During the primary campaign, Dr. Kathy was brought on frequently as an 'expert' by Bill Moyers (to his Bill Moyers Journal -- which airs on the non-cable PBS and has a very large audience). On one of those segments (January 9th), Senator Hillary Clinton 'crying' was addressed. Hillary didn't cry but Dr. Kathy felt the need to bring that moment up and, 'expert' that she is, she credits it with Hillary's success in New Hampshire despite the fact that late breaking voters identified their reasons for going with Clinton as the Saturday debate. From the transcript of the January 9th broadcast:
BILL MOYERS: The moisty moment?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Well, whatever adjective or adverb you use, Hillary Clinton has this moment in the diner.
BILL MOYERS: The national press was cynical. Clinton is hoping that showing that other side will bring women in particular to the polls, almost as if she had done it deliberate. We don't know whether she did or not. But the two significant newspapers in New Hampshire didn't cover the event at all. And local television coverage in New Hampshire was pretty matter of fact about it. It became a bigger national story than it did a local story.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Mm-hm. But what's also interesting to me is you're not sure whether she did it deliberately or not.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Much of the commentary about that moment is simply a Rorschach read on people's ideological relationship to Hillary Clinton. The question for the electorate at large is: Does it speak to her capacity to lead? It's the same question that one should ask of everything one sees of candidates.
BILL MOYERS: Wait. Text H-O-P-E
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: H-O-P-E, the theme of the Barack Obama campaign and then, a number. That's a communication to say if you have text messaging on your cell phone, text in "hope" and that number. And the Obama campaign begins to communicate directly to you. You're putting in a zip code, and it tells you where the nearest rally is, when you're supposed to be voting, when the caucus is being held.
And so, the channels of communication this year are highly diverse. And then there's one more. I'm in Pennsylvania. We've been watching the internet communication that candidates deliver through E-mail. Now, why would they want to text message, rather than E-mail? Remember, Pennsylvania primary, 22nd of April-- have been instructions about how to get together in order to be trained to participate in the volunteer pool to get people to the polls. That's a form of advertising. Text messaging advertising, Internet advertising. And then, an unprecedented amount of money on the air. This is a year in which there's been more communication than ever in the history of primary, to more people about candidates.
BILL MOYERS: Aren't these text messages going to kids who aren't old enough to vote?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: They may be. But they're not going to people who aren't old enough to volunteer. There's no age barrier to volunteering. And what's important also, in the advertising stream this year, is that there is advertising to the young about issues of concern to the young.
The Obama campaign has pioneered this. There is one Hispanic language ad for Senator Obama, in which a young person basically explains why it's important to get your parents involved for Obama. We know there's a generational divide. Older voters, more likely, particularly older women will be with Senator Clinton, younger, with Senator Obama. This is a trickle up theory. Get the young to influence their parents.
In Hillary Clinton's biographical past is the health care reform efforts in 1993-94, in which she is accused of conducting a process that was closed door, that didn't bring the friends that might have been there to help her, into the room to help work it out. Hillary Clinton, who is accused with Bill Clinton, of not working through the compromises with those who had legislation pending that might have worked with the Clinton proposal, to ultimately produce health care reform in spring of 1994. So, closed, secretive meetings. Climber, aggressive, calculating.
Would they please steer us to their previous coverage? They don't keep workable archives, so allow us to set you straight. On January 18th, they carried one item on sexism which noted that NOW, Feminist Majority Foundation(the organization that now owns Ms. -- a fact left out of the brief), WMC and the National Women's Political Caucus were calling out "sexist comments" by Chris Matthews. They never even quoted the comments (though they were 'fair' enough to include Matthews clarification posing as an 'apology'). On February 11th, they noted David Shuster was suspended for saying Hillary had "pimped out" Chelsea. After MSNBC suspended him, Feminist Daily Wire (also called "Feminist Daily News" and "Feminist Wire") could note it. Not before, not when it needed calling out, but after he was supsended. The same way they waited until Chris Matthews issued a response to write about his sexism.
As two women who will never vote for Barack, we intend to watch the nonsense as long as it lasts. We've already witnessed MSM journalists insist that, any day now, they will stop filing fan club clippings on Barack. They insisted that in December, in January, in February . . . If we couldn't laugh at them, we'd have to cry.
The same with media 'critics' who want respect for their 'tough calls' but refuse to call out homophobia or sexism. What you're witnessing is a collapse of all known standards on the left. And while CounterSpin (which only noted sexism once this year) can be counted to 'notice' Katie Couric when it's time to deliver a 'media critique' on the 'issue' of ratings, it -- along with all 'FAIR' outlets -- works overtime to ignore Couric's words of truth.
*Added: After this posted a male friend at NBC News called us to say we'd missed one of the more hysterical moments of Megs Beyer. This is Meggie praising Barack in February of this year: "In many ways, he really will be the first woman president." Yes, she really is that pathetic.