WaPo Reporter: No McCain -Clinton Polling Because Nobody Cares

Washington Post reporter Paul Kane had an online chat today. He was asked a few times why the Post didn't report on Rasmussen daily tracking polls and the recent Gallup poll showing Hillary doing better than Obama against McCain in the swing states.

His answer: He's covered the superdelegates extensively and he knows they don't care.

Question 1 on the topic:[More...]

Washington: Looking at the most recent Rasmussen daily polls, I see that Hillary manages a tie today against McCain, but Barack is down by five points to McCain. What piqued my interest was that while Hillary had a "highly unfavorable" rating of 32 percent (i.e., as I see it, people who never will vote for her) Barack was at 35 percent. On Jan. 30, as we entered primary season's main show, Barack's "highly unfavorables" were 20 percent and Clinton's were 35 percent. Is this something superdelegates may be watching?

Paul Kane: I've spent the past several months talking to as many super-delegates as any reporter in America, I'd guess, since I cover on a day-to-day basis about 280 of them here on Capitol Hill.

I hate saying this, because all the Clinton people are going to flip out and say, You're biased, you're biased, you're biased. So go ahead and flip out if you want, but the simple basic truth is that the super-delegates stopped paying attention to the Clinton-Obama race about a couple days after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

They've stopped paying attention to the primary, and instead they're focused on an Obama-McCain matchup in November. That's the basic, simple, definitive reality that has happened in this race. The "undecided" super-delegates at this moment are not going to "decide" any time soon, because to them the race is over, they're just waiting for Clinton to drop out.

Question #2 on topic:

Centreville, Va.: I was surprised and disappointed that The Post did not seem to address the Gallup poll yesterday which seemed to say Hillary Clinton had somewhat of an advantage over Barack Obama in the so-called swing states. The news of that poll was bandied about all day on the political blogs, and I have to say the Obama supporters seemed to be getting the worst of it. (Or is it "worse" with only two candidates in the poll?)

Paul Kane responds:

Paul Kane: Again, don't yell at me because I'm only the messenger here. But the super-delegates have moved on, they're no longer looking at how Hillary Clinton fares in battleground states against McCain. This is very hard for Clinton
supporters to hear, I'm sorry, but the super-delegates are not paying attention to your candidate anymore. These head-to-head matchup polls (Clinton v. McCain, Obama v. McCain) are not having the impact on people's thinking anymore.

Another reader asked why there had been no coverage of third party candidates. His answer:

I'll happily answer this one, and I'll be brutally honest. We don't have enough resources to cover your party. it's that simple, and if that infuriates you, I'm sorry. But that's life. The Green Party and Nader got plenty of coverage in '00 when, at the least, he had the chance to play a decisive role in some states. So far, there's little indication that the Greens will have any major impact on the '08 election. Until you can demonstrate that there is some level of support for your party, our paper isn't going to spend precious resources reporting on whatever it is you're doing. I'm sorry, but we're a business, and lots of my colleagues are walking out the door under volunteer buyouts. We don't have the resources to cover you guys.

Your national media at work.

< Colorado's Purple Status Gets a New Wrinkle | Obama To Overturn Bush Laws and Orders He Finds Unconstitutional >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    idiots. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:06:12 PM EST
    What DO they pay attention to?

    Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:18:58 PM EST
    Angelina Jolie.........

    apparently not much, but Paul Kane might (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:30:27 PM EST
    want to consider going back to journalism school as you never know what underlying story there may be lurking.

    I love this comment. (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:37:11 PM EST
    I gotta work on understatement, PssstCmere08-style.

    lol....thanks Cream (none / 0) (#98)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:18:15 AM EST
    They know best (none / 0) (#88)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:46:27 AM EST
    They pay attentenion only to those things they feel it is important for you to know.  This is why the MSM is losing audience.

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:08:51 PM EST
    I mean, if superdelegates really have reached such-and-such a conclusion, isn't THAT a story?

    Instead we have Tim Russert saying it's over because he says it is.  Love that media.

    Then the story would be (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:09:53 PM EST
    "Why are you afraid to say this in public?" That should be the story, frankly.

    Exactly (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by BDB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:27:22 AM EST
    I believe this reporter.  I believe the Supers aren't paying any damned attention and that this thing is decided.  But it speaks volumes that the Supers aren't paying attention to who would be the stronger candidate or who is winning primaries and votes when they are supposed to be deciding what's in the best interest of the party.  Not that I think anyone in the party actually thinks that way.  

    And, it's also a story that not only won't they say something in public, but they are such weenies they are waiting for Clinton to simply drop out.  Because that way many of them don't have to publicly make any choice at all.

    So is the Green Party completely hopeless or do you think some time in the next century they might get it together?  Because I can take my candidate losing, what I can't take is the continuing weakness and pathetic-ness of the party.  I'm supposed to entrust these people to fix my country?  They won't even call out misogyny from some blowhard on television.  


    He's not afraid to say it to the public. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Y Knot on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:26:03 PM EST
    They've been saying to the public for the past month.  That's what all the "Obama won the primary" stories are all about.  

    He's afraid to say it to Clinton supporters.  Big difference.


    Uh, I think she meant the supers. (none / 0) (#36)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:31:06 PM EST
    Is there a list of SD's up for re-election (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:09:30 PM EST
    now and in 2010? The fact that they have moved on may need to be made a reality . . .

    Superdelegates are House and Senate (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:21:29 PM EST
    members. All the House Democrats are up for re-election and about 12 senate seats, I think.

    That's just some of them (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:34:41 PM EST
    and most are not on Capitol Hill, as far as this reporter is willing to stroll for a story.  Super-delegates also are far from D.C. and WaPo -- governors and other state officials, national and state party officials, etc.  And there are others representing . . . well, all those Dem buzzwords like "youth" -- the super-delegate I've read about most in my city and state is the youngest of all, a college student who just thought it would be fun.  (You can guess which candidate is the pick of a super-delegate with that approach to picking a potential president.)

    Really? (none / 0) (#102)
    by sj on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:24:12 AM EST
    the super-delegate I've read about most in my city and state is the youngest of all, a college student who just thought it would be fun

    How did that happen?  All the super delegates that I know about have done, at a minimum, their fair share of carrying water for the Democratic party.  Some have carried an awful lot of water.  Becoming a super delegate on whim because "it would be be fun" sounds, to me, as likely as getting my wishes granted by my fairy godmother.

    But if it's true, I am SO going to be looking out for that fairy godmother.  Or maybe I'll just move to your state :)


    Can only impact the ones on my ballot (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:28:59 PM EST
    Representative (2 year terms, so all should be running in both 2008 and 2010)

    Senator (6 year terms, so 1 per state in 2008 & 2010, probably)

    Governor (4 year terms, so all or many in 2008)

    Check your state and district elected official web sites.

    I know I'm voting for 3 seats this year and all are Democratic incumbants, so they had best use good judgment with their SD votes.


    I'm working a 2 state strategy here (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:42:32 PM EST
    I moving back to CA before 2010, so although I may only be able to vote here, I can support (or NOT) CA elections and work through people I know there :)

    I'd like to find or put together a state by state list for handy reference now and in the future ;) I have no problem helping ($$) good folks in other states if I think it will make a difference. And since their actions in DC do effect me, I have no problem letting them know what I think either.


    vote for Sheehan if you're going to SF - let's (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by suzieg on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:48:58 AM EST
    give Pelosi a fight for her money!

    You Could Also Get Involved (none / 0) (#71)
    by BDB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:30:24 AM EST
    in the party at the local level.  They have meetings and elect local party officials.  I get the feeling in some areas they may not be that well attended.  Get some buddies together and go and start cleaning house.  

    It's too bad that Clinton's women aren't better organized because that would be the way to do it.  Overwhelm local parties after November when the Obama kids have gone back to whatever they were doing before and start putting women in everywhere.  


    One third (none / 0) (#79)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:22:49 AM EST
    of the Senate is up for election every two years.  In theory it would take six years to turn over the Senate.

    Wait a minute, (none / 0) (#82)
    by dogooder on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:57:02 AM EST
    do you mean that if the SD doesn't endorse whichever of Clinton/Obama you support (I assume Clinton, of course), then you'll vote against the SD in their election--that is, you'd instead vote for the Republican candidate?

    yes (none / 0) (#84)
    by honora on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:45:04 AM EST
    answer to Wait a minute (none / 0) (#89)
    by fly on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:21:46 AM EST
    Yes , i will vote against any super who sends their vote to Obama ..because that is against the will of the people of my state!

    You bet i will vote for anyone opposed to any super who throws their vote to Obama..and i will better it..all the money i used to give to the DNC will go to their opposition!

    YOu bet I am mad as hell and i am not going to take it anymore..no ipod wearing college kid who hasn't paid the damn bills is going to decide my president and they can take their Candidates and supers with them..i am now voting with my pocketbook..so look out supers..i mean business!

    And so do all my friends and dems i have worked for years and years with!


    This needs to stop (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    "no ipod wearing college kid who hasn't paid the damn bills is going to decide my president and they can take their Candidates and supers with them.."

    They are legally allowed to vote.  We should all be happy that they care enough to vote.  Their vote counts just as much as your vote.  It is their future as much as your future.

    No one here would ever dismiss older voters.  Younger voters will have to live with the consequences longer than anyone, they have every right to make their voice heard.

    If you want to complain about your vote note being counted, that's fine.  Don't discount the votes of others.


    Wasn't that Jesse Jackson Jr's threat? (none / 0) (#97)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:14:49 AM EST
    Obama's national co-chair threatened a black member of Congress, and by implication every black elected super-delegate, with a primary challenger if he don't vote for Obama. Not quite the same as voting Republican in the general but threatening their job anyway.

    As citizens we only get the one vote. We have to factor in alot of stuff. This is one of those factors. For me it is a pretty big one. Considering that in my neck of the woods the Republicans are better than the Democrats on a lot of issues, I wouldn't lose much sleep voting against my Rep if he joined the Obamanation. I don't see him doing that though.


    Covering their @sses'll mean losing their seats (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Ellie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:42:56 PM EST
    No vote tearing or else: that should be the bottom line. (NPI)

    They brought this on themselves. It's even beyond expecting them to represent their constituencies but a constitutional issue.

    If they can't do this straight up and honestly, they don't deserve their seats. Period.


    The Super Delegates List and Endorsements (none / 0) (#109)
    by TomLincoln on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:55:33 PM EST
    It is incredible to watch that despite Hillary's (none / 0) (#110)
    by TomLincoln on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    overwhelming victory in WV, Senators Byrd and Rockefeller, as well as Rep. Allan Mollohan, still back Obama.

    Do we have any actual proof (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:12:04 PM EST
    that the SDs don't care as in did they take a poll and ask them? Or is this just a grand assumption on Mr Kane's part (and the editorial staff of the WaPo) in order to keep people from reading about it?

    If the SDs have all made their decision then why are there so many uncommitted people and why is Nancy Pelosi having apoplexy and threatening to "step in"? Something doesn't smell right here.

    This is his skewed-sample informal survey (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:14:49 PM EST
    of fewer than a third of the super-delegates -- he says he talks to 280 of them (I think it's two of them), and only those in Congress, i.e., on Capitol Hill.  There are almost 800 super-delegates.

    Yes, much about this reeks.


    That makes sense. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:16:40 PM EST
    So glad that the Obama-camp can speak for everyone all the time about everything and there's never any question about it.

    I liked the "I know you're going to say I'm biased but..." The gentleman doth protest too much.


    More than likely (none / 0) (#64)
    by Makarov on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:12:08 AM EST
    he spoke to an aid of the superdelegate, if they're an elected official.

    Do you think Jim Webb is going to take or return a phone call from this guy and discuss off the record how he views the primary race?


    I would hope not. n/t (none / 0) (#69)
    by janarchy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:24:17 AM EST
    well, I did that (none / 0) (#91)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:36:03 AM EST
    I spoke (on the phone) to an aide of Rep. McNerneys, and Sen. Boxers - both aides were sympathetic and hinted that both were sticking with her.

    Well, that's nice to hear. Maybe I'll give some (none / 0) (#108)
    by derridog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:24:12 PM EST
    money to Senator Boxer, as she asked for in her latest email. A true Democrat, unlike the rest of them, who are probably being bought off by Obama's corrupt dough, which you can't make me believe he gets from $25.00 donations on the internet.

    As evidence, look over at NoQuarter  for this:


     An article in the  Chicago Tribune in 2005, shows that David Axelrod, Obama's campaign manager, was a political consultant for Mayor Daley who was and is involved in major corruption scandals, involving fraud, bribery and payoffs in Chicago. The Hired Truck Scandal was one of them.
     Note:  What is Hired Truck?

    "Hired Truck" refers to the city's scandal-plagued program of hiring private trucks to do city work. It was overhauled in 2004 after disclosures that some participating companies were being paid for doing little or no work, had mob connections or were tied to city employees. A federal corruption investigation centering on the program is under way.


    I can believe that he's accurately reporting.. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:21:55 PM EST
    on the viewpoint of superdelegates.

    The questions areL

    1) whether its appropriate for WaPo to deprive its readership of information based on the opinion of superdelegates

    2( whether current disinterest in the relative electability of Obama and Clinton on the part of the superdelegates is itself a product of the same media coverage that has been spinning everything for Obama for months

    Nobody cared what Hillary Clinton said about RFK in March.  Everyone cared when she said the exact same thing in May.  And the only reason they cared was because the media treated it like it was important.


    Yeah, you know, (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:42:31 PM EST
    if Hillary has zero chance, and there's no reason for anyone to hear about any good news for her, such as her superior electability, could Mr. Kane kindly explain why it's so very important that her supposedly terrible remark about the RFK assassination be covered up and down the media for days and days?

    So good news for Hillary is not important, but bad "news" for Hillary can and should be covered as a major event.

    And of course he wants us to think that he and the national media aren't biased -- not at all! are you crazy?


    It's because there was video (none / 0) (#85)
    by independent voter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:00:47 AM EST
    this time. Don't you see this is a video and picture election. Things are so much more inflammatory when you have a video to go along with the words (not to mention, so many people too lazy to bother to read an article)

    And just because the SDs don't care, that (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:49:50 PM EST
    doesn't mean none of their readership cares.  For petessake, most papers run polls on every little damn thing these days.

    That smell? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Regency on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:13:36 PM EST
    Is the fix. She is in.

    I love the smell (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:15:26 PM EST
    of political corruption in the morning. Don't you?

    As usual, if the news (and now fake news) keep telling people things, people will take it as gospel. So much for not trusting the MSM after the way they sold us Bush and the Iraq war.


    This is pretty clearly his point of view (none / 0) (#27)
    by Y Knot on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:27:07 PM EST
    He's the Reid-Pelosi messenger boy (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:12:17 PM EST
    is what this says to me.  What a limited mind he has.  He thinks he talks to lots of super-delegates, but it's less than a third of them, and only those in Congress, so all under the Reid-Pelosi threats.  And he says he's only a messenger, but it's only their message -- which is Obama's message and not "fair and balanced" relaying of multiple messages.

    Basically, then, he's a pr flack for the DNC, and only paid by WaPo.  He's paid to do journalism, of course, but what that is seems to elude journalists now.

    great comment, cc. (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by sancho on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:28:25 PM EST
    Polls and stories are for the superdelegates (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:16:29 PM EST
    not the common reader.  Good to know.

    I fail to see how anyone can think (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:17:11 PM EST
    this election has been a fair process.  If Hillary's name were Henry Clinton, and he had won all the big electorals, all the swing states, and all the swing groups, he'd be the nominee, and Barack Obama would be his running mate.

    I again ask with the new Democratic Party, what's in it for me?

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:18:20 PM EST
    If Hillary's name were Henry Clinton, I bet Bill wouldn't have signed DOMA.

    Cute, Steve. :) (none / 0) (#19)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:20:04 PM EST
    LOL You've been on a roll all week n/t (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:12:26 AM EST
    Doesn't the Post care about its readers? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:17:19 PM EST
    I think they have lost track of whom they owe the information to. Are they saying that a couple of hundred super delegates decide their editorial policy as opposed to at least 20,000,000 Americans?

    Katherine Graham (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:21:05 PM EST
    I bet she's spinning in her grave right now!

    are you kidding? (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:26:13 PM EST
    for the past decade at least, she's been spinning so fast that the there are armed guards at her resting place to prevent Iran from stealing her remains and converting her into a gas centrifuge for uranium enrichment.

    The Graham grave must look like a rotisserie (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ellie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:34:14 PM EST
    It's really hard to read a (domestic) newspaper. It used to be one of my morning pleasures back in the day.

    She struck oil (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:40:17 PM EST
    My thoughts exactly (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:30:21 PM EST
    I mean the reporters are not beholden to the Democrats or their way of thinking. Ideally reporters are supposed to be objective. And the objective coverage would be to show both the match up b/w Obama and McCain and Hillary and McCain.

    Surely these polls are not being conducted only for Super D consumption but also for the general readers consumption.  


    Here's my superdelegate (5.00 / 12) (#15)
    by A little night musing on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:18:02 PM EST
    Charlie Rangel

    Rangel said the New York delegation was still fully behind Clinton.

    The members have "invested all of our political clout in her support," he said.

    I mentioned Obama's insurmountable delegate lead. "Your job is not to say who the hell won just because the party has some screwed-up rules in the ways we select," he responded. "You are interpreting what could happen, and I'm telling you it's not over."

    And just BTW - even supposing that Kane is correct concerning what the superd's want or don't want to hear about - why on earth should that determine what a newspaper covers as news? Are they servants of the superdelegates' wishes? What kind of answer to the question is that?


    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:18:56 PM EST
    There is only one Charlie Rangel.

    That there is! :) (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by nycstray on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:23:44 PM EST
    Bizarre is right... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by oldpro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:39:46 PM EST
    ...my reaction was exactly the same as yours.

    So, if a couple hundred superdelegates aren't interested in that news, isn't THAT a story in and of itself?


    Who else do they survey for 'interest' before they decide to cover a story...or not?

    This is as depressing as anything I've heard this week...and I've heard a lot.


    If it's over where are the SD's (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:26:59 PM EST
    all he needs is a picture with 600 of them behind him.  C'mon, finish it you cowards, if you dare.

    u got the (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:29:09 PM EST
    cowards part down right.  btw, thanks for stopping by my blog Stella!

    Cool... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:39:40 PM EST
    we have to stick together.  

    Yeah! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by bridget on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:39:38 PM EST
    Finish it you cowards, if you dare.

    On to the Convention ....



    And I still say (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:27:29 PM EST
    This election marks the revolt of the voter against the MSM. That's what makes 2008 an historical landmark. This will be the year that breaks the power of the MSM, and it won't be a good thing, although they have brought it on themselves.

    The echo chamber is becoming obvious each time they mispredict primary percentages. It's becoming obvious each of the many times reality doesn't bear out their statements (e.g., if Hillary's lost, why does she have the majority of the popular vote, or near majority?)

    I bet we'll see an accelerating trend of newsroom layoffs after the election. After all, if the reporter are no more than bloggers -- why not bring on bloggers for a fraction of the cost?

    And Homind Views (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:28:16 PM EST
    still gives her 100% chance of winning.

    guys, spend a second sending Supers some info (none / 0) (#93)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:47:46 AM EST
    The corpcontrolled press is preventing them from getting info from outside the bubble. You and I must correct that.

    They have not seen hominidviews
    remember they are busy. They don't read blogs like this. They probably glance at dailykos to see the screaming mob is behind Obama and the media is behind Obama and they think, gee: safest to vote Obama.

    Do it at lobbydelegates.com


    best time is when others are sleeping (none / 0) (#101)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM EST
    the site is very busy.

    I found this link at enemy sites like dailykos and zsazsas huffnpuff so the wrong side is heavily represented


    If they let Obie tear just one MI-FL vote to 'win' (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Ellie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:28:46 PM EST
    ... they're not getting mine, simple as that.

    I'm still writing in Sen Cliton for President, but now my I'm reconsidering my downticket vote too. Simple formula here:

    No Justice - No Vote.

    My conscience is completely clean on this.

    17 million people care (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:34:20 PM EST
    man, that stance is the SUMMATION of editorial elitism.

    Bottom line...it's time for the press (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:43:29 PM EST
    to get out of the political business.

    News organizations should be nonprofit entities, and there should be full disclosure of corporate interests regarding ownership of news organizations that is regularly published as a requirement to use the public airwaves.

    To me, it involves a compelling state interest to have an informed electorate.

    I mean, do they have something to hide?

    maybe WaPo is losing money? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Josey on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:33:49 AM EST
    like other major papers. Kane said they don't have the resources to cover 3rd parties and perhaps that extends to the primary.
    Better to say "SDs don't care" than admit WaPo lacks funds.
    just a thought.

    Yes, our media sucks! Corporate polls, corporate pundits, corporate reporters - all influencing our elections.


    The Post is definitely (none / 0) (#99)
    by camellia on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    hurting -- they have just given buyouts to more than 100 of their staff, including some fine and respected writers (along with some not-so-fine and respected).  We take the Post daily, and it is a pathetic shadow of itself.  The classified pages, which used to be huge on the weekend, are slim, and the advertising is way down too.   And I suspect it hasn't hit bottom yet, financially speaking.  Editorially -- seems pretty far down to me.

    I would certainly care (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:44:24 PM EST
    It always surprises me when they say the SD's should decide who they are voting for now. If I was a SD I might lean one way or the other but wouldn't firmly commit until it was time to vote. No one ever needs to decide their vote until the day they actually do vote...and for SD's that would be August.

    All the SDs are politicians, and they live and (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Valhalla on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:52:56 PM EST
    die by polling.  Maybe this guy never watched West Wing. (heh).

    You do realize most of the (none / 0) (#86)
    by independent voter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:05:16 AM EST
    supers have already voted in their own state's election, right? So they do know who they support. It would be tough to convince me that anyone paying attention to this race doesn't have an opinion on who is the best candidate.

    Of Course (none / 0) (#92)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:42:17 AM EST
    ...but unlike me delegates get to vote again. I have changed my mind between Obama and Clinton 2 or 3 times since January, never wavering far enough away from one or the other to not lean back again at times. Those that haven't committed are most likely leaners.

    Leaners like myself prefer to wait until the day we have to decide, to actually decide. Also, unlike in a primary, a delegate can choose not to vote on the first or subsequent ballots at the convention and if no one receives the required number of votes, they get even longer to decide and still get to vote.  If enough don't vote on the first ballot, no one can win until everyone takes another step back to evaluate the big picture.


    How nice (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by themomcat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:47:03 PM EST
    of one reporter to determine what should interest us and the SD's. Did it ever occur to this so-called "journalist" that if he reported the polls the SD's might have a different opinion? Twit.

    C'est la vie. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lansing quaker on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:54:53 PM EST
    Thankfully I'm from Michigan.

    So thankfully I can vote down-ticket D with a clear conscience considering the national party FUBAR'd us, despite what individuals from my state have stated.

    I hope my superdelegates are seated so that they have a voice.

    But at least I can vote down ticket D.  Michigan had some pyschological merit.  But I have resigned myself to never voting Obama.

    If they don't care... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:54:57 PM EST
    this is willful ignorance.  Gee, stopped caring after she won Indiana, a state she wasn't even supposed to win?

    If they didn't turn a blind eye to the race (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:00:31 AM EST
    at that point, they would have to explain why they committed themselves to the clear loser.

    You know, it's a crap year to (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:04:55 AM EST
    be a Republican.  He could possibly win.  My problem with him...well, my biggest among many, is that he is completely unqualified.  I can not even see a prior full-time job in his resume.  And, with the race virtually split, with Hill having won the big electorals, the swing voters, and the swing states, given her vast experience and knowledge of the issues, given her polling strength, I find it unfathomable that these super delegates would side with Obama.

    Completely unqualified! (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by RalphB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:13:22 AM EST
    That's why if he is the nominee, I will absolutely have to support Sen McCain.  This is the worst time I could imagine to have a second version of Bush in office.

    Just can't understand the superdelegate's position on this at all.


    Just maybe the Republicans are driving this (none / 0) (#66)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:14:21 AM EST
    getting the democrats entwined in such a big internal battle, they protest against the party and they win again.

    They own most of the media...from print to broadcast.


    The Republican are the ones (none / 0) (#68)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:20:39 AM EST
    fawning over barack Obama and attacking Hillary's character?  Nah, that's the media, the Party "elders" and Barack Obama.

    The media has decided that Obama Shall be (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:02:52 AM EST
    President.  They expect to control it.  Go along with them, and no one will get hurt.  They know what is best for all of us and they've decided that Obama makes their legs tingle and their hearts go pittypat.  

    (OR, it might just be a wee bit of incontinence, with a touch of angina.)  >shrugs<    


    its nothing to do with opinions or tingles (none / 0) (#94)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:53:04 AM EST
    he is the new puppet of corporate interests who gain from having a "bipartisan" who already promises in his pre-nup to cave to Republicans. Why would the corp media want another FDR president? The "journalists"are simply the front.

    Kane's telling line... (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Dawn Davenport on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:09:04 AM EST
    ...was this one:

    This is very hard for Clinton
    supporters to hear, I'm sorry, but the super-delegates are not paying attention to your candidate anymore.

    Ugh, the same faux pity trying to hide the sadistic glee of "She lost; get over it," that's the new mantra of Obama supporters.

    Mr. Kane, this is very hard for you to hear, I'm sorry, but half of the voters in the Democratic party are not paying attention to your opinions.

    if that's the case (none / 0) (#72)
    by facta non verba on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:32:43 AM EST
    why did one switch camps just yesterday?

    Trolling Points Memo: HRC supporters are 'hurt' (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:07:22 AM EST
    They descended here astro-turfing that line:

    Look, we know it's going to HURT to lose and we get that, we really do blah blah blah. (Please, if someone's going to screw me over I demand some Barry White playing in the background.)

    Clearly this weeks Trolling Points Memo included inundating the brainless media and "neutral" blogs with the same utter bullsh!t. (Hmmm, maybe THEY got the Barry White ... )

    Jeez, I still can't believe the propaganda Atrios' is catapulting, based on analyzing totally reliable data like Unnamed Emailers, that Obama already "won" and wearily wondering why the racist Hillary supporters can't bring themselves to vote for a black man.

    Oh those typically problematic racist women spurned and all that ... silly b!tches, who can save us now?


    Super Delegates don't care who can beat McCain? (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:58:01 AM EST
    I fear that is correct.  They won't vote against Obama, he's Black.  It's not PC to vote against someone Black.  You might be a racist.  Of course it's ok to vote against a woman.  Even if it makes you a sexist.  They'd rather lose the GE than be accused of racism.

    It sounds like the Washington Post has decided this election.  They've decided that it's Obama's election and they are sticking their fingers in their ears and humming, REAL LOUD, when anyone shows them the reality of what will happen when Obama comes up against McCain vs Hillary against McCain.  Please, don't try to confuse them with the facts.  Reporters today don't want to report the news, they want to control it.  Another elitist bunch who believe they know what is best for the rest of us because, really, we just aren't as smart as they are.  They know best.  

    Kinda funny (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:03:05 AM EST
    that there are still superdelegates coming out for Clinton, even though they've all supposedly decided that the race is over.

    Maybe it's all part of Obama's master plan.  Not only does he keep dozens of superdelegates in his back pocket to be deployed whenever he sees fit, but he occasionally gives one or two of them to Hillary so she won't feel bad.  That's the only theory I can come up with.

    how could they've all decided? (none / 0) (#77)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:09:41 AM EST
    About 200 still remain undeclared for what it's worth.

    Kane (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:15:59 AM EST
    is a Village person.  The Village people have always loathed the Clintons. Their Dean, Dean Broder famously said that the Clintons 'came in here and trashed the place and it wasn't their place to trash'

    Some members of Congress (both parties)are part of the Washington social set along with journalists, big time lawyers, old families, shakers and movers, etc.

    It doesn't surprise me that office holding SDs are in the Obama camp.  They're the obvious beneficiaries of Obama's SD purchase plan.

    Kathy made a comment awhile back about an article she read that said most of Obama's SDs are elected officials and Clinton SDs tended to be party officials. Combine that with threats by the Obama campaign to finance primary challengers against black incumbents and it doesn't surprise me that Mr. Kane would report that the SDs he knows don't care about the outcome of primaries or the polls indicating that Clinton would win the GE handily. They just don't care.  What they care about is money in their coffers to finance their campaigns and the absense of primary challengers. I've believed for some time that many incumbents don't care who's in the White House.  They do want to be in the majority in their house of Congress.  Nicer digs, chance at committee chairs and with that more prestige and a better chance at staying in office.

    I don't think that Kane is showing deliberate bias, he's reporting what's on the ground in DC.

    Obama is the establishment's candidate. Money has again triumphed. Anyone surprised?

    Which one? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:48:39 AM EST
    Kane, is a Village person.  The Village people have always loathed the Clintons. Their Dean, Dean Broder famously said that the Clintons 'came in here and trashed the place and it wasn't their place to trash'

    Is he the one who wears the cop uniform or the head dress?


    LOL (none / 0) (#105)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:23:38 PM EST
    Maybe the hardhat.

    if you are right (none / 0) (#95)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    then we need to make them realize that we Democrats vote downticket.

    I seem to remember reading that clueless Obama Dems for a day did not.


    Money has triumphed? (none / 0) (#96)
    by KristenWinters on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:03:47 AM EST
    In the last 2 years (including her 2006 re-election campaign, which raised $40 Million dollars in an election against a token candidate), Hillary Clinton has raised more money than any political candidate in the history of this country.  I believe, over $300 Million Dollars.  To put it in perspective, John McCain has yet to raise $100 Million.

    Similarly,  Obama raised nearly $300 Million.  Hillary also began the campaign with incumbent-like advantages.

    Obama wouldn't have won without money, but it is hard to argue that money has triumphed.


    Hard to argue? (none / 0) (#104)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:21:25 PM EST
    My foot. Obama has spread nearly three-quarters of a million dollars to SDs.  Hillary less than a quarter million.

    If you believe money doesn't triumph then you're living in a fantasy world.


    I'm glad they don't cover Nader (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:09:15 PM EST
    He is irrelevant.

    And actually, I suspect he's probably right about what the superdelegates care about.

    Except that Nader and Moyers... (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:36:30 PM EST
    speak more to the most important issues facing this country, the corporate stranglehold.

    It's now more clear than ever that it was not Nader who was at fault in 2000, but the media.

    Then Iraq, then Kerry.  Now, the media has pushed Obama over the top.  It eliminated Edwards.

    If America ever wakes up to what the corporate powers, using the media, does to us all, then there is opportunity to make some changes in this country on a myriad of issues.


    Sorry, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:43:38 PM EST
    I will not submit to a rehabilitation of Nader. He is less than zero, and quite responsible for what happened in 2000.

    I hope I never see him in the street.


    No sweat... (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by citizen53 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:19 AM EST
    but in the greater scheme of things, he will be seen as right.

    Gore was killed by the media.  He should have run away with it if they would have done their job, not sold Bush.

    Even if Nader is an ass, he is right about corporate Democrats being like corporate Republicans.  This election serves as evidence.


    No doubt in my mind Nader is responsible (none / 0) (#56)
    by bridget on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:52:12 PM EST
    heard he wants to run again

    too bad because he once was admired by a lot of people

    Now he looks more and more like a megalomaniac?


    The Corporate media picked Obama (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by bridget on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:48:38 PM EST
    still the Obamablogs celebrate change and "purity" Obama - people in denial beg to be fooled

    An honest reporter is refreshing. n/t (none / 0) (#41)
    by halstoon on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:36:40 PM EST

    It seems that since Bush took office (none / 0) (#103)
    by nellre on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:40:17 AM EST
    The political and journalistic landscape has become surreal. It was bad before, but now they all seem to be creating their own 'truth'.
    I think between feelings of hubris and disempowerment it is their way of coping with their cognitive dissonance.

    A customized reality.

    They created truth all through the 90s (none / 0) (#106)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:26:20 PM EST
    You're too nice (none / 0) (#107)
    by fctchekr on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:37:03 PM EST
    I call this suppressing vital public information, since when does the media make the decision to stifle data that could have an impact on an election?? And when did our local papers decide they only need to print news for the sole purpose of providing it to super delegates??  Welcome to the USSR folks...