With Hillary Clinton as everyone's new favorite target, the truth be damned?

It's getting harder and harder to be a well-informed voter. In case you hadn't noticed, the mainstream media leans more toward opinion than fact. Point in case, Media Matters catches the Washington Post's David Ignatius, who ignores poll results from his own paper to promote his own opinions:

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius asserted of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign: "[V]oters are grappling with the unusual questions that would surround her presidency. And the most important of these is the 'two presidents' problem. Whatever you think of the Clintons, it's hard to get your mind around having a current and former president in the White House."

But a September 27-30 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 60 percent of respondents said they "personally feel comfortable ... with the idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House." And in several other 2007 polls, a majority of respondents stated that Bill Clinton is an asset to Hillary Clinton's campaign or would have a positive effect on a Hillary Clinton administration.

Whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, this type of misleading writing -- his article was titled, "Hillary's Ex Factor: The 'Two Presidents' Issue Isn't Going Away" -- must be addressed. The frontrunner in any race is always the target of scrutiny -- that's a reality of human nature (who doesn't love an underdog?). But Ignatius and others like him in the MSM are not scrutinizing, but are promoting their own opinions -- despite facts to the contrary.

Perhaps David Ignatius is "grappling" with the historic possibility of having a former President in the White House again -- as a first-spouse. And maybe Ignatius finds it "hard to get your mind around having a current and former president in the White House." But to say that "voters are grappling" with an issue when 60 percent are not is not just poor writing -- it's a lie.

Clinton viewed as strongest, most decisive candidate, but we're not going to report that

In my post earlier today I told you that Hillary Clinton is not my first choice of candidate for President. However, I feel compelled to publicize the recent Associated Press poll which shows that the American people clearly have a positive impression of her — not that you would that by watching any of the talking heads. (click for larger image)


Decisive, strong, honest, experienced, and ethical. The American people give Clinton high marks across the board — in fact, higher than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat.

But how are the poll findings being reported by the major news outlets?

FoxNews.com: Obama and Giuliani Seen as Most Likable Presidential Candidates

USA Today: Obama, Giuliani Most Likable

Washington Post: Obama, Giuliani Likable

So, apparently being likable is the most newsworthy finding of this poll. And here I would have thought it was the fact that the majority polled viewed a woman as stronger and more decisive than all of her male opponents. I don't know, I guess I thought that was kinda groundbreaking, actually. But what do I know about reporting, I'm just a blogger, right?

I can just hear the Chris Matthews (he's a real reporter) intro now: “Hillary Clinton is unlikable. Is she electable?”

Right Wing Pundit on Hillary: "At least call her a Vaginal-American"

It looks like the gloves have come off, and the Hillary Clinton haters are now showing their true colors. As far as we have come in this country to treat everyone as equals, it's now back to slamming Clinton because ... she's a woman! Gasp!

Watch the clip from Tucker here.

From Crooks and Liars:

This clip from Monday’s Tucker pegged the creepy/sexist meter. Right wing pundit Cliff May and Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson were talking about Senator Hillary Clinton and whether or not it should matter that some women may vote for her based on her gender.

Tucker throws out a frat boy style genitalia joke and spouts off about women’s loyalty to the Clintons. Not to be outdone, May, who is as whacked out as they come in the GOP, tells Tucker he doesn’t think people should vote for a candidate based on their race, religion or gender — then burps this beauty across the table which is sure to have the ladies lining up to join the Republican Party:

May: “At least call her a Vaginal-American.”

If anyone is still watching Tucker Carlson, please stop. Or explain to me why you are watching. He's immature, homophobic, sexist, and no, he can't dance. A recent poll showed that 94% of women under age 34 say they're more likely to vote in the next presidential election if there's a woman on the ballot, and Tucker Carlson is skeered!

Vaginal-American? I try to keep it clean here, so does that mean I can call May a Penis-Head?

The Clinton - Edwards Plan: Eliminate Rival Candidates from Future Presidential Debates

I expected better from both the Clinton and the Edwards campaigns, but they were caught on a live mike conspiring to eliminate their opponents from future debates.

“We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group,” Edwards is heard to say into Clinton's ear.

Clinton agreed, according to both print reports and video footage. “We've got to cut the number. ... They're not serious.”

Dennis Kucinich may not have much of a shot at winning the Democratic nomination for president, but he is playing a vital role in these debates. He is forcing the front-runners to address important issues that they would rather avoid. Who else among these candidates is calling for impeachment? Repealing the Patriot Act? Universal health care? Gay rights (including the right to marry)?

It is not up to the front runners to decide who speaks to the American public. Maybe Clinton and Edwards have been in contact with the Bush Administration for too long. Some of that “we're better than you” attitude starting to rub off on 'em.

Watch it for yourself

Just plain "Audacity"?

I know quite a few folks who are supporting Barack Obama in the next presidential campaign. I'm trying to keep an open mind about him, as with all the others on the Democratic side. One thing I will admit I have liked about Obama has been his call to rise above partisan politics and work together to find solutions. All the more reason I was surprised this morning to read that Obama's team has sent out a document attacking Clinton, which reads at best as being in poor taste, and at worst as being racist.

Perhaps some rogue Obama staffer is responsible, just like with the "1984" ad that I also thought was in poor taste. That one, you'll remember, played on the old saw about Clinton's voice being annoying. To me, it came across as incredibly misogynistic. The person responsible for that ad turned out to be someone loosely associated with the campaign, working for an advertising company hired by the Obama campaign. He subsequently left the ad company.

Now comes an "opposition document" labeled "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)’s Personal Financial and Political Ties to India." The document attacks Clinton and her husband for both personal financial holdings in Indian companies, as well for campaign fundraising with Indian ties. This bothers me on several levels. First, D-Punjab? WTF? Let me wipe the slinging mud out of my eye! So much for Obama's website statement that "Americans are tired of divisive ideological politics." Guess he thought we could use a little more nastiness on the campaign trail. That was just petty, and I expected a little more class from his campaign than that.

The main complaint about Clinton's Indian donors is aimed at money she accepted from Cisco Systems, which did lay off American workers and replace them workers in India. Note to Obama staff: Cisco's not the only company doing this. I had quite a time recently being bounced around Banaglore, or somewhere, trying to get my Earthlink DSL issue resolved. I know Obama prides himself on the huge number of small donations his campaign has collected, and that is indeed impressive. But I'm not sure this issue of Clinton accepting money from a company that outsources to India is what we should be getting ourselves worked up about. A quick look at Obama's donors shows the president and the CFO of EBay, chairman of Walt Disney Company, numerous executives from Google, and many many executives and employees from Microsoft. Et tu, Barack?

The document continues with an attack on individual donors who have had legal troubles. Um, Obama? Have you already forgotten your old friend Antoin Rezko? Back in the 1990's he gave you lots of money for your campaigns, and held fundraisers and rallys back when you were having a tough time in your congressional campaign. C'mon, you remember: he even helped you and your wife out when you bought a house. They bought the lot next door, and sold you land so you could widen your lot. Remember?

I just wonder, and worry, that this is a new side to the Obama campaign. I certainly hope we won't see more of this kind of smear tactic in what is going to be a very long presidential campaign. I hope that Obama did not approve of this attack, and I hope he will have the cojones to say it was wrong. Other wise, "fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride."