Hillary coverage needs injection of real news

Hillary coverage needs injection of real news
BY CAROL MARIN
March 7, 2007
Copyright by The Chicago Sun-Times Columnist
The latest dissection of Hillary Clinton hit the front page of the New York Times on Tuesday. Now, I love the New York Times, subscribe to it, and read it daily, after my own paper, of course.

But if Tuesday's front-page story was an example of straightforward news reporting, then quick, get me my Drudge Report.

The story, prominently placed beneath the masthead and above the fold, was titled, "Clinton Shapes Tough and Tender Image for '08."

Fair topic. These are most certainly dueling campaign motifs as she endeavors to appear tough enough to be commander in chief yet tender enough to feel the pain of America's sick and poor.

But, wow, this 2,263-word story was almost as catty as Ann Coulter. (Scratch that, nothing's cattier than Coulter.) The first three paragraphs described in aching detail how Clinton "meticulously" signs autographs " 'H-i-l-l-a-r-y,' 'R-o-d-h-a-m,' 'C-l-i-n-t-o-n' " . . . no stray lines, no wayward marks . . ."

The writer observes, "She is the diligent student who gets an A in penmanship, the woman in a hurry who still takes care to dot her i's."

Talk about being damned with faint praise.

If that's a meaningful warning sign of what kind of president she would be, what the heck do you say about the poor student currently in the White House?

The article went on to discuss Clinton's self-described "re-introduction" of herself to the electorate by dubbing her "Mrs. Clinton -- Version 08, Nurturing Warrior, Presidential Candidate Model."

And then, for t-h-i-r-t-e-e-n paragraphs, the piece deconstructed the candidate's head movements. Yes, head movements.

"Mrs. Clinton is a prodigious nodder . . . in an array of distinctive flavors . . . the stern, deferential nod . . . the empathetic, lips pursed nod . . . the squinty, disbelieving nod . . . the blushing nod."

It was at that point in my reading that I flipped back to check the byline. Not that it should matter, but I had to wonder, did a man or a woman write this?

Man.

I'm sure Mark Leibovich is an excellent New York Times reporter and skilled observer of how Clinton, among other things, is heavily courting the women's vote, but did we need quite so much of Mr. Leibovich's sly interjections? Like when he mimics Clinton's voice as he tells the reader, "There is a larger lesson here, girls."

Girls?

Wasn't it the same, venerable New York Times that last year, also on the front page above the fold, featured a 2,000-word story on whether Bill and Hillary Clinton were spending many "nights" together? Though the Times claimed that "for many Democrats these days, Topic A is the state of their marriage," it sure looked like it was mainly Topic A for the Times itself. With the relentlessness of a Seymour Hersh, the paper was able to determine that "Since the start of 2005, the Clintons have been together about 14 days a month on average."

Couldn't I have just waited for my People magazine for that news?

If I'm seeing this with a woman's eyes, you'll have to forgive me. It's just that I haven't seen much about John and Cindy McCain's marital moments. Nor how McCain nods his head or signs his name. Or which aide holds his purse when he's speaking.

Oh, sorry. McCain doesn't have a purse, Clinton does. And thanks to the comprehensiveness of Tuesday's Times, we were told that an aide does, in fact, hold it when Clinton is at the podium.

Beyond her purse, there is the matter of her voice.

She sometimes speaks, the paper reported, "in the high, insistent pitch of a fed-up Mom."

How like a woman.

As legitimate as it is to examine how a candidate presents him or herself, maybe even the esteemed New York Times cannot yet jump beyond an attitude when discussing gender.

This is commentary, guys.

Put it in the back of the paper on the op-ed page.

And call it what it is.

A column.

But don't you dare mess with Maureen Dowd when you do it.