The decision by Bill and Hillary Clinton to campaign together has prompted a predictable onslaught of annoying press coverage. The New York Times referred to Bill as Hillary's "helpmate"; the AP broke out "Billary"; and Maureen Dowd has returned to her late-1990s schtick of making up dialogue between them. I don't know if I can handle another round of this nonsense. (It's yet another reason to oppose dynastic politics in any form.)
« Is the Post inconsistent on Alito/Roberts? | Main | Alberto Gonzales: Best AG ever! »
July 04, 2007
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
About Me
I am the James O. Freedman Presidential Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. I received my Ph.D. from the Department of Political Science at Duke University and have served as a RWJ Scholar in Health Policy Research and a faculty member in the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. I also tweet at @BrendanNyhan, contribute to The Upshot at The New York Times, and am a co-organizer of Bright Line Watch. Previously, I served as a media critic for Columbia Journalism Review, co-edited Spinsanity, a non-partisan watchdog of political spin, and co-authored All the President's Spin. For more, see my Dartmouth website.
Content feeds:
-Blog RSS
-Twitter feed
-Twitter RSS
Email:
bnyhan@yahoo.com
Recent Posts
- New SciAm: Open the social media black box
- Panel with the Surgeon General on COVID-19 misinfo
- FiveThirtyEight podcast interview
- CBS Sunday Morning interview
- Three new podcast interviews
- New On the Media: The Green Lantern theory
- New WaPo: Who watches extremist videos on YouTube?
- New ADL report on extremist content exposure
- New podcast: How much did Trump hurt democracy?
- New Atlantic: Building trust in COVID-19 vaccines
Why should Hillary, or anybody for that matter, acquiece their right to choose their own path in life to the prejudice of another person?
Isn't the persuit of happiness, irregardless of a spouse's resume, the right of every American, be they woman or man?
Posted by: JoeCHI | July 04, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Right on JoeCHI. I am so tired if people suggesting Hillary should not be running because her husband was president. That's fair. NOT. Bill is an asset to the campaign. He's a popular former president set to be the nations first First Man. Obama and Edwards have their wives going all over the state raising support for them , why shouldn't Hillary let her spouse do the same?
Posted by: m | July 04, 2007 at 12:13 PM
I disagree with most of Hillary Clinton's positions, but she's just so damned likable!
Posted by: Rob | July 04, 2007 at 04:49 PM
I would in fact recommend everyone (but especially Hillary-bashers) to take the gender-related implicit attitude test:
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
In fact, I would love Brendan Nyhan to take it, and post his results.
He might be in for a surprise.
Brendan, are you willing to do this?
Posted by: IAT | July 05, 2007 at 05:39 AM
There are lots of good reasons to oppose dynastic politics and to oppose Hillary Clinton on her own merits. But the fact that the media falls into its worst habits when it comes to covering "Billary," or Hillary alone, isn't one of them. Do we want to give Maureen Dowd the power to extort our votes?
Posted by: Ben | July 05, 2007 at 04:40 PM