I guess it's a matter of perspective.

I see questions on Hillary's real experience, her tax returns, and her negative ads as being fair.

I don't think asking Obama if he's "Patriotic enough" or "Christian enough" to be questions of substance.

But Obama needs to simply address the Rezco and NAFTA concerns, and he'll be fine.

Obviously they're tougher on Hillary. Haven't you seen the clip of reporters falling over themselves, shouting at Hillary, asking her why she hasn't disclosed her tax returns, where she got the $5 million from, if she knew anything about how/why Goolsbeegate was unraveled, why she couldn't unequivocally say Obama is not a Muslim?

The press is really tearing into her!

I'm pretty disgusted that the media has internalized this bullshit. Here is my analysis of the media coverage, and there isn't really any basis in their claims, and if anything, Hillary has gotten a free ride this entire campaign.

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27451031

Any negative press she has gotten has been a direct result of her campaign doing bad things. If Obama had run his campaign like the Clinton campaign, the press would have been equally interested in that.

So let me get this straight--the Rezko thing makes Obama dirty because he associated with someone who is on trial right now. Not even convicted.

But the Clintons are totally clean, despite 14 of their Whitewater friends getting convicted of a total of 40 felonies? To be fair, a lot of them were pardoned...by Bill. Is pardoning their convicted friends part of the 'experience' Hillary is claiming?

Most press observers and pundits agree that press observers and pundits are biased?

There's something very circular and wrong here.

You don't get it Media. It's not so much the story of Nafta and Rezko, it's your reaction to them SINCE SNL criticized you two weekends ago. And they repeated it this weekend. You've done nothing BUT attack Obama since then. Ignorning that fact that Hillary has her OWN problems with Nafta and her OWN affiliation with Rezko.

You also forget the attackes about Obama's race, religion and his campaign being attacked by the Clintons.

One can only assume you NEED this race to continue to make your sponsors HAPPY.

I'll never quite understand why the press has stopped pursuing the Hillary's White House records and tax documents bit. On the other hand, I don't get why Barack isn't playing her dodge more than he is. I get it that he doesn't like the negative campaigning, but it goes to one of his central themes: transparency. It seems a natural for him to go after it and he can do it in a comparative way without looking too negative.

What really irks me is how negative Hillary has become over the last week or so. That "Me and McCain" bit really ticked me off. I used to like both candiadtes, now I don't.

So much for party unity.

I'm pretty sure the press bias is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, and maybe even some sexism and misogyny. Because God knows the Clintons never do anything wrong. They're always so unreasonably picked upon.

Let me ask you: Is there any candidate other than Hillary who could have lost 11 contests in a row, never led a day in pledged delegates, trail by 150 delegates, and still be considered a viable candidate by the press? Wouldn't you consider THAT to be a type of bias. I believe even Josh made that same point recently.

I think that the press has been hard on Hillary on the silly stuff: her laugh, clothes, is she likable, if this or that phrase has racist connotations, Bill and so on. But regarding to real stories that need to be addressed, like the exchange of favors with Bill Clinton's rich donors (clearly a conflict of interest there, if you ask me), the tax returns, and so on, has been very little out there. You can say that the Obama campaign has been a little bit naive on not pressing on these issues but that's the way they want to be.

Umm, this whole media bias thing is silly.

http://www.journalism.org/node/10004

Obama is getting it worse than Hillary. Where are those tax returns? How much did Mark Rich pay the Clinton foundation/library? How is bill making money these days?

Obama has said he wouldn't run a negative campaign. Just because he is getting an increased amount of scrutiny, I would prefer him to continue in his ways, and not steep to her level.

The so-called "1,300-word memo" was posted by ABC News late last night or early this morning:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Canwest%20News_1.pdf

(h/t to Elizabeth2)

The CBC has links to a new video clip about the leaking of that "memo":

http://www.cbc.ca/world/usvotes/story/2008/03/04/primaries-election.html

The Real Player version streams better. (h/t to Tsam)

Turns out the CBC reporter gave a very sharp analysis of the Conservative govt. meddling in American politics. The reporter quotes diplomatic sources in Canada as saying they deeply regret misinterpreting Goolsbee's comments, said the Obama campaign is extremely angry about this obvious meddling by the Tory govt., as a result Canadian foreign ministry sources are deeply worried that this leak of a secret diplomatic cable has chilled all American campaigns against speaking to the Canadians. Reporter stressed that nobody in the Canadian press is ever able to gain access to such classified embassy cables, not even under their FOIA, implying this was a deliberate Tory leak to hurt Obama.

So, that was no "1,300-word memo," it was reported to be a highly classified, secret diplomatic cable. On its face, the document admitted the Canadians were engaging in "ongoing election reporting and intelligence gathering efforts." However, there are no classification markings or legends, it is not signed, and indeed it looks like a mere fax transmission (misdated as "07/11/2019").

OTOH, there is a lot of self-serving puffery from the obviously-totally-naive Goolsbee, who the cable paraphrases as saying -- to a foreign govt. -- "Should Obama win the White House, Goolsbee figures to remain a close advisor." Fat chance. Kiss that job goodbye, professor.

What Obama is trying to do is to figure out how he can continue to be on a roll without the media on his side.

But the problem is that that was always basic to his success. Take away the glowing commentary going his way, and what's left?

Barack can go negative without appearing negative. He needs to do this ASAP.

Billary = Deadlock.

Billary = Republican Fundraising.

Billary = Scandal.

Billary = Negativity. Not Solutions.

A rough brainstorm: Is there a way for Barack to tie the rise of FoxNews and Right Wing radio to the Clinton rise in the 90's? Say something like: "If Hillary goes forward, we will see MORE Rush, Hannity, Michael Savage.... They love her because she gives them hope and money and a reason for being mean, dirty, and loud. Bush became President becuase of Billary's failings."

Barack should also slam the MSM for not covering his clear VICTORIES with enough positive coverage. That might be a way for him to spin it back his way.

Well, he's been very clear, just the other day on 60 minutes he indicated that he was not going to go dirt digging, period. So I'd like to see him reminding the press and Hillary and McCain that he expects them to stick to those ground rules - in fact I'd like to see him reminding them every time he's asked one of these gotcha questions.

He can raise the bar on our ugly campaign process but I don't believe he'll be able to do it without embarassing the others into going along.

And if he figures out how to do that, I can't see how he can lose the election in November, people are so fed up with the ugliness.

so greg points to the opinions of writers and political hacks as proof that the media is tougher on hillary.

opinions are facts.

when you have some concrete facts, then we can talk. but just because joe klein (among other people) is buying into hillarys whining, doesn't make it true.

Hillary has proven that she can handle the pressure and the scritiny that comes with running for the highest office in the land. She has been attacked personally for years. She gets up and continues fighting. Obama says everyone is picking on him. We can't call him by his name, we can't question his boneheaded mistakes, we can't ask why he lied about the Canada/NAFTA meeting. He needs to answer tough questions and be able to stand up to scrutiny if he wants to lead this country.

Of course, it's hard to write nice things about someone who has lost the last 11 primaries and caucuses and who has not had a delegate lead at any point in the dem race thus far. And it's been a long race this time 'round.

The press has basically been carrying Hillary since Super Tuesday -- any other repeat-losing candidate would have been laughed off the stage by now -- and Camp Hillary is going to complain about coverage?

Camp Hillary is obviously working the refs -- whilst they concurrently sow a 1000 seeds of doubt in 100 different directions. "Obama is definitely not a Muslim, as far as I know," with a wink Hillary sayeth.

If Hillary wins anything today (even +5 delegates, still leaving her way behind), the press will carry her futile campaign another 7 painful weeks until PA. That's gonna hurt... me, Dems and the nation. She'll get uglier and uglier as her campaign just runs on the free ride the media gives her and her negative campaign.

The press will continue to give her a free ride as if she is owed something that no other candidate in either party has been. Bill might owe her. Many party insiders might. But we don't, democrats don't, and neither does the press.

She deserves decency, as any candidate does, as well as their supporters, but if she does not stomp Obama tonight and seriously pull mega delegates to her camp, the press needs to call a spade a spade and say she's done, not enable another 7 weeks of ugly campaigning from a guaranteed nomination loser (not to mention her GE weaknesses such as half the country insisting they would never vote for her).

Perhaps the real key to understanding her working the refs strategy is not so much to recognize her desire to puff up friendly coverage for herself or negative stories on Obama per se, but to see how it allows her to proceed on as if the nomination is somehow achievable for her, to have the press ignore the obvious reality and not write that the emperor simply has no clothes, all in the slim hopes that Obama somehow steps on own his dick before the convention.

Hey Greg, here's a thought. Instead of waiting for Obama to (finally, as you put it) push back on the idea that the media has been tougher on Hillary than him - as if you needed some sort of cue from him to stop repeating Hillary's talking points verbatim - you could just stop repeating Hillary's talking points verbatim. You know, save yourself a few keystrokes and all.

Hmmm... this trend seems to occur every time we near a primary date in which the momentum appears to be in Obama's favor (remember New Hampshire anyone?).

Perhaps we should look at the motive of the press in more simple terms... the longer this battle continues, the higher their ratings are sustained and the more news cycles they process.

I imagine we'll see the momentum start to shift back to Obama's camp after tonight, when Hillary declares victory. And I suspect she will, regardless of whether she wins or not.

ErinR, I think you nailed it. If Obama had won NH, a lot of advertisement would had been been lost

Everyone is saying that the press has been bias toward Obama, but what has the press said about Clinton this is unfair? The way I see it, bad actors should get bad press! Unless you are on CNN, then there are two side to every issue, and neither one is ever wrong, no matter how ridiculous the situation.

"Let me ask you: Is there any candidate other than Hillary who could have lost 11 contests in a row, never led a day in pledged delegates, trail by 150 delegates, and still be considered a viable candidate by the press?"

Let me ask you: who was the last candidate with more than 1,000 delgates in March who the press insisted should drop out of the race? Just because Obama supporters want to declare "Mission Accomplished" doesn't mean Hillary is under some obligation to do what they say.

And by the way, she trails by about 110 delegates when the supers are included. They do get a vote, you know. I know Obama's supporters have already assigned the vast majority of those to Obama, but it appears they're sticking with Hillary.

I guess Barack needs some Cheese to go with that Whine. But I know he and his backers will cry and whine and get their way, they always have.

Good call Obama.

The Clinton campaign has been working the refs for weeks. Now, get back on offense. And move beyond the wisdom you showed in opposing the Iraq War. You’re starting to sound like a one-pony show.

Instead, find a way to challenge HRC’s claims to 35 years of public service. This is a national job interview – and her resume is padded.

The past – Part I
* Ask her to explain the public service component of her work from 1977 to 1993 at the Rose Law Firm, where she was its first female partner. Does that count as 15+ years of public service? Or does it mean, she really only has 20 years of service?
*Ask her to explain her role in the failed healthcare reform initiative she spearheaded – and account for why she never took up the fight again during the remaining years in office.
* Ask her about her input into the Clinton Administration’s decision to not intervene in the slaughter of the minority Tutsi ethnic group in Rwanda – the worst genocide since 6 million Jews were killed in WWII. Per the NY Times, June 10, 1994: The Clinton Administration’s response to rising pressures to stop the mass killings was to instruct its spokesmen not to describe the deaths as genocide.

The Present – Part II
* Ask HRC to explain how Bill used his connections during a September 2006 visit with the Kazakhstan dictator and human rights violator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, to secure a huge uranium contract for Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra – a deal “that stunned the mining industry.” (Guistra later returned the favor with a $31.3 million donation to the William J. Clinton Foundation, on top of the $100 million already pledged). Per the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?pagewanted=print
* Ask about Bill’s now-severed ties with entrepreneurs Ronald W. Burkle and Vinod Gupta, who used Bill’s clout to expand their businesses while making the Clintons rich through partnership and consulting arrangements.

And when you done asking these questions, I’m sure you’ll have a good idea why the Clintons won't make available records about her years as First Lady, come clean on the Clinton Foundation and don’t want to release their tax returns. They're hedging their bets that if she loses, they won’t have to.