home

The Other Media Darling

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:51:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Barack Obama is the #1 Media Darling right now. Credit to him and if he is the nominee, let's pray he stays the #1 Media Darling. But, as Kevin Drum and Bob Somerby show, the Dean's Endless Love has not diminished:

David Broder says John McCain "is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest." Bob Somerby is pissed:

The Dean doesn't tell us who assumes this — nor does he say if their assumption is warranted. And this is odd, because let's be frank: John McCain basically lied through his teeth all through his last run for the White House. . . .

The Media's love for McCain will not wane. Right now, it's love for Obama is stronger. As I have written, Hillary Clinton will always be the target of the Media's attacks (cheered on by the Left blogs now, would that continue if she were the Dem nominee? Even the VP nominee?) no matter what. It is why Obama is more electable.

(By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.)

< More . . . But Not Necessarily Better Democrats | Dumb Idea: Reid, Pelosi And Dean To Demand SDs Decide >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Other Media Darling | 199 comments (199 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    You know I'm going to say (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:53:38 PM EST
    "I told you so."

    So I just did.

    I'm done. ;-)

    Why did PA dem. voters fail (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:54:11 PM EST
    to realize this?

    Do you think (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:56:15 PM EST
    they were voting on electability?

    The exit polls said "change" was their number one concern.

    [ Parent ]

    I know. Quite interesting. (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:57:15 PM EST
    Maybe change from the non stop barrage of Obama ads.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:58:54 PM EST
    Indeed!

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (none / 0) (#142)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    ignored warnings that over-saturation matters.

    I know only how I feel.  I HATE all those calls during dinner.

    I think Hillary almost crossed that line, too.  There's a limit to how much the public can stand about "grass-roots."  LOL*

    Enough already.

    [ Parent ]

    Change from what? (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by BeBe on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:37:27 PM EST
    In these exit polls they never elaborate. To me change means change from Bush and having a government that functions. Change can mean going back to rule of law, a Congress that will stand for something, being a leader in the world instead of a pariah. Obama is not the sole proprietor of changing things to get the country back on track. They need to ask what change means to each person they poll otherwise it just a vacuous meaningless term that can indicate anything from changing shoes to overthrowing the government. It is left vague for a reason.

    [ Parent ]
    That's what (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:05:15 PM EST
    my husband and I thought!

    Change from Bush! :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Exit polls from PA (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    The exit poll from PA asked what the top candidate quality was.

    Can bring change:   49%   31%-69% Clinton/Obama

    Experience:         27%   94%-6% Clinton/Obama

    Cares about people: 13%   56%-44% Clinton/Obama

    Electability:        9%   57%-43% Clinton/Obama

    So according to the people in PA, Obama wins on bringing needed change, while Clinton leads in those people who value experience, electablity and caring.

    [ Parent ]

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    They are bitter and cling to their religion (translated: they are too dumb to know better) </snark>

    [ Parent ]
    ...and OH, FL, MI, TX, NJ, MA, NY? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:41:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'd say that was the Dean's bat signal. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:55:02 PM EST
    The entire press corps is screaching to a halt and listening to his meandering words--and are now preparing the new script on Obama.

    McCain's the only one.

    McCain--The rare exception. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:56:05 PM EST
    pass the chateau lafitte

    [ Parent ]
    So much for Obama's purported (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:43:20 PM EST
    appeal to practitioners of High Broderism.  The press-crush on McShame continues unabated, and the Obama-tingle-in-the-leg cannot overcome it.

    What can be done to break the MSM myth of McShame's independence and moderation.  Just last night I harangued someone who professed a willingess to vote for McShame if Clinton wins the nomination (there are also Obama supporters who say this). Why do you think that someone who wants to prolong our involvement in Iraq, bomb Iran, cut taxes for the rich, ignore the economy, nominate more Scalias and Alitos, etc., etc. is a moderate? Well, he criticizes Bush.  On how to execute flawed policies, that's all. Well, he's against torture. And he believes in global warming....

    It can't be that McShame tingles everyone's leg in the MSM.  Does he have compromising photographs of all the pundits and reporters? Or are they really that willing to sell their souls for an invitation to Sedona and Cindy's plagiarized recipes?

    [ Parent ]

    Johnny Mac is their true love (none / 0) (#100)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:49:01 PM EST
    Obama is just a spring fling.

    [ Parent ]
    actually, it's why (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:58:15 PM EST
    obama is least electable. should he be the dem. nominee, he will be, as were gore and kerry, immediately vilified by the "liberal" press. i'll bet real money on it. too much fresh meat there for them to gnaw on, he has no clue how to combat it.

    clinton has been dealing effectively with it for the past 15 years, not much new there they can use, merely recycle previously debunked lies and distortions.

    add the inevitable right-wingnut 527's to the fray, and sen. obama's campaign is toast.

    your man will be the "deer caught in the headlites"

    totally agree (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:16:26 PM EST
    Obama has shown again and again that he can't survive without good press.  Take that away-which is very likely to happen for reasons others list here-and what do you have?  He's not just the deer in the headlights, he's the deer in the brakelights.

    [ Parent ]
    How about comparing (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    and contrasting how Obama and Hillary have dealt with media criticism so far?

    I am, ahem, unimpressed with Obama's skills on that front.

    [ Parent ]

    Kindly refer me to (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:19:40 PM EST
    where you get your "Half the country hates her" argument. Since it has never actually been proven true.  There is a contingent of people that hate her. She IS polarizing. But she is absolutely NOT hated by half the country. That is a right-wing talking point and is absolutely false.  She is hated by SOME. Some that are virulent and nasty.  This is a media meme that has been around for 16 yrs and has never actually been proven true.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well you won't dig it up (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:26:55 PM EST
    because it's simply false. It's what you call a widely circulated yet false rumor.  Half the country does NOT hate her.  It's not true. Never has been true.  You get polarizing figure, which she is, and "half the country hates her" conflated. They are not the same thing nor does the fact that the media hates her reflect in the electorate. IMO, she's more liked than Bill, who left office with 65% approval rating.  Ya know? That guy that the Republicans told me for years half the country hated.

    [ Parent ]
    Well good thing he was President (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:39:17 PM EST
    then and not my brother.  Since that's the only kind of approval that matters with a President.  And Hillary has GAINED support among all groups.  Even those people that would never have voted for her just last year.

    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't that undercut (4.00 / 1) (#69)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    your argument?

    I don't have to like someone personally to vote for him/her. I just have to think they will do a good job.

    So if people think she will do a better job than McCain, they'll vote for her, should she become the nominee. I think 72-year-old McCain, who cannot remember if Al-Qaeda is Sunni or Shi'a, and whose solution to economic problems is "more tax cuts, my friends," would not stand a chance against her.

    An unknown quantity like Barack Obama, however...

    [ Parent ]

    You are not making much sense. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:47:20 PM EST
    Sorry.

    You brought up how Bill's unfavorability ratings, personally, were so different from his job approval ratings.

    Apparently 65% of Americans were with me on Bill. Why wouldn't they be with me on HRC?

    Or do you think things have changed so much that, should she be the nominee, people won't swallow their personal dislikes, such as they are, and vote for her vs. McCain?

    [ Parent ]

    I don't agree with your summation (none / 0) (#132)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    of how the exchange went.

    But that's okay. You're right, it's enough on this subject. Let's agree to disagree and move on. Deal?

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, and I'm a (none / 0) (#136)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:01:50 PM EST
    HER. :)

    [ Parent ]
    Please to be (none / 0) (#88)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:42:01 PM EST

    referencing a legitimate poll about this.  A WaPo/ABC poll isn't exactly a representative sampling.

    [ Parent ]
    Exit (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:27:57 PM EST
    polls are consistently showing that her supporters are far more likely to vote Republican.

    I think we have enough real voter information now to deduce why.

    She is viewed as more experienced.  So is McCain.  Obama is not.

    For those whom experience is the factor, not "change," they will go with the most experienced and suffer through the specifics of where they disagree with the president.

    This is just not a good time for the Change candidate in most people's minds.  We are obviously on slippery ground, economically and otherwise.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by nell on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:23:57 PM EST
    I will only speak to one of the points that you made, which is that a significant percentage say they will never vote for her. Obama is in the same position, my friend, his negatives have skyrocketed in a year, while hers took 15 years to get there.

    Also, people say never, but there is a reason you should never say never. This past weekend in PA, I met several women who changed their party regisrtration to vote for her. More than one said that she NEVER thought she would vote for Hillary, but that she won her over. My boyfriend started out ANTI-Hillary, and pro-Obama. Now he is tepid Obama, but completely comfortable with Hillary and has admitted on more than one occassion that although he said he would never vote for her in the past, she has won him over and that she has his vote in the general if it's her.

    Obama has stroked the Hillary hate to make his supporters believe that people HATE Hillary and could NEVER change their minds about her, but I have seem so many examples that defy that logic that I simply know it is not true. And, of course, upstate New York is an even better example than my anecdotes.  

    [ Parent ]

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:26:15 PM EST
    If the choice is between Hillary and McCain, and you supported Obama but were not a Hillary Hater, I think you're going to pull the lever for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    I think if Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:38:01 PM EST
    can get 50% of the vote (you know, the ones who don't "hate" her), then she'll have won.

    [ Parent ]
    As I mentioned (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by abfabdem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:33:41 PM EST
    in another post, my Republican mother said for years how much she HATED Hillary though she could never give any reasons why (just conditioned to that feeling from years of tuning in to Rush). But now that she's actually listened to her on TV (such as when she appeared on Leno), my mom says she now really likes her and would not have a problem voting for her.  For me personally this is HUGE.  I gotta believe other people who just went with the Hillary caricature might feel the same once they actually hear her speak on the issues.  

    [ Parent ]
    Hubby started out the season abhorring her (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:00:24 PM EST
    Everything about her seems to grate on his nerves. He'll now cast a vote for her if she is the nominee(He still hates her voice and is leary of her). He's pretty tired hearing he's a racist if he doesn't support Obama though. I'll have to bust my butt to get him to the polls if Obama is the nominee(Which is a turn around from the beginning). Yesterday he told me he expects to hear that Obama's campaign headquarters is in Waco, TX. He considers them that cult like and that dangerous. Lord help us if Obama(or Clinton) start talking about gun control(Yes, Obama myhusand love his guns and it ain't cuz' he's bitter).

    [ Parent ]
    3 big Hillary converts (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by davnee on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:59:39 PM EST
    from the Republican party that I know personally.  One friend of mine, a Republican, says he still would want an accurate accounting of the White House china when the Clintons leave the White House again and hopes Bill will be forced to wear an ankle monitor that goes off anytime he gets within 100 feet of a young white house intern, but darn if Hillary isn't one tough, sharp lady who knows what she's doing.  That's what matters to him.  He's mad at Bush and he's looking for an out.  HRC fits the bill.  Obama is a joke to him.


    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention that Obama already HAS (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:24:37 PM EST
    folded like an accordion. The man literally had what I like to refer to as a childish sh*t fit after ONE time of getting tough questions. My Lord I can't imagine when they start loving McCain in front of him. He's liable to fall to the ground kicking and screaming.

    [ Parent ]
    "I've already answered, like, (none / 0) (#112)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:53:29 PM EST
    eight questions!"

    "Can't I just eat my waffle?"

    Not very impressive.

    Remind me again, who gives the media so much access that they run out of questions?

    Oh yes. That would be McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#194)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:14:50 PM EST
    But the questions are all like "John, can you tell us the one about the Brazilian supermodel again?"

    [ Parent ]
    I'm just curious (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:36:15 PM EST
    when you got the time to question 50% of America and find out whether or not they will vote for Clinton.  You must have a lot of skymiles.

    [ Parent ]
    FrankieAndJohnny, we can agree, I think (none / 0) (#202)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:53:54 PM EST
    that polls can have severe sampling problems and that methodology (as BTD has pointed out repeatedly) is key to a viable result?

    Can we also agree that a poll saying "50% of Americans" does not necessarily equal 50% of voters or even likely voters? Even a big turnout this fall will probably not be 100%, so if there's an 80% turnout, but that 80% includes the 50% of total number of Americans are voting for Sen. Clinton, Clinton should start filling out change of address cards.

    Please don't ask me to repeat this as my head is spinning. And pardon me if I am misreading you as I didn't go to the polls themselves.

    Also, 50% of Americans includes Republicans, right? They wouldn't vote for her anyway---except maybe they would if...(and this is a big one)...

    Sen. Clinton earns their votes. Ah, yes, it's a sneaky underhanded dirty tactic, but we all know Hillary Clinton would do anything to win.

    Funny things happen in elections with all those crazy candidates walking around and talking about stuff.

    Regardless, I don't think anyone would dispute that Sen. Clinton has some hard work ahead to win the voters over and get the electoral votes to victory.

    I think she should wear dark blue to her inaugural ball.

    [ Parent ]

    MSNBC has already telegraphed.... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:39:16 PM EST
    that they will switch from Obama to McCain in the general. Accept for KObama, of course.

    [ Parent ]
    Even he (none / 0) (#122)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:56:36 PM EST
    might be on the McCain bandwagon eventually.

    I got a glimpse of KO's show last night, and the #5 issue had a video of Obama trying to explain why he lost PA.

    The chyron read, "Spinnsylvania."

    [ Parent ]

    Hill (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by cawaltz on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:43:51 PM EST
    Hillary has held her own. I daresay that she hit her peak as far as unfavorables and I doubt that there is a single skeleton left after the rectal the GOP gave during her husbands admin.

    [ Parent ]
    even if the accusations about her are (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    true.  She shrugs them off and kicks them in the bollocks.

    She 's a Terminatrix.

    [ Parent ]

    Hilary should bide here time (4.00 / 1) (#63)
    by sarissa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:33:28 PM EST
    Obama should have taken a VP slot months ago and the party would not have had to endure so much bad press.  He didn't and its now entirely likely that he will never be president.  Bad call on his part.

    Hilary needs to position herself for 2012.  She does not need to take the nomination at this point as it will fracture the party for years.   With all the intra-party acrimony even Hilary will have an awful time versus McCain. Furthermore, if she get it and loses this year that's likely it for her - forever

    Let Obama get stomped and let the Republicans ride the wave of suck that's going to wash over this country over the next few years I say.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh. (4.00 / 1) (#77)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:39:13 PM EST
    I admire your detachedness here, but I just can't accept a McCain Presidency. The man is terrifying. More neocon than Bush, older than Cheney and possibly already going senile. I literally could not follow his victory speech in New Hampshire.

    If McCain wins, I'm seriously considering moving to another country.

    [ Parent ]

    lose lose situation (none / 0) (#111)
    by sarissa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:53:03 PM EST
    I don't want a McCain presidency either, but like you said he's old and not likely to be especially viable in 2012.

    Why destroy the party on a lost cause?  Hilary should hang in there till all primaries are held and if Obama won't sensibly take the VP slot at that point she should signal her willingness for the supers to hand it to Obama.

    If she takes it to the convention and wins she will damage both the party and lose crucial support in the fall.  If she takes it to the convention and loses, then when Obama loses she will get stuck with much of the blame.

    [ Parent ]

    so the best-case scenario, (none / 0) (#116)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:54:37 PM EST
    you think, is a joint ticket?

    I'm still on the fence about that, but it would definitely be one solution that could heal the Party.

    [ Parent ]

    yes (none / 0) (#159)
    by sarissa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:13:04 PM EST
    If it was handled properly I do.  Keyword being was as I don't know if there is any way to arrange a Clinton / Obama at this point without Obama's more fervent supporters acting out.

    Next best case would be to minimize the damage to the party itself (give the nomination cleanly to whoever is leading in the leading metrics sooner rather than later).

    If it goes to Denver nobody wins in my opinion :(

    [ Parent ]

    This is Rush's argument from January (none / 0) (#197)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:30:05 PM EST
    He said since there were no good Republican candidates, to let the Democrats have the election, so they can really screw up and the Repubs can come back in 2012 even stronger.

    The trouble with your logic is that many, many people get hurt in the meantime.  

    [ Parent ]

    If Rush said 2+2 was 4 I'd have to agree... (none / 0) (#204)
    by sarissa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:58:24 PM EST
    Fair enough, but then I would challenge you to paint a scenario wherein either Hilary or Obama wins the general this year?

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary is (none / 0) (#120)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:56:12 PM EST
    far more above the fray than you imagine.  

    Which is why she's winning major states.  You think those blue-collar guys don't remember?

    You're just silly then.  Of course they do.

    They are sending a big message.

    They don't care if she stayed with a straying husband.  That's not relevant.

    Hillary wins over the majority of Democrats because she's convinced them that she's a real person, dedicated to making life better for Americans......

    That's that.

    [ Parent ]

    I have a different view (none / 0) (#152)
    by Leisa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:10:08 PM EST
    than you.  I will agree that the smears have worked and stuck to Hillary.  I will also  point out that Obama and his surrogates have continually used those same tactics and smears against her character.  They have, in essence, called her a liar, some one that win will at all costs, a dirty fighter, and various untidy and mean spirited things and several people have bought it hook, line and sinker...  I have heard it repeated verbatim on blogs.

    Now this exploitation and exaggeration of her negatives is one reason that Obama has sunk his ship before he even launches a bid in the GE as the Democratic nominee.  This will turn back to haunt him given that he has presented himself as the one who will change politics as usual, is above this trivial attacking and distractions to the issues.  Do you think that the GOP has been stupid enough to think that Obama is running a clean campaign?  They have enough ammo on him on this issue alone to give all Democrats severe buyers remorse while they make Hillary look like the Mother Teresa.  

    Count on it.

    [ Parent ]

    The problem with those polls (none / 0) (#178)
    by ChrisO on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:30:57 PM EST
    is that Obama supporters treat them as the only polls that are unchanging and cemented in stone. Why is it assumed that campaining helps Obama, but not Hillary? My attitude about her is vastly different from last year, when I wasn't a fan at all. I know one woman who is very active in state Dem politics (she's a member of the state committee), who signed on with Hillary at the end of 2007, mostly as a political calculation. At the time she said "I've never been less enthusiastic about supporting a candidate." Now, she's really gung ho, and was just elected as a Hillary delegate to the national convention. I know many Hillary supporters who can tell essentially the same story, since before she started campaigning the right wing noise machine was totally framing her image.

    I would like to add that FrankieAndJohnnie seems like a pretty reasonable commenter, even if I disagree with him or her. I would hope Obama supporters can feel free to come here and make their case for their candidate without being treated rudely. Nothing he or she said called for snarky responses.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton positive (none / 0) (#181)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:34:52 PM EST
    I've thought from the beginning that Obama's appeal would not stand up to Republican grilling.  He can only keep his bipartisan credentials by remaining positive and upbeat.  As soon as he starts to go negative he starts looking like your everyday politican.  Clinton would have no problem going negative in defining McSame.  She can throw elbows around without her political image getting modified.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD, it's exactly why Obama IS NOT (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:59:19 PM EST
    electable.  The fact that he is currently the Media Darling against Clinton and she continues to win the large states has to tell you something. Namely, that any amount of criticism that Obama gets basically destroys him.  Why would that not be doubly true when the media no longer has Hillary to kick around.  

    The fact that the media has tried to destroy her for the better part of TWO decades and she just won PA by double digits proves to me that SHE not Obama is the more electable one.  

    exactly (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by miguelito on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    he has been the media darling for this long and she has been attacked for 15 years yet she is still winning.  The American people will elect her.  

    [ Parent ]
    then why does she poll better? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by miguelito on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    I don't accept that Obama is more electable.  I see a landslide for the Repubs up and down ticket if he is the nom.  If he is the media darling, and she is the media nemesis, why does she still poll better than him, electorally?  

    She doesn't poll better (3.00 / 1) (#21)
    by AF on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:08:19 PM EST
    Obama polls slightly better against McCain, overall.

    Clinton polls better in some states, Obama polls better in others.

    In my opinion, too much attention is paid to swing state polling at this stage.  In all likelihood, the national popular vote winner will win the election.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. She polls better in the sates we need (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:12:01 PM EST
    Why would you say that swing states are not important right now? They've always been. They are what has determined the elections the last 4 times.  OH and PA and FL not important? I beg to differ. They're very very important.  

    [ Parent ]
    Swing states are important (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by AF on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:17:35 PM EST
    But swing state polls are less important than national polls at this stage.  

    The national popular vote winner has been won all but one election since 1876.  That one election was the exception that proves the rule, since the popular winner was also the rightful electoral vote winner.

    If Obama can win the national popular vote, he can win the election.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course! (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:21:01 PM EST
    Anyone that wins the popular vote (except for when they stole it from Gore) will win the election.  I mean, duh.  But he won't. That's the problem. He won't win any national popular vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe you're right (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by AF on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:29:21 PM EST
    But the polls don't back you up.

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't you tell me above (4.00 / 1) (#68)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:35:51 PM EST
    it's too early for polls? LOL

    [ Parent ]
    No I didn't (4.00 / 1) (#89)
    by AF on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:42:39 PM EST
    Read more carefully.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry bout that. I was referencing the other (none / 0) (#108)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:51:14 PM EST
    Obama supporter claiming that swing state polling does not matter this early on.  I distrust polls. All of them. And this primary season has only solidified my belief in their media-driven inaccuracies.

    [ Parent ]
    AF- are you new to all this? (none / 0) (#212)
    by kenosharick on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:57:16 PM EST
    National polls are MEANINGLESS. The state polls are important as we will have 50 seperate elections in Nov. For example- look at Massachusetts, a state Dems automically count on. NOT BARACK- he is tied w/mccain there. (Hillary is up by over 15). If we need to worry about Mass. this Fall, we are looking at getting wiped out.

    [ Parent ]
    not nationally... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by miguelito on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:13:08 PM EST
    I am talking electorally, the national USA today style poll doesn't do a whole lot for me.  

    [ Parent ]
    There isn't 50-state polling (2.00 / 1) (#50)
    by AF on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:25:20 PM EST
    So there's no way of knowing who's leading electorally.  Clinton is doing better in PA, OH, and FL, but Obama is doing better in IA, CO, WI, etc.

    Even if we only focus on PA, OH, and FL, Obama is leading in PA and barely behind OH.

    [ Parent ]

    SUSA (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:39:26 PM EST
    has 50 state polling...

    [ Parent ]
    Not for the presidential election it doesn't (none / 0) (#187)
    by AF on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:52:29 PM EST
    Here's your link.

    [ Parent ]
    national popular vote winner will win GE (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by angie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:18:40 PM EST
    just like Gore did in 2000?  Really, I know some of you on here are young, but that debacle wasn't that long ago.

    [ Parent ]
    Gore won the electoral vote too (4.00 / 1) (#53)
    by AF on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:26:23 PM EST
    Unfortunately the election was stolen.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw this with Deval Patrick (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by ChrisO on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    in Massachusetts. When a new media darling comes along, it doesn't take much for the press to morph from "You're a breath of fresh air" to "You're not who we thought you were." The press has invested itself in McCain for so long that they're not going to change their tune now. But they can theoretically turn on Obama without damaging their own credibility. If Obama's the nominee, I think his supporters are going to be surprised to see how much of the media's love for Obama was actually based on Hillary hate.

    Besides, it will be a question of who they like more, the guy who throws barbecues for them, or the guy who looks down his nose at them and refuses to talk to them. No contest.

    If HRC had dropped out (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    when the Obamans wanted her to, this might have turned out differently, media-wise.

    But after his big loss in PA, it's too obvious that he can't close the deal. And since it's getting closer to the end of the primary season, people are paying more attention, IMHO. Hence, the large viewership of the PA debate.

    [ Parent ]

    I think of it as (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:06:46 PM EST
    Like a married person who cheats:

    You like the thrill and excitement of something new, but you're going to go back to the one who's more reliable and more familiar!

    (unless of course, you leave your spouse for the new and exciting flavor of the week, just to find out that even new flavors get stale and old).

    [ Parent ]

    They never left McCain. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:08:09 PM EST
    They just flirted with the weaker candidate to make him think they loved him.

    Now they're showing their true colors.

    May I offer you a donut, with sprinkles, just the way you like them?

    [ Parent ]

    I'd say that Somerby's job (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    is secure for the foreseeable future.

    The American media is a horrorshow.

    I think we are way past "media darling" (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by athyrio on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    status at this point....Hillary has proven she is well coated with teflon and so won't matter in the long run....She is by far the more electable as shown by all the polls about head to head matches with McCain...Obama is bleeding support...

    More electable until Denver that is (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by sarissa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    I agree that she is more electable versus McCain, that is until you factor in the huge stink that is going to be made at this point given the overwhelmingly likley pledged delegate deficit and an entirely possible popular vote defict as well.  If she is the nominee the media will be out for blood on that issue ("Obama forced to ride in the back of the bus").  

    Better to let Obama eat the loss this year.

    [ Parent ]

    If that is true... (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by goldberry on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    ...then why does she keep winning?  
    I think it proves just the opposite.  She is the more electable one because no matter they have thrown at her or plan to throw at her, voters are immune to it.  
    We know that the GOP is holding its fire on Obama.  They can't very well roll it out now while the primaries are still going on because that would tip us off the what they're going to do with him.  And if we know, then we'd for sure go with the safer candidate.  So, the GOP and the media will go easy on him and lull people into a false sense of security and then, BAM!, they'll pull the rug out from under him right after it's too late to nominate Hillary.  
    Besides, why don't we just vote for the person who is right for the job?  Shouldn't that be the primary criteria?  Ohh, maybe that's why voters are choosing Hillary.  

    Absolutely, they hated Dean so much during... (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:09:32 PM EST
    ...last presidential election that they actually used to say positive things about John Kerry, even called him a war hero, until he won the nomination. Then all hell broke loose. It will be similar with Obama. The only ones he'll keep on his side with be Olberman, Corn, and Maddow. Oh, and Eugene Robinson. The rest will feast on him.

    [ Parent ]
    By gosh, I believe (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:10:15 PM EST
    you've hit on the reason she keeps winning.  Surprise, surprise people are voting for the person they think would be the best president.  

    [ Parent ]
    Stunning isn't it? <eom> (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by goldberry on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:12:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think I've already said enough (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    About BTD's "let the media decide" electability argument.
    I used to agree with you (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by nell on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:08:38 PM EST
    despite being a staunch Hillary girl, but Pennsylvania changed my mind.

    As Anglachel said, Obama may be the media's darling, but she is the voters' darling. Despite the fact that she won OH and TX and Obama had some troubling problems, not to mention Clinton's own gaffe, the press continued to bash her day in and day out and say that she could not possibly win....but she did win, she won big, and she raised 10 million dollars in a day!

    Despite having the most favorable media treatment imaginable and having more money to blow than any other candidate, he cannot put her away. Despite the fact that she has the worst media treatment possible and far less cash than him, she won big in PA. She may actually be the true teflon candidate.

    I've seen her do it in New York, (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:16:14 PM EST
    up close and personal.

    What is amazing about her is that she gets people to agree with her by standing up for what she believes in. She doesn't do it by becoming Republican lite, as so many think. Her voting record is 91% progressive. Yet she has won the hearts of red and blue New Yorkers by dint of hard work and understanding, and most importantly, by explaining how the policies she advocates will actually help THEM.

    What gets people to vote for a candidate is the sense that the candidate will make their lives better. Thanks to this primary season, we can all get a good sense of who will be that candidate, and vote accordingly.

    [ Parent ]

    too easy (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:25:40 PM EST
    to discount with simple Google:

    February 13, 2008 10:33 PM

    At a trade show in Orlando, Fla., today, where he and his wife Mary Matalin made a speaking appearance, James Carville, an adviser to Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., made a candid assessment of Clinton's chances.

    "She's behind," Carville said, according to the Orlando Sentinel (LINK). "Make no mistake. If she loses either Texas or Ohio, this thing is done."

    The candor in the claim, even from Carville, is what might be startling, not the math.

    It's unclear if Carville knew a reporter was in the audience of thousands at the International Builders Show convention.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/carville-hillar.html

    Obviously people were doubting her candidacy before Ohio and, yes, they questioned -- with Polls tightening -- whether she could win PA.

    [ Parent ]

    Nothing new about any of this (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:13:36 PM EST
    I just picked up Women For President: Media Bias in Eight Campaigns by erika falk

    I'm just skimming it (i have an undergrad in gender studies), but it's interesting to see the press treatment of notable campaigns going back to 1872 and read the anecdotes and how different women were constrained in different ways.  Anyway, if you don't have a background in gender or media studies, it might be an interesting opener...it's a little too much skimming for me.  

    I'd skip the intro though, the author was obviously trying to connect the book to this election when this election is atypical in a lot of ways so her current analysis/tie-in is a bit off.  Everything else seems fine.

    Media Darling? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:21:40 PM EST
    Gee, I bet I'm out of the norm here, but I think the media has completely emasculated Obama.

    I think, personally, they ruined his candidacy.  They over-saturated.

    The media IS his problem.

    no no no (none / 0) (#213)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:13:43 PM EST
    Obama intentionally went there.  His campaign was based on not getting dirty--and in that sense the media supported his campaign memos/statements.  He emasculated himself by acting like a weak intellectual that couldn't speak directly and couldn't debate--walking very close to gendered associations with "weak" academics and "weak" leaders.  He crossed the line with his "i say we're clean" followed by race-baiting, snide comments at rallies, and polarizing robocalls.  The passive aggressiveness put him over the line.  To be fair, if the media had called him on the "clean campaign" back in january then his ship might have corrected its course -- but then again he wouldn't have done so well if they'd pierced that veil.

    But back to my point; it was his risky campaign strategy that emasculated him.  He had nothing else to bring to the table so he faked the "change"/"above the fray" route.  And he didn't pull it off.  In fairness though, he could not have been more aggressive without running into the same issues that hillary runs into; he would have been painted as an angry black man just as hillary has been painted a shrill woman. And hillary would have easily trounced him on experience in a traditional side-by-side comparison.

    Obama's options at the beginning of this campaign were very limited and he's lucky to have made it this far considering his lack of experience or message.  Of course the only reason he did was because of the media, running against another minority, and excellent youth vote marketing.  Obama's problem is his lack of ability and experience to compete at the presidential level against a strong opponent.  All his eggs were in one basket, and that's a problem when your basket was weaved with emil jones, ballot challenges, lecturing, and doing nothing in the US senate.

    [ Parent ]

    Not Sure About This (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Decal on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:21:57 PM EST
    We've already seen some tentative steps in the other direction against Obama by the MSM.  Reverend Wright was first and now in quick succession we've had the bowling fiasco, the "Bitter" Blunder, and (especially) the ABC debate.  I have a feeling that should Obama become the nominee we'll hear quite a bit of phony soul-searching and hand-wringing by Howard Kurtz, the MSNBC gasbags, and others all asking if the media has gone too easy on Obama.  Too late to help Hillary of course but just in time to help McCain.

    The fun of watching MSNBC's PA election-night coverage was seeing how flummoxed all those guys were by the results.  For years Matthews, Russert, Barnicle, etc, have been telling us how ethnic blue-collar, gun-toting, socially conservative types are the "real" Americans (and Matthews and the rest fancy themselves as being "in touch" with those voters).  Yet their beloved Obama got killed with that demographic!  As a result they had no choice but to ask why Obama can't connect with Real Americans.  The obvious conclusion (for them): Obama isn't a Real American.  They've been harping on this for days now; Obama's not "comfortable" campaigning among Real Americans; he's too "professorial"; he doesn't connect, etc.  All the same elitist nonsense we heard about Gore and Kerry.  The love affair is starting to end and should Obama take the nomination, the affair could be over.  

    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:44:02 PM EST
    I'm starting to think the honeymoon's over.  

    Fox News has been mocking MSNBC, calling it the Obama Network.  They seem rather gleeful that for once, they're not the ones being painted as having the most biased news coverage.  They even have a new "fair and balanced ad" with footage of Terry McAuliffe praising them for being the first to call PA for Hillary. LOL.

    The Wright videos, including the latest NC Republican ad, are getting a lot of play.  Hannity continues to hammer the Ayers association.  Joe Scarborough has been blasting Obama's poor performance in the ABC debate, asking how he could be so unprepared for those questions that he had to know would be asked (I have to agree).  

    I don't watch Matthews, but it sounds like even he is beginning to turn on Obama, just a little bit.  I read on Correntewire that tonight he will be singing a love song to McCain (composed by Orrin Hatch).  

    Obama will be defined by the media as an effete, intellectual liberal with troubling radical connections, which will be an electoral disaster.  To me, he's like Kerry redux, except with better speeches, less experience and more baggage.  

    [ Parent ]

    Buchanan already labeled him faculty lounge (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by davnee on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:09:52 PM EST
    and all the MSNBC'ers got a big laugh out of that one.  And Tweety called Obama's speech the other night tired.  Not that Obama was tired, but that Obama's message was tired.  The thrill up his leg is already gone.  Eugene Robinson, no less, agreed with him that Obama needed a new message.  My guess with Tweety is that he fancies himself a common man, and the results in PA have told him in no uncertain terms that Obama is a failure with the common man.  I also heard Tweety gravely announce the other night that Obama just doesn't connect in a diner.  Cue Mr. All-America John McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Also rumors are that Tweety wants to.... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:17:04 PM EST
    ...run for Senate in PA, so common man it is, since college professor didn't play so well there.

    [ Parent ]
    I just heard Tweety (none / 0) (#205)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:46:55 PM EST
    a little while ago on Countdown, say that Obama should take lessons from Hillary on being a fighter, that the problem with his candidacy is that he doesn't seem like he has the spirit to fight for the nomination.

    So yeah, I think it's starting already.  

    [ Parent ]

    Oops! (none / 0) (#208)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:32:21 PM EST
    I meant Hardball, not Countdown.  Now I'm watching David Gregory's show and they're all over Obama.  Most of the pundits (esp. Buchanan and Scarborough) think he's on the defensive.  Maddow of course is thoroughly in the tank for Obama and took pains to note that Hillary's PA victory was "only" 9.4 or 9.6%.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama would have the thinnest resume in history (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:23:41 PM EST
    I am convinced that if elected Obama will not only lose, but by a landslide. He would have the thinnest resume of any major party nominee in American history. He is a young man with a bright future and still has five or six future presidential elections to take a shot at it when he has more experience.  

    So, the question to Democrats and especially super delegates is: why blow the chance of BOTH historic candidacies on Obama?  He is clearly unelectable, so why not give Hillary a chance?

    We just had eight years (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by abfabdem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:47:33 PM EST
    of another guy with a thin resume and look how that turned out.  As a result we have HUGE problems.  She knows what to do and was very specific in that last debate. Do we have any evidence that he can roll up his sleeves and get stuff done (track record in state and U.S. Senate not promising)?  It's just too big of a risk to "hope" that he can.  To take just one example, imagine how things would be different now if we'd had Gore in the White House working on global warming and spearheading an alternative fuels initiative for the last eight years.  We can't waste any more time and take a risk on this neophyte.  Can't we have a policy person in the White House for a change?  

    [ Parent ]
    Bush had a BIG FAT RESUME ITEM (none / 0) (#167)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:19:52 PM EST
    being child of a president, and having the history of that.

    Next to Bush's "credentials" Obama has nothing.

    [ Parent ]

    I have another theory (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:28:45 PM EST
    The media has been so openly, blatantly fawning all over Obama, and tearing down Hillary with the worse kind of sexism - that the American public is beginning to move to backlash mode. We're at the point that when the media tries to tear Hillary down for another imagined horror, that the public yawns. With Obama, it's a different story. They've fawned for so long that when they start actually reporting his negatives - Wright, the "bitter" controversy - that these stories are affecting things.

    I think we're just at the beginning of that. The Rezko trial is just starting to get interesting. There are stories that haven't even been reported yet - the Woods Foundation (Ayres/Obama) donation to someone who is linked to Hamas, the Iraqi billionaire businessman, the freezing poor people in Rezko buildings in Obama's district. And Reverend Wright just doesn't want to shut up. Every time he resurfaces, Bill O'Reilly can't resist having another show about him. Then there is the habit of the Obama campaign to call people racist because they don't vote for him. That is really wearing thin these days. He's no longer the shining unity pony. I think it's a bloodbath if he is given the nomination.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by abfabdem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    I've had to turn off Air America, change the blogs I visit, write multiple letters to the editors of major newspapers, send Hillary lots of money, etc.  I supported her somewhat passively at the beginning, but this vitriol within our own party has really kicked it into high gear for me and not sure now that I could even go back (to the other guy). But at the end of the day, I feel I have discovered a candidate I didn't know all that well--she has surprised me and made me proud.  You go, girl!!

    [ Parent ]
    Check this out if you have time (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:57:53 PM EST
    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/hillary-rediscovered/

    [ Parent ]
    I think there is s lot to that (none / 0) (#156)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:10:34 PM EST
    I think people have absorbed Hillary's so-called negatives, and are more open to new information they hear about her. ("Yeah, I know she's ambitious, so what?  I didn't know she spent summers in small town PA and learned to shoot")   Her main substantive negative with the right was that she was seen as the leftiest of lefty liberals, but they have changed their mind about that. The rest of it is personal sexist garbage that they know was wrong at some level.  I've learned a lot about her in the last year, and none of it has been bad.

    Obama on the other hand is new enough that everything about him attracts attention.

    [ Parent ]

    I dont think the media (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:38:09 PM EST
    holds much sway over most voters.
    if they did Obama would be the nominee by now.

    LOL. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:43:17 PM EST
    That is some really awful spin.

    Guess you Obamans must be pretty worried about your guy.

    legitimate popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:55:02 PM EST
    file under dicy definitions

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not concerned (none / 0) (#153)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:10:09 PM EST
    in the slightest.

    I'm laughing at you.

    There's a big difference.

    [ Parent ]

    Women voters.......whether Republican or Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    b