Yeah, the press hates her because she's obnoxious. That's not Obama's fault.

The clinton campaign has no better strategy than "Blame the media"?

Mark Penn is definitely worth the millions and millions of dollars they're paying him, no doubt.

They're in serious trouble if they think this is going to get them anywhere.

You know, speaking purely from a tactical standpoint, this seems remarkably stupid and shortsighted. Whether or not the claim is true, they NEED the media - they need it now and they'll need it on the remote chance that they receive the nomination. Do they really think this is going to help their cause? I can't see the benefit of railing against the press at this point in time unless you know that your campaign is about to end and this is your parting shot. I can't wait to see Chris Matthews tonite (I normally don't watch him - he's insufferable - but I will just to see what he says and does now).

Even if they toughen up their coverage on Obama (and we saw wall to wall Somalia Dress picture last nite on every news program, so to a certain extent they've achieved their goals) the press will toughen up even more on her - in fact, I'll venture to say that there will be a ton of Hillary trashing, especially by MSNBC, over the next week.

the key point being: it is never the fault of Hillary or her advisors. it's the fault of black people, non-Democrats, the caucus system, and the media.

but never Hillary or Wolfson or Penn.

Whining, shaming, and placing blame at the feet of others is a sure-fire way to win the nomination.

Hillary '08 - We're trying to make everybody feel bad about themselves!

Has it ever occurred to people that the press is covering Obama's adoring supporters because 20,000 fucking people are showing up to his rallies? And that that sort of thing, you know, has never really happened before?

Vote for Hillary - she's a victim! Everybody's out to get her because she's a powerful woman!

Agreed. Did Obama ever cast these kinds of sour grapes when he lost in New Hampshire or Nevada or any of the Super Tuesday states? No, he has more class than that -- pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and work harder in the next state.

[wait a minnit -- wasn't "work hard" supposed to be Hillary's trump card? hmm.]

Has ANYONE from the Clinton campaign acknowledge that they've run a bad campaign? Instead of blaming the media or anyone else for the state of the game, perhaps they should focus on address their weaknesses.

And everyone, whether an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter, needs to be deeply concerned about the incestuous relationship between John McCain and the media.

Indeed.
And here is a short but vital insight into that relationship:

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/john_mccain_/2008/02/mccain_and_the_media_barons.php

Hello? See the TPM post just below this one -- AP questioning Obama's foreign policy experience. This whole line of attack, in addition to sounding like sour grapes, is a silly argument - one could go back and forth forever with examples and counterexamples attempting to prove the media are pro/anti Hillary or Obama. There is no overarching bias toward one candidate or another-- the media just goes with whatever storyline they think will sell.

If Clinton had done more to win elections, maybe the press would be kinder to her. Can't understand what Clinton is doing right now. Where's the upside to coming across as angry, peevish, sarcastic, and whiny? Those don't seem to be traits that one would want in a President.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the Clintons and the media, it rarely proves to be very wise to dare to state the obvious.

Well at this point what do the Clinton's and their campaign spokespeople expect? They spent a year smugly telling the media she will be the nominee and demanded reporters' narratives adhere to her talking points.

Chris Mathews talked about it on air on February 15 saying Clinton's press liaison "kneecappers" were lousy, their policy of intimidation and threats to get even were counter productive. Reporters responses were "screw you".
Now granted Mathews is obviously the point of the spear on this. He's been the worst offender in Clinton eyes and he and his network have probably taken the most heat from them. But I'm sure there's more than a little schadenfreude in the rest of the media if they've been lectured about what to write and how to write it by the Clintonistas.

Is this the same treatment Al Gore and John Kerry suffered? It may be to some extent but you have to figure in the pomposity of Hill's advisers and the
hubris of her inevitable campaign theme too. All in all I'd say she's lucky they haven't treated her worse.

I wouldn't be surprised to see George W. Bush escalate the conflict in Iraq should Obama win the Democratic Party's nomination and then defeat 100-year war McCain.

Bush is not above playing politics with the lives of American military men and women - I give you Iraq.

I forgot to add:

Enough with the big rallies and the speeches.
I am sick of that shit.
I've got my own chant now.
I thought of it myself:

Yes we will!
Yes we will!
Yes we will!
Yes we will!

Hopefully big media will get on board and run it like they do for Barack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfa9XIJxdAg&feature=related

I know this is off topic, but I thought it was funny. It's from an op-ed in the dallas morning news, called the Texas Three Step.

DEMOCRATS' MARCH 4 TO-DO LIST

1. Cast a ballot in early voting or vote at your precinct March 4.

2. Return that evening for a separate caucus vote to assign additional delegates for your preferred candidate.

3. Go home and write to the state party chairman, demanding that this system be simplified.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-confuse_26edi.ART.State.Edition1.45f68da.html

The DSM defines Narcissistic Personality Disorder as:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brillance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement
6. is interpersonally exploitative
7. lacks empathy
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

While anyone who runs for POTUS needs to have (and does have) a healthy ego, sometimes it appears certain campaigns are over the edge.

Even the media admits that they have given obama an easy time vs. Hillary... i haven't heard one credible person/expert who disagrees.

does anyone recall tom brokaw scolding the msnbc talking heads after NH? well, that lasted about a day...

the SNL skit of the CNN debate was only funny because it was a charicature of what everyone in the audience knew to be true.

there is a lot to worry about in the GE for democrats. the media rolled over for GWB in 2000 and 2004. they totally blasted gore and kerry... they seem to like obama right now, but john mccain didn't gain the moniker of "st. john mccain" for no reason! the media has a huge man crush on mccain.

This multi-front "blame the media" strategy of the past few days is in part a setup for tonight's debate which, conveniently for Clinton, is on MS-NBC. Look for her to go after Matthews and Schuster in a big way, and to try to score more sympathy points by coming to the aid of poor Chelsea. And look for her to try to twist the whole media fuss into some populist "corporate media" rant, to try to dupe a few progressives into believing that she is actually the anti-corporate populist champion of the little guy, doing battle against the big bad corporate media, the vast right wing conspiracy, the Enemies of Freedom, the Klingon Empire and all of her other enemies real and imagined.

Of course the media are biased, and of course a lot of them have pretty openly revelled in Hillary's defeat.

- Was that news to the ace Clinton campaign team? Did they have no plans for dealing with the inevitably negative coverage she inspires, other than to complain about it? What kind of media strategy is that?!

Perhaps the self-pitying, whining tone of much of their rhetoric has something to do with why Clinton is perceived as unlikable. Also, for those of you (such as BonoX) who believe that the media is so incredibly biased:

a) Reporting on the actions of a candidate, if it makes that candidate look bad, is not biased. This is a case wherein she changes message and approach 3 times in 3 days, it is not the media's fault that this comes off poorly.

b) I don't know if you heard about the recent revelations about Clinton and the Uranium mine. No? This is perhaps because they didn't pursue it. How about her failure to release her tax returns versus Obama doing so? No... haven't heard much about it?

Gee, for a biased media, they seem to be cutting her a lot of slack. Just because the candidate has a landfill's worth of dirt on her doesn't make it the media's fault. In fact, they could probably bury her in it if they truly had it out for her.

c) Any other candidate except Sen. Clinton, after getting taken to school in the last 11 races, having failed to have delegate victories prior to that, etc. etc. would have been Huckabee'd long ago. Basically, BECAUSE she is who she is that she is given any chance to "make a comeback". She has gotten all the benefit of an incumbent president in the media without being one.

Live by the Sword and Die by the Sword. It is common knowledge that Clinton's team 24/7 lobbies and courts the media, while Obama's team much less so. Thus, if you are constantly trying to spin the media, don't be indignant when the spin comes back to hit you.

I don't believe, contrary to the whining on the Clinton side, that the media has a bias against her. This is not to say that particular commentators don't. Then again, every one of them has their biases. I can name several who are clearly anti-Obama.

Overall, the media has a "facile and entertaining" bias. Anything that is easy to digest, and creates drama, will be favored. So events are covered thus.

However, I notice that Obama and most supporters don't complain endlessly. When Obama was down, earlier in the race, you didn't hear endless harping on the raw deal. He (and we) realized you just had to keep your shoulder to the grindstone and push.

Also, I notice quite a few "leftist" publications have come to the point where they cannot support her over Obama. Unless you now count every publication -- New Republic, The Nation, Mother Jones etc. -- all part of the evil Right Wing Conspiracy and filled with mysoginists.

At some point, if no one likes you... maybe its not "them". Maybe it's you.

Glee over Hillary losing? Where?

Unfortunately when someone starts out very high and then gradually falls low, there's a psychological tendency to believe they "deserved it." Look at the book of Job for a perfect example of that.

The press jumps onto "stories." A "fall" is a story.

That's sad. But there it is.

The MSM love controversy and human drama. So do viewers. Hillary's campaign has provided the most material. A self-anointed frontrunner who finished third in Iowa is drama. A crying candidate is drama. A red faced former president wagging his finger is drama. A screaming candidate wearing a yellow suit and mocking her opponent is drama. It's also free airtime for a campaign low on cash.

If the MSM were so biased against Hillary, they would have pressed hard for her to release her tax returns. They have not. The Clintons are drama. Always have been, always will be.

Rendell should be thankful that this race will be decided by next week, removing Pennsylvania from the glare of the Democratic nomination spotlight and sparing him further embarrassment from sticking his neck out so far for Hillary Clinton.

The deep irony to this whole discussion is that all the Obama supporters who today are pleased as punch about how the media has treated Hillary will see that same media turn on their guy with a vengeance in the not too distant future.

Their protests will be loud, impotent, and, to others, amusing examples of karmic justice.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Here is something else the Obama media will not report:

http://www.alternet.org/election08/77492/

You know, people keep saying Obama is not vetted. That the Republicans will eat him up.

And yet, every piece of filth lie his opponents spew about him is proven false.

I know Obama is perfect, but even I'm surprised about how clean the man is.

arghh, "I know Obama is NOT perfect." I feel like an idiot.

The Clinton campaign yesterday cited the SNL skit as proof of their contention that the media coverage is tilted toward Obama, and tried to push (as Wolfson did in his blog a couple of days ago) the silly story about Obama having attended a meeting of Democrats at the home of former Weathermen (the meeting at which Alice Palmer, who had decided to run for Senate, essentially introduced Obama as her designated successor). They've really lost it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502501.html

http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/02/22/143137

Yes We SHALL HAVE DONE!!
Yes We SHALL HAVE DONE!!

Charisma cannot be acquired through effort, imitation, or triangulation- this is the sad truth at the heart of her campaign. To watch her
lead those "chants" makes me hurt from laughter and empathy all at once.

Honest to God, I almost wish Hillary would win the nomination to hear what kind of "torture" she'd claim to have had in order to co-opt McCain.

Until then, as the great Cesar Chavez said, "Si vamos!"

Well, the Clinton campaign wasn't whining when
John Edwards didn't get any press coverage--even though he was the one driving the issues. And, little did Mr Edwards know, that he was writing speeches that Ms. Clinton would soon adopt.

gee what a novel idea to actually ask Obama a tough question - it won't matter this thing is over ...

It's going to be Clinton / Obama and it's unbeatable.

Listen up, Hillary supporters: Getting the press on your good side ain't brain surgery. As is self-evident from the happy press coverage of both McCain and Obama, the absolute Key is AVAILABILITY.

McCain is famously available to the press, who not surprisingly treat him well because of it. Likewise Obama. Whether intentional or not, it's simple human nature to say nice things about those who give you access. Perhaps more importantly, it's difficult to be nasty to someone you know you'll see and talk to on the bus tomorrow.

For 9/10ths of this campaign, Billary treated the press like shit when they weren't completely shutting them out. No surprise, then, when the other guy surges and Hillary comes scrambling for face time, the press aren't instantly swayed, but instead realize that the Clinton's only wanted to make nice AFTER she fell behind.

A little bit of Schadenfreude? You betcha. Is Fast Eddie right when he says the press has "relished" her struggles? Yes, he is and yest they have. But it's not like the "Inevitability 2008" crew didn't ask for it.

Greg Sargent said:

Between that and Rendell sounding a similar note today -- that the media is actively enjoying Hillary's downfall -- it seems that a key part of the Clinton camp's endgame strategy is a rearguard effort to shame the media into toughening up its coverage of Obama.

Since the media is shameless, it can't be shamed.

I've noticed the campaign's "sounding a similar note" too lately, only a different note. For lack of a better description, it's the note of Hillary-as-underdog. It may seem counterintuitive for the campaign to publicly acknowledge Hillary's slippage in the polls/poor press coverage/last stand mode/etc., but it may help to reassign in voters' minds who is considered "inevitable." It has been a consistent note since Maggie Williams came on board. I'm curious to see the debate tonight.

Obama has no influence on how the media treats the Clinton campaign, but she does.

And do you think that more enlightened, intelligent people are going to vote Obama in the general election?

Answer:

"NO WE WON'T"
"NO WE WON'T"
"NO WE WON'T"
"NO WE WON'T"
"NO WE WON'T"
"NO WE WON'T"

Chant on that Obamamites!

LOL

.

Tim Russert refers to Hillary supporters as "AGING WHITE WOMEN"

What does that tell you?

TIM RUSSERT = MYSOGENISTIC OBAMAMITE

Watch him thow softballs tonight AND
Watch him throw some perfect pitches to Obama to attack Hillary with.
(If history is any judge of MSNBC's treatment)

Keith Oberman is an ass. no, wait correction... Oberman is a huge HUGE ass I had to stop watching him long ago when they allowed him to continue going off half cocked on Bush! Did anybody really sit there for 15 minutes and listen to that crap? I mean we all hated Bush but to sit there and listen to him go off was nauseating.

Anything goes over there. It's ridiculous. They push their ideas and agendas. There's very little objective reporting.

I find Fox far more entertaining these days and CNN more informative.

HEY RAE DID YOU KNOW YOUR CAPS LOCK IS ON??!!!?!?!?!!?!?!?!

Dude. I'm all for argument, but chill with the screamy, kay?

Couldn't agree more. Even this website is in the tank for Obama, for every article favorable to Clinton, there's at least ten slobering over Obama. Like Chris Matthews, they can't stop crying over him.