Media going negative on Hillary?

Mike Allen and John Harris:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) last week flew into a sudden burst of media wind shear. After months of mostly rosy portrayals of her campaign’s political skill, discipline and inevitability, the storyline shifted abruptly to evasive answers, shady connections and a laugh that sounded like it was programmed by computer.

...

This week’s stories, however, all in various ways highlighted what her strategists and independent analysts have recognized as a genuine challenge for her in 2008: overcoming perceptions that she is a politician so infused with ambition and artifice that she can not connect with ordinary voters.

The New York Times ran a Sunday story about what it called “the Cackle” — it is actually closer to a guffaw — suggesting that it is the senator’s technique for disarming persistent questioners.

In the same issue of the Times, columnist Frank Rich pondered whether she is too cautious and contrived in a piece headlined, “Is Hillary Clinton the New Old Al Gore?” On the facing page, columnist Maureen Dowd argued that, “Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar.”

The day before, columnist Gail Collins had called one of Clinton’s answers from Wednesday’s debate “an excellent example of how to string together the maximum number of weasel words in one sentence.”

The Associated Press ran an unusually harsh post-debate analysis called “Clinton’s evasions,” with the headline: “Evasiveness on issues contradicts image Clinton seeks to project as strong leader.”

And Washington Post columnist David S. Broder complained about her “dodginess” in the debate, and many outlets mocked her answer to who she would root for in a Cubs-Yankees World Series: “Would probably have to alternate sides.”

Even Jon Stewart bared fangs on “The Daily Show,” splicing together clips from Sunday morning shows that his network, Comedy Central, calls “creepy delayed laughter” on a segment called “Hillary’s Laugh Track.” He suggested the candidate was bionic.

Such mockery represents a distinct turn in her coverage of this year. Until lately, most of it has focused on a supposedly “New Hillary:” Someone who is rapidly closing the gap between her husband's and her own political skills, which she has put to use coolly swatting aside potential rivals for the nomination.

...

The caustic critiques were especially striking because they followed eight days of priceless, overwhelmingly positive press surrounding the rollout of Hillary Clinton’s “American Health Choices Plan.” Clinton granted at least 19 lengthy interviews to networks, columnists and reporters, producing headlines like “Why it’s better this time” on the cover of Time magazine.

The flak comes at a time when Clinton is dominating polls, with averages kept by Real Clear Politics showing Clinton 17 points ahead of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) nationally, 21 points in New Hampshire and 24 points in Florida.

...

The Clintons think the media is trying to keep the Democrat contest close because it is more interesting to cover a close race. They are probably right to some extent. Conservative talk radio too has been having fun with her cackle. It has been added to the push button sound track for some shows. I think it is also possible that the NY Times crowd is so desperate for defeat in Iraq that it is unnerved by her recent statements that she would not immediately pull the troops out. While they have been relatively silent on the fact of the statement it may have impacted their suspicions about her being "down with the cause."