Can We PLEASE Forget About the Blue Dress?

I KNEW that no one really cared about Hillary Clinton's schedule.

Not the schedule per se.   The interest was to use it as a tool to go after her.    That's what it looks like today.

Don't believe me?  Then go read this:

Hillary At White House on 'Stained Blue Dress' Day

I knew that MSNBC was out to get Hillary, but I didn't know that ABC was on that anti-woman bandwagon, as well.    That there is some serious "investigative" work by "Brian Ross and the Investigative Team" over at ABC. 

Is there a legitimate news reason to run that story with that headline?  Go ahead -- try to convince me.

Just as I'm sure we as a nation couldn't care less about the innumerable ladies' lunches I'm sure Hillary had during her stint as First Lady, this nation is way past Blue Dress Fatigue.

But here's the thing I don't get -- why is there such an insistence to criticize Clinton for the sins of her husband?    Sure, she thought it was all a right-wing conspiracy, but PLEASE!!!  There is one reason and one reason only to have this headline, and that's to help tank her race.

One's memory doesn't have to be too long to know that when it comes to anything related to sex and elected officials, the perpetrator of the sin isn't the only one the media consider fair game.  Just ask Silda Wall Spitzer.  And Dina McGreevey.

Just promise me this, MSM -- no matter what happens this time around, in the 2012 presidential race stories like this will be buried, just like the blue dress should be. (Thanks to my pal MOMocrat Debbie for alerting me to this craziness).

Cross-posted from Joanne's place, PunditMom.

Comments

[cynematic]

I am in TOTAL agreement with you, PunditMom. I fail to see what this kind of sifting tells us about Senator Clinton's voting record, legislative ability, leadership qualities, current platform, or past policy positions.

And I've told Brian Ross this at ABC in the strongest terms, although maybe I didn't quite use the words 'prurient asswipe'.

*This* is what Steinem, Morgan, and feminists of all stripes should target and call out. (Not other feminists!)

Besides, what would be more informative is the release of the senator's recent earmarks and tax records.

[Glennia]

I agree with you, too. News that is 11 years old is not news, it's called "history." Learn from it and move on, ABC News.

[Karoli]

This is the most ridiculous story I've seen in the media lately. I don't have to be a Hillary supporter to loathe stories like this. They serve no purpose, report no news, and serve up a painful episode in our history and her marriage that none of us need to relive, especially Hillary.

The most interesting thing to me is how far the MSM will go to dredge up a headline and how desperately they're clinging to the sensational headlines that are meaningless when there are so many more substantive issues to address in this wonderful election season.

[John J.]

Is it just me, or am I the only one not to see this as sexist or media bias against Clinton? It is idiotic and tabloid-esque, but it is just lazy, sensationalist reporting - no more, no less.

The thing that bothers me most about these articles is that they totally replaced the actual news coming out of the schedule releases. The fact that she went to Congress to lobby for NAFTA. The fact that outside of her push for health care, most of her duties after 1993 were ceremonial, not foreign policy related as she has claimed time and again.

This is where the MSM has failed us. They are more willing to talk about tabloid issues - be it Clinton, Spitzer (and his prostitute), Patterson, or Spears - instead of things that actually matter - like the economy, Iraq, health care, etc.