Is the Media Turning on Obama?

Hillary Clinton said after her Pennsylvania win that the tide is turning. Thomas Edsell, political director of Huffington Post, today says the media has begun to turn on Barack Obama.

For the first time, reporters working for magazines, newspapers and web sites have abruptly decided that she might well be right, and the results for Obama have been brutal....

....The new tenor of media coverage is visible almost everywhere, from Politico, Time and The New Republic to The Washington Post and The New York Times.

....The first hard punch was thrown by my friend and colleague John Judis in a widely distributed piece on The New Republic web site, filed sometime around 3AM Wednesday, seven hours after polls closed in Pennsylvania. In the article titled, "The Next McGovern," Judis writes: [more...]

[I]f you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities....Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as 'very liberal.'...[H]e is going to have trouble in Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, where he will once again be faced by a large white working class vote. He can still win the nomination and lose these primaries. Pennsylvania was the last big delegate prize. But if Obama doesn't find a way now to speak to these voters, he is going to have trouble winning that large swath of states from Pennsylvania through Missouri in which a Democrat must do well to gain the presidency."

Edsell gives several other examples. Is he right?

< Cops Acquitted in Sean Bell Shooting | Rev. Wright on PBS Tonight >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No. He's not right. (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:41:06 AM EST
    The media appearing to turn on him only because of very slight negative coverage is NOT the same as the media being done with Obama. They are just enjoying the fight at the moment.  They'll turn on him when they have knocked Hillary out.  

    I don't trust it - it's an Axelrod attempt (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Shainzona on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:49:41 AM EST
    to make BO look like a victim so they can then demand that the MSM will stop their nasty attacks on him.

    And the Rev. Wright speech and interview (tonight on Moyer) is sure to be a set-up to make him look loving and kind and gentle (wonder if he will be able to keep the crap undercover).

    By Monday the media will be all over Wright as a true man of peace and someone Obama was "wright" about all along.

    Trojan horses!!!!!!


    Yep. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:53:51 AM EST
    Come on the guy that wrote the article was the very same one that put up a picture of shirtless, fat white men to show why Hillary won PA.

    The media still (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:44:54 AM EST
    is reporting falsities about Hillary.  I am really getting disgusted about the reports saying Hillary is running a negative campaign and painting Obama as a Saint.

    Exactly! And it's on HuffPost. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Shainzona on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:55:11 AM EST
    Victim at this stage (none / 0) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:52:33 AM EST
    I don't get it.  To me a victim at this stage with what is going on in America is a turnoff.  What is the point of a victim?  Give it to him to make up for something when it can be bad for the country?

    Dems love their victims (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:59:37 AM EST
    great when you are trying to get a certain type of dem to vote, not so much when you need the rest of the country.

    I am so sick of losing these things.  What is so wrong with having a fighter out there?  Why is it unseemly?  


    Appeal to the American core (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:02:26 AM EST
    What Hillary has done is say, gee, it's ok to have the real America values, hard work and  stick to itness, and I think, this message is working with people better than an amorphous hope.  It's reminding people what America is.  (ok...smarmy, but true).  

    If Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:05:57 AM EST
    doesn't embody the American dream, then who does?

    She was born to a middle class family, she got into the best colleges, she married a man who respects and encourages her intelligence and now she is running for the democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States.

    I mean--honey, please!


    At first I thought this was snark, (none / 0) (#71)
    by independent voter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35:35 AM EST
    but I guess you are serious. If Hillary's husband respects her, I surely hope my husband will never decide to do the same.
    There are a lot of things I love about Bill Clinton, but how he has treated his wife is NOT one of them. In fact, it taints everything else in my mind. And don't bother telling me she stayed with him anyway, that's apparent, but doesn't change my distate for the situation.

    Hm (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:44:00 AM EST
    Nobody is ever allowed redemption?  Nobody is ever allowed forgiveness?  Nobody is ever allowed to change?

    Shouldn't Hillary be the one to decide how he's treated her and what her marriage and her family mean to her?

    In any event, I certainly find it problematic to hold Hillary responsible for what Bill did.


    I'm not saying she is not allowed to (none / 0) (#81)
    by independent voter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:51:33 AM EST
    forgive him. I gag when I read "her husband respects her...."

    You Seem To Think Respect Is Only Related To (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:25:28 PM EST
    sexual fidelity. I do not.

    I think that Bill Clinton has a great deal of respect for Hillary. I think he respects her intelligence, her opinion and her political knowledge and her tenacity. None of these areas of respect go away because he has a zipper problem.

    While I personally might not stay with a cheating husband, it is not my place to make decisions about how someone else decides to manage their marriage. That is their personal decision and who am I to judge what works or does not work for someone else.


    to judge others.

    Well We All Have Things We Need To Work On n/t (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:35:31 PM EST
    While I am not Kathy's agent (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:46:05 AM EST
    I thought the same thing as you at first, but if you read the sentence again, it said he respects...her intelligence.

    yep--intelligence (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:03:27 AM EST
    as to the other, I think it's really foolish to try to project the intricacies of a 20+ year marriage.

    respects and encourages her intelligence (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by kimsaw on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:28:35 AM EST
    where does it talk about his infidelity? B. Clinton's indiscretions should not be a part of H. Clinton's run for the presidency. If that's the criteria then there would have been a lot of empty seats in the Congress starting a long time ago. I love it how men can ignore the sexual indiscretions of other men and even give them a good old slap on the back, but women will criticize a woman who chooses to stay with a philandering husband and kick her in the public square.

    I just think it's possible they (none / 0) (#29)
    by Shainzona on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:58:22 AM EST
    believe that this move, at this stage, will mute the issues with Dems so that they can continue to steamroll over the rest of us.  This is simply an attempt to bolster their boy until June and then DEMAND that people fall in line.

    Yup, I'm cynical.  I've had to be this year with regard to Dems.  (And it breaks my heart, too!)

    I also don't think the "powers that be" think BO is wrong for America.  They truly hate everything Clinton and are blinded by the empty suit they have propped up to get this far.


    Victim? (none / 0) (#50)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:13:13 AM EST
    The concept works for Hillary because everyone knows she's been the subject of media attacks for a long time and it evokes empathy from many women and their husbands and the children of such women.

    But for Obama to act like a victim, being a man, would be a version of Ed Muskie's "crying" when he reacted to attacks against his wife, and eventually ended his campaign for the presidency.  It is to be sure sexist to think that men should not be allowed to cry.   In the case of Obama, acting like a victim is risky because he could be branded as a whiny, wimpy, weakling like Bush I.  Bush too had to go way over to the other side with his swagger just to avoid the wimp label.

    But if the Obama campaign wants to risk it and it turns out to be what I said, then I will say, "told you so."


    He is already playing (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:51:56 AM EST
    the victim!!  Oh, Hillary attacks me, her campaign plays dirty...  

    She has only called him on his false/inaccurate claims.  He, on the other hand has tried to assassinate her character through surrogates and his own words.

    The GOP will mop the floor with this in the fall.  The candidate of change that brings unity and is above politics will be exposed as a fraud and a whiner.


    Its is but its also Obama's Camapign Startegy (none / 0) (#62)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:24:14 AM EST
    make no mistake, all the normal surrogates are out trying to feed the cable evil Clinton monster racist JJR was on Fox, Clyburn and his imaginary friend, Brazile WSJ ohh Leadership will need to step in, NYT stupid editorial they actually have IMO nothing else and if the don't feed the cable monster they will keep talking about the unlikely ability of Obama to win in Nov and why.  SO what choice do they have they want to run up her negatives while they deny their doing it.  And some of it will work NC and IND unlike OH and PA where respected empowered elected officials who are AA were in Clintons camp and would have called Obama on the blacks as victim card there not cut that way Tubbs Jones and Nutter are winners, their power is that they have truly surpassed race as officials.

    Team Clinton (none / 0) (#68)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:32:48 AM EST
    must have a counter-plan.  Swiftboat them once.  Twice?

    Not likely.


    Highest Unfavorablity of any Nominee EVER (none / 0) (#77)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:45:15 AM EST

    the go into a General in his letter to SD's on his electability....

    Told Ya so that's why we are back to racist  Clinton surrogates out there pushing the story with vitriol attacks they are trying to run up her negatives they could care less it knee caps the Party as stuck in the 60 social justice helplessness of group grievance and vitcimology.  They just want it to be ugly, vitriol, emotional and inflammatory and about her.  And Axlerod did not make a mistake saying the working class is not a Dem constituency. he was writing the editorial for Indiana's whites who may not want to identify themselves with a an AA Party playing on old southern race identities.  

    What I would say if I were a Super, is well that may be she may have high negative true but she still keeps beating your booty big time your are not as low but not good and you still lose even with the media as attack surrogate at your back and outspending her on negative Ads by 3-1 so who cares.


    if you're gonna rely upon unfavorable ratings... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:26:34 AM EST
    his are only 2-3% below hers (depends on the day) and he hasn't sustained a decade and a half of assault from the right wing.

    And Axlerod did not make a mistake saying the working class is not a Dem constituency. he was writing the editorial for Indiana's whites who may not want to identify themselves with a an AA Party playing on old southern race identities.

    I am not blessed with a secret decoder ring to what Axelrod meant (perhaps the campaign needs a second to explain what their campaign manager really meant).

    What Axelrod meant was here is why we feel that calling working class whites, bitter and clingy hurts our candidate - because they weren't going to vote for him anyay...no secret decoder ring necessary.

    We've been here before...1972 and McGovern got his clock cleaned by Nixon. Are we doomed to repeat that because you don't want the 'super delegates' to act on their fears that Obama is unelectable?


    Oh, no, now we've also got WARM? (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:15:59 PM EST
    What Axelrove Really Meant?  We're gonna need one of those pocket dictionaries for translations soon.

    Yeah, but everyone knows (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:12:24 PM EST
    she does not have a pastor of 20 years named Wright; has no friend named Ayers and did not buy her house with the help of someone named Rezko.  If Obama were a piece of real estate sold; the buyer may want to have the sale rescinded for lack of disclosure.

    And yet (none / 0) (#92)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:16:17 AM EST
    she keeps winning.  :)

    He's wrong on NYT, which cannot (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:41:27 AM EST
    resist criticizing Clinton.

    Imagine (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:46:17 AM EST
    if they had NOT endorsed her!

    Of course, we know that they are pulling for McCain, like the rest of the corporate media. Krugman is the only voice of sanity there.


    The NYT (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:49:47 AM EST
    piece today just looked juvinile to me.  It was like Huffington's headline spouting 9.3%.

    Good grief.  CNN still has her listed at 10 percent.  This type of writing makes the writer look absolutely like a poor sport, which apparently they are.


    The Clinton News Network (none / 0) (#15)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:51:28 AM EST
    continues to round up her win, and you think those who are accurate are juvenile?

    Half a decimal point (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:55:01 AM EST
    Arguing over half a decimal point is what is juvenile.

    54.7 to 45.3 Round those two numbers up and you get 55-45.


    and round them down. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:21:18 AM EST
    Any TV station (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:55:49 AM EST
    that presents Donna Brazille as an uncommited superdelegate, isn't the Clinton News Network.

    Nice try.


    DO NOT use right wing talking points. (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:55:49 AM EST
    Clinton News Network? What are you LIMBAUGH?

    I suspect he's going to be fired (none / 0) (#11)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:49:33 AM EST
    he's not likely to be Obama's favourite and the conservatives already hate his guts.

    The Dean (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    Declared that "McCain is THE rare exception."

    In Broderland that is the signal for an all out media assault on Obama.

    I think there are (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:45:30 AM EST
    more negative stories or spin, but I don't hear anyone saying he shouldn't get the nomination yet.  But the tone of coverage may explain why Pelosi, Reid, and Dean are now in a big hurry to end this.  

    Yeah, those three (none / 0) (#66)
    by g8grl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:30:12 AM EST
    want to just brush everything aside and nominate a man who, when the Rethugs get ahold of him, will go down in FLAMES.  Let's hurry up and do that!

    A bit off subject (none / 0) (#117)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:09:07 PM EST
    but.  Part of the leadership's attempt to get it over with (with Obama the winner) is to avoid a potential Jacobin uprising in Denver.

    They may be whistling past the graveyard.


    Of course he's right. (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:45:33 AM EST
    They've decided that Obama's going to be the nominee. Now it's time to brutalize him and tongue-bathe McCain.

    Obama should have stayed out of Hillary's kitchen, and waited till he had at least one term in the Senate. Maybe then he could have run a less divisive campaign.

    but the precious... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:47:37 AM EST
    ...nasty Hillbits!

    I think people's perceptions were skewed (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:54:36 AM EST
    to begin with.

    "positive" Obama coverage was really negative Clinton coverage.

    I don't remember that many examples of Obama being praised.  Given a free ride, sure.  Not questioned or criticized harshly, yeah.

    But why did Olbermann become a netroots hero?  It was because he bashed Hillary.

    When the media stops with the Hillary bashing - suddenly that's "negative" for Obama?



    Keith became a netroot hero (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:05:05 AM EST
    when he was for Democratic causes. He already posted over at DK before he became a Hillary hater. That started after he had to make the formal apology for David Shuster. They he gained King status.

    IIRC Broder And The Like Initially Praised Him (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:09:57 AM EST
    for being on the unity bandwagon while Obama was helping rehabilitate the Republican brand. Once he became the frontrunner they started saying that after their reviewing his record, their initial hopes may have been unfounded, and he was just an extremely liberal politician.

    his point about Neville Chamberlain (none / 0) (#55)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:20:43 AM EST
    has always mystified me.

    LOL* (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:47:42 AM EST
    So true.  I think he really thought she would quit when he got the Pelosi/Dean thugs to start pushing her around.

    He missed a key factor.  Hillary is truly a bit of an Annie Oakley type.  :)


    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:46:18 AM EST
    that they are waiting for Clinton to drop out.

    The tenor of the coverage last night and this morning on network and cable news was jarring.

    what did the pundits say? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:16:54 AM EST
    I would have to agree with (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by MMW on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:49:12 AM EST
    americanincanada. It was not so much what they said, but what they didn't say. I only saw one news program this morning and they usually sugar-coat and pou honey on Obama. All his negatives have been framed in a way that they can point out either Hillary did it too, or his negative is in response to something Hillary did (whether she'd done something or not).

    This morning, they showed part of the NC commercial, then part of Moyers' interview and part of the Wright rant from earlier, and the commentary was something to the effect that Wright sat with Moyers to give a quiet, docile interview, wwhich was in stark contrast to his earlier ranting about the US and Whites. They also said that it looks like this will come back to haunt Obama in the GE, decreasing his electability argument. Also the part of the interview they showed was where Wright says that Obama is a politician and has to say what he has to say to get elected.

    Arguably, from the only snippet they showed, the ordinary man, will not hear that Obama doesn't believe Wright's sermon, they'll hear that he is lying for political advantage. They could have used another more Obama favorable clip but they didn't.

    Now, I'm not saying that they've turned on him. I need more evidence to conclude that, but it was not favorable. And if it's game changing I'd have to see more of this.


    Adding to (none / 0) (#103)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:50:32 AM EST
    what MMW said above, Joe Scarborough pointed out this morning that Clyborn, while officially uncommitted, is an Obama surrogate, thus putting in context Clyborn's remarks about the Clintons.

    On Hardball yesterday, all of the "Roundtable" was extremely critical of Obama and I practically fainted when Chris Matthews "saluted" Hillary.  The lone voice for Obama was Rachel Maddow.


    kool-aid only starting to wear off (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:47:36 AM EST
    I think he's still the media darling in most outlets. But I do get the feeling the fog is starting to lift every so slightly, and a number of media organizations are just starting to notice he's a politician and maybe not as perfect as they had been saying. That seemed to be true even over at MSNBC yesterday. That's not to say many are not still in the tank for him, but there seem to be murmurings and even a few real questions about his electability.

    Time will tell if this trend continues, or if the Hillary Hate pushes them back to their old habits.

    Sugar and artificial flavors (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:50:52 AM EST
    and coloring I guess do not hold up in the long run.  People need something man made a real candidate not a construct.  

    Poor Tweety (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:53:05 AM EST
    Looked distraut yesterday but was certainly questioning Obama's electability. Even if he starts to go back to his on air Hillary hating, you can't unring a bell.

    And I disagree with the person upthread that said the Wright thing will help Obaba...it won't.


    problem was... (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    Schuster stole Matthews pen

    when they don't Clinto to hate. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:53:04 AM EST
    They will blame Obama for taking away their favourite chew toy.

    How long does the negative spin last? (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Lil on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:53:29 AM EST
    To me that is the key question. I also think the Bell verdict brings up the subject of race in a big way. What goes on culturally does have effect on politics. Interesting the overlay of Wright tonight with the verdict.  Anyway is this tenor regarding Barrack a weekend story or is it to continue on now?

    Edsell's clearly right, and furthermore (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:53:31 AM EST
    ... the added problem for Obama is that there are so many problems facing him that will be made vivid by the Republican 527s and, while all candidates would face that, he is running on the basis that he is different, a new type of politician without the usual problems of politically questionable connections or associations.  The public doesn't know yet about his path from Chicago machine days, the details of which don't match his carefully crafted bio.

      The electoral polling numbers his campaign has circulated to the superdelegates today will, as has been done with press, minimize his problems with working class voters and Clinton supporters, whom he early took too easily for granted.  He assumes anyone who voted for Clinton will vote for any Democrat but he's not correct.  And Axelrod further minimizes the importance of the working class vote, saying it has gone to Republicans before.

      His attraction to Independents and Republicans is no more after just the softer exposing of some of his problems (though not all).   And now Wright has explained to the world that Obama's speech on the Wright problem was due to Obama's being a politician and doing what he has to.

      Again, Obama's selling point has been that he's not a 'politician'... he's different, etc. etc.  His appeal to Independents and Republicans is already way down, and his campaign is living in the past on that when they present their figures.  The General Election would only make it worse when his weaknesses are made more evident in 527 ads placed on mainstream networks in prime time.

    How will an ad (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:03:43 AM EST
    about Rezko "helping" Obama buy his million dollar mansion play to Americans who are losing their homes?

    "Elitist" is not going to be the worst thing they call him.


    video dooms the political star... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jackyt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:16:47 PM EST
    I thought maybe there was a song in that... maybe not.
    What's missing in the Obama bag of tricks is old footage of him working with people in his community to bring them together and solve problems. All we've seen (with the possibility of more to come) is stuff that drives up his negatives.
    Meanwhile, I (a 67 year old white woman) am an ignorant, uneducated racist because I resent that he is running as if he had the track record and commitment of Cory Booker or Michael Nutter when IMO he doesn't hold a candle to either one of them.

    Maybe there is no footage because (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:42:43 PM EST
    it didn't really exist.

    His claim (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:43:04 PM EST
    that he got an asbestos abatement in an apartment building turns out to be another case where Obama's taken credit for someone else's work.

    I read Judis' article and have to agree with his conclusion that Obama is degenerating into another McGovern type candidate, the same constituency; youth, Jacobins, elites, etc.

    We're still trying to get over that candidacy and that's why I've been saying, like a broken record, that Obama's candidacy represents huge problems for the future of the Democratic Party.  It warps the identity of the party.

    I hope the press places Obama under more close scrutiny but I wouldn't place any bets.

    I've allowed my hopes concerning the press to rise before only to be brought down by their sloppiness, ignorance and Village centric mentality.


    Not That I Can See (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:53:42 AM EST
    Turned yesterday to Politico, there was an article by Roger Simon entitled, "Don't Stop Belivin', Hillary."  The title was completely misleading.  The article was just another diatribe about how Hillary has no chance, hurting the party, etc.  Turned to MSNBC after the Penn. primary, same old, same old; still in the tank for Obmam.  Nothing much changed, IMO.

    What is playing out (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:10:18 AM EST
    is the deflation of expectation.  A lot of these writers were so in the bag for Obama.  They are emotional.

    So a lot of the articles are expressing those feelings.

    What's very unprofessional is that any true political writer should not be so invested in a candidate that they cannot see that she absolutely thumped him in PA.  He outspent her 3 to 1.  She had her own huge and very damaging gaffe.  She had negative press.  

    And she pulled a double digit win.

    The fact that they are downright upset that she won over voters is simply a very big sign of their own over-investment on a personal level.

    I don't particularly care, mind you.  I'm invested.  But I'm also not being paid money as a journalist.


    The media is keeping the horse race alive. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:02:28 AM EST
    And the only way to do that is to knock Obama down a peg.  Assuming he's the nominee, they will build him back up again at convention time and if it looks like he's well ahead of McCain, they will tear him down again.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:04:10 AM EST
    Problem with that is this is a legitimate electability issue.

    It should have been covered earlier.


    Perhaps (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    but that didn't serve the media's purpose, which is in fostering a competetive race and keeping ratings up.  Now it serves that purpose by keeping Clinton in the race.

    Also (none / 0) (#86)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:01:20 AM EST
    earlier in the race I think there was less of a sense that Obama's coalition would be overly liberal because he was picking up independents and Republicans.  

    As we've moved to fewer open primaries, it is more clear that, at least in the rust belt. the more conservative elements of the Dem electorate aren't enamored with Obama.


    Yes (none / 0) (#122)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:01:23 PM EST
    I think that the real reporters, as opposed to pundits and editors, have probably been interested in covering some of these things and couldn't get any traction.  After PA, a lot of places know they can't avoid covering it anymore.

    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#59)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:21:39 AM EST
    I can see the two weeks before the convention - and during the convention - will be a love fest of epic proportions. Not seen since the GOP convention for McCain in 2008. :-P

    And then, the questions arise again... and again... and again. This time with no downtime. And if Obama tries to whine and play the victim, it just plays more into McCain's narrative.

    This is going to suck.


    Depends who's ahead. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:58:40 AM EST
    If it's McCain, the media will turn on him.  The media's agenda is short term profit first and foremost.  

    Atrios already nominated Joke Klen... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:03:24 AM EST
    as wanker of the day (not the first time he's had that honor though). I thought Joke Line's article was fair and reflected what he's been blogging the past 10 days from PA.

    I see a steady stream of MSM wankers of the day from Atrios.

    Whatever Edsall's motivations were for writing the column seem to be immaterial because the take is clear...the media darling status has been irretrievably been revoked and it's all in the hands of 'maverick' McCain.

    I think they are right. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:06:55 AM EST
    it is a recent development. since Pennsylvania.  but the coverage on cable and in print, even on MSNCB has definitely changed in a major way.
    the CW is that Hillary has the mojo right now and Obama HAS to win Indiana.
    which I think he will not.
    if he does not it will get worse.

    Oh - he has to win Indiana (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:09:37 AM EST
    because he said it was the tie braker.

    Even worse, if he loses Indiana, he then will be trounced in WV and KY and the media will be out of control.


    So right. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:10:53 AM EST
    And this was made even more of a line in the sand by Obama himself saying Indiana was the tie breaker.

    When James Carville, love him or hate him he knows his stuff, starts agreeing with Obama about Indiana you know something is up.


    And Richardson, (none / 0) (#110)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:21:10 PM EST
    bless his heart, had nothing to argue about since Carville was just quoting Obama.

    Media Loyalty (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:09:10 AM EST
    The media has to turn on Obama. He is the presumptive candidate for the Democrat's. They live for conflict. It's what sells their product. After all the years they have invested in pandering to John McCain, there is no way they'll abandon him now. He still is their maverick. I always thought it was naive of the Obama supporters to assume that he would be treated better than Hillary by the media.They've constantly dwelled on her adversarial relationship with the media. I think they're about to find out that their glass house is going to be shattered. (Unfortunately they'll spin it that it's all Hillary's fault!)

    It's hard to keep hype alive (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:12:32 AM EST
    when the product is not living up to expectations.  Obama has failed to expand his base over the course of this campaign.  The media refrain in the aftermath of PA is "why can't he close the deal?"

    Has his refusal to speak with the press has had an adverse effect on his coverage?  The press hates "elitist" candidates, as we've seen from Kerry and Gore.  Starting with his remarks at the SF fundraiser, continuing with his unfortunate bowling photo op, and culminating with his failure to pick up the white working class vote, Obama is in danger of being cast as the elitist candidate.  

    I believe Obama (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:15:24 AM EST
    finally gave a national presser yesterday.   I might be wrong, but that's what it looked like on the news.

    But, you are right--he is a product, and the luster has certainly started to wear off.  The only way he could win this thing was fast and hard.  Fast has left the station.  Hard is proving to be more difficult.


    Yes - he's a product. (none / 0) (#107)
    by superjude on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:12:28 PM EST
    I'm from Massachusetts and what I learned about the connection between Axelrod, Deval Patrick and Barack Obama really non-plussed me!! I had given a lot of money to Deval - believed his rhetoric - ate it up!! I had been predisposed to like Deval because of the position Bill Clinton gave him in the Justice Department so I wanted to believe. Now that I've I heard it coming out of Barack Obama's mouth, to say I'm disillusioned is totally an understatement!  

    Ah yes (none / 0) (#53)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:17:09 AM EST
    but Obama is taking questions from the media in Indiana today and he's rolling out his much touted 50 state new voter registration drive plans, to supposedly shore up his electability.

    All the while Plouffe is telling reporters this morning how CLinton is unelectable because of her unfavorables and because McCain pulls more indys than her.

    Did Obama not look at his own bleeding of indys to McCain?!


    48 State he means. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by g8grl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    Now (none / 0) (#56)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:21:06 AM EST
    I get it.  This 50 state deal is Obama's answer to electability.

    OK.....well, he had to try something.  I think he's already registered everyone, however.  :)

    Dogs vote?


    The people he registered (none / 0) (#126)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    as Democrats for a Day (I understand that PA wasn't the only state) won't stick with him if he gets to the GE.

    Wow (none / 0) (#123)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    That must make Obama really unelectable if he's losing to a woman with record high unfavorability ratings.

    Sometimes the spin does more damage than the facts - see this ridiculous campaign memo sent to Super Delegates cherry picking polls to show Obama's electability.  Hey, maybe no one will notice they use a gazillion different polling firms and the February SUSA poll from California (even though SUSA did another one a week ago).  


    Talking up 'unfavorability ratings' a poor tactic (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:21:25 PM EST
    This is just a variation of the "divisive" argument.

    What amount of his focus has been on vilification as opposed to affirmatively putting his own credentials, skills and record before the public?

    How can't we stand her ... let me count the ways! is not a compelling case to put before voters (which the Obama campaign should be working on rather than coax the media to take up actively berating Sen. Clinton again.)


    He attacked (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:18:31 PM EST
    her nonstop since Texas on this issue.  Didn't work in PA.

    Won't work in Indiana.  :)


    Hillary staying in the race has shielded him (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by debcoop on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:13:13 AM EST
    until now from the inevitable scrutiny and even hostility.

    This was going to happen if he was the nominee...she stayed in th eraace and the scrutiny and hostility went toward her.

    I think you have to pretend you are (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:28:51 AM EST
    someone who watches one local and network news broadcast - you have the TV on in the morning before you go to work, and if you have the local news on, to catch the weather, or last night's sports scores, what are the chances you are even paying attention to the 90 seconds or less that your local station devotes to national election coverage?  

    Maybe you have the radio on in the car and you get some top-of-the-hour AP news, and you hear another 10 seconds of it, but mostly, you want to hear a traffic report and get back to the music, or back to sports talk.

    You come home after work, unless you are ferrying kids to sports, or dance, stopping to run errands, etc.  If you are home, you're making dinner, supervising homework, or you're trying to get in a walk or a work out before dinner.

    We are not the average person - we are, as my husband tells me, obsessed with every syllable, every facial expression, every tiny detail of what is going on.  And, we're actively looking for a change in the coverage.

    I think, though, that if you are Average Jane or Average Joe, the chances that you can detect a shift in the coverage are, I think, minimal, unless that shift is a real u-turn.  But who knows?  There is nothing the media loves more than a disaster - if there is a whiff of it in the air, they may, in the belief that it is their job to drive the story, turn up the volume on the negative coverage.

    What worries me is that, for some reason, the ultimate disaster the media would like to cover is the humiliation of a Democratic loss in November, compounded by down-ticket losses that would shift the balance of power all over the country; it's like they just can't wait to gloat.  My hope is that they are beginning to be confused about which disaster they would enjoy more - the immediate one, where they flex their muscles and knock Obama out of the race, or the ultimate one, where they keep him going so the loss in November is exponentially more devastating.

    My partner (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:33:16 AM EST
    noticed the shift this morning on the Wright coverage, when Cokie Roberts didn't excuse away the preacher's words.

    Someone upthread said that most folks won't watch Moyers, which is true--but clips will be seen round the world, and they'll be cut and spliced willy nilly.  The "Obama is just a politician" one is already out there and not doing the man any favors.

    And while I agree with your theory, there are two things I'd like to add: (1) Entertainment Tonight has pro-Clinton stories all the time, and a lot more people watch ET than the nightly news.  (2) the internet, via YouTube, is an incredibly powerful tool, and while a lot of the folks you are talking about are not obsessed like us, if a video of Wright goes viral, this same faction will see it whether the news covers it or not.


    Wright will be a factor (none / 0) (#74)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:40:45 AM EST
    Wev Wright will be front and center because it does touch a nerve, I was listening to a baseball game and the announcer who I never heard talk politics, expressed his disgust over him. Now you add the "white trash" into the mix and we could very well be looking at President McCain. (With the state of this country I would have bet the farm that this could not happen 6 months ago).

    Oh, I agree with you completely, Kathy - (none / 0) (#95)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:24:05 AM EST
    I just sometimes have to take a step back and think about the rest of the world that is not immersed in this like we are.

    We know that the very fact that the networks are showing clips of these attack ads is a way for people to see them who might otherwise not - and these things will change the game for Obama.

    I do think there's been a shift, but I also think I am so anxious for there to be one that I see it and sense it sooner than people who aren't in it like we are.

    That being said, the Wright interview was Topic One on C-SPAN this morning, and the part where Wright says that Obama was just doing what politicians do was specifically quoted - for C-SPAN, this was as close to a "See, see - Obama is no different than anyone else!" moment as they could have, but it did make me say, "Hmmmm."

    Bandwagons are a funny thing - right now, I feel like there might be some people who have gone from being totally on Obama's to having maybe one foot on Hillary's, and who might be contemplating more of a move - but it will take someone of some import to make that leap first, and if that happens, all bets are off.


    Yes! (none / 0) (#105)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:54:28 AM EST
    She can cut into his high education bloc.

    I'm sure of it.

    But she does need money.

    Shoe-leather is perfect for her core.  They like to see and hear.

    But money is necessary for that other group.  They don't have time to attend rallies, anyway.  

    That's a group she could clip into.

    With money.


    Actually, the shift started before PA (none / 0) (#98)
    by Coral on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:32:08 AM EST
    with the "bitter" controversy. I was abroad, but I heard it constantly on CNN. It seemed pretty dumb thing to be attacking Obama for (IMHO), yet that seemed to be the predominant US electoral coverage.

    But many questions are not clearly answered: (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:30:52 AM EST
    Why turn on Obama now? when super delegates are not all totally declared for Obama to seal his nomination, and with the rest of the states that can affect delegate and popular vote outcome are still out there?

    If they are going to turn to McCain anyway, why endanger Obama's nomination now, if Obama is the candidate McCain can easily beat?

    Are they perhaps reacting to the criticism against the media in general?  Are they perhaps concerned (the network personalities) with the economic impact on them such as loss of viewership?

    Are some of them feeling betrayed by Obama when all sorts of negative revelations have surfaced and therefore revealing their own lack of initiative in failing to do their jobs as journalists?

    If there is anything to be learned from all of these, it is that, nothing is what appears on the surface.

    The News Has Been Extremely Damaging To (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:00:56 AM EST
    the Democratic brand anyway you slice it. Republican themes that have been reinforced during this primary.

    Democrats are elitist who look down their noses at working class people.

    Democrats use and abuse the AA community.

    Democrats are unpatriotic and hate America.

    Republicans are strong on defense and without Republicans at Defense and State the Dems could not handle the job.

    There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans

    Democrats are really not good at the economy after all

    Universal Health Care will force you to choose between putting food on your table and paying premiums that you cannot afford.

    The Democrats are losers who can't win no matter how bad the Republicans perform.

    Republicans are the party of ideas (i.e Democrats are the stupid party (BTW I'm beginning to agree with this))

    There have only been great Republican presidents in the last several decades.



    Sounds like an Obama speech. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:58:12 PM EST
    When he tried to denigrate the Clinton economy and generally trash the Clinton administration he broke a cardinal rule of politics. He was doing it to backhand Hillary Clinton but in doing so he crapped on the party. He's been doing that, crapping on the party, since the start of the campaign. He craps on Democratic constituencies like working people, trial lawyers, elderly voters, to some extent caucasions, etc.

    Can you imagine a Republican candidate trashing the Reagan administration? Or rhetorically crapping on any potential constituency?


    this is why obama is a parasite on (none / 0) (#147)
    by kangeroo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:46:04 PM EST
    the democratic party.  he benefits from the good, contributes nothing but bad.  he needs to get out.

    They are turned their (none / 0) (#70)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:34:14 AM EST
    minds into pretzle brains trying to defend him.  LOL*

    Hm... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:05:15 AM EST
    And an Obama delegate is in trouble, according to No Quarter.

    Texas Rangers and the FBI investigate the hoax phone call that lead to the massive raid on the Texas polygamist compound, word emerges that the woman arrested for the hoax is ... a pledged delegate to the Obama campaign?


    Oh, heck no (none / 0) (#155)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:02:52 PM EST
    I wouldn't blame Obama for her, either.  I just thought it was funny.  Plus, she apparently is obsessed with cults, which made it funnier.

    (and funny as in odd, not laughing my butt off, though I will admit to a chuckle when I started to read about it, as in "man, people are so frackin' nuts.")


    The media (none / 0) (#93)
    by Leisa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:20:02 AM EST
    has not turned on Obama.  

    I think what we are seeing is that people that are sick of unprofessional reporting are canceling subscriptions and turning off the news programs.  This is a blip to try to lure customers back.

    Yes, nothing is what it appears on the surface.  Especially in politics and big business.  


    Because they genuinely believe there is no way (none / 0) (#102)
    by esmense on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:38:50 AM EST
    Clinton can win. The media has already declared the primary "over" -- in their opinion it is only Clinton who refuses to see the obvious. They are getting impatient to get on with the next phase -- start trashing the Dem nominee.

    America is Mr. Obama's problem. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by TalkRight on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:04:52 AM EST
    Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's one-time speechwriter and a columnist for the online Wall Street Journal, offers Sen. Barack Obama some unsolicited advice, with her usual pithiness,

    Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem. He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over . . . the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history.

    John McCain carries it in his bones. Mr. McCain learned it in school, in the Naval Academy, and, literally, at grandpa's knee. Mrs. Clinton learned at least its importance in her long slog through Arkansas, circa 1977-92.

    Mr. Obama? What does he think about all that history? Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America? That's why people talk about the flag pin absent from the lapel. They wonder if it means something. Not that the presence of the pin proves love of country - any cynic can wear a pin, and many cynics do. But what about Obama and America? Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all?

    Another challenge. Snooty lefties get angry when you ask them to talk about these things. They get resentful. Who are you to question my patriotism? But no one is questioning his patriotism, they're questioning its content, its fullness. Gate 14 has a right to hear this. They'd lean forward to hear.

    This is an opportunity, for Mr. Obama needs an Act II. Act II is hard. Act II is where the promise of Act I is deepened, the plot thickens, and all is teed up for resolution and meaning. Mr. Obama's Act I was: I'm Obama. He enters the scene. Act III will be the convention and acceptance speech. After that a whole new drama begins. But for now he needs Act II. He should make his subject America.

    Noonan really wants Obama to be the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:33:44 PM EST
    because she really thinks McCain will have a easy time beating him.  She probably has already written several speeches for McCain with Obama in mind.  Those will have to be scrapped when Hillary becomes the nominee.  Such a waste of many writing hours.

    I'd Say They're Preparing to Turn On HIm (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:37:42 AM EST
    They have been for awhile.  Almost every kerfluffle he's gotten in with McCain, the press has - unsurprisingly - sided with McCain.

    I think they're torn right now between several sub-groups - those who like the potential story of either a comeback by Clinton or a protracted nomination battle, those few who are decent journalists just trying to report the news even if they occasionally get lost in the press narrative, and those who hate Clinton so much all they want is to see her lose.  

    The problem for Obama is that this latter category, which among pundits if not reporters, has certainly seemed to be quite large appears to be thinking about turning on him.  Think guys like Chris Matthews.  They seem frustrated he can't beat her and ready to move on to McCain who they think will.

    I suspect right now we'll simply see a bit more balanced coverage.  There will be more voices echoing Clinton talking points, but there will still be plenty pushing Obama's pov and that there will probably be more Obama pov.  I think he's in real danger of losing this advantage if she beats him handily in Indiana.  Then, I think guys like Matthews are going to write him off and move on to Real Man John McCain, a guy who is surely tough enough to beat this woman they hate so much.

    Of course, the problem for Obama is that even if he manages to win enough of the remaining nominating contests to get the SDs to line up behind him and clinch the nomination, the press is still going to turn on him in favor of McCain.  

    So Lets Use it! (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by tannersmom on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:37:24 PM EST
    Regardless of their motivation (ie the man crushes), the very fact that this is being written about can be used to Hillary's advantage with our help. I see the media as not so crafty but rather like two year olds, distract them and pet them and they will respond like a pack. Here, click on the articles and give them the feed back that this is of interest to the general public, like a pack they will all start to follow that narrative. Then, we can make it a self fulfilling prophecy, for the more the write about Obama being attacked, the more stories will come out about him and the fawning will hopefully give way to actual reporting. Don't forget Olbermann got his start (which he now claims he protested) doing a nightly round up of impeachment news, and nightline was started as an update over the hostages in Iran. It only takes the percieved interest of the masses to get the media to repeat the same formula over and over again.
    Just a thought.

    Media turning on Obama (3.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Rekwin08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:38:51 AM EST
    Of course the media is turning on Obama, they realize he is going to be the Democratic nominee and it is time to attack him rather than Hillary. What is so difficult to understand? This site is so pro Hillary that it is blind to or just ignores the reality of the corporate/pro-republican press and right-wing spin machine. This site quotes right-wing propaganda against Obama as if it is valid while defending Hillary against attacks from the same sources. This site has volunteered to be a part of the right-wing spin machine against Obama.

    The problem with this argument (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Lil on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:50:03 AM EST
    Why now? Why not wait until Hillary's completely knocked out? Doesn't this help her chances of pulling it out? I think the media has ADHD as well as a few other disorders and is just looking for the controversy of the day. For all the hand wringing about the last debate, ABC got a very high rating. People want to see a modern day version of the gladiators. Also, McCain hasn't really gotten much traction; I hardly see him at all on the news dominated by the Dems.

    the WORM has (none / 0) (#138)
    by isaac on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:57:15 PM EST
    turned  for sure.  the press has definitely turned on him, and the repugs may be jumping the gun a bit because both are convinced hillary has no chance and he will be the nominee.  dragging it out just bloodies him up more prior to the convention.  if he does get the nomination he will be dead in the water before it is even official

    the Worm.. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Rekwin08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:04:11 PM EST
    ..dead in the water based on what? This will only be true if sites like this continue to do there volunteer work for the right-wing smear machine.

    Shoot. Did I miss the volunteer drive? (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by leis on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:21:40 AM EST
    I just love it... (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:37:35 AM EST
    when a new stranger comes in to tell me how stupid, how manipulated and how I am complicit of some conspiracy.

    Yes, it's true, TalkLeft is now officially the spawn of satan...thanks for pointing it out and saving us.


    Republican Party Sends Thanks! (none / 0) (#131)
    by Rekwin08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:27:58 PM EST
    ...and the Republican Party thanks you for your cooperation. They couldn't do it without you.

    What you seem to not (none / 0) (#146)
    by leis on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:07:36 PM EST
    understand is that Obama can't do it without me.  

    Without you (none / 0) (#149)
    by Rekwin08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:24:04 PM EST
    Oh, I should have realized its really about you and not whether the country sinks even deeper into a Republican made morass. Sorry I didn't understand. Silly me. Now I know, its my way or the highway. Funny, that sounds a lot like our current loser of a president and why the country's in such a mess.

    Those 8 years WJC was in the White House... (none / 0) (#151)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:00:37 PM EST
    who knew that they were Republicans and that the Republicans have been in control of the White House since 1980?

    How can I be certain that Obama isn't also a Republican because I now so distrust everyone?


    Trojan Horses!!!! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Shainzona on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:54:10 AM EST

    Do we think this thing has changed overnight?  The candidates have been selected by corporate America, the MSM and the DNC - this is all part of "let's play nice" - "gee, we were mean to BO, too" BS.  

    This is all just part of a plan - it might be a reaction to current "market conditions", but they are moving the chess pieces in a pre-determined pattern and nothing/no body dar eget in the way.

    Do.  Not.  Fall.  For.  It!


    a little too cynical for my tastes... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:04:59 AM EST
    Yes, they don't like the media turning on their guy, but guess what...they should have seen it coming all the time their guy was getting the benefit of the media doing Clinton slash/burn and they rejoiced.

    I think they are shifting (none / 0) (#38)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:05:45 AM EST
    It looks like Obama has the nom in the bag.  My media theory (I keep trying to evaluate the campaign through BTD's media darling theory) has been that there would be greater ratings for knocking Clinton out and then going after Obama.  This was seen on MSNBC last night.  Tweety was gracious to Clinton... she's the fighter, scrapper, etc .. others saw that as giving Clinton a break.  I didn't.  I saw it as being gracious to the loser.  They then went on to say Obama didn't have fight, he can't get past his GE issues, Tweety doesn't want to hear an explanation for Wright 'there is no explanation', he went after Obama for picking on small town people,etc.... They are moving on to the GE.

    Articles yesterday..
    'Dems falling Idol'
    'Obama crashes the Democratic Party' (Bin Laden)
    'Clinton gains on Obama's total'
    'Is Obama ready for prime time'

    'Obama and Clinton: two cynical losers'
    'Dems always seem to find a way not to win'
    'Penn fault lines'   (Obama's loss)
    'Many who have been disposed to admire Obama, including me, see these matters as raising troublesome questions about his judgment and character.'

    It may just be picking on him as he's lost Penn, and there are still articles saying everyone is picking on him (he's won, Clinton needs to drop out) and the media will turn back to him to help him in Indiana.... we will see.  My summary: evaluating Clinton's chances to win while declaring she can't win, being gracious to Clinton as they move her out and increasing criticism of Obama.

    BTD's media darling theory?
    Waldenpond's ratings theory?

    Bet's anyone?

    Kathy's theory (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    they are a mob, and anyone who has studied mob mentality knows that it takes just one person saying, "hold on..." to stop the mob.

    Or, better yet, they are lemmings.

    I don't ascribe to them the sort of brilliant strategic coordination such a planned shift would require.  I think they are an emotional lot, just like we here sometimes tend to be, and that they don't want to be the only one railing against the machine.  Except maybe Lou Dobbs, whose very existence is about railing.


    Not exactly a mob... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Camorrista on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:16:06 AM EST
    they are a mob...

    May I adjust 'mob' to clique?

    They're neither dumb enough, nor drunk enough, nor violent enough to be a mob, but they do resemble  those groups in junior-high and high school who passed each other spiteful notes and muttered insults behind their fingers when the objects of their scorn (and envy) came into their target zone.

    You're right, they're not sufficiently organized to plan a shift like this, and they're too competitive (in their insipid way) to co-ordinate their moves.  Their dominant trait is insecurity: in their minds, being wrong once too often is a career-killer (not that different from the people they cover, if you think about it).

    So when the wind goes from a breeze to a squall, and it shifts from north to south, the press boys & girls don't need much prompting to tack in a new direction.  Unlike Obama's zealous true believers,  Olberman & his ilk are converts only for the season, and the season has no fixed start and end dates.

    If you want a sense of where the press coverage will head next, take a look at Paul Krugman's column of today.  If I were a serious Obama admirer, I'd be buying futures in the adult diaper industry.


    Wyatt Earp (none / 0) (#61)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    the 100 of you will kill me. But i'll kill the first ten of you who move on me.  Any takers?

    she earned his respect (none / 0) (#60)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:23:08 AM EST
    She wopn a state wide contest in hostile country.

    he wants a senate seat himself.

    And he knows she performed majic.


    If he runs as a Dem (none / 0) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:28:38 AM EST
    Isn't he a Repub?  If he ran as a Dem he'd need her fund raising machinery and people to mentor him.  :)

    Matthews is a Dem (none / 0) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:39:21 PM EST
    worked for TIp O'Neill and Jimmy Carter.  Voted for George Jr. twice, but so did too many Dems.  

    Matthews Is a Faux Dem (none / 0) (#137)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:44:13 PM EST
    I voted Republican in the late 1980s, that doesn't make me one now.

    Matthews may have been a Dem at one time... (none / 0) (#153)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:06:07 PM EST
    but he isn't one now, neither is his brother.

    a few thoughts... (none / 0) (#54)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:18:13 AM EST
    Wright on Moyers Journal and people finding out that he is sane, rational and even likable is a good thing.

    The 'white trash' (h/t Randi) 'bitter' people that Axelrod says don't vote for Dems probably don't watch Bill Moyers either.

    you should watch Moyers... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:33:28 AM EST
    he's one of the very few people in the media asking the right questions...sometimes asking the right people.

    I expect that Reverend Wright will come across well...most preachers do. But I was never really bothered by the things that Wright said...there are preachers all over the country, white and black, preaching similar things and worse.

    I doubt that Fox will need to farm this interview for Obama's appearance on Sunday. Between his bitter comments, Axelrod's really stupid comments about those people not voting for Dems anyway and Ayers...and Ayers really has the potential for hurting Obama.


    I watch Moyers (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:31:02 PM EST
    every week. He's fair. He was one of the first to debunk the bit about Hillary trash-talking MLK. He set the record straight and could do that because he was actually in the White House at that time.

    I may not always agree with Bill Moyers, but I respect him. I'm not so dedicated to any one candidate that I automatically "hate" any news-media or person if they aren't for my candidate and against her opponent.

    As a blue collar kind of person I resent it when anyone suggests that I can't be well-informed just because I couldn't afford to go to college. I know all too many pinheads with degrees.  


    How right you are (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:11:44 PM EST
    kenosha and some of them have blogs.

    Plouffe sticking his foot (none / 0) (#58)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:21:37 AM EST
    in his mouth with the press today while trying to prove Obama is more electable.


    I am a college teacher (none / 0) (#115)
    by dem08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:46:17 PM EST
    I am proud to be an elitist and well-educated and affluent.

    I wish we had a society and economy that were more fair, but the idea that Hillary and Bill Clinton are not part of the elite is ludicrous.

    I know America is anti-intellectual, but a Blog founded upon changing the presumption of guilt (that is, many Americans do not respect our Constitutional Rights, and do not believe an indicted person is "Innocent until proven guilty", and PROVEN "beyond a 'reasonable doubt'") should not sound like a Hee-Haw fan club.

    you int da wrong place (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:08:34 PM EST
    weunz dont cotton ta them well-educated and effluent types round here.

    Nobody Has Denied (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:16:13 PM EST
    Bill and Hillary Clinton are members of the elite.  I do not think they are elitist.  

    I know I'm just a dumb hick from Kentucky, but where I come from elite and elitist have different meanings.  But then I also grew up watching Hee Haw (and liked it) so my opinion is clearly not worth anything.


    how did they make (none / 0) (#130)
    by dem08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:27:46 PM EST
    110 million dollars, if they aren't elitists?

    I doubt if any person gets  a 10 million dollar retainer for his "advice", as Bill Clinton gets, unless the person is an elitist.

    Similarly, book deals are the Establishment's way of rewarding people for being powerful and/or famous.

    Sorry, I never "got" Hee Haw. To me it was like The Lawrence Welk Show for Country Music fans. But I am certain that Hillary watched the show after her duck hunts and laughed with great small town gusto and sang along with each song.


    Because Being an Elitist (none / 0) (#133)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:34:48 PM EST
    Means you think you're better than other people.  It has to do with your attitude.  

    Being a member of the elite, means you are in the upper social classes.

    You can be a member of the elite, that is be rich and well-connected, without being a snob.  

    You can be an elitist, someone who thinks the world should be run by elites or that they are superior to others, without actually being a member of the elite.

    Oh, go back and read the definitions in my link.


    Or To Put It Another Way (none / 0) (#136)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:41:21 PM EST
    Members of the elite might not watch Hee Haw or duck hunt, but that doesn't inherently mean they look down on those who do.  It's a matter of how certain social classes choose to spend their free time, which relates to available options, not necessarily any judgement on others.  

    An elitist is someone who looks down on people who watch Hee Haw and duck hunt because he or she is too good to do so.

    Again, Hillary Clinton is clearly a member of the elite.  I doubt very much she chooses to go hunting (although to be clear many rich guys like Cheney hunt, many poor people do not) or bowls very often.  That has nothing to do with her attitude towards those who do.

    And that was the issue about BitterCling, it wasn't that Obama doesn't bowl or hunt, it was that he appeared to look down on those who do.

    It's about attitude.

    And, of course, proper use of the English language.  Because I am an elitist in that regard.


    As a college level instructor (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:11:53 PM EST
    you should be capabable of understanding the difference between being elite and being an elitist. Apparently you've missed that.

    Of course the Clintons are elite. But they're not elitists.

    I've known many elite people who were not elitists and have known far too many who are elitists but are not elite.

    Your Hee-haw fan club remark is not just grossly inaccurate it's also way out of line.


    If all voters were college professors ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:34:17 PM EST
    ... your opinion would probably be widely respected. But we're talking about the actual electorate here.

    So am I, but you restate the point (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:49:43 PM EST
    about elitism -- about the candidates' upbringings.

    Obama is in the elite now, too.  But he was raised by wealthy grandparents (grandfather owned a business, grandmother a bank vice-president) and a wealthy remarried mom (stepfather a country club sort) and sent to a private prep school, etc.  Clinton was raised middle-class, went to public school, etc.


    are you sure? (none / 0) (#128)
    by dem08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:20:12 PM EST
    I thought Bill went to Georgetown and Hillary to Wellsley.

    I know that compared to the cushy life Obama had, Bill and Hillary were sharecroppers, but I thought they both went to Private Colleges.

    I guess that is why the working class takes to Hillary? Was she a welder who "Flashdanced" her way through college?

    Anyway, I find the whole idea of living in a small town and shooting guns for pleasure boring. I wonder how many of you are living a damn good life, like me, and talking about poor people as though they were something Hillary knows not only intimately, but uniquely.

    I would make any wager that a Hillary Presidency will be very rewarding for lobbyists and lawyers, just as Bill's was. Our whole politics is geared for those who are wealthy or getting there.

    Obama and McCain won't do anything for the less affluent either, but we know what The Clinton's do with power and we know they have enemies and like Impeachment Fights and War Rooms.


    Why Do So Many Smart People Hate English? (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:31:55 PM EST
    Elite is not the same thing as elitism.  Of course,  Bill and Hillary Clinton are members of the elite.  So are the Obamas.  

    The issue is elitism, which is an entirely different thing.  It has nothing to do with how much money you have or where you went to school.   You can be elite without being elitist.  You can be elitist without...oh, I've already explained it all here.

    I plead with everyone, whatever your position on BitterCling, please stop mangling the English language.  Do not interchange elite and elitism, they are not the same thing!

    Thank you.


    Are you sure (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:23:50 PM EST
    you're a college level instructor.

    You don't sound like any college instructor I've ever had.

    It's been over four decades but, as I recall, I never had an instructor thick enough to confuse elite and elitism.

    I'm calling you out.  I don't believe you.

    You're trying to bat out of your league and it isn't working out.


    Jeez (none / 0) (#144)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:30:47 PM EST
    "are you sure?
    I thought Bill went to Georgetown and Hillary to Wellsley."

    You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

    Hillary and Bill both attended public school.  
    They attended private colleges.  The writer was referencing K-12 which is obvious based on context.  

    Obama attended private schools for a good share of his K-12 education.


    Hillary went to Wellesley, actually (none / 0) (#150)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:42:25 PM EST
    Wellsley is in NC.