• MEDIA IMBALANCE ON HILLARY CLINTON

Media piling on the beat-up-Hillary heap should trigger a knee-jerk reaction to pause and re-consider from an evenhanded prospect. Throughout this campaign Hillary Clinton’s battle has not only been against her opponents, but has in part been against much of the media, even from its left-leaning sectors. The daily lobbing of not so subtle denigration and oft vacuous discharge is simply not a balanced or appropriate bestowal from the fourth estate. Hillary is still standing, still ardently striving to position herself in the history books as the first female President, although the current hard numbers from the democratic ranks are shrinking that possibility.

After a cantankerous campaign in 2000 Hillary Clinton first won a Senate seat representing the people of the State of New York. They re-elected her in 2006. She convinced the New York electorate that she could and would work indefatigably on its behalf. Regarless, polarization of opinion surges at the mention of the Clinton name with witless persistence, too often repeating worn acrimony. It has been an incumbrance shadowing Hillary Clinton well beyond the end of her husband’s Presidency. Some of that polarization is hers, not his. Whether a suspicion that her support of Bill through his indiscretions was pure political ambition, or simply weakness in “standing by her man,” there is incredulity for anything she says or does that translates into unfavorable pressure on ratings. Probably more than anyone, Hillary Clinton has been analyzed and researched in a quest to understand why she bugs people, or why she is tagged as an opportunist.

Are these concrete and well founded opinions of an individual’s capacity to manage the world’s most powerful economic and military power? Is there too much spin around the image that has imprinted itself permanently on our landscape? Why is “opportunist” a slightly more derogatory term when applied to her? Isn’t anyone running for public office, or any other office for that matter, an opportunist? She is accused of being cold and aloof so why does she get vilified when shedding a tear? She’s not genuine? She’s faking for sympathy? When she is characterized as a nasty woman, does that mean America’s enemies better heed their actions? Or does it imply that she’ll fire you if you’re incompetent or that she’s just simply not warm and cosy?

Hillary Clinton may understand the impact of deregulation and balance between the market and government imposition of rules better than her husband. She has some clear intensions for the establishment of guidelines regulating investments made in America by the vast pools of capital controlled by foreign powers. She has specific plans for promoting college and university education and improving the state of health care. Of all candidates she is the most specific on action plans, and one gets a sense that she actually understands the problems, has thought about them and has established her perspective. It is evident that she has a grasp of the details and has intently grappled with them. Hillary has been censured by powerful forces, and sustained more negative press than all other candidates combined, yet she is still fighting.

Ms. Clinton has demonstrated toughness and it would be difficult to point to anyone who would prove more rigorous on injecting oversight and judicious responsibility into government and corporate management. She witnessed firsthand the challenge of moving government to action. Hillary has appropriated intimate knowledge of the international markets, after having enjoyed table level view as the economy stimulating levers were activated by Greenspan in the mid to late nineteen nineties . While looking for some oratory material to stimulate her audiences, she should dust off her commencement speech to the 1969 Wellesley College.

A more even presentation and coverage of her candidacy would do America more justice. The peculiarly unhinged exposure, and sometimes outright pounding being delivered by most media needs temperance in what may prove to become one of the most critical political campaigns ever held.