Corporate Media Just Won't Let the 'Clinton Drama' Zombie Die

Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville at 10:17 AM on December 4, 2008.

Does Hillary + "drama" = sexist coverage?

Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
10 COMMENTS

Must ... manufacture ... drama.

Share and save this post:

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Media and Technology RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

Also in Media and Technology

Absurd: Joe 'the Plumber' to Become War Correspondent
Isaac Fitzgerald AlterNet

The GOP and Technology = Water and Oil
Steve Benen Washington Monthly

Fox News Claims 'Magic Negro' Text Was 'Inadvertently Cleared for Air'
Matt Corley Think Progress

Eric Boehlert makes a good observation here:

Does Hillary + "drama" = sexist coverage?

Or let me put it this way: Does anybody really think think that if Obama had reached out to a former, high-profile male primary opponent for a senior cabinet position that the press would be all atwitter with incessant and clichéd talk of "drama," which, let's face it, isn't a very far leap to, Hillary's a drama queen.

Like the Campbell Brown commentary about which I posted yesterday, Boehlert's rhetorical is, of course, evident to anyone with the merest capacity for critical thought—so why, despite its being patently obvious, is he the only media critic saying it? (Or one of a precious few, anyway.) No need to answer that. There are 112 pieces linked at the bottom of this post that already do.

One of the most interesting (where interesting = totally fucked up) narratives of this campaign has been the constant promise that Hillary Clinton was going to cause some sort of wild drama: She was going to do anything to ensure the nomination would be hers, she wasn't ever going to drop out of the race, she was going to take it to the convention floor and turn the entire Democratic Convention into a circus, she was going to singlehandedly destroy the Democratic Party, she was going to refuse to endorse Obama, she was going to make the veep slot a condition of her endorsement, she was going to tell her supporters not to vote for him, she was going to refuse to campaign for him, she was going to run on an independent ticket, she was going to thwart his campaign somehow so McCain could win and she could run in 2012, she was going to make life difficult for Obama in the Senate, she was going to refuse a cabinet position if offered...

None of it happened. Not even close.

And yet still, still, the same people who have incessantly predicted "drama" of one sort or another from Hillary Clinton, and who have batted exactly zero, are now positively insistent that her relationship as Secretary of State with President-Elect Obama is going to be "dramatic," despite all evidence to the contrary.

If I had been so utterly wrong, so many times, as the "Drama Queen Clinton" criers have been, the last thing I'd be doing is predicting more drama that will never manifest. I'd be writing an open letter of apology to Hillary Clinton.

Tagged as: sexism, clinton, obama, secretary of state, hillary clinton, hilllary, corporate media suck

Melissa McEwan writes and edits the blog Shakespeare's Sister.

Return to Media and Technology » Post Tools: EMAIL PRINT 10 COMMENTS PERMALINK

Also in Media and Technology
Absurd: Joe 'the Plumber' to Become War Correspondent Samuel "Joe" Wurzelbacher is heading to Israel as a war correspondent for a conservative website called pjtv.com. Post by Isaac Fitzgerald. January 7, 2009.	The GOP and Technology = Water and Oil It's just awkward (and funny) to listen to Republican leaders talk about how hip they are to the tools the kids are using on the tubes. Post by Steve Benen. January 6, 2009.	Fox News Claims 'Magic Negro' Text Was 'Inadvertently Cleared for Air' Fox New has a history of allowing racially-charged language aimed at Obama and his family to make it on air and then claiming it was simply a mistake Post by Matt Corley. January 3, 2009.

Comments	Turn comments off sitewide	Give us feedback »
Comments closed. The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.		View:
drama [Report this comment] Posted by: gk13 on Dec 4, 2008 11:36 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] I thought the drama applied at least as equally to Bill Clinton as to Hillary. Also, where is the critique of the sexist pro-Hillary coverage? I'm referring to the numerous articles that state that since Hillary Clinton is a woman and once made speeches about women's rights equaling human rights then QED she is some sort of humanitarian. That is is contrast to her supporting of the bombing of humans in Serbia, Iraq, supporting the notion of nuking Iran, supporting the Israeli bombing and invasion of Lebanon and on and on. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: drama Posted by: jingles » RE: drama Posted by: leTerrassier » RE: drama Posted by: pelican beak » RE: drama Posted by: Schroeder Coverage due to past actions [Report this comment] Posted by: RobNLA on Dec 4, 2008 1:51 PM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Hillary and Bill have been known to cause a lot of drama in the past. So this is why the press tends to frame any new Clinton story that away. They are just anticipating the next Clinton drama. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] "Coverage due to past actions" [Report this comment] Posted by: Schroeder on Dec 5, 2008 6:17 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] What you are completely ignoring is that the 'drama' was not created by the Clintons, it was created by the press. The Clintons have been accused of many things, the press has gone on endlessly covering each of those things. The Republicans were determined to find dirt on the Clintons and the television media (and others) were happy to carry the water for the Republicans. I find it interesting that there has never been anything remotely close in the coverage of GWB's not just 'alleged' wrongdoings, but his actual lies and the death and destruction which has resulted from it. I was very disappointed over Clinton's lie and believed that he should have simply told people that his sex life was none of their business as long as he wasn't doing anything illegal. Nobody died as a result of the Lewinski scandal, except perhaps from embarrassment. Our country has failed to do the right thing under various administrations, democrat and republican. CNN's Christiane Amanpour is currently airing a documentary on the failings of various administrations. Funny, the action that really captured the attention of George Herbert Walker Bush was that which prompted the first Iraq war. Threaten those oil fields!!! Now that brings about a response. Kill a few hundred thousand people? Ah...not so much. Maybe if instead of only paying attention to the crap which is manufactured by the media to create drama and capture the attention of individuals who thrive on soap operas, perhaps we could be observant of the things that are happening in the world that we should be vocal about and holding our government accountable for. It is a mystery to me why people are such Clinton haters...get a life! [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Totally agree with Shroeder above [Report this comment] Posted by: cheryljohns on Dec 5, 2008 6:40 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] I think it does have a lot to do with the dumbing down of America. The average American can give you the line-up on who is on Dancing With the Stars - but not who the current Attorney General is. The right-wing and media-manufactured Clinton drama? Ah, that captured their attention. The outrageous breaking down of our constitution and the tanking of our economy by GWB? Not so much. If only GWB had gotten a blow job while doing the things he did - now the American public would take notice! Too bad so many of our young people had to die in a BS war that we fought so Bush and Gang could make millions - just because the great unwashed has the attention span of a gnat. Idiocracy? Hey, we'll be there soon. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] mrswhit [Report this comment] Posted by: Mrswhit on Dec 5, 2008 11:52 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Short of lying about his sexual behavior, the Clintons have been found guilty of nothing. Years of "investigations" offered up nothing, nil, zip, nadda! The continual hounding by all media will never let up, yet I admire both Clintons. It's the 'what if' stories I'm tired of. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] can the new white house implant/infuse some professionalism in news broadcasting now... [Report this comment] Posted by: Bearzerker on Dec 7, 2008 3:36 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] PLEASE! The shunning Fox News on anything political is a good first step... but selecting another TV monolith as your preferred mouthpiece is amateurish at best and disastrous at worst! Lets get INFO-tainment out of NEWS Broadcasts and politicals out of the newsrooms... PERIOD! the politics of who says what, when and so on in News Broadcasts is mind numbing to the point of a brain hemorrhaging. I want Walter Cronkite-ism BACK! that's the way it is [insert date] [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

«	January 2009					»
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

» RE: drama Posted by: jingles

» RE: drama Posted by: leTerrassier

» RE: drama Posted by: pelican beak

» RE: drama Posted by: Schroeder

Media and Technology archive by date:

Use » and « to view other months.

Search:

» RE: drama Posted by: jingles

» RE: drama Posted by: leTerrassier

» RE: drama Posted by: pelican beak

» RE: drama Posted by: Schroeder