Yes, I have been thinking all week that I would be required to address here at DeHoS the appalling judgment exhibited by Time Magazine (which is getting no link from me here, at least not to their latest issue) which has done a good deal to alter the connotation of the word “influential” in the American English lexicon. And I do mean judgment!
Masquerading as a poll, the Time “Most Influential List” is actually the product of the assistant managing editor Radhika Jones who decided who was on the list and who was not as she explained so enthusiastically on The Today Show the morning the list was unveiled. She said she decided “to let” Bill Clinton be on the list for his humanitarian work. She also said she “wasn’t going to be the one to kick Oprah off.” But in admitting this, she also admitted that she IS the one who kicked THE HONORABLE Hillary Rodham Clinton, HER EXCELLENCY, off the list!
There are 18 million Americans who have seen this kind of “poll” before (it was called Primary Season at the time), and it is no more defensible now than it was then. If Time is going to put up a poll, the true results of the poll should be available to readers. The results should not be cherry-picked and doctored by anyone on the Time staff.
How it is possible that the woman who was the cover girl on the November 16,2009 issue with the feature article of the week, is NOT among the most influential while Sarah Palin IS, is very hard to fathom.
It should be noted that the article by Joe Klein was not a slam dunk for Hillary. He is wont to be critical of her but grudgingly had to afford her deserved credits. Certainly, within the ensuing six months since that article appeared we have seen the excellent results of all the efforts put forth tirelessly by our outstanding, diligent, dedicated Secretary of State, the Very Honorable and Esteemed Hillary Rodham Clinton.
- START Treaty (engineered by her with Russian FM Lavrov )
- Help for quake-stricken Haiti – immediately! As well as to Chile.
- Outstretched hand to the world – most recently Syria
- Women and girls as her (always) signature issue arising most prominently during the Presidential Summit on Entrepreneurship
Right now I am watching for probably the 100th+ time, Dirty Dancing. As Jen and I always have said, “Nobody puts Baby in a corner!”
You do so at your own risk, Time. You look quite comic, actually, and somewhat grotesque at the same Time. Shame on you!
Your own stats here make your list suspect.
Hillary Clinton is mentioned in 682 articles and has appeared on 16 TIME covers
That’s right– nobody puts our baby in the corner!
Time magazine aside, I am seeing more positive coverage of Hillary from the msm these days, which is a good sign. That “journalist” from Time magazine undoubtedly has her own agenda and sees Hillary has a threat. (Hmmm, if Hillary isn’t very influential, why do so many people still feel so threatened by her?)
LikeLike
Whatever bee Time and Radika Jones have in their bonnet, the Newsweek article was nice, and now U.S. News and World Report has this:
http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/slideshows/obamas-five-best-cabinet-secretaries/
Of course Hillary is one of the 5 best. As for the 10 things you didn’t know about Hillary Clinton, I knew them all.
LikeLike
I didn’t like the recent Newsweek piece on Hillary (the one about her being Obama’s bad cop– maybe you’re talking about a different Newsweek piece about Hillary?). The bad cop one seemed like a lot of backhanded spin, characteristic of Newsweek.
LikeLike
That is the one I was talking about. I didn’t see it that way. No matter what article I read about Hillary, I don’t usually agree with everything said, and that is true with this article, also. I did find it relative;y positive. Better, for example, than the Joe Klein article from November. Of course Klein is always negative about her.
LikeLike
Joe Klein? The one where he called her freckly or something like that? Ugh.
No matter how good she is at what she’s does, or whether or not she’s making a difference in the world no one who thinks they’re anyone in the media wants to be caught saying Hillary Rodham Clinton is able to do anything that puts her beyond being ridiculed. If it’s not for something legitimate, it’s for her looks, her voice, her personality, her suits, the fact that she and Bill are still married, the fact that she doesn’t live with her husband, ect… Of course they wouldn’t have wanted her to win what is essentially a popularity contest. It’s just not cool. Also, on the off chance there’s some politics involved, who wants to be reminded of how popular she is? Republicans? Democrats? Conservatives? Liberals?
I’m not bothered if some editor somewhere sees fits to ignore her obvious influence in favor of someone truly worthy of praise like Lady Gaga (scoff), but I am bothered when I and the rest of the general public are made to believe something is based of votes when it isn’t. It’s deceptive, cheap publicity.
LikeLike
The one with the title: A Mixed Record On The Job.
I think part of the agenda in putting Bill on the list and Hillary not was that the media is also always trying to drive a wedge between them. The truth is that Hillary doesn’t seem to care whether she is on this list or not, or visible or not, or whether they know about her accomplishments or not. She just wants to do the job. Get it done.
When there is anything at least largely positive out there in the press or MSM, I like to encourage it, because we Hillary bloggers work very hard to try to keep her work and message out there. But they have better circulation and traffic, by far. I don’t care who does the job as long as the job gets done. Newsweek and Esquire did it, and Time did not.
LikeLike
I understand not expecting to agree with Hillary pieces 😉 I just felt in this Newsweek piece in particular was trying to backhandedly put the onus for Obama going more hawkish on Hillary.
LikeLike
i.e. it’s fodder for his base who is disappointed in him to blame it on her.
LikeLike
Well, I honestly do think she has taken on that bad cop role a couple of times and we have seen her firm and adamant and, personally, I LIKE her being firm against bad moves. MUCH more often – MUCH – we have seen her use her very pleasant and pretty “smart power” – she really knows how to make diplomacy a lovely thing. So, those of us like you and me, who actually watch her, can balance that article. I see your point. People who DON’T follow her, might get the wrong idea.
LikeLike
I don’t have a problem with the observation itself that she’s his Bad Cop (she’s been his bad cop since before she was even confirmed imho). What I’m wary of is the Newsweek/MSNBC crowd and their motives in suddenly giving her credit for anything.
On a related note to the bad cop point… I see some blogs blasting Hillary for an unsettling comment she made the other day (“Citizenship is a privilege, not a right”). It was said with regard to the Shazad situation and Lieberman’s bill for stripping citizenship. I just hope that were the Bad Cop situation ever to start erring on the side of turning Hillary into Obama’s Colin Powell, Hillary would step down before it was too late.
LikeLike
I hear ya! Yes, you always have to wonder why they turn positive.
Re: The Lieberman bill, I heard her say that there already IS an expatriation procedure in place. (As soon as he did that I knew she had her nose in that dossier to find out whether he was reinventing the wheel).
I don’t know why the right/privilege remark should be controversial unless people think that there is no such thing as legal immigration. Legal immigrants earn the privilege of citizenship and the privilege of traveling under the protection of the secretary of state.
LikeLike
I think the positivity in the press recently may have to do with the fact that US politics has been essentially Clinton-free for two years.
Bill’s in his generally post-political, post-presidential, Humanitarian and Chief role and doing rather well. He only broke from it for a few years to lend his support to his wife’s presidential bid. He still gives his opinions – as long as someone within a hundred feet asks questions he’ll be more than happy to talk. It’s his nature, but he is not the main attraction and the most he does is make campaign stops for people when they need him. Politics isn’t his game anymore.
Madame Secretary, Hillary Rodham Clinton, by her very title is out of the political fray even though she’s still a DC big-shot. She’s mentioned that she’ll never run for president again and that she will only serve one term – one entire term, but just one term – as Secretary of State. No one inside or outside the media can really do anything but take her at her word. She is phasing herself out of public life and toward “retirement” in the private sector.
The media over all likes these new, largely non-political Clintons. They’re even warming up to tough, formal, very private Hillary because, given what she’s said over and over, this is the last we’ll see of her in the public arena. She’s not coming back to challenge Obama, she isn’t plotting some grand scheme to get back the keys to the White House. She’s politically finished and they like that.
I’m sure they’re also waiting to ask the new big question regarding Secretary Clinton and her husband – where will she live – until it seems prudent to do so. At first glance that question seems coldly sniping – who cares who moves, right – but I think it’s not as bad and mean as it sounds. The Clintons have two large, lovely homes and each has been occupied mainly by one Clinton or the other since 2001. They will have been apart for the larger portion of a dozen years. Also, if we’re honest, not every moment of the couple lifestyle is candy and roses. Maybe he snores. Maybe she hogs the covers. One gets up at the crack of dawn while the other thinks that dawn is as good a time to call it a night as any. Little annoying things like that after twelve years of relative freedom… why bother. Maybe they won’t. Maybe they’ll stay almost-but-not-quite single in their respective homes except for a visit here and there. Whatever happens, the media will have a field day with it.
Perhaps the press’ new found appreciation is based on her performance… and the fact that she’ll soon be a non-issue. She’s no longer a political powerhouse and a major threat to anyone running for president, so now she’s capable as ever and, strangely, “likable” too.
LikeLike
I don’t have access to another “reply” on the thread, but what you said breaks my heart – even if a lot of it is probably true.
LikeLike
“I think part of the agenda in putting Bill on the list and Hillary not was that the media is also always trying to drive a wedge between them.”
Interesting. I hadn’t even thought of that, though now that you mention it I have to agree. The state of the union being literally a State secret gives them fuel for that same old trash fire they’ve been burning ever since the name Clinton went national and yet still makes money. Seriously though, I think every normal human being can determine that any wedges between the Clintons have been put there by the Clintons and Time, Newsweek, CNN, or any other media source is powerless to affect how “together” or separated the Clintons are. That’s no one’s business but theirs. If they’re happy, then no one should be judging.
LikeLike
Right – not their business. But the MSM tried to do this with their simultaneous NK-Africa trips and her momentary “snap” – which was not about him at all.
On weekends, when they’re together in NY, someone is always spotting them together and tweeting about them holding hands crossing the street, in church, or whatever.
It’s not my business either, but I think as a team they can get awesome things done. It’s so scuzzy of the MSM to try to manipulate them.
LikeLike
The MSM has been trying to drive a wedge between Hillary and Bill for a very long time–they have spent more energy on that than they have investigating why we went to war.
LikeLike
If the chattering classes no longer found Hillary to be a threat, they wouldn’t still be trying to shove her off to the Supreme Court every chance they get to bring it up. I would caution against the notion the press is going more positive on Hillary. They’re fickle, they like to set up booby traps, and they’ll turn on her in an instant as it suits their own purposes. I totally get why Still4Hill thinks the recent coverage is a step up as opposed to the dreck that Joke Line wrote or the shenanigans that Time is trying to pull. Compared to that, yes, it’s a step up. But, the MSM is still hell bent on ignoring the fact that women and girls IS Hillary’s global agenda. Until an MSM writes a piece that GETS IT, and really gets it, and stops with the utter ridiculousness of comparing the work she’s trying to do with James Baker (ugggghgh!), I just consider it more of the same twisted attention that the American press likes to give to America’s most admired women. The recent Newsweek interview actually reminds me of the way the press treated Hill for about a week in 2007 when the inevitability meme had temporarily stuck and they begrudgingly praised her as if she was the next president of the United States–and then suddenly after that they began openly pushing for Obama to defeat her.
Anyhow, sorry for belaboring the point and all the intense nesting (Lol) ~ I’m just not down on calling what’s going on a good (or even a bad) thing. I’ve seen one too many times that the press likes to build people up to tear them down.
LikeLike
Oh! Where has that frustration been preiterated?
http://still4hill.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/secretary-clinton-announces-the-secretarys-innovation-award-for-womens-and-girls-empowerment/
But sadly, it does not drill down to the press, it drills down to a staff member – someone who has been with the Clintons a long time. I know, I know! The press knows how to ask the questions and then parse and edit the response. But, really! There’s a staff member (a high one) who does not know (or cannot admit) THAT is her signature issue.
But, ya know, it CAN’T be, because, after all, it’s just women and girls.
LikeLike
It’s not a good thing or a bad thing, it’s a press thing meaning it’s a money thing. Eighteen million vote is nothing to sneeze at, so it makes sense to give her a pat on the back (in the case of Esquire’s Tom Junod, it’s more like this – http://still4hill.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/capt-e2c2b8b331a441b6a692f5902c46ed8c-ireland_hillary_clinton_visit_xpm105.jpg ) every once in a while as opposed to their usual slap across the face. There are enough people who still feel strongly one way or the other that they’ll make money off both angles. However, it’s still not journalistically-cool to say something positive about her – it’s akin to wearing a t-shirt that says “I Miss Richard Nixon” to UC Berkley’s 40th reunion – so the praise comes when she’s quietly doing her job. Once she accomplishes something big – like the START treaty – they start talking about packing her off to the Supreme Court because she’s shown a bit of her own power and proved that she’s doing more than serving the administration coffee and politely awaiting her instructions. Hillary’s initiative still frightens them, but they like the direction she’s going in – towards private life.
As to the women and girls thing, don’t even get me started. The day that the mainstream media delivers a message that women and girls are important as people (even if they aren’t models, movie stars, or heiresses) I will faint.
LikeLike
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
You know he wants to.
LikeLike
And possibly MIGHT have!
LikeLike
They’re trying to escort her to private life, but I think they should be careful what they wish for. Whether she’s officially in or out of domestic or global politics in the “holding office” sense, I don’t think Hillary will ever not be a part of American public life. She’ll be an emeritus stateswoman when she’s done and frankly I think it will be freeing for her to speak more pointedly on issues than she’s been able to for quite some time. The press has a schadenfreude desire to see her divorce Bill–well I wouldn’t mind her tacitly moving out of the Democratic party’s house (not that she’ll ever be able to divorce the Dem party, but she’ll be able to speak from her own platform and not be as tethered as she has been). I’m hearing at some point after she steps down from O’s Cabinet, she’s very much interested in setting up her own foundation akin to the Clinton Foundation but with a focus on girls and women. Can’t wait for that.
LikeLike
BTW, was referring to Hillary speaking pointedly about policy and causes and NOT about her personal life, just to be perfectly clear 🙂 The only “marriage” I’d be interested in seeing her distance herself from (to the small degree that it’s possible) is the one with the Democratic party.
LikeLike
I understood that. 🙂
The MSM gets its rocks off by teasing their marriage (Bill’s & Hillary’s, I mean, just to be clear). They weathered the hardest time, have mellowed, and are having a kind of second spring. Now that the administration has determined that Bill won’t interfere with her work, he’s escorting her around more – as he should be because otherwise she is free to flirt with guys like Shelby!
http://still4hill.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/video-secretary-clintons-remarks-at-the-senior-executive-association-annual-banquet-for-distinguished-rank-award-recipients/#comment-1814
LikeLike
If anything were going to change within her other marriage – the one to that tall guy with the fluffy white hair – I think it would’ve happened by now. Whatever they have, they seem to like and good for them.
I think private citizen Hillary can have a great impact in whatever area she chooses and still be a “somebody” in the democratic party. Private citizenship gives you more freedom if you choose to take it. An Republican example of this from the last administration is (irritatingly) Dick Cheney. He shoots his mouth off every few months or so.
LikeLike
Cheney – whatever he’s shooting – mouth or shotgun – stand aside!
Yes, or for that matter, Bill himself, another example.
Well, whatever it’s going to be, I’m in!
LikeLike
Cheney’s pie hole…it’s full of it.
LikeLike