NYT vs Clintons - personal account from a friend

[robbedvoter]

My Interaction With NY Times Reporter Michael Gordon


Last Tuesday I went to a Times Talks session. There were several reporters including Michael Gordon who covers foreign affairs for the NY Times.
He mocked Hillary`s foreign affairs experience and said that it was gained from osmosis.
Then I shouted out from the audience that Hillary was a player in her husband`s administration.
This is so typical of people in the media. When Hillary was first lady tons of stuff was written about how influential and powerful she was-the second most powerful person in Washington. More books were written about her than her husband.That is why she became such a polarizing figure. Now that she is running for president she is being compared to Laura Bush and Mamie Eisenhower instead of the only relevant comparison Eleanor Roosevelt.
The media hates Hillary so much that they will not give her credit when credit is due and lie through their teeth doing so.
The fact is that of all the candidates running for president Hillary`s experience is the most relevant because she had an office in the West Wing and witnessed first hand the demands and nature of the job.

[durrrty libby]

1. The media is full of it. Hillary is always voted as one of the most admired women

I think this year she was #1

[libbygurl]

2. Hm, knowing this now, I'm not surprised by the paper's heavy anti-Hillary bias.

They don't even attempt to present fair coverage anymore. So it really came as a shock to read their editorial board's endorsement of Hillary, whom they hate so much! Schizoid paper!

[jillan]

3. It is amazing. I remember the 90's very well, and Hillary was always getting

attacked for having too much influence in her husbands admin.

How quickly they forget.

That said, I am waiting for Hillary to respond to this and O's allegation that she has no experience.
Hillary will give them a one-two punch ;)