Because among the MCMers, being against Hillary isn't bias. It's just the way things are--and that is reinforced every time the MCMers talk to one another.

Oh wait, that was Obama.

When they consistantly accused their opposistion of being racists.

Oh wait, Obama again.

When they said their opponents were too divisive.

Dang!

When they stated their opponents didn't have any ideas.

Oooops!

When they accused their opposition of throwing in with Bush and not talking to world leaders.

Dooh!

Oh!  I know, when they said thier opponent was only "likable enough".

Hmmmm....

But, the greater point here is this:  "The only way she can win is to win ugly."  Makes me think they are actually scared she will win, so they are getting their story in place: yeah, she won, but she did it dirty!

A dirty win is still a win.  Getting your opponents knocked off the ballot--Obama still won.  Leaking your opponent's divorce papers in the last few weeks of the election--Obama still won.

A couple dozen members of the Florida Building Trades are planning to picket at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington on Monday afternoon to protest the "lockout" of Florida delegates from the 2008 convention.

Honest self-examination is not one of the strengths in our culture, IMO.

"I'm OK, You're OK!"  Along with "Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten!"

He seems to think that by Hillary pointing out that she has been treated unfairly, she is asking for some kind of sympathy vote. That is not how I see it at all.  I see it as her showing strength that she is still in this thing even though there has been obvious bias against her.  That is not asking for sympathy, it is asking for acknowledgement of her strength.  He has never understood that, as shown by his comments about how people vote for her because she was a 'victim' of her husband playing around.

Now the news people want the freedom and the glory of driving the news, so we have people like Andrea Mitchell and so many others framing their reports and choosing their words in ways that make it clear who they think is in and who is out.  

Michele Norris asks questions like she did because she has forgotten that she is not the story, and that good reporting should leave the viewer, the listener or the reader totally in the dark about what the reporter thinks.

These last couple of weeks, I have been getting home late enough to miss all the national news.  We don't have cable or satellite, so I don't have to make a conscious decision to not watch MSNBC - and you know what?  I confirmed that I haven't been getting news from the networks for a long time - all they have been good for is the entertainment of checking to see how much they can get wrong, and how much they leave out.

They've also learned, as have the Republicans, that people tend to believe something is true if they hear it from a lot of sources. The "some say" locution abets that, as "some" clearly is more than one.

I was just over at The Left Coaster looking through comments about the Bachtel "Gore-ing" of Hillary, and someone said it served Hillary right for posting that photo of Obama. Other commenters correted the poster and gave links to blogs which had the story as well as it could be known.  But this person had left the story at the point where Josh Marshall had given Drudge his stamp of approval--or thereabouts--and it was what this person believed (Unless it was a particulary stupid troll trying to dislogde fact-based belief among The Left Coasters. Did not seem to be one--seemed to accept the facts once they were made known to him or her.)

Point is all this talk about Hillary being so far behind as to make it impossible to win, trying to win "ugly," being "willing to do anything," the Bosnia thing (unfortunately not cut off soon enough and without quite enough humor, I fear), now this hospital/insurance story.

Notice that the MCMers do not take responsibility--or apologize.  It just gets left out there, with maybe some offhand or mumbled update.

Same goes here -- some bad journalism is not sexist.  This is just bad journalism, and the double standard in this case is asking some questions of one candidate that never even would occur to ask of the other candidate, when both have the same status of not being to win on pledged delegates alone.

The rules...need 2025 delegates for a clear win...how can you get delegates?  Placement in caucuses and primaries affords proportional number of delegates.  How else can you get delegates?  Why superdelegates of course.  Chris Dodd is a superdelegate, he has endorsed Obama...But here is the kicker you people don't seem to want to accept...Chris Dodd can choose to endorse Clinton...not a day goes by that your blog of choice doesn't promote superdelegates pledging for Obama or switching their pledge from Clinton TO Obama.  

With MI and FL not counting I would say that Obama is winning ugly.  That the DNC would penalize the voters and not the state party's is appalling to me.  That Obama is fine with this type of disenfranchisement because both states are Clinton states, to me, is winning ugly.

I have seen some attempts at trying to address the voter dynamics on levels below 10,000 feet, but you need to look at investigative blogs, not the media.  Too often, the media just looks at young versus old, wealth versus working class, male versus female, blacks versus other groups, etc.

It's no different than JMM choosing from his mail box particular messages rather than make the statement himself.

There is a word for this...it's called cowardice.

Now I don't want to get all worked up about Michelle Norris because I don't know that this is a pattern or just a really poorly conceived question but probably more typical of the pattern that Hillary has to face. The simple fact is that a woman interviewer does have more latitude because they are far less likely to be accused of misogyny...which is what made it so convenient for Randi Rhodes to do the figurative assassinations of Ferraro and Clinton.

Congratulations, Moffle. I expect to read that kind of comment on Taylor Marsh. I hope Talk Left doesn't go full paranoia in its "We love you, Hillary! Oh yes, we do!"

Let's assume that brave anti-Obam voices are getting hate mail and death threats. How do we know it isn't from people who have nothing to do with Obama?

There was a very brave young man at Princeton who was attacked for speaking out against the "liberal domination" of Princeton.

Funny story: turns out he attacked himself.