After spending weeks pouting over lack of access and whining that she was doing nothing but talking to people in living rooms and coffee shops instead of telling the country what she planned to do, the press declared her speech boring and tedious filled as it was with dull policy prescriptions (also known as “telling the country what she planned to do.”) If one didn’t know better, one would think Clinton just can’t please these people. But it was probably wise for her to take a page out of Bill Clinton’s book and speak about a laundry list of specifics. The media always hates those speeches but the public always loves them. Media criticism aside, it appeared to be a good launch for the next phase of her campaign.

But if we were looking for a sign that it’s game on, then Bush’s long awaited speech was the official blowing of the dogwhistle. (That’s right, he actually used Ronald Reagan’s line endorsing Barry Goldwater in 1964: “it’s a time for choosing." A bunch of old GOP dogs sat up and howled at the moon when they heard that one.) And the early media reviews were very, very good. Here is a typical reaction:

Bush’s prepared speech didn’t mention immigration but when confronted with protesters wearing t-shirts that said “legal status is not enough,” he shut them up by saying, “The next president will pass meaningful immigration reform so that that will be solved — NOT by executive order.” The media swooned with excitement. Whereas Clinton’s speech had been criticized for being boring and specific while at the same time failing to spell out the exact process by which she planned to enact these changes, Bush merely asserting that he would pass meaningful reform (with a Republican Congress that is now pondering the idea of stopping even legal immigration) was seen as more evidence of his rather impressive gravitas.

more at: http://www.alternet.org/surprise-surprise-media-treating-jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-very-differently-0