Hillary Makes History in Iowa, Media Pretends Otherwise

02 Feb 2016

Hillary Makes History in Iowa, Media Pretends Otherwise

Hillary just became the first woman in history to win the Iowa caucus. No matter how narrow a win, for Hillary Clinton to have even a fractional point advantage over Bernie Sanders in a state that is 91% white, where 43% of caucus goers self-identify as Socialist is, ahem, YUUUUUUGE. However a corporate media wants to spin this, Iowa is a state tailor made for Senator Sanders. That he did not win big here must be of concern to his campaign. Also noteworthy, Iowa has never elected a woman to any higher office until Joni Ernst, a fierce Conservative, won a Senate seat in 2014.

Last night, Hillary Clinton did what no woman had ever done. As Esquire’s Tom Junod noted, people forget what a trailblazer Hillary Clinton was and is. The first First Lady to become a US Senator and then win re-election. New York’s first female senator. The first woman to ever win a binding primary (in New Hampshire). She went on to win 22 of them in 2008. She also won 18,000,000 votes, more than any candidate in primary history. A successful Secretary of State, and now, the first woman to win the Iowa caucus. This cannot be repeated enough. Yet, as the Meryl Streep of politics, Hillary Clinton’s many achievements and long tenure in the public eye work against her, making some treat her successes as failure if she doesn’t present a perfect score.

That the media seems allergic to acknowledging Hillary’s accomplishments goes beyond bias. It is disparaging and deleterious to all women and girls. By watching the mainstream media and elite talking heads fail to credit Hillary’s accomplishments, it teaches women and girls that nothing they do will ever be good enough, nor will it ever have the same weight as the accomplishments of a man. If “Bernie” had won by .4 of a point (49.9% to 49.5%) in a state predisposed to his opponent, you bet they’d be crowing about it his “win,” not calling it a “virtual tie.”

Kudos to Ms. Joy Ann Reid, MSNBC correspondent, who showed herself an exception to the pundit pile-on when she tweeted…

In the corporate media’s hunger to create a horse race to stoke click-bait, or in their pathological need to, at last, have Hillary’s head on a pike, they do damage to their own daughters. It has been proven that when women have role models in front of them, they speak with more authority and excel. Does the media elite really have the right to disrespect 51% of the population in this country to satisfy personal bias or corporate controlled narrative?

How will we teach that women are winning on their merit? This was no different in the 2012 Olympics where female athletes brought home more gold than men, but were touted for their “luck” as opposed to male athletes’ “abilities” being trumpeted by predominantly male commentators.

Since pundits have been setting Hillary up for failure for years by drowning us with stories on her, bashing her with innuendo, repeating Republican talking points prior to vetting them, not vetting her opponent even though his promises are fanciful, how can we expect better going forward?

Further, Hillary or any woman reaching as high as she is, still has to combat society’s double standards. In her new article, What Hillary Learned About Running While Female, Rebecca Traister states:

“Here is a truth about America: No one likes a woman who yells loudly about revolution. And no, it’s not just this woman. This is a paradigm; it’s why Mom is the disciplinarian and Dad is the fun guy, why women remain the brains and organizational workhorses behind social movements while men get to be the gut-ripping orators, why so many women still manage campaigns and so many men are still candidates.”

I encourage you to read her article in its entirety, but for now, here my version: Hillary’s fact-based campaign promises don’t hold a candle to a scruffy old man who barks a bunch of idealized fiction that captures the romantic spirit. So Hillary is criticized for being truthful and he gets a pass for pandering to a frustrated segment of the populace that probably made the same mistake last time and the time before – choosing the words they wanted to hear without ever looking under the hood.

By the way, while Hillary’s porridge will always be too hot or too cold for some, if what her angry detractors say is true, that Hillary Clinton is the “tool of corporations,” then a corporate owned media wouldn’t work so hard to destroy her.

Traister concludes with this:

“So here we are! On our way to New Hampshire, a state that inspiring Bernie Sanders is overwhelmingly favored to win. But for one of the first times, in her speech in Iowa, I saw Clinton work effectively to turn the pragmatic ship around, to take what she wants to say — that Sanders’s soaring promises are empty but her more modest proposals might come to pass and make it sound almost exciting.”

If we ever want to see a woman – this very qualified woman – break through a tired but persistent double standard, it is incumbent upon us to give a second look to, and get caught up in the excitement of, her realistic agenda without letting the pundit class tell us how to interpret what we know we saw…that Hillary won.



  1. Carolyn George Says: February 2, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    Hillary didn’t win anything. She tied with an old, white socialist. Sorry, a coin toss means nothing. Hillary will go on to change her message and accent to whom she is pandering to. But she will never win anyone’s heart, because she has none herself.

    • Ann Tamulinas Says: February 2, 2016 at 3:45 pm

      Shame on you. Hillary made history. Whether you like her or hate her, disagree with her policy, consider her a liar, murderer whatever, she still made history. Your history. History for all women. Shame, shame on you.

      • Steven Goins Says: February 2, 2016 at 4:50 pm

        Carolyn didn’t say she didn’t make history. Your response Ann wasn’t about anything she said. Making history doesn’t make you loved by everyone suddenly. Obama would be the perfect example of this. Shame on you for trying to change the subject.

        • Anita Finlay Says: February 3, 2016 at 12:39 pm

          Shame on you for insulting me without knowing the body of my work. I’ve written a book on Hillary and know very well her record and her qualifications for the presidency.

    • christopher Says: February 2, 2016 at 5:16 pm

      6 coin tosses, all Hillary won. if it was a tie … neither of the should have won those delegates, She wouldn’t have won… if they split those tosses.. she wouldn’t have won. SHE didn’t win.

      • Lord if you’re going to postpone things about Hillary, at least go on and trying to find something that might be true. There was more than six going tosses, her and send her split the coin tosses 50-50. The coin tosses had absolutely nothing to do with the percentage that she received. She won fair and square. Also the first woman to do so. So stop with the bullshit and at least do your homework for God sakes

      • Anita Finlay Says: February 3, 2016 at 12:37 pm

        Coin toss stuff debunked.

    • If you want a mild vanilla Hillary with no past and no flaws elect a toddler. She is all woman, has more heart then you trashing a sister about “heart’ when that is totally your perception alone.

    • Anita Finlay Says: February 3, 2016 at 12:43 pm

      You sound like Karl Rove. Anyone who knows anything about Hillary’s record knows what she has worked for her whole life. started with 7 YEARS at the Children’s Defense Fund. Are you really buying that bunkum that the only reason all these Unions, PP, NARAL and HRC have endorsed her is because she’s “establishment”? That’s a convenient Sanders’ excuse: If they don’t want me, they must be bad. If any one of them had endorsed him, however, he’d be singing their praises. If you like him, that’s fine, but you can like him without insulting her. Every time you do, you drive others further away from your candidate.

  2. christopher Says: February 2, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    6 coin tosses, all Hillary won. if it was a tie … neither of the should have won those delegates, She wouldn’t have won… if they split those tosses.. she wouldn’t have won. SHE didn’t win.

  3. Once again,I see if I write anything not worshipful of Sanders, his virulent supporters come out to insult. If they only knew how that drives others away from him.

    Thanks, Ann, for chiming in.

    • Anita, it appears you are regurgitating the Hillary talking points.
      First of all, 43% of all Iowa likely caucus goers do not identify as socialist, only 43% of the democratic caucus goers do. That exact language has been used by numerous Hillsry proponents, leading to the obvious conclusion that it was a talking point supplied by her campaign.
      Okay, so that’s a fine point used make the point above. The truth is that 57% did NOT identify as socialists and yet Hillary still got less than 50% of the democrat caucus goers vote. Sounds like she under performed.
      The whiteness of Iowa is another red herring. Last time I checked, Hillary is just as white as Sanders and is twice as white as Obama. If white mattered, how did Obama bat Hillary in Iowa so badly when they competed for votes. Wasn’t Iowa an ideal state for her?
      And no, I’m not a Sanders supporter. I prefer Rubio, Cruz, Christie, etc. to either of them.

      • Anita Finlay Says: February 4, 2016 at 10:12 pm

        Can you not click a link? We are talking about the Democratic caucus and 43% self-identify as Socialists! What has this article to do with Republicans.

  4. Furthermore, the coin toss stuff is a falsehood.

  5. While as a proud feminist I agree with most of the article about women taking an understated second place in almost all of the social wins and commendations in our country, and I do admire Hillary for her accomplishments as standards for all women to work toward, I disagree about the media suddenly ignoring her win in favor of Bernie’s surprise surge, if you remember, Hillary has been the presumptive winner for months and months, ever since she announced her entry into the race, while Bernie, even with ever increasing support and numbers, didn’t even get mentioned in 90% or more of the media until about a week ago when his numbers were finally too big to ignore. And now, even with his amazing nose-to-nose second place, and even in the the more liberal media, I’m hearing the assumiption that it won’t continue for him and that Hillary is still the presumptive winner.

    • Kathryn, thank you so much for taking the time to comment. Since I wrote a book on the media’s treatment of Hillary going back 25 years, and in particular from 2007-2012, I have done so much research on this and know how long, and how specifically, so many feed off each other to mold a particular narrative that is destructive to her. There is a reason for my particular perspective. They have been beating her up constantly while not vetting his proposals specifically in order to feed the horse race here and let him catch up. Please check out my archive if you’d like some more of my writing on their treatment of her these past 3 1/2 years (after the book was published). All the best!

      • janitt dott Says: February 3, 2016 at 11:24 am

        I was in the trenches with you in 2008, anita, and I just ordered your book which I already know will only confirm and document my own experience in the hateful primary process then and as it’s turning out…now. But what ALL of Hillary’s detractors overlook is the 18,000,000 VOTERS who WITNESSED the disrespect and unfairness shown to their chosen candidate.

    • That’s a very in accurate statement. Most of the media coverage she go with right wing media tearing her apart and parroting right wing tea party lies. The media dismisses every single thing that Hillary does, and makes everything Bernie does whether good or bad seem like he’s move some mountain or has been the first person ever to say that. Sanders is made the rounds of talkshows, he’s been written up on numerous articles as many if not more than Hillary, and they always have a sexist bent and make him look better than he is and her worse than she is. With the media has avoided is actually vetting this man and there is so much in his past and so much in his present they make him an opportunistic, hypocrite, egomaniac and a closet chauvenist. Hillary is thought to be the winner, and will be the winner, because her experience, her knowledge of complex issues, her solutions, her global savvy in foreign affairs policy, her diplomacy, her leadership, her championing of women, working class, LGB T, education, universal healthcare, etc. etc. etc. at home and abroad make sure the absolutely best qualified to be president bar none. After 40 years of public service, and more than two decades of being the most admired woman in the US and in the world, after having 25 pages of accomplishments and achievements she has done in public service, after the diverse role she has played, and how hard she has worked, nobody’s handing her anything. In the world for many many many years was almost all white male, this woman is shown the strength the intellect and the vision to be better than all of them. How I can’t understand for one minute why so called extreme left progressives don’t see this and instead choose to follow an old white guy who is been in a tiny little all-white the who is done nothing for the real people, who is achieve no results, who doesn’t even get women or persons of color. She will not be dismissed. We’ve had enough of the status quo we had enough of the establishment we are ready for a real revolution in that revolution is after 44 all-male presidents and 197 years of no women, Hillary will be our first female feminist president. That’s progress

      • I can tell by your words that you have absolutely no idea of who Senator Bernie Sanders is, what he has done and what he stands for. Check out this video. He’s been fighting for the rights of the people since he was young, always with the same message. I don’t know where you got your information of him from, but you are mistaken. Hillary will not necessarily make a better President just because she is a woman. Whether you believe it or not she does have a checkered past. https://youtu.be/pATL6rPbpvY

        • Anita Finlay Says: February 3, 2016 at 12:34 pm

          I’ve written a book on Hillary, her record and her media treatment so to insult me as ill informed is preposterous, had you done your homework. Sadly, your arrogance is matched by your ignorance. And her being a woman has never been my argument for why she should be elected.

      • Anita Finlay Says: February 3, 2016 at 12:37 pm

        Thanks for chiming in, Carmen. The ignorance of those who dismiss Hillary while knowing nothing about her 40 year record of impressive achievements is staggering. Those who spew right wing smear to take her down may not realize they are helping a Republican get elected (unless they are Repubs. themselves and that is what they want). After all, anyone can say they are anyone on the internet.

  6. I also believe that Hillary is a very accomplished individual and as a woman myself, I’m proud of her. That being said, we should back up a Candidate for what he or she will do for our country rather than what gender they happen to be.

  7. […] published an article reminding mainstream media of Hillary Clinton’s historic win at the Iowa caucus, I hit a nerve as […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.