a guest on Tucker last Thursday, with Shuster sitting in as guest host, I was puzzled when he brought up Chelsea's increasingly prominent role in the campaign and suggested that this was somehow "unseemly." Not at all, I responded. She was campaigning for her mom. Just like the Bush twins stumped for their dad. What's unseemly about that? (I should have, but didn't, think of mentioning the five Romney sons).

But Shuster persisted. Chelsea was even calling super delegates. Wasn't she being "pimped" into a more active role? Even though I winced at the word "pimped," I stuck to my point that Chelsea's campaigning for her mother is what family members always do. Like Michelle Obama, campaigning for her husband. No big deal. "Give Chelsea a break," I told Shuster.

Did his question merit suspension? Absolutely. Shuster's a damned good reporter, who's always been religiously fair. But even the best of us can sometimes go over the line. Chris Matthews did, earlier. This time, it was Shuster. Except he, unlike Matthews, has to pay the price.

But, of course, this isn't the first sign of media bias, intended or unintended. What's most disturbing about Shuster's pimp remark is that it reinforces the impression of media bias in this campaign.

It began with the networks' deciding which candidates were serious and which were not -- and therefore ignoring qualified contenders like Joe Biden or Ron Paul. It continued with the media's admitted infatuation with John McCain and Barack Obama. It culminated with the media's declaring open season on the Clintons. In contrast to fawning reports about Obama crowds, every story about the Clinton campaign is sprinkled with snide, critical, even crude, comments about Hillary or Bill. Now not even Chelsea is spared.

Enough's enough. The media's role is to report on the primaries, not decide the primaries. No candidate deserves favorable treatment. The media should treat all of them equally badly. That's their job. And there's a big difference between their job and ours. To bend a phrase: "They report. We decide."