'Gender bias' did in Clinton?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but until Hillary, weren't the female candidates either (a) associated with a third party or (b) fringe candidates anyway? In the case of (a), the Greens and Libertarians get hardly any media coverage at all; in the case of (b), Kucinich, Dodd, Bayh, Biden, Gravel, and Richardson got significantly less play than Obama, Hillary, and Edwards. Kucinich and Gravel weren't even invited to some of the Democratic debates. Did the study correct for this, or does it merely assume that the lack of coverage is due to gender? I'm assuming that until the past couple of decades, most if not all reporters were male. To spend a good amount of time discussing the male candidate's appearance would seem to carry homosexual undercurrents. Furthermore, all male politicians tend to look the same: they wear a suit and tie, unless taking off their jacket and rolling up their shirtsleeves to appeal to Joe Sixpack. Women, on the other hand, can get away with wearing ridiculous hats and brightly colored or patterned outfits, which certainly cry out for attention. Finally, when Mrs. Clinton announced, it was a surprise to nobody. It wasn't news. Obama's declaration was more surprising and newsworthy, and fewer people knew his background at the time, hence the slightly increased coverage. I'm really tired of the identity politics on both sides of this. If we don't vote for Barack, we're racist. If we don't vote for Hillary, we're sexist. How about this: they are 98% identical on the issues. Either way, we get our bonus "first". If you are for one, the other has the same goals, though he or she may approach them in a slightly different manner. Vote for the candidate who you think conducted him or herself in the best manner throughout this primary, and represents the best future of the party. If the other person gets it, well, you're only 2% off and can keep fighting for your issues and perspective. On the other hand, McCain will be a continuance -- in most, though not all regards -- of the last 8 years.

This is ridiculous. How can college professors not understand the difference between corellation and causation? Yes, the media that covered Washington hated Hillary Clinton. They didn't hate her because she was a woman. They hated her because of Travelgate. I know, if you're not a reporter who covers the President, you don't remember Travelgate. Let me help remind you. In 1993, the White House fired the White House Travel Office Staff and tried to replace them with third cousins and other buddies of the Clinton Administration. The White House Travel Office is responsible for the care and happiness of the press corps when travelling, and so its staff were good friends of virtually every reporter who covers the White House. Hillary Clinton was widely believed to be the person pushing for the firings. After a Congressional investigation, the fired employees got their jobs back. The GAO blamed Hillary for the firings (and a later memo confirmed it), and Ken Starr said that Hillary lied to Congress but that there wasn't enough evidence to pursue it. Now, maybe to you, that doesn't seem to be worthy of slanting coverage. So let me phrase it differently. You work hard at your difficult job. But you like your job, in part because of the nice secretary. She's always helping you and your coworkers out, from staying late to help you make a deadline to bringing you coffee. She just makes the whole office better. Well, you find out you're getting a new boss, and he comes in, and he seems OK. But a few months after he arrives, his wife walks in, and demands that secretary be fired and a third cousin replace her. The secretary is devastated- she's been a valued employee for over a decade. You complain to HR, and they manage to get her her job back. Now, fast forward 15 years. The boss has moved on, and you've been promoted. You're looking for a new executive. And the first person through the door, resume in hand, is the wife of the boss, the one who tried to get the secretary fired. You gonna give her a fair shake? I didn't think so.

Is this story supposed to be news? The real news is that the major media chose to dislike Clinton period. The media also selected McCain for the Republicans. It is not woman versus man, it is who the press likes over who the public likes. The press has the power to lead the sheeple in the direction they wish and the sheeple believe what the press feeds them, not their own eyes and ears. What a sad state of affairs.