Gabriel Garnica
Four women and the media's agenda
By Gabriel Garnica
January 6, 2009

There should be no doubt about the pathetically leftist slant of all mainstream media after the recent election spectacle, yet the endless parade of fawning bias continues to border on absurdity. When facing a limitless farce, it is best to focus on a few representative examples in the interest of brevity and respect for human tolerance. In this instance, I would like to point out two recent cases conveniently emanating from New York's Daily News, along with a related instance of liberal satire.

New Yorker of The Year???

As 2008 came to a close, the News informed us that it had chosen Hillary Clinton "New Yorker of The Year" in its December 31, 2008 issue because she had proven to be a woman of "resolve and class." Situating Clinton on a pedestal somewhere between The Empire State and Chrysler Buildings, the paper hailed her as the soon-to-be most powerful woman in the world second only to Barack Obama in the opportunity to shape international history. It then went on a liberal spin diatribe (LSD) trip that Katie Couric would be proud of.

According to the News, Hillary was the main force determining Obama's victory by galvanizing 18 million voters and making Obama all the better as a result of her challenge. Never mind that she entered the contest as the favorite to blow her opponents away and stumbled through an array of missteps and an inability to adapt, choking away an expected victory and clinching defeat from the jaws of victory. Downplaying that failed favorite status, the paper painted Clinton as Obama's only true rival, and depicted her slow, methodical campaign defeat as some rollercoaster heavyweight championship fight complete with punches and counter-punches.

Calling her a "working class heroine" despite her wealth, the paper praised her for such things as downing a shot of Crown Royal, challenging Obama to a bowling match, not giving up, and then accepting defeat "with her head high." "High" is the usual adjective used to describe those on LSD trips, and this is no exception. It seems that the paper forgot how Clinton lied about being under enemy fire, lied about having anything to do with the passage of the Family Medical Leave Act and lied about her role in Ireland's peace. It also seemed to forget how Clinton seemed poised to fight tooth and nail for the nomination at the convention, putting her own ambition above party interests, until wiser heads seemed to advise against such a tactic.

The paper praised Clinton's international experience in comparison to Obama's, which is like boasting that the New York Jets are a better run organization than the Detroit Lions. Downplaying Obama's refusal to give Clinton the VP spot, which would have given the Democrats two groundbreaking victories instead of one, the paper presented the Secretary of State offering as a much more meaningful and influential victory. While it is likely true that a Secretary of State is generally more influential than a VP, Obama's refusal to give Clinton the VP slot is indicative of his trepidation that the partnership would work given her infamous ambition and ego. In the end, Clinton received that plum spot as a way of appeasing her forces while keeping her in the fold and answerable to Obama.

Closing its argument for its choice, the News contended that Obama "gave her the planet as her portfolio at the very moment when the world is pleading for America to lead." Considering Clinton's habits of imagining enemy fire and imagining non-existent influence on events she has nothing to do with , Obama's choice of Hillary Clinton to replace Condoleezza Rice says more about Obama than it does about Clinton. Rice brought a PhD in Political Science and extensive experience in international affairs to her role. Clinton brings a PhD in personal fiction and extensive experience in side-stepping and evading negative facts to hers. Given past Democratic Secretary of State choices such as Madeleine Albright, the quality of Obama's choice here should not surprise anyone.

Many New Yorkers have criticized the choice of Clinton in the face of a continued search for just exactly what concrete and extensive thing she has actually done for the state, not to mention the great number of far more deserving candidates for such an honor.

A front-runner headed for expected victory chokes away victory from the hands of defeat, acts like a spoiled child in the process, and somehow manages to pretend to be the wiser for the experience while failing to adapt in time. As an unfortunate fan of the Mets and Jets, I am beginning to see the wisdom in the choice of Hillary Clinton as "New Yorker of the Year."

Out of The Mouths of Babes???

No sooner had New York's Daily News graced us with its Clinton choice when one of its reporters, also a "Daly" as in Michael Daly, informed us in the Jaunary 4, 2009 issue that Caroline Kennedy would be an excellent choice to replace Clinton in the Senate because Barack Obama considers her a friend and she did really well in an interview with 10 year-old reporter Damon Weaver from Canal Point, Florida.

Daly informs us that the Weaver interview shows Caroline as "a caring and eloquent woman" who is "smart and warm and funny and not even slightly patronizing." Kennedy's infamous "you knows" and "ums," Daly tells us, are far less evident when she is being interviewed by a child as opposed to grown media. We are asked to consider that these verbal habits are evidence of unease and discomfort with the spotlight and such. After watching this interview, one is armed with the crucial knowledge that Kennedy's favorite subjects in school were English and history, so we know she must know the history of "you know" and "um" as expressions in the English langauge.

We are told that the interview ended in smiles and that Weaver remarked that "Caroline's daddy would be very proud of her." This is followed by accounts of how Kennedy is driven by her vision of how Barack Obama continues the spirit of her father, and how her verbal mistakes are not signs of being unprepared but rather of being an "aspirant for public office who does not delight in the spotlight." I almost began to cry when Daly wrote that Kennedy is "that rare soul who acts not out of ambition but conviction, who seeks attention not for herself but for what she believes." Last time I checked, that description applied to Sarah Palin, but journalists rarely compliment conservatives when sober.

One is reminded that when liberals make verbal or historical mistakes or exhibit certain speech habits as Obama, Biden and now Kennedy have done, they are either ignored or praised as signs of being down-to-earth but when conservatives do the same as Bush and Palin have done this becomes a sign of being unprepared, stupid or a hick. At one point, Daly tells us that Kennedy's "you knows" while being interviewed at the Democratic Convention might have been due to the fact that she was being asked about her ailing uncle on live national television. I guess that Biden's belief that FDR and televisions were around at the 1929 stock market crash was due to the fact that he was being asked to remember basic U.S. history without preparation.

Daly's fawning piece concludes by telling us that Barack Obama feels lucky to have Caroline as a friend because she is such a tireless worker, a best-selling author and donates to charities. I guess that fact that Obama has humbly decided to compare himself to Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy has nothing to do with his rush to stand by Caroline. Lest we waver for a second in our desire to see the Kennedy princess crowned Senator, let us not forget that New York City's current Mayor Bloomberg, fresh off ignoring the will of the people by pushing himself for a third term against current rules, really finds any objections to Kennedy's appointment annoying.

After reading Michael Daly's compelling case for Caroline Kennedy to be appointed New York Senator by Governor Patterson, I was left wondering if Damon Weaver would make a better choice. After all, anyone who can make Caroline Kennedy feel more at ease in an interview might be able to make all New Yorkers feel more at ease watching Hillary Clinton pretend to duck enemy fire while actually ducking hard questions.

Harmless Satire?

Another woman recently honored in the media is Tina Fey, whose imitation of Sarah Palin became a national sensation. Fey and Saturday Night Live insist that their parodies and satire are balanced and fair, but even a superficial review of recent history proves otherwise. During the Democratic clash between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Saturday Night spent its time bashing Obama as an inexperienced fool while painting Clinton as polished and wise. Once it became clear that Obama would win and Palin would be the conservative star, the program had Fey bash Palin as, you guessed it, an inexperienced fool while discontinuing any further bashing of Obama.

Since then, the media has never stopped trying to carve Palin as a conservative caricature, a joke protected from scrutiny by handlers hiding behind a propped image, and an ignorant hick who melts in the bright lights of media attention. All of this while many in that same media paint Hillary as a polished diplomat and Kennedy as a warm and caring saint.

The obvious hypocrisy continues to be so startling that one can barely believe its purveyors so happily exhibit it. Yet, continue to exhibit and sell it they do, content in the knowledge that their arrogant assumptions and selective rationalizations will rarely be challenged much less questioned.


Anyone who wants to take the pulse of the liberal media as 2009 begins only needs to look at four women currently in the limelight. The first is Hillary Clinton, just chosen by New York's Daily News as "New Yorker of The Year" when so many police, firefighters, and everyday citizens in that state are much more deserving of that honor. Portraying Clinton as something between a political messiah and a diplomatic pioneer, the News nearly fainted in its effusive praise and worship.

The second woman of interest here is Caroline Kennedy, currently being pushed by many liberals to replace Clinton in the Senate. Kennedy brings her name and little else to this aspiration, yet the media spends its time desperately fishing for every ounce of praise it can muster in her defense and support. We are supposed to accept being a good person, donating to charity, working for public schools, feeling uneasy when discussing family issues on national television, being friends with a new president and feeling more comfortable talking with children than adults as powerful qualifications for public office. Before this is over, I expect that Caroline's flossing habits will tip the scale in her favor.

The third and fourth women to note here are Tina Fey and Sarah Palin, forever linked as a classic example of a political hit job masked as innocent satire. The first two are praised for many of the same traits Palin exhibits while Palin's favorable traits are virtually ignored. Meanwhile, Palin's less favorable foibles are magnified while the weaknesses of the first two are brushed aside or actually hoisted as signs of virtue and sincerity.

The bottom line of all of this is that the kind of unabashed, fawning and embarrassing bias exhibited by media sources such as New York's Daily News and NBC's Saturday Night Live will only increase after the recent election, where many agree that the media practically elected a leader while directly and blatantly shaping public perception like never before.

Hillary is selected "New Yorker of The Year," Kennedy could became the most famous new Senator of the year, Sarah Palin is dubbed one of the most famous losers of the year and Tina Fey is chosen woman entertainer of the year. This seems about right in a year when the mainstream media should clearly be selected fertilizer of the year.

© Gabriel Garnica


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)


Stephen Stone
The most egregious lies Evan McMullin and the media have told about Sen. Mike Lee

Siena Hoefling
Protect the Children: Update with VIDEO

Stephen Stone
Flashback: Dems' fake claim that Trump and Utah congressional hopeful Burgess Owens want 'renewed nuclear testing' blows up when examined

Bonnie Chernin
Israel's abortion policy will imperil their security

Jerry Newcombe
An amazing story of redemption out of Pearl Harbor

R.T. Neary
Youthful medicine made in the USA—and it’s free of charge. Let’s manufacture a lot more

Cherie Zaslawsky
Israel in the crosshairs, Part Two

Pete Riehm
The world shares Israel’s problems

Peter Lemiska
The poisonous mix of imported hatred and home-grown ignorance

Michael Bresciani
Prophecy 2024: Major prophecies are closing fast

Selwyn Duke
For the West to live, immigration(ism) must die

Mark Shepard
Black Men for Trump – Makes a lot of sense

Cliff Kincaid
Will someone investigate the NSA?

Rev. Mark H. Creech
Revelation Chapter 19: Guarding against idolization, John’s angelic encounter

Steve A. Stone
No retreat – No surrender – No quarter
  More columns


Click for full cartoon
More cartoons


Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
Fr. Tom Bartolomeo
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites