2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

I think the idea that the media's treatment of Clinton had nothing to do with real-world conditions is similarly ludicrous though.

Again, last year the media actually declared her the nominee.

at some point you need to stop and take a look at why candidates are coming off a certain way, and realize that just because media framing is part of it doesn't mean that framing mall art is going to make it into the mona lisa

and immediately savaged her for being "imperious" and acting as if she were "entitled" to the nomination

guys seriously, have you been living on earth for the past 15 years??

I do believe there's something weird a few of our colleagues have. They tend to be Roman Catholics, actually. People like Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd. They've had it in for Bill and Hillary Clinton since Monica Lewinsky. They feel that the Clintons are trying to put one over on us all the time.

-- Jeff Bercovici, March 3, 2008

(that sounds mean and i dont think hillary is the political equivalent of 'mall art' but regardless we're not electing media frames and the idea that everyone's been looking at obama and saying 'what a pretty frame' is absurd) xxp

So like the bad stuff about Obama the media should have been covering is a secret meeting with Canada? For real?

let me get this straight guys. you're saying that when journalists are unfair to hillary clinton -- for instance, micro-analyzing an off-hand comment ("baking cookies"), or inventing scandals that end up being completely untrue (whitewater) -- this is her fault?

I'm saying that the media has been unfair to Hillary, but this does not mean that there are things they should be doing with Obama that they are not doing.

a non-secret meeting which the canadian consulate in chicago (via a right wing canadian politician) asked goolsbee (independent of and without the knowledge of obama's campaign) to clarify obama's position on trade and goolsbee reiterated obama's stances while specifying that obama was talking about what direction he wanted to go, not specific articulations of policy

let me get this straight guys. you're saying that when journalists are unfair to hillary clinton -- for instance, micro-analyzing an off-hand comment ("baking cookies"), or inventing scandals that end up being completely untrue (whitewater) -- this is her fault?

-- Tracer Hand, Tuesday, March 4, 2008 11:42 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

once again ... obama has not been the victim of this???

to the extent that he has it's completely unfair! you don't see me going around telling people it's his fault!!

i didn't blame hillary for whitewater! you're reading too far into my position here

But NONE of it is her fault?

Obama thinks the Rezko thing is his fault!

I think that what Hillary needs is a firm smack on the bottom and to be sent back to the kitchen, where Barack will be waiting to take her orders on what groceries he needs to pick up from the store after washing the car and trimming the lawn.

/ pffft hahahahahaha

Is McCain the slapper?

inventing scandals that end up being completely untrue (whitewater)

lol

morbs if you've got some evidence, ken starr is desperate to add an appendix to his hardcover smut story

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2211/2279374690_a7a434ff39.jpg

whoa awesome

why did obama steal giulianis mouth

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-russell/whitewater-v-rezko-the-_b_83040.html

Investigators have examined the Rose billing records not only to determine the role Hillary Clinton may have played in the Castle Grande transactions, but more significantly to ascertain her role in their mysterious disappearance and subsequent reappearance. If someone had knowledge or possession of the billing records and knew that they were the subject of Federal investigative subpoenas, their failure to divulge or turn over the records could be the basis for criminal charges -- the obstruction of justice. The billing records found in Hillary Clinton's book room were a copy of an original version printed out from the Rose Firm computer in 1992, when the computer file itself was deleted. Webb Hubbell has testified that he recalls reviewing a copy of the billing records in response to press inquiries during the 1992 Presidential campaign. Hubbell says that he then passed the records on to Vince Foster who was, as far as Hubbell knows, the last person to have the records. Investigators believe the book room copy was indeed Vince Foster's. The copy contains notations, in red ink, that are Vince Foster's handwriting. These notations appear to be directed toward Hillary Clinton, including questions about some of the individual billings. Investigators believe this suggests that, at some point, this copy was passed from Vince Foster to Hillary Clinton for her review. In addition, investigators had the FBI conduct fingerprint analysis of the billing records. Of significance, the prints of Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton were found. The Senate Whitewater Committee concluded that Hillary Clinton was the person most likely to have put the billing records in her book room, or know how they got there. The Independent Counsel continues to investigate Ms. Clinton's involvement in handling the records. For her part, Hillary Clinton has said that she has no idea how the billing records came to be in her book room.

I agree that the anti-Clinton media bias doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not part of a vast conspiracy - it has antecedents in various "objective" realities:

- Lingering anti-Bill resentment for various embarrassing scandals (Lewinsky, Marc Rich, etc) from his time in office.
- The Clintons have been in politics much longer than Obama has, and naturally have accrued more brushes with ethical grey-areas. Almost any politician who's been around that long has.
- There is a strong dislike of Bill & Hillary among a certain, not inconsequential segment of the population. Media personalities - the talking heads that populate CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc - need audience love and affection to survive. One way to get it is by sharing and catering to the prejudices of the audience. In this light, bashing Hillary is a relatively low-risk, high-return strategy.

well that sounds like $60m well spent

xpost

guys, obviously hillary is paying a spiritual medium to channel campaign advice from the ghost of eleanor roosevelt

those aren't really the objective realities I had in mind. xpost

wasn't $60m about the Iowa caucus-night snack budget for the Clinton camp?

It was clear a month ago that late February would be Obama's time to shine and today, if any, will be Hillary's.

-- Eazy, Tuesday, 4 March 2008 15:52 (1 hour ago) Link

exactly, and his margins of victory changed the game. like superdelegates care about a manufactured comeback at this point. Unlike the media, they're tired and they want this thing OVER. If Hillary loses TX, and can't win OH by big margins (both seem probable) the pressure on her to drop out will be nearly unbearable. The ebb and flow of coverage is just noise.

what is a big margin? isnt she up by 10% in OH? thats a big margin

What this election should be about, is the media.

Look, Barack Obama is squeaky fucking clean. The one thing people have been able to find is Rezko, and he's admitted that was a dumb mistake. Every indication is that it was genuinely an error of judgment and that he's learned from it. If the media had dirt on Obama, do we really think they would be holding back on it?

In contrast, Hillary and Bill have any number of scandals in their past and present (not a few of which involve fund-raising), numerous instances of taking the wrong side on issues, and have made clear tactical mistakes in the course of this campaign. Sure, this is partially because they've been in poitics longer. But that doesn't mean that those things aren't there. It makes no sense to say that Clinton's biggest selling point--her experience--is a DISADVANTAGE in this one particular instance. If her years in politics has given her an advantage over Obama, then she has to take the drawbacks that go with that.

Barack Obama has (almost) no dirt on him. Hillary has lots. Which one is going to look better in the media?

tonight: my guess is that it's likely that RI & VT will cancel each other out in terms of net delegate gains. obama's set to win by a wide margin in VT but will likely lose by a smaller margin in RI, which has twice the delegates as VT.

tracer not to be a dick but i think you need to stop telling us the window is hopelessly dirty and start telling us what is really on the other side of it. is there something about HRC that ppl on this thread are missing? what would an accurate assessment of her potential as president look like? or her 'character' if you like?

i ask half-rhetorically, tbh. my point is, the press has no responsibility to be even handed, it has a responsibility to describe the real. i think, yeah, it fails with depressing regularity on the latter, but let's not confuse some half-hearted success at the former with doing its actual job.

i've made up my mind on these candidates so i guess that's 'bias.' so take it in the abstract: it's not as if ANY two candidates are going to have exactly equal and opposite flaws and strengths, equally compelling and distracting histories, equally measured policy proposals -- it's this weird kind of media psychosis that insists that, in the interests of 'fairness,' we pretend that this is true.

xp: different polls say different things, you louche hobbyists.

was this posted? post/ABC poll:

“Democrats by more than a 2-1 margin say Hillary Clinton should stay in the presidential race even if she loses either the Texas or Ohio primary today. But if she fails in both, fewer than half say they’d want her to fight on. Many, in that case, have another idea for Clinton: the vice presidency.”

i don't know if there is really much to glean from this, especially when it's not clear how much people are paying attention to the particulars of this race (e.g. Many, in that case, have another idea for Clinton: the vice presidency., yea right)

gff 8080, asking the press to treat both sides of the argument 'equally' without testing to the veracity of each side is classic FOX-Rove bullshit, but sadly i don't think we're going to see the end of it during this election cycle

tom brokaw says 50 super delegates are abt to break for obama

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?last_story=/politics/war_room/2008/03/04/obama_superdelegates

woah; that HUGE if it turns out to be true

they want this thing OVER

And, when you consider that in the past, the New Hampshire primary would have just ended a week or so ago, this toe-tapping impatience for a nominee is hardly justified. Among other things, it keeps the public interested in the race and focused on their party's candidates to the exclusion of the Republicans.

The downside that they fear is that one or the other candidate will commit a "murder/suicide" in a frantic attempt to gain the nomination - by knee-capping their opponent, succeeding in crippling them, but ultimately alienating the public's from both of them. I think that fear is overblown.

no matter what happens tonight, watch for the Obama Crew to drop their Feb fundraising total to the sound of a timpani drumroll & cymbal crash -- either to soften the storyline of clinton winning in case of one outcome, or to bolster his victory in case of the other. a 50 superdelegate bonus would have an even greater effect.

i hope to god matt y is right:

it seems that Hillary Clinton's consultants have won the spin war and two-thirds of Democrats want her to stay in the race if she wins either Ohio or Texas.

That said, this is the kind of thing that public opinion is just poorly informed about. Here's the reality of the situation. If Wednesday morning the only shot Clinton has at winning the nomination involves getting the superdelegates to overrule a large Obama lead in pledged delegates and/or somehow getting the Michigan and Florida delegations seated, then Clinton's chances of winning the nomination will still be extremely low, and the prospects of either person winning the general election would get quite a bit lower. Basically, Clinton would be completely burning years worth of goodwill built up by her and her husband in the progressive community and ending her shot at playing a leadership role in the Senate in exchange for a very marginal increase in the odds of her becoming president in January 2009. A choice like that would be bad for the country, bad for the party, and bad for Hillary Clinton. It would be good, primarily, for her campaign's highest-paid operatives who would keep getting their checks, and it would be good for John McCain.

I've thought about it, and I don't think she'll do it. I don't think she and Bill are that out of touch with reality, and I don't think that most of her key supporters are either. If her results today are good enough to give her a realistic shot at winning the nomination through winning primaries, then of course she'll stay in. But if the delegate math isn't there, then I think she'll get out.

asking the press to treat both sides of the argument 'equally' without testing to the veracity of each side is classic FOX-Rove bullshit

This is true as far as it goes, but I don't think that's the answer. I don't think the media should start making unsubstantiated criticism of Obama's personality or character either. If the media started to mention Obama's "questionable patriotism" and "extreme liberal views" with the same regularity that they mention Clinton's "unlikeableness", "manipulativeness", or "underhandedness", there would obviously be no gain in objectivity or truth - though there might arguably be a gain in "evenhandedness". I think the real solution is for the media to back off the subjective impressionism altogether. They should focus more on reporting the facts - the candidates' records, policies, statements, actions, etc. - without constantly resorting to telling us who's more likeable, or doing a pop-psychology analysis of their motivations for us.

Most Media Observers Side With Hillary Campaign Claim That Press Has Been Harder On Her

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/03/most_media_obse.php

Basically, Clinton would be completely burning years worth of goodwill built up by her and her husband in the progressive community

WTF?

I guess that means idiots who don't know they're not progressive?

the press has been harder on Hillary? well that's newsworthy, seeing as she and Obama are exactly the same person running the same campaign. ffs.

Snap your fingers when you say that. Rhythmically.

Why should America listen to Jay-Z for any advice? The baloon is deflated. And this guy is an empty suite.

Nice try, Obama campaign. You aren;t in Chacago any more, where thuggery is accepted and Rezko signs the checks.

This Obama guy is desperate. What is this nonesense. Thank God we caught all his trash I can mantra. He is a lost candidate.

OBAMA IS A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!! I GUESS HE IS LIKE VERY OTHER POLITIAN

If I was constantly caught promising one thing, but doing another… I'd play it donn too!

Obama is just a toy action figure with patented speak action.
If you squeeze his hand he says one of three things:
I gave a speech once.
I always get misinterpreted.
I want to change the world.

What's he gonna say when he gets his hand squeezed by the president of Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran?

I want to say LOL, but I just can't laugh about this.