The media's coverage of Hillary Clinton
Ballotpedia's scope changes periodically, and this article type is no longer actively created or maintained. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.
Ballotpedia's scope changes periodically, and this article type is no longer actively created or maintained. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.
January 28, 2016
By Kelly Coyle
 Democratic presidential nominee Running mate: Tim Kaine |
Democratic National Convention • Polls • Debates • Presidential election by state |
Domestic affairs • Economic affairs and government regulations • Foreign affairs and national security • Hillarycare • Tenure as U.S. senator • Tenure as secretary of state • Email investigation • Paid speeches • WikiLeaks • Media coverage of Clinton |
Donald Trump (R) • Jill Stein (G) • Gary Johnson (L) • Vice presidential candidates |
2028 • 2024 • 2020 • 2016 |
This page was current as of the 2016 election.
Hillary Clinton has had a long and uncomfortable relationship with some of the nation's largest news organizations. When Politico reporters Maggie Haberman and Glenn Thrush asked a "Clinton campaign veteran" why Clinton "hasn’t done more to reach out to reporters over the years," the reply was, "Look, she hates you. Period. That’s never going to change."[1]
Although Clinton has received plenty of criticism from some members of the media, as most political figures do, she has also received praise for having a "genuine passion for policy," and, as Haberman noted, she has benefitted "from a news corps that overreached" in their attacks against her.[2][3]
According to Politico, "The former first lady has been excoriated—called a killer, a conman, a calculating wife and a dysfunctional leader. But she has also been extolled as a feminist icon, a shrewd stateswoman, a devoted mother and a thoughtful policymaker. These myriad character sketches—the good and the bad, the offensive and the saccharine, the astute and the naive—have defined Hillary’s quarter-century in the national spotlight."[4]
The media has continued to portray Clinton in contradictory "character sketches" as she once again runs for president, even though "there is some sense that she is a known commodity for voters," as Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza pointed out.[5] With an electorate that is very familiar with the former first lady, senator and secretary of state, can the media still influence how the public perceives her and impact her bid for president?
In order to understand how the media has portrayed Clinton in its coverage, a corpus of articles from the top five most popular news websites were chosen for analysis. Two-hundred and fifty articles from August 15, 2015, to November 15, 2015, were collected for analysis. The data collected can be viewed below.
For Ballotpedia's analysis of the media's coverage of Donald Trump, see here.
Method
Research question: How is the media covering or portraying Hillary Clinton?
Data collected: Using Alexa.com, the top five news websites with the most traffic in the United States were chosen for analysis. "Hillary Clinton" was entered in each site's search engine, and articles published from August 15, 2015, to November 15, 2015, were collected. Fifty articles from each site were collected, for a total of 250 articles.
Because the purpose of this study is to examine how news organizations portray a candidate, all types of articles were included in the analysis. The first fifty articles that appeared in each news organization’s search results that fell within the date range were collected and examined. This study contains traditional news articles, opinion pieces and articles from every other category of a news organization's website.
The following sites and articles were excluded from the data collected because they did not meet the criteria for collection: Reddit, Yahoo News, The Guardian, Google News, The Weather Channel, Forbes, BBC News, Associated Press articles, articles from other sources or multiple sources, transcripts of television shows, videos, and articles that appeared more than once in the search results.
| National news | Data collected |
|---|---|
| CNN | The search term "Hillary Clinton" was used. The results were sorted by "Stories," "Relevance" and "Date.” Every 10th article was collected. (2,571 results) |
| The New York Times | The search term "Hillary Clinton" was used. The results were limited by "Date: August 15, 2015 - November 15, 2015," "Articles" and "Relevance." The first 50 articles were collected. (1,240 results) |
| The Huffington Post | The search term "Hillary Clinton" was used. The results were sorted by "Relevance" and "News." The first 50 articles in the date range were collected. |
| Fox News | The search term "Hillary Clinton" was used. The results were limited by "Story" and "Date" and were sorted by "Relevance." The first 50 articles were collected. (815 results) |
| The Washington Post | The search term "Hillary Clinton" was used. The results were sorted by "12 months" and "Relevance." The first 50 articles in the date range were collected. (7,998 results) |
Coding: The articles collected were coded using Ballotpedia's 2016 presidential issue categories. An issue category code name (e.g., "Taxes," "Character," etc.) was given to each article according to where it would be included on a 2016 presidential candidate's page. Articles that discussed multiple issues were assigned multiple issue codes. All of the articles were assigned an issue category code name during the first reading of the articles; these were verified during the second and third reading.
After the first reading, the following topic codes were created because they appeared frequently:
- President Barack Obama
- Former President Bill Clinton
- Gender
Analysis: How is the media covering or portraying Clinton?
Even though the media has reported extensively on the investigation into her use of a private email account and server, her "flip-flops" on issues, and her perceived lack of authenticity and trustworthiness, there is a consensus in the media that she will be the Democratic nominee despite all of these problems.
On August 15, 2015, Ross Douthat, a conservative New York Times op-ed columnist, wrote, "Hillary’s going to win the nomination, and it isn’t going to be particularly close." He noted that the only way Clinton will not be the nominee is if she is indicted for using a private email account and server as secretary of state. He added that "the email affair, no less than the shady Clinton Foundation dealings, looks like the kind of scandal that Clinton supporters have long conditioned themselves to justify: An inappropriate and self-interested episode, clumsily covered over, but at once murky and slow-dripping enough for Democratic partisans to shrug, say, 'LOLBenghazi' and move on."[6] Besides an indictment, which Douthat notes, Clinton's most recent obstacle is the growing support for Bernie Sanders.
Clinton still maintains a significant lead in national polls over her opponents, and according to a December 2015 Rasmussen poll, 59 percent of likely U.S. voters believe that the media is not biased against her. In addition, "a plurality (44%) of voters in Clinton’s own party says the media is not biased against her."[7] Considering the public's support for Clinton's presidency and the belief that she has been treated fairly by the media, it does not seem that the articles written about her have done much to negatively impact voters' opinions of her. However, it should be noted that from March to November, Clinton’s "trustworthy" rating dropped, prompting Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza to conclude that "her decision to set up a private e-mail server while at the State Department" contributed to the downward trend.[5] If Clinton continues to lose ground in the polls or loses early primary elections, the media’s impact on her campaign should be revisited. For now, though, it seems that the media, and Clinton herself, can do little to influence how voters perceive the frontrunner for president.
The media outlets that were chosen for analysis in this study focused the most on issues that would appear in Ballotpedia's "Political savvy" section. Of the 230 mentions or in-depth discussions in this section, Clinton’s use of a private email account and server (62 major/21 minor), the Benghazi terrorist attack and hearings (36 major/25 minor) and her character (34 major/12 minor) received the most coverage.
There were 201 mentions or in-depth discussions of policy-related issues that would appear in Ballotpedia's "On the issues" section. Clinton’s stances on domestic issues received the most coverage, with 122 articles containing comments about her domestic policy. Issues that would appear in the "Civil liberties" section, including voting rights, marijuana policy and the Black Lives Matter movement, were covered 30 times (16 major/14 minor).
There were 138 mentions or in-depth discussions of campaign-related issues and events that would appear in Ballotpedia's "On the trail" section. Issues related to her campaign (fundraising events, endorsements, polls, etc.) received the most coverage, appearing 76 times.
While coding the articles, three additional topics were added to the analysis. President Barack Obama's name appeared in 80 of the 250 articles collected. Former President Bill Clinton's name appeared in 58 articles. Discussions about gender or references to Clinton's gender appeared in 34 articles (16 major/18 minor). A discussion of these topics appears below.
Clinton's top 10 most covered issues
Clinton's issue coverage by Ballotpedia's categories
Clinton's issue totals by Ballotpedia's categories
Clinton's top 4 topics in the "On the issues" section
Presidents Clinton and Obama
Comparisons between Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama and between Hillary and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, are somewhat inevitable considering her relationship to both men. Clinton has said her presidency would be similar to President Obama’s and that she would like to "build on the successes of President Obama, but also ... to go beyond."[8] Bill has campaigned on her behalf, and she has discussed his accomplishments as president with voters. In the 250 articles collected, President Obama appeared in 80, and President Clinton appeared in 58. Although the strategy of aligning herself with President Obama and Bill may help her with Democratic voters, it has caused some members of the media to question Clinton's record of accomplishment and her campaigning style in a way that may harm her candidacy.
New York Times contributing op-ed writer Peter Wehner wrote in September 2015 that Clinton is "not a natural political talent," adding that during the 2008 campaign "she showed herself to be, in Barack Obama’s withering phrase, 'likable enough.'" Discussing her demeanor on the campaign trail, he wrote, "In public Mrs. Clinton often comes across as inauthentic, charmless and brittle, and she is poor on the stump. When campaigning, one senses that for her it’s an act of will rather than an act of joy. In these respects, she is the antithesis of her husband."[9] Comments like Wehner's highlight a weakness that Clinton has with an electorate that desires authenticity and charisma.
It is clear that Clinton’s style and persona are different from her husband’s and President Obama’s, but one reporter did praise her after noting the skills of her predecessors. Before the October 2015 Democratic debate, New York Times political reporter Amy Chozick wrote, "Mrs. Clinton does not possess the retail political skills of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, nor can she easily rouse a crowd with a lyrical speech like President Obama. But on the debate stage, she displays an unusual talent and focus, and appears at ease and comfortably herself."[2]
The comparisons to Obama and Bill have also caused the media to question her record in the Senate and as secretary of state. Washington Post national political correspondent Karen Tumulty wrote that while Clinton plays "an outsized role in the nation’s consciousness as an advocate and a political survivor," her voters are unable to name her accomplishments. Tumulty noted that this may be partly due to Clinton's "supportive" role in the Clinton and Obama administrations. Tumulty then pointed to liberal activist Arnie Arnesen’s comments about Clinton as representative of what many Democratic voters think. Arnesen said: "I don’t really know Hillary. I know Hillary under Clinton. I know Hillary under Obama. And in the Senate she was a workhorse, not a show horse. What does that mean? It means she didn’t take a leadership role."[10]
As the wife of a former president, Clinton also faces the question of whether she "would have risen to presidential status if she hadn’t been married to Bill," as New York Times op-ed columnist Gail Collins wrote in an article exploring Clinton’s place in the history of women in politics. Collins wrote that "her fans tend to argue that if she hadn’t gotten married at all, she’d probably have gotten to the same place quicker on her own."[11] There is no way to know if Clinton would have "gotten to the same place quicker on her own," but it seems as though the comparisons to Bill and the reminders about his personal baggage are not helping to portray her in a positive light, just as comparisons to President Obama only seem to show her perceived weaknesses as a campaigner.
Emails
| "How the Story of Hillary Clinton's Emails Has Changed" |
| In October 2015, New York Times correspondents Eric Lipton and Michael S. Schmidt outlined how Clinton’s statements about her use of a private email account "evolved" or were "revised" or "adjusted."[12]
|
*Initial comments: Clinton said that she only used one device for her emails out of convenience.
|
*Initial comments: Clinton said that her emails did not contain classified information.
|
*Initial comments: Clinton said that she gave all of her work-related emails to the State Department.
|
*Initial comments: On Sept. 20, 2015, Clinton said, "When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, O.K., great, I will go through them again. And we provided all of them."
|
- See also: Hillary Clinton email investigation
During the Democratic debate on October 13, 2015, Bernie Sanders said, "Let me say something that may not be great politics...the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails." After the debate, Washington Post reporter Katie Zezima wrote that despite some help from Sanders with her emails, "the controversy is not going away any time soon."[13] While Sanders later clarified that he was not suggesting that the FBI should end its investigation, he was responding to the media’s intense coverage of Clinton’s use of a private email account and personal server during her tenure as secretary of state, as well as her evolving comments about the issue.[14] The email fatigue created by the media that Sanders described reflects the coverage that her emails received—83 total mentions in the 250 articles collected for this study (62 major/21 minor).
CNN reporter Eric Bradner wrote in August 2015 that despite her status as the Democratic front-runner, voters' "views of her candidacy are still being shaped by the [email] controversy. The CNN/ORC poll shows that 56% of Americans say she did something wrong by using a personal email account on a private server during her tenure as America's top diplomat."[15]
The connection between Clinton's email practices and her character is a storyline that many members of the media have written about. For example, New York Times op-ed columnist Charles Blow began his September 10, 2015, article by writing, "She just can’t seem to shake the email controversy and the idea that the issue raises — or raises again — some kind of character flaw. … But every month, every week, every news cycle that the media focus is on the way Clinton is addressing the issue is a bad day for her, regardless of what she says or does about it."[16]
In August 2015, K.T. McFarland, a Fox News national security analyst, wrote, "The reporter who broke the Watergate scandal wide open, Bob Woodward, says the Hillary email scandal reminds him of Nixon’s drawn out battle over the White House tapes 40 years ago." She then compared how Nixon handled his tapes to how Clinton has handled her emails and raised a series of questions that called her character into question: "Does she have something to hide? … Was Secretary Clinton trying to hide some wrongdoing? Are those missing emails about the Benghazi scandal? About a relationship between the Clinton Foundation donors and her decisions at the State Department?"[17]
Clinton's evolving comments about her emails and the private nature of the FBI's investigation have led some members of the media to question whether she will be indicted for her choices. Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Libertarian senior judicial analyst at Fox News, outlined all of the illegal activity that could cause her trouble in the future. He wrote that she deleted 30,000 emails from her personal server because she deemed that they were "personal," but, according to federal law, the emails she sent and received are the property of the federal government. In addition, she chose which emails were personal and which were "governmental and sent them on to the State Department. Under federal law, that is not a determination she may lawfully make." Napolitano also wrote that "she stole from the government the metadata it owns" by printing the emails and delivering them to government officials. Finally, he wrote that by "using only her own server, she knowingly diverted all classified emails sent to her away from the government’s secure venue. That’s the crime."[18]
Clinton's emails and server continue to garner news coverage and are likely to continue receiving coverage until there is some sort of a resolution. In the meantime, as Blow and Bradner noted, the controversy will shape the media's coverage of Clinton's campaign and influence how voters perceive her.
Benghazi
See also: Terrorist attack on U.S. mission in Benghazi, 2012
While Clinton was serving as secretary of state, the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked, and four Americans were killed. The events leading up to the attack, the attack and the events after the attack have been the topic of many articles and reports, and the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s years-long investigation has helped keep the story on the minds of voters. The day before Clinton appeared in front of the committee, CNN senior enterprise reporter Stephen Collinson wrote, "Three years, seven investigations and thousands of pages of emails have not dampened the political drama surrounding the murky events that day and the role that Clinton played in handling them." He also called the Benghazi hearing in October 2015 "one of the most anticipated set piece moments in the 2016 presidential race," so it is no surprise that the hearings and terrorist attack appeared in 61 of the 250 articles collected for this study. There were 36 articles that focused on Benghazi and 25 that mentioned the issue.[19]
The media’s coverage of the Benghazi hearing seemed to be split depending on the political leaning of the writer. Some thought that Clinton "shined" and that the Republicans made the hearing look like a "partisan witch hunt." Others argued that the hearing revealed that Clinton knew the attack was planned and had nothing to do with a video that the Obama administration claimed was the reason for the attack.[20][21]
David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst, wrote, "Naturally enough, some conservatives relished the hearings. Editorial writers for the Wall Street Journal, for example, argued that instead of yielding nothing, the hearings showed that even as Clinton was telling the Egyptians that terrorists had planned and carried out Benghazi, the administration was still claiming a film had triggered a spontaneous attack." Gergen conceded that Republicans had a good point, but also wrote that what was revealed was "not the stuff of scandal." He justified the lie, writing, "And who has been telling the bigger lie: those who first misled us about the film -- and soon corrected themselves -- or those who continue to insist the Clinton hearing was impartial?"[21]
Fox News’ K.T. McFarland picked up on the same information in the hearing that Gergen and The Wall Street Journal described, and she tied the information to Clinton’s character. McFarland wrote, "Instead it was -- and still is -- about character. And Secretary Clinton has been found wanting. The even greater tragedy is Secretary Clinton doesn’t think she did anything wrong. In today’s Washington integrity and truth telling -- even to mourning families -- take a backseat to the relentless pursuit of power."[22]
The New York Times' editorial board did not address the line of questioning that Gergen and McFarland discussed, and instead, they wrote, "Unsurprisingly, the hearing yielded no new information about the attacks. It quickly and predictably devolved into a partisan battle between Republicans intent on hurting Mrs. Clinton’s bid for the White House and Democrats who sought to make her look presidential. … They produced no damning evidence, elicited no confessions and didn’t succeed in getting an angry reaction from Mrs. Clinton."[23]
Media on the left and the right praised Clinton for her performance during the hearings and criticized the Republican-led committee. Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza wrote that "Clinton looked in control, poised and smart."[20] Fox News' McFarland called it "a masterful performance. She showed enormous discipline and nearly super-human stamina."[22]
Because of Clinton’s strong performance and the inability of Republicans to "catch Clinton off her guard or come up with significant new revelations to argue that she was negligent in her duties," Huffington Post senior political reporter, Amanda Terkel, wrote that it would likely "give her a boost with the base, especially coming off from a strong performance after the first Democratic debate last week."[24] And it did. Cillizza noted that "[t]he hour after the end of the committee hearing — 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time Thursday — was the most lucrative 60 minutes of fundraising in Clinton’s campaign."[20] He wrote that Republicans "pulled off a trick that Clinton never could seem to do herself: They have turned her into a sympathetic and more appealing figure for Democrats and lots of independents — whom she will need in a general election."[20]
Character
Questions about her emails, her involvement in the Benghazi terrorist attacks and aftermath, Whitewater, "Travelgate," the Clinton Foundation, and her perceived lack of authenticity have all contributed to multiple polls showing that Clinton is not seen as "honest" or "trustworthy."[25][26][5][27] The belief that Clinton is dishonest is likely a combination of Clinton's words and deeds and the media's focus on a variety of questionable events in her long life as a public figure. Clinton’s character was discussed in 46 of the 250 articles collected. Thirty-four articles focused on her character and 12 mentioned it. Her character was most frequently addressed in articles that focused on the questions surrounding her private email account and server, her changing positions on issues for political expediency and a story that she told about attempting to join the Marines. These issues are described below.
Polls: "Dishonest" and "Untrustworthy"
In a November 2015 article, Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza wrote that despite "her star turn at the first Democratic presidential debate in mid-October" and rising poll numbers, the "majority of Americans don't believe the words 'honest' or 'trustworthy' apply to her," according to a Quinnipiac University poll.[5] Citing a chart showing that her trustworthiness dropped in the minds of voters from March to August and had shown little improvement by November, Cillizza concluded that "her decision to set up a private e-mail server while at the State Department" contributed to the downward trend.[5]
Daniel Silliman, an instructor of American religion and culture at Heidelberg University, also cited a poll showing Clinton's perceived lack of trustworthiness. Silliman discussed Clinton’s September 2015 visit to Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, where she spoke from the pulpit about her faith. He wrote, "Voters consistently say they want politicians to have faith, yet they often don’t believe them when they talk about it. For Clinton, this seems especially true. When she talks about her religious beliefs and practices, people often don’t believe her. More than half of Americans say they don’t trust Clinton, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll."[27]
"Flip-flopping" on issues
In an October 2015 op-ed, New York Times columnist David Brooks accused Clinton of changing her stance on a variety of issues to get elected. He wrote, "She is campaigning on a series of positions that she transparently does not believe in. She’ll say what she needs to say now to become Bernie Sanders in a pantsuit (wait, Bernie Sanders already wears a pantsuit!). Then, nomination in hand and White House won, she will, it appears, transparently flip back and embrace whatever other positions she doesn’t believe in that will help her succeed in her new role."[28]
Citing her changing stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and gay marriage, mass incarcerations, allowing undocumented immigrants to have driver’s licenses, and ethanol subsidies, Brooks wrote, "We all get to change our mind in response to the facts, but each of these intellectual inquiries happens to have led her in a politically convenient direction."[28]
Fox News contributor Jon Kraushar listed the same changing issue positions as Brooks did in an op-ed written after the October 2015 Democratic debate. Kraushar also described Clinton’s changing statements about whether she is a "progressive" or "moderate" Democrat. He wrote, "For example, at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio last month, Clinton said, 'You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center. I plead guilty.' Yet in the recent Democratic debate and in a previous campaign stop in New Hampshire, Clinton averred, 'I take a backseat to no one when you look at my record in standing up and fighting for progressive values.'"[29]
Huffington Post reporter Samantha Lachman also picked up on Clinton’s evolving issue positions, noting that during the 2008 campaign her opponents attacked her for "flip-flopping on issues," including the Iraq war, the North American Free Trade Agreement, Social Security and driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants.[30]
Clinton’s story about attempting to join the Marines
While speaking at a campaign event in Manchester, New Hampshire, on November 10, 2015, Clinton repeated a story that she first told in 1994 about trying to join the Marines in 1975. Referring to the recruiter, she said, "He looks at me and goes, 'Um, how old are you.' And I said, 'Well I am 26, I will be 27.' And he goes, 'Well, that is kind of old for us.' And then he says to me, and this is what gets me, 'Maybe the dogs will take you,' meaning the Army," according to Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler.[31] CNN’s Dan Merica and Jeff Zeleny noted that when Clinton told the story in 1994, she said the recruiter said, "You're too old, you can't see and you're a woman."[32]
Because of Clinton’s well-known anti-war stance at the time, the veracity of her story was questioned. Kessler gave Clinton "two Pinocchios" for the story, explaining, "Clinton suggests she simply decided to join the Marines, as part of way to serve the country. But it makes more sense that she approached the Marines as part of a deliberate effort to test the boundaries available to women, especially given her documented antiwar activities."[31]
After Kessler released his fact-checking article, Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza asked, "Why aren’t Hillary Clinton’s exaggerations of her life story bigger news?" He discussed her story about attempting to join the Marines and her false account of "landing in Bosnia under sniper fire." He then asked why these exaggerated (or completely false) stories were not given the same attention that Ben Carson’s life stories were given. He concluded that, even though Clinton’s stories had factual errors, she is "not new to the political scene… Hence, no news peg. And less coverage."[33]
Positive comments
Although many articles questioned Clinton's character and ethics, she was also praised for her work ethic and resilience. Eleni Kounalakis, who served with her as U.S. ambassador to Hungary from 2010 to 2013, defended Clinton’s record as secretary of state and praised her for her hard work and leadership. Kounalakis wrote that "she had the right kind of work ethic, the right brand of wonkiness, to be embraced quickly by her 70,000 new employees at the State Department."[34]
In a New York Times op-ed discussing Clinton’s successful performance during the October 2015 Benghazi hearing, Charles Blow wrote, "She is sharp and tough and resilient. She is a rock, and she is not to be trifled with. The Clintons as a couple, and individually, are battle-hardened. They are not new to this. They are survivors. Even when they lose, they survive."[35]
Gender
In an article exploring Clinton’s place in the history of women in politics, New York Times op-ed columnist Gail Collins wrote, "Once again we’re wondering whether Hillary Clinton will make history by becoming the first woman president."[11] Because the United States has never elected a woman as president, a woman running for the nation's highest political office will inevitably have to address the issue with voters and members of the media. Clinton's gender, her focus on "women's issues," and sexism appeared in 34 articles collected for this study. There were 16 major discussions and 18 minor mentions.
The sexism of the 2008 campaign—like the man who yelled at her "Iron my shirt!"—has not appeared on the 2016 campaign trail so far, according to Clinton, who told Collins in an interview that she does not "sense the level of either novelty or resistance that I encountered in ’07-08." Clinton did not, however, rule out sexist attacks occurring later in the campaign.[11] Although many scholars showed that Clinton was the victim of sexist media in 2008, issues of gender and sexism largely appeared in the articles in this study because Clinton brought them up.[36][37][38][39]
In October 2015, CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond wrote, "This time around, Clinton has been less shy to play up her gender and has focused lately on appearing less scripted and more personable to voters."[40] Similarly, CNN reporter Nia-Malika Henderson wrote that Clinton’s stance on "women’s issues" would be a "staple of her speeches as aides see it as central to her appeal and electoral chances."[41]
On August 29, 2015, Henderson wrote that Clinton used the same "caustic language" that Donald Trump often uses when she compared her Republican opponents to terrorists for their views about women. Clinton said, "Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don't want to live in the modern world, but it's a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States. Yet they espouse out of date, out of touch policies. They are dead wrong for 21st century America. We are going forward, we are not going back. … And I know that when I talk like this some people think there she goes again with the women's issues. Republicans actually say I am playing the gender card. Well, if calling for equal pay and paid leave and women's health is playing the gender card, deal me in."[41]
Clinton also accused Bernie Sanders of being sexist at the Democratic National Committee's Women's Leadership Forum in Washington, D.C., in October 2015. Clinton said, "I’ve been told to stop shouting about gun violence. Well I’m not shouting. It’s just when women talk, people think we’re shouting." Huffington Post reporter Ryan Grenoble wrote, "The line was a clear reference to Sanders, who told her in the first Democratic debate that 'all the shouting in the world' was unlikely to pass gun control legislation."[42] Sanders later responded to her comments, saying, "All that I can say is I am very proud of my record on women's issues. I certainly do not have a problem with women speaking out -- and I think what the secretary is doing there is taking words and misapplying them."[43] Clinton’s accusation was ineffective and did not have any noticeable negative impact on Sanders’ momentum.
Civil liberties
In order to win the Democratic nomination and the general election, Washington Post reporter Vanessa Williams noted that Clinton must energize black voters to cast their ballots for her on election night.[44] Because of this, Clinton has made speaking about civil liberties a priority on the campaign trail. Discussion of Clinton's comments on a variety of civil liberties appeared in 30 (16 major discussions/14 minor mentions) of the 250 articles that were collected; these discussions included her relationship with members of the Black Lives Matter movement and her stance on marijuana policy and voting rights.
Williams reported that at a campaign event in Atlanta, Georgia, in October, Clinton discussed ending mass incarcerations and ensuring equal pay for equal work—issues that matter to many black voters. Williams interviewed Blondean Greene, a retired public school teacher, who attended the event in Atlanta. Greene said, "The Clintons understand black people." But Williams also noted, "There are black voters who are unequivocal in their dislike of the Clintons’ politics." Williams then pointed to an anticrime law that Bill Clinton signed "that led to over-policing in communities of color and mandatory sentencing that inflated incarceration rates." She also noted that the Clintons made "racially insensitive" comments about black voters during the 2008 campaign. Despite these issues, "Clinton led Sanders 61 percent to 13 percent among non-white Democratic voters," according to a poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News following the first Democratic debate.[44]
Black Lives Matter movement
Members of the Black Lives Matter movement have been critical of Clinton because she has not fully articulated policies that will help black people, according to Patrisse Cullors, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter. During an interview with The Huffington Post in August 2015, Cullors said, "How do we know what she’s saying is going to translate into real-life changes for black people? We haven’t seen a racial justice agenda from the Hillary campaign. We haven’t seen a criminal justice reform agenda from the Hillary campaign." The Huffington Post also reported that BLM activist DeRay Mckesson tweeted the following after listening to one of Clinton’s speeches: "So, @HillaryClinton's speech has ended. I heard a lot of things. And nothing directly about black folk. Coded language won't cut it." Mckesson was, however, hopeful that a meeting with Clinton would be more productive in getting her to address issues that matter to the black community.[45]
In August, Clinton met with the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement to discuss issues that impact the black community. Dan Merica, CNN’s political producer, reported that during the meeting, BLM leaders confronted Clinton about the "racist" policies of Bill Clinton's presidency. Clinton did not agree with their characterization and said, "I do think that there was a different set of concerns back in the '80s and the early '90s. And now I believe that we have to look at the world as it is today and try and figure out what will work now. And that's what I'm trying to figure out and that's what I intend to do as president. … I do think that a lot of what was tried and how it was implemented has not produced the kinds of outcomes that any of us would want. But I also believe that there are systemic issues of race and justice that go deeper than any particular law."[46]
Voting rights
In October 2015, CNN’s Dan Merica reported that "Clinton has made voting rights a cornerstone of her six-month-old presidential campaign" and that she "supports the concept of signing up every American to vote as soon as they're eligible at age 18, unless they specifically opt out." She also "called for expanded access to polling places, keeping them open for at least 20 days and offering voting hours on evenings and weekends."[47]
During a speech in Alabama in October 2015, after legislators decided "to close 31 driver's license offices and require proof of citizenship to vote," Clinton criticized the decisions, saying, "We have to defend the most fundamental right in our democracy, the right to vote. No one in this state, no one, should ever forget the history that enabled generations of people left out and left behind to finally be able to vote." She called the decisions "a blast from the Jim Crow past."[47]
Decriminalizing marijuana
Mollie Reilly, The Huffington Post’s deputy politics editor, reported in November 2015 that Clinton proposed reclassifying marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule II substance, "which are considered to have 'less abuse potential.'" Clinton said, "What I do want is for us to support research into medical marijuana because a lot more states have passed medical marijuana than have legalized marijuana, so we've got two different experiences or even experiments going on right now. And the problem with medical marijuana is there's a lot of anecdotal evidence about how well it works for certain conditions, but we haven't done any research. Why? Because it's considered what's called a Schedule I drug and you can't even do research in it. … If we're going to have a lot of states setting up marijuana dispensaries so that people who have some kind of medical need are getting marijuana, we need know what's the quality of it, how much should you take, what should you avoid if you're taking other medications." Reilly also noted that Clinton proposed decriminalizing marijuana use, a stance that many black voters support. Clinton said, "We have got to stop imprisoning people who use marijuana."[48]
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ Politico, "What is Hillary Clinton Afraid of?" accessed January 15, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 The New York Times, "In Debate, Hillary Clinton Will Display Skills Honed Over a Lifetime," accessed January 10, 2016
- ↑ New York Times, "Hillary Clinton Seeks to Recapture Spirit of 2000 Campaign," accessed January 26, 2016
- ↑ Politico, "Covering Hillary: A Visual History," accessed January 15, 2016
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Washington Post, "Things are great for Hillary Clinton right now. This chart shows why those good times might not last.," accessed January 11, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Hillary Clinton’s Got This," January 11, 2016
- ↑ Rasmussen Reports, "Voters See Media Biased Against Trump but Not Clinton," January 11, 2016
- ↑ Washington Post, "Clinton puts little space between herself and Obama," accessed January 10, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Clinton, Trump and the Politics of Self-Destruction," accessed January 10, 2016
- ↑ Washington Post, "Hillary Clinton tries to show that her record is more than just talk," accessed January 10, 2016
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 The New York Times, "Hillary in History," accessed January 9, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "How the Story of Hillary Clinton’s Emails Has Changed," accessed January 11, 2016
- ↑ Washington Post, "Hillary Clinton got help about her e-mails, but the controversy isn’t going away," accessed January 12, 2016
- ↑ The Huffington Post, "Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton's Emails Deserve Scrutiny," accessed January 12, 2016
- ↑ CNN, "Clinton team steps up defense in email controversy," accessed January 11, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Hillary Is Hobbling, for Now," accessed January 11, 2015
- ↑ Fox News, "Is the Hillary email scandal Watergate all over again?" accessed January 13, 2016
- ↑ Fox News, "The deceptions of Hillary Clinton," accessed January 11, 2015
- ↑ CNN, "From Benghazi to Capitol Hill: 3 years of accusations and investigations," accessed January 11, 2016
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 Washington Post, "How Republicans saved Hillary Clinton. Again.," accessed January 14, 2016
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 CNN, "GOP's helping hand for Hillary Clinton," accessed January 12, 2016
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 Fox News, "Hillary Clinton showed us a glimpse of her soul at Benghazi hearings. It was chilling," accessed January 12, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi Gang," accessed January 12, 2016
- ↑ Huffington Post, "Republicans Fail To Take Down Hillary Clinton After 11-Hour Benghazi Hearing," accessed January 20, 2016
- ↑ Washington Examiner, "A brief guide to Clinton scandals from Travelgate to Emailgate," accessed January 25, 2016
- ↑ Washington Post, "Post Politics Clinton Foundation says donations are on the rise," accessed January 7, 2016
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 Washington Post, "Hillary Clinton showed up for church today. Will faith help or hurt her on the campaign?" accessed January 8, 2016
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 The New York Times, "Hillary Clinton’s Opportunist Solution!" accessed January 9, 2016
- ↑ Fox News, "When Hillary Clinton wields the word 'honestly' it's time to watch out, America," accessed January 8, 2016
- ↑ Huffington Post, "For Hillary Clinton, History Could Repeat Itself On The Debate Stage," accessed January 9, 2016
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 Washington Post, "Hillary Clinton’s claim that she tried to join the Marines," accessed January 7, 2016
- ↑ CNN, "Friend says Clinton tried to join Marines as exercise in women's rights," accessed January 7, 2016
- ↑ Washington Post, "Why aren’t Hillary Clinton’s exaggerations of her life story bigger news?" accessed January 8, 2015
- ↑ CNN, "Hillary Clinton revived America's reputation in world," accessed January 9, 2016
- ↑ The New York, "Times Hillary Clinton Wins Again," accessed January 9, 2016
- ↑ Carroll, S. (2009). "Reflections on Gender and Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign: The Good, the Bad, and the Misogynic." Politics & Gender. (5, 1-20).
- ↑ Carlin, D. and Winfrey, K. (2009). "Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage." Communication Studies. (60.4, 326–343).
- ↑ Miller, M., Peake, J., & Boulton, B. (2010). "Testing the Saturday Night Live Hypothesis: Fairness and Bias in Newspaper Coverage of Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign." Politics & Gender. (6, 169–198).
- ↑ MediaMatters.org, "MSNBC's Chris Matthews problem," accessed January 25, 2016
- ↑ CNN, "Hillary Clinton recalls tearing up in '08: I felt drained," accessed January 9, 2016
- ↑ 41.0 41.1 CNN, "Clinton relishes role as champion of women's rights," accessed January 9, 2016
- ↑ Huffington Post, "Hillary Clinton Shuts Down Those Who Accuse Women Of 'Shouting,'" accessed January 9, 2016
- ↑ CNN, "Sanders: I am not 'shouting' at Hillary Clinton," accessed January 23, 2016
- ↑ 44.0 44.1 Washington Post, "For Clinton, a challenge to keep black voters energized about her campaign," accessed January 9, 2016
- ↑ Huffington Post, "Hillary Clinton And Black Lives Matter Feel Each Other Out," accessed January 10, 2016
- ↑ CNN, "Black Lives Matter videos, Clinton campaign reveal details of meeting," accessed January 10, 2016
- ↑ 47.0 47.1 CNN, "Clinton: Alabama voting restrictions 'a blast from the Jim Crow past,'" accessed January 9, 2016
- ↑ The Huffington Post, "Hillary Clinton Proposes Reclassifying Marijuana As A Less Dangerous Drug," accessed January 9, 2016
| |||||||||||
