With Hillary, it's different.

Horse's Mouth has an article looking at the New York Times coverage of the democratic primary race.

They are troubled about Patrick Healey, and how he is differentiates the candidates.

NYT:
In these instances and similar moments in New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton stuck to a set of talking points that she and her advisers hope will ultimately overcome the antiwar anger that is particularly strong among Democrats likely to vote in primaries. She took full responsibility for the vote, said she would not vote for military action in Iraq again, and then pivoted quickly to frame Iraq as President Bush’s war. This answer was usually met with applause.

NYT:
In Iowa on Sunday, on his first trip there as a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama reminded voters that he had been against the war from the start and said he had offered a plan for winding down American involvement. His strong statements against the war in Iraq drew applause at each of four stops, from Waterloo to Ames.

Got that? When Hillary repeats a standard stump formulation, she's sticking "to a set of talking points." When Obama does the same thing, he's "reminded voters" of his positions. Let's be clear: The point here isn't that Hillary doesn't use talking points or that Obama does use them. Rather, the point, as Bob Somerby has noted, is that all politicians are scripted and use talking points to some extent, and reporters make an editorial decision to describe some candidates and not others in such terms. In the case of Hillary, Healy makes the editorial decision to describe her as such constantly. He goes out of his way to paint Hillary as political and calculating so often that it's becoming suspect.

Just for the heck of it, I went back and looked at all the pieces Healy has written or co-wrote as lead writer about Hillary since she entered the race. Many of them go to gratuitous and even silly lengths to describe her as either choreographed, scripted or political -- to the point where it's obvious that there's a pattern at work. Examples after the jump.

If ONLY it was this guy alone. But Clinton's acts, thoughts, words, motivations are constantly being played as evil machinations.

Let us not forget the Revelation lovers that declared her the Anti-Christ.

She doesn't deserve this crap. If you wnat to fault her. Let's base it on reality. There is plenty there, in reality, to gripe about.

But this is just to the continued playing of the old sad stereotypes about bad women. She isn't a real women (like Obama's not a real Black.). She isn't the right level of warm and cuddly, she's cold, frigid, and sharp. She doesn't bake cookies right, just poison. I'm waiting for the guy who's going to call her and her ideas BARREN and DEAD. You know it is coming.

She isn't womanly enough. In spite of the fact she has a well-adjusted sweet and smart daughter. Yeah, the stereotypes and knee jerk analysis is the most accurate way to know her. Sure. Thanks MSM.

Heck of a job. Keep the STEREOTYPES alive!