Talk about in a bubble: if the Clinton camp had focused its energy on making a positive case for its own candidate to the voters, it wouldn't be spending its time obsessing over media coverage (which, by the way, was fawning in the fall when she was ahead)

The press has its biases. Some reporters and institutions are in favor of Clinton (I'm looking at you, NYT) and others are not. C'est la vie.

I think a lot of it boils down to the press seeing the writing on the wall, and getting impatient for her to step down. She lost the chess game, Obama is chasing her lone king around the board with most if his pieces still intact. Everyone who's paying attention is getting tired of her refusing to face reality.

Those silly Republicans. Always blaming their failures on somebody else.

Oh.
Nevermind.

bollocks.

just because hillary says she is being treated unfairly by the press doesn't mean she actually is.

Hillary people like yourself just cant come to terms with the fact that they got beat by a better candidate with a better plan and a better campaign so it has to be the media's fault.

Because it would have to take a conspiracy of all the newspapers and editorials in the world to beat a Clinton, certainly Obama couldn't do it by himself.

Yeah, I mean it's kind of a dumb argument. "Vote for me because the press hates me!" WTF? If we have two candidates who are similar, then the one the press loves is probably more likely to get the nomination.

We would have to be a little masochistic to vote for someone that we knew the press was going to be unfair too. We don't know that the press would be unfair to Obama, and so far they haven't really been. I think we would probably still win but it would be more traumatic.

The fact that Hillary is actually the worse candidate makes this even less important. Who is going to choose against Barack because they feel sorry for Hillary at this point?

I see a lot of downside to attacking the media.

I do see an upside: the narrative that the press is being unfair is going to wind up in reports of the campaign. This might sway some voters---

I'd say it's a risky strategy, but I don't see it as completely out in left field.

Voters always respond so well to whining, you know. I hear more compelling and mature arguments when I tell my 6-year old twins to get ready for bed.

The thing I took away from the Milbank piece (and generally from the Clinton press machine) is that they have considerable disrespect for the intelligence of reporters and the public in general. Their transparent attempts to convince the world that up is in fact down is just the epitome of arrogance.

So, I'd cut Milbank (and other reporters) some slack. If the Clintons were straight up with the press, I suspect their coverage would improve.

I have no doubt that the Media has its own agenda. But it isn't the Media who wants Hillary to lose.

It is the voters. That is why she is losing, because the voters aren't choosing her.

She is a sore loser who launched absurdities such as the plagiarism one; when she did, she did so because she wanted to be in the Media.

Well, she got what she wanted, the media did spread her plagiarism and other comments (Kindergarten, Hussein... ) Did she really thing she was going to look pretty under that light?

This is the end and she is choosing to throw a tantrum. I agree with you, that isn't making her look any prettier either...

Reporters do like a train wreck.

i am no fan of either clinton but it has been obvious for some time that the media is biased in favor of obama, very probably because of disdain for la familie clinton. there are tangible examples and here's one: around a week or so after the NYT published a piece about obama watering down legislation aimed at policing nuclear power plant leaks and then receiving donations from the industry, one of whose executives took a post raising money for his campaign, i did a lexis nexis search of all US newspapers and wire services to see how many had followed up on a story which, let's be honest, flew in the face of obama's claim to represent new politics in washington. guess what the result was? in the whole US of A only two papers, the LA Times and the Chicago Sun Times ran stories about this episode, the latter making only a passing reference to obama's behavior in a wider piece. hillary is not much better; she received only slightly less in donations from the nuclear industry than obama but nonetheless, I rest my case.

I love that we (and the New York Times for that matter) are supposed to take a letter seriously that is signed by PAID staffers suggesting their morale is in fact high.

Losing tends to generate bad press. Losing also tends to generate negative attacks from the losing candidate more than from the winning one. Hillary is losing and she attacks, those attacks get covered, and the band plays on.

Also, it is the job of Wolfson and the campaign to communicate a better image to the press. In many ways, Wolfson, et al. have failed to do that. Their communication strategy has obviously failed poorly and blaming the press is convenient scapegoat to cover for their own failings.

If the media wanted Hillary to lose, they would have simply ripped her "35 years of experience" claim to shreds from Day One instead of letting her run with it, happily presenting her as the de facto front-runner and presumptive nominee for most of last year. It's only because she ran such a short-sighted and inept campaign built on hubris and a galling sense of entitlement that kept her from recognizing what was happening before it was too late. That's not the media's fault; it's simply one more example of her lack of foresight and judgement and one more reason why she's not ready to the President of the United States.

It's as if she has a calculated campaign strategy to go down in the most desperate, embarrassing fashion possible, alienating as many people as she can on her way down. How else can you explain this campaign that has changed messages, tones, attacks, and tactics with each new day?

Hillary's media problem is of her own making. It's pretty clear that the media is a lot like the electorate - the more they see of her, the less they like her. Maybe that isn't fair, but that's the way it's done. She knows that.

Besides, her campaign was loving it when she was the "inevitable" nominee, so the complaint rings hollow now. The same press corps that helped her generate 20+ point leads nationwide are now gravitating to the bigger story.

Sonoma and Napa together don't produce as much whine as the Clinton camp has been putting out these days.

So let me get this straight...

The Caucuses aren't fair.

The Primaries aren't fair.

The Demographics aren't fair.

The Media isn't fair

The Democratic Party isn't fair(rules on FL and MI).

You'd think after 35 years of hardcore vetted experience Hillary would know that Life isn't fair...

So far the voters seem to want her to lose. That can't be helping either.

This is a really perceptive post, Greg. I'm an Obama supporter, but I feel for the Clinton camp. In a sense, they had to go with the inevitability theme -- what else were they going to use? Especially with major media so stacked against them, ready to pounce on any mistake.

That said, I have to say, Obama's done a masterful job of parrying attacks, both from the left and the right. His speech today countering the anti-Semetic arguments some nutjobs are making was very effective, without making new enemies. And his handling of Clinton's attacks have been equally deft.

Of course, it's a lot easier to be deft and effective when TV and the newspapers aren't running interferance 24-7 ....

Choosing a Presidential candidate simply to get back at the media is one of the dumbest reasons I have ever heard. Why wouldn't you choose who you think would run the country the best, or whose platform you most agree with?

Imagine Hillary and people inside her bubble wallowing in this kind of paranoid pity bath three years into her first term in the White House rather than as the graceless end to a losing campaign. Oh, wait, no need to imagine it. We already did that once before. In the early 70s.

Firstly, it is no victory to have the media turn it's flawed attention and vicious tricks on Obama. That is like a torture victim asking why his tormentors aren't torturing the other captives as much.

Sure it is bad, but do you really wish it on others? If you do, what kind of person are you?

Also, I would like to know, if the HRC camp is so badly treated by the press, why do we see THREE or FOUR items from HER camp for every ONE from HIS? And even then, his items are usually a response to the HRC camp flinging something at them. If the press really were treating the HRC camp badly, none of her stuff would leak out. Her messages would be stifled. Does HRC want the Kucinich treatment? The Gravel treatment? The Paul treatment? The Dodd treatment, the Edwards Treatment? HRC seems to have a pretty good media presence, and she gets to say whatever she wants, whenever she wants. She gets to attack, she gets to respond. For the most part, her words are treated fairly. She has NOT been the victim of any real vicious treatment or terrible slurs or nasty rumors. She has not been called a terrrrst, or portrayed as a jihadist, she has not had to put up with the equivalent blatant race-baiting. Obama has not fired such shots at her. Maybe it is true that Chris Matthews and some others have been openly misogynistic. But SHE is firing a lot of the foul balls at Obama. So it has to be considered, a lot of the mud in this campaign is ORIGINATING in her camp. It is not coming from the media.

Now, I think the media is horrible. I think it treats all lefties horribly and gives free passes to righties. But really, who is lobbing the mud here? Sure there are some snide comments from the media. Sure there is patent unfairness. And sure, the Clinton's have had a long time to gather a lot of national baggage and fatigue-factor. But BHO is not treating her badly, yet she is the origin of a LOT of crap flowing HIS way.

Also, if she were truly getting the Treatment from the media, they love to tear you down and they love for you to make a comeback (after they have stomped you)....So HRC can at least mollify herself that the way is paved for her triumphant, against-all-odds, comeback kid story for the ages.

Jeesh, Greg, I don't want to pin medals on myself, but I commented on this in another post - you echoed my thoughts exactly! ;)

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/hillary_surrogate_media_has_re.php#comment-2617608

I totally agree with you - this is absolutely counter-productive and it's definitely going to backfire. She's not going to win votes this way - she may keep the ones she has because they'll feel sorry for her, but anybody not in her camp now will not respond kindly to this barrage. And, yes, the media may have another set of rules for the Clintons, but the gloves are really going to come off now and she will find out just how much the press hates her. It's unfortunate because it's going to haunt her in the coming years - she is still a Senator and she's going to need them. I really feel this is the last desperate move of a campaign that's dead in the water.

I am getting a bit tired of this whining!

As the former managing editor of a national newsweekly and someone who has watched media coverage of the Democratic campaigns this cycle with great interest, I have to disagree that media coverage in general is anti-Clinton. I concur with those who contend that if Obama were in the same situation as Clinton (and had lost 11 contests in a row by huge margins), he would long ago have been written off by the media. It is a testament to the media's respect for the Clinton machine that it continues to cover her as if she still has a somewhat realistic chance of clinching the nomination. (Clearly, she does not.) And when her campaign complains about the Obama verbal assaults (which, as far as I have been able to discern, have only been launched in response to a Clinton assault), the media dutifully reports her allegations as if he fired the first shot.

Thus, the idea that the media is anti-Clinton is merely another salvo in her arsenal. I am certain that she will fire away with abandon during tonight's debate.