With permission, I am re-posting a diary by Alegre at Alegre's Corner

about Media Matters Eric Boehlert's article today, entitled:

Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story

"Hillary invades Obama's convention"?

by: Alegre

Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 17:27:12 PM EDT

I love it when people take on the hacks in the press and the media, and Eric Boehlert does it in fine fashion with his latest Media Matters column. Here he takes on the claims that Hillary has no right to be at our party's convention and is more or less invading Obama's coronation, by pointing out a few historical facts. People seem to forget that our own dear Chairman (Howard Dean) ran, lost, got to speak and have his name put into nomination last time out. Well dear Eric points out what others choose to ignore - history.

Sigh... how quickly they forget. I guess this is what the press and MSM are left to when they have nothing to talk about re our presumptuous nominee's accomplishments or plans. Check it out...

Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story

At the Democratic National Convention in 1992, Jerry Brown, who finished a very distant second to the party's nominee, had his name placed into nomination and addressed the assembled convention. ... Brown "did not specifically endorse presidential nominee Bill Clinton."

Boehlert goes on to remind us that Jesse Jackson was passed over as Dukakis' vice presidential nominee and threatened to withhold his delegates. In his keynote speech that year, he spoke for nearly an hour and didn't bother to endorse the guy who beat him.

Hillary on the other hand not only endorsed when she suspended, but she's been out on the stump for BHO ever since and has worked her heart out to win us over and raise money for the guy. And yet she's still treated like an outsider - an intruder at our own party's nominating convention.

Make the jump, there's a lot more...

Alegre :: "Hillary invades Obama's convention"?

Now, take those historical nuggets from 1992 and 1988 and transport them to Denver this week, and try to imagine what the press reaction would be (not the political reaction, but the press reaction) if Hillary Clinton delivered her address Tuesday night and did not endorse the Democratic Party's nominee.

Fact: Many in the press have portrayed Clinton's planned convention address, as well as the fact that her name is being placed into nomination, as an unprecedented, heavy-handed power grab.

Fact: It's not. In years past, Democratic candidates who won lots of primaries and accumulated hundreds of delegates (sorry, Howard Dean and Bill Bradley) have always been allowed to address the convention and very often place their name into nomination. It's the norm. It's expected. It's a formality.

Boehlert goes on to note that few if any news outlets bothered to put this year's campaign in to any historical context. Papers we've come to rely on for accurate and fair reporting have completely failed us in this regard - the New York Times, The Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post - nothing. And cable...? Fuggedaboudit! None of them mentioned Brown, Jackson or even Gary Hart. They're sure as hell not going to mention that Dean had his name on the ballot.

Worse than not putting things in to historical context - the New York Times took it a step further by saying Hillary's supporters are still furious that she isn't the nominee. Well I've got news for the Times... that's not why we're still furious. If BHO had won fair and square we would not be furious. This is not about winning. It's about how the DNC sat back and watched while her opponents, the MSM and the press dragged Hillary through the mud. Our own party leaders remained silent while a good and decent Democrat was being smeared and we won't ever forget - or forgive that.

I found this next bit from ABC's The Note to be especially worthy of scorn...

Maybe it was better for the Obama campaign to invite you inside, since you would have made an ugly scene outside. Surely Sen. Barack Obama can afford to be gracious, even to you, since he'll leave Denver with the only prize that counts.

"Even to you." That's a nice touch, coming from the same press corps that erupts with indignation whenever somebody suggests Clinton might have been tarred with sexist campaign coverage. (Y'think? National Review Online, August 15: "Sure, Hillary's fat and waddly and screechy and gives pantsuits a bad name.")

... And that's what's been so amazing about watching the brazen, Clinton's-trying- to-steal- the-convention- with-a-speech coverage: The narrative is built on a swamp. The press has provided virtually no facts, not even anonymous quotes, to support its beloved narrative that Hillary Clinton's planned speech ignited some kind of civil war inside the Democratic Party.

Boehlert closes by noting a few examples of so-called journalism that not only attacks Hillary, but also goes after BHO as someone who's getting pushed around by this power-hungry girl. I love his last point...

Why were critics able to get off those cheap shots? Because the press, strenuously ignoring facts and recent history, was determined to paint Clinton as the ultimate party crasher.

No one holds the press and the media accountable any more. Maybe that's why they get away with framing the narrative and creating the story rather than reporting it.

Thank god(dess) for folks like Boehlert. And least he's trying to point out the obvious bias and BS in this election season. Too bad he's a lone voice of reason in the wilderness.

It's a great read - go read his whole article you guys.

--------------------------------------------

Sorry about the poor formatting, but it seems like Alegre's blog and here make it difficult to cut and paste without an intermediate program (MS Word).

Both Alegre's post and the original deserve some attention. If you are one of the people here that wonders why we just don't line up behind the "presumptive one", here's a pretty good layout as to why.

Love you all, but "there are some things worth fighting for". - Hillary Clinton