Clinton and Media Bias
The Clinton campaign has been complaining for a long time that the media has been biased against her and has largely been giving Obama a free pass. And I want to say at the outset that I absolutely agree with that.
But at the same time, why is Hillary Clinton at this point not being treated the same way that Mike Huckabee was treated? For a very long time, Huckabee’s name was not mentioned by pundits without immediately noting that it was almost mathematically impossible for him to win based on the delegate count. It is a similarly impossible-seeming battle for Hillary Clinton, and yet there is much less bewilderment on the part of the media as to her choosing to stay in the race right now. Again, I think Hillary has every right to rail against the media’s treatment of her through much of this race. But right now, the media seems to me like the only reason she’s still breathing. In this way, while she’s gotten unfair treatment due to the fact that (1) she’s a woman and (2) she’s not particularly charming, she’s also gotten an unfair advantage due to the fact that she is a famous establishment figure in the Democratic party.
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 5 March 2008 at 12:05 am:
Because it’s not mathematically impossible. Three ways Clinton can win:
1.) a possible but extremely unlikely 60% plus winning streak for all remaining contests
2.) Taking a majority of the superdelagates
3.) seating Michigan and Florida, or
3b.) a redo of Michigan and Florida.
And there are probably other crazy ways she could win (a brokered convention of some sort).
This is going to last at least 7 more weeks, but probably all the way to convention.
So, Democrats, steel yourselves for a nasty, ugly, mean fight to the finish.
And Republicans, grab a beer, maybe some chips, and enjoy the show.
Comment by kofi the these grapes you're selling taste sour, brian on 5 March 2008 at 12:28 am:
The Obama train hit a bump.
Comment by kofi the these grapes you're selling taste sour, brian on 5 March 2008 at 12:28 am:
The Obama train hit a bump.
Comment by kofi the these grapes you're selling taste sour, brian on 5 March 2008 at 12:28 am:
The Obama train hit a bump.
Comment by kofi the i look forward to augurs 'i was busy with my lawyering' excuse on 5 March 2008 at 1:28 am:
I’ll give Brian this, at least he is willing to post something. Augur hid after the adverse Chief referendum and Trustee election. He’s hiding again after the Obama results. At least Brian is man enough to step out in the open and take some fire.
Comment by kofi the i look forward to augurs 'i was busy with my lawyering' excuse on 5 March 2008 at 1:28 am:
I’ll give Brian this, at least he is willing to post something. Augur hid after the adverse Chief referendum and Trustee election. He’s hiding again after the Obama results. At least Brian is man enough to step out in the open and take some fire.
Comment by kofi the i look forward to augurs 'i was busy with my lawyering' excuse on 5 March 2008 at 1:28 am:
I’ll give Brian this, at least he is willing to post something. Augur hid after the adverse Chief referendum and Trustee election. He’s hiding again after the Obama results. At least Brian is man enough to step out in the open and take some fire.
Comment by tet on 5 March 2008 at 9:20 am:
Uh, they’re not calling for her to quit because more than a few of them expect her to win the nomination, Brian.
It’s not like Obama has nearly enough delegates to get a lock going into the convention. (He’d need 77% of the remaining primary votes in order to do so.)
Hillary also just upped the stakes. She hinted at this on The Daily Show on Monday night, but this morning, she just came out and said it.
I also expect Edwards to throw his support for Clinton immediately before the North Carolina primary.
My scenario is looking a bit more likely than it was a week ago, isn’t it, Augur?
Tom
Comment by Augur on 5 March 2008 at 9:43 am:
Kofi:
1) I expected and predicted the results of the contests last night (scroll down 2 or 3 more posts).
2) Obama is in for a tough few news cycles, but he will likely win Mississippi and Wyoming soon enough to change the narrative. Moreover, in about 2 days, the story will switch back to an analysis of the delegate count and whether or not Hillary can possibly win. I wasn’t expecting him to sweep every single contest the rest of the way.
3) The Chief referendum/trustee race: the referendum is nonbinding, and will pass without result. The only thing the referendum was really for was to help Paul Schmitt (who got the question on the ballot) win the trustee election. This was a smart tactic. Regarding the trustee election, I know Paul but not his opponent. Paul has been wanting this since he set foot on campus, and in my conversations with him he made it pretty clear that he understands the biggest problem facing the university: the lack of alumni who feel compelled to donate (we have the lowest giving percentage in the big ten). I hope he’ll focus on that. I don’t really know Rob Main. In truth, the trusteeship is a sweet gig (free tickets to everything), but it hasn’t been used as an instrument to effectively serve students. I’m not convinced Rob would have been particularly effective. I doubt Chairman Epply would share Rob’s chief interest: “fratting hard.” Also, I like that Paul Schmitt is signed up for the natl guard, and he wont use his tenure as trustee to try to get good recommendation letters and get cozy with the administration. This is the chief failing of most student government people, they use their position to serve their resume and their recommendation letter stash, rather than to serve the student body. Time will tell on this one, but I didn’t have a horse in this race.
4) I’ll never hide from you Kofi.
Comment by Augur on 5 March 2008 at 9:48 am:
Tet - I think she’s going to look obnoxious suggesting this, and will eventually be called out for it. Our bet remains though, and if you’re right I’ll happily pay up.
Also, as this goes down the stretch her claim to Michigan and Florida and that superdelegates should usurp Obama’s pledged delegate lead will make her look even more petty to even more people.
Dems are fickle, there will be a few more sea changes. B/c of the lead in delegates Obama can weather them, Hillary cant.
Comment by Augur on 5 March 2008 at 9:52 am:
One final comment, Chris hit this on the outside report too:
I expect Obama to announce a huge fundraising boom in Feburary. He had the numbers, and held it back. My guess is he wants to use that to change the story from the March 4th set back.
If in the next 2-3 days the Obama campaign announces that it raised over 50 million, be impressed w/ the wisdom to hold that number back until after March 4
Comment by tet on 5 March 2008 at 9:55 am:
Actually, Obama answered her this morning saying “it was premature to talk about a joint ticket” and came out of it looking really petty and negative.
Look for the media to really begin nailing Obama. They’ve been accused of being biased towards him, so they’re going to be going out of their way to prove the buzz wrong.
You hear his questioning about Tony Rezko day before yesterday? The newsies wouldn’t even let him speak–same with the NAFTA thing.
If he’s not allowed to change the subject to neutral or beneficial territory, (or even get a word in edgewise) his noted charisma ain’t gonna do shit for him. The media is more than capable of sinking his campaign.
Tom
Comment by Augur on 5 March 2008 at 9:57 am:
They are still reacting to the public buying in that they were too soft on him. PA is 7 weeks away. This too will pass.
Here’s an ad from a new anti-McCain 527:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN10_6pyshQ
Comment by tet on 5 March 2008 at 10:46 am:
Which way do you think Edwards is going to go, Augur? Clinton took most of the Edwards-type supporters in Ohio by a wide margin yesterday.
Tom
Comment by augur on 5 March 2008 at 11:13 am:
Hard to say. I’m starting to think he wont endorse at all, but I’ll have to give it more thought before predicting
Comment by augur on 5 March 2008 at 2:40 pm:
Kofi, don’t try to call me out b/c i didnt comment on a post before 10:30 am and then vanish.
http://www.kofi.anon.justgotowned.com
Comment by kofi the in soviet russia ass wipes augur on 6 March 2008 at 2:50 am:
Augur,
I did not try to call you because you did not post a comment before 10:30am and then vanish.
I did call you out because for several weeks you have been posting your personal version of Obamania schtick within minutes of the stories being aired. For the past few weeks the readers of Urbanagora were privileged to read about everything Obama did - from the delegates he secured to the flowerful farts he passed. We all know - we all know - that if Obama had inched out Hillary last night that you would’ve penned and posted another psalm in his name be in 10am or 1am. You were conspicously silent. Feel free to get aggressive and defensive about it, but you’re just reacting as expected. As if I goded you without the expectation (hope?) that you would lose it a little. Brian’s grapes taste sour. Your nerves sound freyed.
As for being ‘justgotowned,’ I’m not sure how to respond. It’s true I didn’t respond within a few hours of calling you out. However it’s an irrelevant observation. I was not calling you out because you failed to respond to a comment within some period of time. I was not calling you out because you didn’t reply to some snarky remark. I was calling you out because you simply failed to be as enthustiastic - failed to post as quickly (at all?) - as you would have had your perspective been represented.
Further, I have a very demanding job, Augur. While we might both work 70 hour weeks we’re probably called very different things. You had days to respond to the Chief post. An entire evening to respond to the Obama post. In both cases you would have found the time to smart off, despite our heavy schedule. It’s true. I did not find the time to respond to you within a few hours during the middle of a business day. But I was not ‘owned.’ I merely illustrated that I am busy (and underpaid) while you apparently have quite a bit of free time which makes your occasional silence on adverse subjects that much more telling.
Comment by Augur on 6 March 2008 at 7:57 am:
Kofi:
My job has a good deal of hurry up, then wait. I do post more during down times, and yesterday I was in a meeting until I came in and saw your silly little post trying to draw some conclusion from the fact that I hadn’t yet commented on the March 4 results, which were almost exactly what I predicted. In my prediction thread, I explained why I thought the results would shake out as they did, and I let that post stand. Had I posted, it would have likely been just an obnoxious “told ya so” post.
In terms of the increased number of posts, that wasn’t due to Obama’s good news. It was a factor of our shared goals at Urbanagora. Many of us here are trying to dial up the frequency of posts and to boost readership, and I was trying to do my part. Yesterday at one point we had 6 posts from different authors, as others have stepped up and commented more, I’ve also had the luxury of feeling compelled to post a little less frequently.
Please don’t set arbitrary time lines to expect posts from me, or threaten irrational unsupportable conclusions if I don’t meet them. Not posting as quickly as you would like is not a justification for calling someone out, any more than it was for me to say you were pwn3d. I was just playing your little game to show you how silly you were being.
Also, don’t tell me “not get defensive.” That’s Billy Joe’s favorite tactic to try to get people riled up. He tosses out a “relax” or a “dont get defensive” whenever he wants to get people to go berserker. It’s comical to watch from a distance, but it no longer works on me :p
In the future, there may be times when weeks or even months pass without my posting. There may be times when I toss up 5 or more posts in a day. It’ll likely be a factor of how busy the blog is or how busy I am. But it wont ever be because of my fear of being wrong (I’m wrong all the time), of looking foolish (if i worried about this, I’d never make predictions), and certainly not out of fear of anything you might say.
Have a blessed day Kofi. I probably wont be posting today, as I have a lot of work to do, I hope that’s ok with you :)
Comment by Zap Rowsdower on 7 March 2008 at 11:33 am:
Brian,
You have been hood-winked by the media.
HRC’s Karl Rove is a woman named Lynn Forrester Rothschild. This is the sort of thing that is critical to observe…not just for HRC, but for any candidate.
Also, it is critical to note who owns the main stream media. GE and Viacom are two of the worlds largest defense contractors, and they own nbc and cbs respectively, as well as a great empire of subsidiaries and newspapers.
In addition, the CEOs and Editors of these media empires (also including the corporately diverse Disney co. and NewsCorp) are members of the worst councils and commissions in the world: openly attending the Bilderberg meetings, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and Bohemian Grove. Its ostensible.
If you are not aware of such things, it is hard to understand how and why Rupert Murdoch is regularly raising money for HRC.
The people running Newscorp understand that liberals hate FOX, and view it as a propaganda machine. Olberman says so expressly on GE TV. FOX knows how to play off of that mentality. It is theatre, but not as you imagine.
Politics is about the indirect strategy.
Now to the point: the Clintons use the bias “against them” to constantly downplay expectations. They do this very effectively, besides downplaying expectations verbally regarding specific contests. The Clinton people know that HRC’s biggest weakness is her negatives…just like the FOX people are aware of the mentality that scrutinizes them.
The plan in HRC’s camp is to put off her inevitability as long as possible.
The media is lying when they pretend that they had ever anointed Hillary. The media never said that she was inevitable. Quite the contrary.
Back in 2005, when Obama was 20 points behind in all the polls, and Edwards was still the leader in Iowa…the media was still enthralled with Obama, and had already anointed him as challenger even more competitive than Edwards.
Yet the long time experts were constantly saying that HRC was inevitable and that Obama would be her VP.
The media constantly downplayed this message, and then when Obama started to lead the Iowa polls, the MSM said: “Wow, everyone said Hillary was inevitable, but we have the election of our lifetime on our hands.”
The primary “race” is scripted. The idea was to delay HRC’s anointment as long as possible, while at the same time supplying her with a popular running mate who appeals specifically to areas she would have trouble with: young, wealthy, aware, educated, actually liberal, and humane.
Obamarama.
The florida-michigan debacle and the “divisive campaign” theme the media is spreading like wildfire is designed by HRC.
It provides the pretext for a “potentially disastrous” party split at the convention, where michigan and florida will be seated, with some compromise: without a re-vote. To prevent the much hyped party split, Obama will come to the rescue and take the VP bid.
Public mandate. Just like Fidel Castro and Newt Gingrich have been saying for years. Rodham/Obama is unstoppable.
See…from a distance, Castro and Gingrich can observe. They see Obama, with long time Clinton tools like Sen. John (jay) D. Rockefeller IV, Zbig Brzezinski, Gen. McPeak, Dennis Ross, Axelrod, and George Soros. They saw HRC transition into general election mode in November 2007. They know who Lynn Rothschild is, and they remember Maggie Williams and Maud Albright.
Also, it is an absurd lie by the main stream media to pretend that the superdelegates are likely to pick Obama. What a cruel joke on the kids!
1980 and 1984 provide very good precedent as to how the superdelegates are prepared to vote against the pledged delegate count: it is the only purpose that superdelegates exist for. They would be superfluous if they were recruited for the purpose of, and instructed to, affirm the pledged delegate count. Now it is true that the media has hyped up the comments from a couple members of congress, stating that they will follow the pledged delegates: but that is unlikely.
Consider this, Obama trails HRC by ~40-50 superdelegates, depending whether you use the AP count or the CNN count. So as of today, the group of delegates that will decide the nomination is favoring HRC by nearly 50.
If superdelegates are waiting to break for Obama…what are they waiting for? They could have jumped in before Super Tuesday, and dramatically changed the political landscape. They could have jumped in during his 12 straight in February: both camps expected such a streak in their projections.
But the superdelegates are still choosing HRC. At the convention, Michigan and Florida will be seated, HRC will have 7-8 of the 10 biggest states, the lead in the popular vote (which she already has with MI & FL), and Obama will be trying to argue that he can carry Montana, Idaho, Utah, Mississippi, Wyoming, etc.
That is not the reason the superdelegates will choose Hillary. They will choose her because she owns them. But those will be the excuses.