Walter Shorenstein, a prolific Democratic donor, long-time friend of the Clinton family, benefactor of the Shorenstein Center on the Press and Politics at Harvard University, has written a memo to Democratic superdelegates urging them to be aware of the "blatantly biased and irresponsible journalism" that has marked the campaign so far.
« The Daily Five -- Goolsbee Gate Continues | Main | SNL For Hillary » The Shorenstien Memo01 Mar 2008 08:11 pm Comments (61)
Actually you meant "nutcase" 
Its all true but so what? Being able to pull the levers of the media is a GOOD thing for a candidate isn't it? Obama is the greatest achievement of 21st century mass marketing to date. He's definetly gone viral. Now there is some worry that what the media giveth they can taketh away. This weekend Newsweek and the Times both have Obama-Rezko stories in them.
The timing on this is...stupid. Right now, it can easily be dismissed as sour grapes, or a 'vote for Hillary because the media is meeeean' strategy. How does this help us win in the general, or help Hillary win at all-- unless they think backlash in the media carried her through NH? I think the backlash was part of it, but it certainly isn't going to give her double-digit margins.
Isn't that another reason NOT to vote for Hillary Clinton ? Besides the fact, as Persia said, that it comes off a whining sour grapes, I don't even think it is very effective.
Chris Matthews and certain other media personalities may have an anti-Clinton bias, but I think Andrew Sullivan had a good point today: if after Super Tuesday, Clinton had gone on to win 11 straight contests, would the media be covering Obama as much as they've been recently covering Clinton? To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, reality has a well-known Obama bias.
So...Obama has received more coverage than Hillary since he has been winning? Remember, Obama hasn't lost the delegate count on ANY election day yet. I wonder what that graph looks like before January, where it shows Hillary coming down to Obama in the beginning. I bet it would show Hillary with more media coverage than anyone prior to January...just like a front runner should get. How about that national security graph? Obama had an n of 140 while Hillary had one of 63. Meaning that Obama had fully 80 more negative stories done about him. Are they serious, or do they just think people are dumb? Obama is getting more coverage and positive coverage because he is the front runner and he is winning. Hillary is getting less coverage and less favorable coverage because she is in second place, losing, and has decided to use, by their own admission, the kitchen sink policy. Brian
are you kidding Marc? A friend, donor and supporter writes an article about the Clintons -- what possible credibility can you have to post this? And end your words "that has makred the campaign so far"? Hillary Clinton was the inevitable - the press and everyone fell all over her - until she lost in IOWA -- The Media like everyone else loves a winner-- and it seems like the sudden PRO CLINTON (although you have always been a little pro clinton) bias of the media is evidence that the media is easily manipulated Luckily the public is ahead of the media - and it's over But as during the Clinton presidency the dems lost congress every election - maybe this is not that important to them
are you kidding Marc? A friend, donor and supporter writes an article about the Clintons -- what possible credibility can you have to post this? And end your words "that has makred the campaign so far"? Hillary Clinton was the inevitable - the press and everyone fell all over her - until she lost in IOWA -- The Media like everyone else loves a winner-- and it seems like the sudden PRO CLINTON (although you have always been a little pro clinton) bias of the media is evidence that the media is easily manipulated Luckily the public is ahead of the media - and it's over But as during the Clinton presidency the dems lost congress every election - maybe this is not that important to them
What is wrong with these people? Why is there so much negative media about Sen. Clinton's campaign?* Because her most strident backers have descended into self-parody. It's not even fun to laugh at them anymore. They've made me actually, actively dislike my own Senator. That's sad. I would have voted for her before they started in on all of this nonsense (e.g., certain states "count," while others don't; Obama "must" win in land-slides in TX and OH or else there's "something wrong with him"; "Shame On You, Barack Obama!"; etc. etc. etc.). I've heard it said that Wolfson, Penn, and Clinton (Mr.) are secretly trying to sabotage Sen. Clinton's campaign. I'm starting to believe it. * Besides the fact that she's been tending to, you know, lose elections recently, but that's neither here nor there.
There are so many counterexamples to the absurdity that the media has been pro-Obama: 1) 2007...a full year of HIllary inevitability narratives... 2) Summer 2007...Obama is too professorial....Winter 2008....Obama lacks substance! 3) Summer 2007...Obama is not black enough....Winter 2008, Obama is now "the black candidate!" (while Pat Buchanan squeals in delight) 4) 10 times more echo chamber for Rezko than Guistra/Borat or Burkle. 5) Yeah, the Obama nuclear power thing was not echo chambered...but neither was the far worse $10 million in Saudi money 6) Nonstop coverage and replay of tears...which predictably help Hillary. 7) About ten times more coverage of "the snub" than Hillary not congratulating Obama after many of his victories 8) Calling every debate in summer 2007 a hillary win when polls and focus groups usually said otherwise. 9) Echo chambering negative personal info about Obama (drugs) and keeping squashing negative personal innuendo on Hillary's and Edwards' sex lives. 10) Giving a surrogate, Bill Clinton, more media oxygen than many other candidates. The list could go on and on. Apart from specific examples, do this thought experiment: If Obama's campaign made 10% of the mistakes that HIllary's has over the course of this campaign, the media would have stuck a fork in him and declared him done. The media has consistently graded on a curve...Obama earns an A, the media gives him a B. Hillary earns a D, and the media gives her a B minus. And then you have intellectually bankrupt tools claim that, aha, a B is higher than a Bminus...therefore the media is stacked against Hillary!!! These folks deliberately fail to consider the actual performance of the candidates and take a superficial look at the coverage and play critic because their horse ain't winning. AS much as the media is criticising Hillary now, if Obama had lost 11 contests in a row, the piling on would be about 22 times worse for Obama than Clinton. People need to put things in perspective here.
This is ridiculous. I'm going to write him an email. The "alarming" divergence in coverage at the end of February? You mean after he won 11 straight contests?
1. Messenger. Shoot. Don't. 2. What important member of team Clinton hasn't already aired six-baskets of dirty laundry on 'fellow' members of the team? Physician, heal thyself.
How dare the press report the facts. Hillary the press would probably stop if you did not try so many dirty tricks: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Texas_caucus_hardball.html#comments
Which Clinton staffers wrote this? It has the feel of a staffed out, pr piece from the campaign. Why is this news? Even if the Clintons' friends actually wrote it, why should we care? And has any candidate gained by criticizing the press? George H.W. Bush used to complain, too!
An article in the New York Times today made me think a little bit about why the media acts the way it does, in ways that are often unfair to Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/politics/01press.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics Here is the key quote: "Jonathan Alter, the veteran Newsweek columnist who traveled with the Obama campaign to Dallas on Wednesday, said that the attempt by the Clinton camp to weigh various stories represented a kind of “silly, even-Steven-itis.” “People got it into their head that if you say something good about a candidate, you have to say something bad about him, and if you don’t, that’s not fair,” Mr. Alter said. “What the Clinton partisans wanted was for us to create a phony balance that was at odds with what our eyes were telling us. That’s not the job of a journalist.” I think the "Even-steven-itis" is a big reason why coverage short changes democrats in general. There are often situations where dems are clearly right on an issue and the republicans are clearly very very wrong. Journalists seems to feel a need to even the score, even if the score is not really even. And so the end result is they downplay the republican bad behavior and they magnify democratic bad behavior. This same dynamic is true vis-a-vis Obama vs Clinton. You can make a superficial argument that Obama gets better coverage, just like right wingers can find facts to say the media is biased against them. But if you look closely in both cases, "Even-steven-itis" (what I like to call grading on a curve) takes downplays the successes of those with the right arguments and props up those with the bad arguments. What the clinton people perceive as media bias against them is nothing more than a dissatisfaction that, even with the great amount on "even-steven-itis" being applied to the campaign, Obama is still doing well. It's because Obama is doing so well that he can still win even with as much "even-steven-itis" biting his ankles and propping up HIllary. Getting back to the dem vs republican coverage...I think the ideas of democrats get "even-steven-itised" by the MSM and when you combine that with the decided one-sidedness of the right wing echo chamber, you end up, in sum, with a media environment tilted stringly against the dems. The "liberal media" is making up stuff to make everything even-steven, while the conservative media is busy making stuff up to make the dems into devils.
It's never her fault. Vast right wing conspiracy. Vast left wing conspiracy. Whatever works.
Thanks RKA. Marc, if you can't hide your bias, can you just say, "I support Clinton or McCain.
Funny, I don't recall hearing anything from Shorenstein last summer and fall. From the second that Hillary said, last 24 July, that Obama was "irresponsible and, frankly, naive," Obama spent the next nearly four months being pilloried in the media for his presumed deficit in foreign policy and his presumed lack of experience. Meanwhile, that same media churned out months of voter-narcotizing Hillary "analysis," with self-annointed pundits congratulating themselves on what an inevitable juggernaut they had made and moderators, in debate after debate, refusing to ask Hillary serious follow-up questions, while she stonewalled her way to a nearly 30-point lead in national polls. Hillary had her free ride, just not when she wanted it -- and the only reason Shorenstein is whining and Wolfson is pushing the Rezko story now is because their candidate is losing.
Marc, this blog has deteriorated into a daily regurgitation of HRC's talking points. With you and Mark Halperin, who needs the "biased" Clinton News Network.
What's interesting to me is that Halperin and Ambinder both came out of ABC News. ABC News employs Stephanopolis a former Clinton Hand. One of his pundits, Cokie Roberts, puts out the lamest pro-Clinton drivel every week on the roundtable. The ABC politics website's running popular vote totals are closer than everyone elses...because they include MI and Florida...but they don't even say that they do so with an asterisk or anything. While clinton whines on and on about MSNBC, the real story is how much current and former CNN and ABC folks have been in the tank for Hillary through this election cycle.
My Friends, I would like us to write the Clinton Campaign Playbook together. Please help me with this. Here's my first stab. The Clinton Campaign Playbook. (note: this playbook has borrowed heavily from K. Rove, but also contains distinctly Clintonian machinations) Page 1: Change the story, change the lead Identify your campaign's weaknesses/soft spots/vulnerabilities, then immediately and relentlessly accuse your opponent of being guilty of these very things as a matter of pre-emption. This can and should apply to areas of: personal integrity/truthfulness, campaign finance, corruption, plagiarism, the use of identity politics, perceived media bias, and lastly, INEXPERIENCE. The key here is to change the story to deflect people's attention from your own, glaring hypocrisy as you maintain a scorched earth, win at all costs campaign strategy. However, the main purpose is to ultimately muddy the conversation so that your opponent becomes as sullen as you are by virtue of simply being in the same contest with you.
No need to explain this one. Just do it.
It is better to be consistently, willfully incorrect than to be perceived as weak (and by weak, we mean, honest).
Be so audacious in your attempted theft that people will be forced to suspend disbelief. As the old saying goes, "the bigger the lie, the harder they believe." For example: Attempts to 1) break your word on an actual pledge you made and 2) literally change the rules of a contest mid-way through will become you trying to prevent the "disenfranchisment" of over 1 million Democrats. Note: it helps in such cases to play up people's sympathies for instances where real disenfranchisement has taken place. For example, if AA's had seen an ugly period of voter suppression in a place like Florida, try to link your attempted rule changing to the plight of AAs so people will have a more difficult time arguing against you for fear of being slammed as racist/insensitive et cetera.
If he wins more states than you, tell the people why his states don't count. If he you lack the resources to compete, make it seem your opponent is buying the election. If you do not like the way a contest is structured, call it undemocratic. If he has energized millions of people and gotten them interested in politics for the first time in their lives, tell the world these people are unstable, idol-worshipers. Lastly, if he is oratorically gifted, and black, compare him to other great (black) oraters, and be sure to suggest at every chance you get, that he cannot be, at once, a gifted speaker and intellectually vigorous.
Tell people that, historically, minority groups have not gotten along. This will attempt to pit black against brown, leaving you the ability to cherry-pick whatever demographic is favorable to the state in which you're competing. In addition, attempt to "darken" your opponent in the eyes of white voters by influencing the news cycles to keep the conversation about the candidate's race, so as to make abundantly clear that 'he is not one of us.' If women make up the majority of your party's base, run an explicitly gender-based candidacy even in your opponent has made clear his candidacy will be about inclusivity.
If tearing up or screaming or mocking will help you connect with voters, don't be afraid to play the part. Page 8: (anyone??)
"Its all true but so what? Being able to pull the levers of the media is a GOOD thing for a candidate isn't it?" You may wish to nominate the candidate favored by General Electric. But the majority of Democrats disagree. That's why Clinton has gotten more votes from registered Democrats so far than Obama. Most Democrats don't wish to turn the keys of the Party over to General Electric and Marty Peretz.
If Hillary pulls ahead, or if Obama splices up, she will regain the spotlight. This is not the same as saying Hillary should regain the spotlight in order to pull ahead, or that she would do if only Obama could be made by the press to seem less relevant in his lead. She has run a negative, entitled and incompetent campaign, and the lawsuit she threatens in Texas because she is not well pleased with her prospects there is justifiably news. She has created a fear-mongering ad campaign in Texas with the express purpose, her staff says, of its generating free media in Ohio -- this is news. Her only consistent message has been that she intends to win, despite all serious indications that will not happen and however that can be brought about -- this makes news, as it should. I think she and her cohorts are in fact complaining that her campaign is accurately reported on. She is understandably frustrated she can't manage that news, but her bids to manage it are themselves news. Can this brilliant woman whose field of vision is shot through with blind spots do anything more meaningful about the way she's coming across than throw rocks at the mirror? If not, may she continue to be covered for that singular lack of insight, which shows perfectly why she should not be the nominee, or the leader of the free world.
RKA, maybe we need a "Pundit Counter" ala the delegate counter.
His letter is right on. We seem to be electing the next American Idol instead of a President. Every profession has a code of ethics. Many journalists are breaking the rules, and it matters. This one sided coverage reminds me of the media bias in the run up to the Iraq War. Everybody was a Monday morning quarterback after the insurgency took off. As far as the 10 straight wins, Hillary has won more Democratic votes than Obama. The article appeared in the Slate-Trailhead blog. In other words, the Democrats have let outsiders (Republicans & Independents) hijack their nominating process. I'm giving credit to the Republicans for having their house in order.
This is interesting. Why is it being sent out now? And is it just coincidence that Shorenstein pushes this forward just as the Clinton machine unleashes waves of attacks aimed at casting doubt on Obama's ability to withstand GOP attacks in the general? I think not The "3 am" ad, the increasingly shrill attacks on national security, the complaints about the media being in the tank for Obama are all aimed not at Texas/Ohio but the superdelegates It's clear Tuesday won't produce the outcome they need to win this thing, so they're trying to make it look like Obama will get torn to pieces in the fall, especially considering how the media has given him a free pass. Then they lean on the superdelegates especially hard, stressing to them that the only way to keep McCain out of the White House is to back Hillary. The Clintons will be doing us a favor, by sparing us from the Obama massacre. Everything they've been doing the last couple months is culminating in this push. Or, it's late, the baby is cranky and I'm losing my mind.
EWard, So you think if Hillary had rolled off 11 straight, there wouldn't have been daily clamour for Obama to drop out. WTF are you smoking? Stop complaining about the rules of the game when you run such an incompetent campaign with a candidate who has marginal political skills.
He also seems to have forgotten that for the last few weeks the main media outlets have hidden or under reported the lead in pledged delegates and the blurring of the delegate count that has helped Hillary. Only after Obama took the overall lead was his true position acknowledged. Earlier they kept acting as if Hillary were in the lead even though the super delegates are not firm (H has lost 5-6?)And of course there was no real acknowledgment that Obama won super Tuesday by about 10 to 12 delegates despite the Clinton theme that it was delegates that counted.
Oh, and to all those whining about Hillary's media coverage, I hope you caught the SNl skit opener which was bascially an in-kind contribution from NBC to HIllary with the expressed purpose of helping her play the female victim card 48 hours before an election to try to pull a NH like effect. Who wants to bet that this will be replayed over and over just like the cry...and the message is going to be, "rally to Hillary the victim"
Ok, I will give that SNL skit some points for delivery, so to speak. I have been saying for a while when people like Russert attack Hillary, it helps Hillary through predictable backlash dynamics. I have often expressed the opinion that the whole schtick is staged, that Russert knows hes's helping Hillary by being an ass towards her. And I have to say that the SNL skit confirms my suspicions that this is all one reality-television-esque manufactured gender war designed to give HIllary a sympathy female vote. The whole message of that skit is, "The men are beating up in me and Barack Obama is a moron." Nobody seems to want to talk about Obama getting grilled on Farrakhan, Wright, etc. Russert knows there is no backlash to grilling Obama because Obama is male. The other thing that they did was to portray Obama as a bush-like idiot...which is absurd. Anyways, I can go on and on,,,but I want to leave everyone with a thought to ponder.... When big media is helping a candidate spread a meme that they are biased against her, is it Big Media's self-awareness on display or is it their cynicism? This is going to be replayed over and over in the next 2 days and will be the dominant story line I am guessing. And who will benefit? HIllary. Big time sympathy vote coming thanks to Big Media (who are just soooooo biased against her). Give me a break.
Coltrane From past Democratic primaries other winning candidates have lost a series of states and survived. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter come to mind. There are reporters that aren't blinded by the Obama hype. David Ignatius had an interesting article today about Obama in the Washington Post. Obama does not have a record of building bi-partianship with the other side. "He gained a reputation in Illinois for skipping tough votes." This talk about desperation from Hillary is nonsense. The time to vet a candidate is before another 9/11 or Katrina strikes. People on this thread are blogging about the superdelegates. Many black superdelegates are being threatened and intimidated to switch to Obama. They will be targeted as "an Uncle Tom" if they don't fall into line. If anyone is shameless, it's Obama's side.
You must be high b/c you didn't answer the question. Go find a candidate who's lost 11 in a row, stayed in the race and won the nomination. The hype card is just another scare card and when you infuse your whole argument with junk, you sound like a sore loser. One fact for you...Obama has held elected office for 4 years longer than Hillary. The fact that you don't understand complex legislative voting strategies in IL is emblematic of most HRC supporters...they're the less-educated who follow the inept shepherd. The rest are women.
You may wish to nominate the candidate favored by General Electric. But the majority of Democrats disagree. That's why Clinton has gotten more votes from registered Democrats so far than Obama. Petey, I've read your comments for a long time. I respect you and how effectively you express yourself. And maybe I misunderstand you here, but are you really trying to argue that Hillary "SNL" Clinton isn't the favored candidate of the GE/NBC military-infotainment complex? If she wasn't before, she certainly is now after having hitched her candidacy to the lethargic plowhorse that is Saturday Night Live and its oh-so-astute political commentators.
Ugh, forgot about the HTML tags not continuing across paragraphs. For the sake of clarity, the first two paragraphs in my last post are quoted text.
I did answer your question. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton lost many primary contests, stayed in the race, and won the nomination. Obama might have held elected office longer than Hillary. However, he plays it safe when it comes to legislation. He is anything but a "profiles in courage" leader when it comes to governing. That's why he has no battle scars. What are you so scared of? Obama has won 11 elections in a row. Isn't his campaign on easy street? I'm just one lone voter. Why all the anger?
I think the most telling thing about the graph is how even it is until after losing WI by 17. That's exactly the time that everyone except the Clinton campaign/supporters determined that it's next to impossible for her to win in the pledged delegate count (and hence the unpledged delegate count).
You people saying that Hillary has gotten more Democratic votes than Obama: 1) Prove it. 2) Judging by last go around, the Democrats need a little help from the independents picking a winning candidate.
EWard, Clinton had 3372 delegates in 1992. Jerry Brown, who had the second most, had 596. I didn't research far enough to find out exactly how many primaries Clinton lost, but obviously Obama has much more than 596 delegates.
Obama might have held elected office longer than Hillary. However, he plays it safe when it comes to legislation. He is anything but a "profiles in courage" leader when it comes to governing. That's why he has no battle scars. Hey, I'm all for learning from mistakes. But after Hillary's big one (Hillarycare, natch) what did she learn from the experience and what did she come back to accomplish? I know she's gotten a couple post offices named during her seven years in the Senate, so yeah, good for her; anything else? Obviously her managerial skills are no better judging by the state of her campaign. Anyway, I'm dying to know more about those profiles in courage. Looking forward to hearing all about them.
Neither lost 11 in a ROW. Just concede the point. Hardly anger...your criteria for selecting a candidate is battle scars and a created sense that the entire MSM is against you.
EWard, Still smoking that ignatius pipe? That hype against the obama hype stuff is full of fallacies of it's own, don't let it full you. It's cool, though. Yet, a bit creepy. Like cool creepy. Like you think you're smoking some good stuff creepy and it'll come back and bite you, creepy. Stop smoking, it, for your own good. Ignatius is good but he's got holes. Mostly, right now, he's just trying to jump on the hype against the obama hype. Those ignatius type love it. Holes and all, you know. It sells on the streets. For good market value, and they love it. You my friend, just get screwed. There's better stuff out there and a lot cheaper than the ignatius stuff. And still cool, without being creepy.
EWard, Still smoking that ignatius pipe? That hype against the obama hype stuff is full of fallacies of it's own, don't let it fool you. It's cool, though. Yet, a bit creepy. Like cool creepy. Like you think you're smoking some good stuff creepy and it'll come back and bite you, creepy. Stop smoking, it, for your own good. Ignatius is good but he's got holes. Mostly, right now, he's just trying to jump on the hype against the obama hype. Those ignatius type love it. Holes and all, you know. It sells on the streets. For good market value, and they love it. You my friend, just get screwed. There's better stuff out there and a lot cheaper than the ignatius stuff. And still cool, without being creepy.
This woman doesn't grow, she doesn't change, she doesn't improve herself. Fifteen years ago, it was the vast right-wing conspiracy that was the root cause of her husband's cheating and her corruption. Now it's the vast media conspiracy that is the root cause of her failed campaign.
I hate how this election has been run. And I still don't know what Obama is actually going to DO!! if he is elected. I know one thing - The Republicans are crossing over to vote for Obama because they know he would be a weak President and will prove worthy of only one term and then after that The Republicans can take control again.
LOL it is so funny that the Obama camp and his journalist sheep don't want to admit that if a stupid comedy Show like SNL can even pick up on what is being done in the reporting, then it is there!!
Miranda, Hope you enjoy your nap. If Santa Hilaria wins, the Republicans won't need an advertising campaign. She's the best advertisement they need. If you really think the Republicans prefer to fight Obama than Hillary, your smoking some good Santa Hilaria stuff. They know she is the antithesis of sainthood and embodies the collective animosity of the right. Her mere name is more red meat than anything any right wing radio talk show could concoct. No, Obama is no saint himself. No one, not even himself, is claiming that. People are merely choosing him over Hillary and, of course, the Santa Hilaria followers are outraged. God forbid someone, and especially a woman vote for Obama! Oh, the outrage.
LOL it is so funny that the Obama camp and his journalist sheep don't want to admit that if a stupid comedy Show like SNL can even pick up on what is being done in the reporting, then it is there!! Obama by 29% in Virginia --the media's fault One supposes that what they should be reporting is that, by those metrics, she's catching up!
Shorenstein appears right. If people pay attention to the media narratives they see themes echoed and re-echoed that do not meet the reality of the facts the damn journalists are supposed to report on. The media now acknowleges they were far harder on Al Gore in 2000 than Bush. They just didn't like the guy, and in their prejudice they tilted the election. Some have rued that, saying they only bashed Gore to make the contest more interesting and that they thought Gore's election, despite their ridicule, was a given. The media in the 2008 race sabotaged Edwards regularly. They early on adopted an uncritical stance on their two "saints", Obama and McCain. They were unrelenting in bashing the two most competent candidates, Romney and Hillary, as "inauthentic and untrustworthy" while uncritically accepting the "inspiring biographies" of Obama&McCain and giving their snake oil cures for what ails America a near-total pass. After the conventions and nominations, Shorenstein's complaints may get larger coverage and debate about how the "new American electorate" may be easily manipulated and led by the puppetmeisters of the Influencing Class. Especially if Obama and McCain show that despite being "press pets" - they were not the best candidates either party offered - just the ones the puppetmeisters set up.
chris ford, right. Obama's success has totally been a result of him being selected by the media, and not because his message is actually resonating or because his organization is remarkably good at mobilization. he was simply anointed by the media as "the chosen one", and these people contributing to his campaign and volunteering for him put so much stock in MSNBC and The New Republic that they have allowed themselves to be brainwashed. but i think it's important to point out that we're doing exactly what the (losing) Clinton campaign wants us to do: talk about the media, rather than the candidates. talk about media bias, not the scare-inducing advertising or lawsuit to subvert the Texas caucuses or ineptitude of the senior Clinton advisors or poor decisions by the candidate herself. re-focus the debate by giving the media it's favorite subject: the media.
"Waaahhhhh, the media is unfair, waaaahhhhhhh! I've run a terrible campaign that blows money on luxury suites at the Bellagio, waaaaaaahhhhh! I can't release my tax returns because then people would find out my husband trades favors for cash from kleptocrats in the Caucasus, waaaahhhhhhh! I've had an incredibly hard life as a multimillionaire corporate lawyer helping Wal-mart open sweatshops in China, waaahhhhh! I have a bad mullet, my stylist must be an Obama supporter, waaaaaahhhhhh!"
Here's one most of the Media missed: Hillary Clinton has no Credibility on national security since she cast her Yes vote to authorize war in Iraq. There where other Senators who voted NO! They knew to vote yes was to automatically Invade a Country that had nothing to do with 911, but all about OIL. That is not Judgment and it is the wrong kind of Experience. And what National Security Experience Does She Really Have? Will she run the country like she has run her Campaign? Some say, who know the Clintons, that she and Bill have the agenda to get Bill a THIRD Presidency, that should not be allowed. It was Bill, after all, who spoke first after their loss in South Carolina!
The studies Mr. Shorenstein pulls together, like most studies purporting to document media bias, completely fail to distinguish negative and positive coverage of Obama and Hillary from negative and positive events as they unfolded for Obama and Hillary. The studies merge the two because there is no scientific or objective way of disentangling them in the aggregate. The authors of the studies are not unaware of this, of course. But Shorenstein decided he would be, because of how outraged he is. A better point about "imbalance" in news coverage of the two is that somehow the campaign narrative seems to be about her strugggles--her inevitable triumph, her shocking fall from inevitablity, whether she is too much of this, not enough of that--rather than centering on him. As if she's automatically "the story," win or lose. In a narrative climate like that, things that happen with Hillary get hugely dramatized, and when they are hugely dramatized around downers for Hillary then, yes, the she's-the-story narrative does seem tilted against her. But when she chokes up in New Hampshire, the same tilt spreads sympathy for her widely and instantly, actually helping her win (in my view). All this is too complicated to fit into the ultra-simplified story line that accusations of media bias tends to encourage. Shorenstein, a sponsor of academic research on media and politics, ought to know that.
Marc, why are you posting stuff from a real estate developer who raises money for the Clintons? Who on earth cares what Walter Shorenstein thinks? If you want to make the point that Hillary should be president, you really ought to post more from Mark Penn.
Wow! All the obama supporters on this thread are totally pre-menstral! Try to separate the pms from reality folks.
11 contests in a row We have all heard this for the past weeks endlessly on a loop. All over radio, television and blogs. Everywhere. Over and over and over. It leads in the news, traffic, weather and sports. 11 contests in a row. 11 in a row!!! Here is something you didn't hear much about. And did you know that Hillary got more delegates in only 3 out of those 9 states alone (CA AZ ARK) than Obama got in all of his 11 states added up together!? Then if you add on the other 6 states she won- you have to add an additional 325 or so delegates - and she now more than doubles his "phenomen" 11 state win in delegate count; all with her 9 state win. More than doubled his big "sweep"! Here's the thing though... I never heard boo about that. And I listen. Oh yes I do. Listening, always listening. The TeeVee, the radio, the TeeVee again, the blogs... No "9 states in a row!" No "Huge Clinton delegate grab!" And it's after the fact now. Might have been ... I dunno- something newsworthy. Like the first time in history a female candidate for President of the United States won a primary (New Hampshire)... could've been an historic moment. A moment to make the suffragettes offspring proud. If anybody had bothered to talk about it. They talked about the first female astronaut, and Barbie got a space costume. Slovenia, Ghana and Namibia all have a freer press than the US according to the Reporters Without Borders survey. In Namibia, they would probably have said something. In Namibia, it would have been common knowledge at souks all over town. "Hillary won 9 in a row, Barack won 11, but Hillary more than doubled his delegate wins with only her 9 against his 11." I hate them for their freedom.
My favorite HRC talking point is the "she has won more Democratic delegates than any other candidate" point. This is truly laugh-inducing. Here in two weeks we'll hear about how she's won more single-80-year-old-white-women-with-incomes-under-$50,000 votes than any other candidate. It's great and all to win the Democratic wing of the Democratic party if your goal is to repeat 2000, 2002, and 2004.
RE: Winning the Democratic 'wing'. There has been only one Democrat to win the Presidency in the past 28 years. That name was 'Clinton'. And the Republican party have never forgotten that. They spent the entire two terms in attempts to eradicate anything named Clinton from the White House. They are busy yet again. Yes, Obama wins Republican votes. Spend about 15 minutes at Free Republic to see why. You won't be pleased. And you won't be boasting quite so loudly about his winning over the other side after you've seen the very strategic operation they've crafted to manipulate the Democratic primary. Keep track of those numbers of R's voting Obama in the primary, and compare them against the General- should he be the nominee. The story will lie in the discrepancy.
ms in la - I AM the other side. I am an independent who has been a McCain fan (in context) for quite a while now. Many of my friends are independents and undecideds. I can speak with a certain degree of authority about how Obama truly does appeal to independents in a manner that Her Royal Highness does not. This election will be won over the middle. McCain/Obama territory. To get back to your "9 in a row!" argument, it's a ridiculous one, for two reasons. 1) Super Tuesdays was a draw. That was the ultimate outcome of that day - an indictment on Obama's appeal to moderates (especially given that nothing was sure about McCain candidacy at that point, so you can ignore the BS about Republicans infiltrating Dem primaries), as well as Clinton's embarrassing "assume our way to the nomination" strategy. 2) "9 in a row" is a clear misrepresentation of what happened that day. The phrase "9 in a row" conveys the sense that Clinton had a wholesale dominance of the delegates for weeks and weeks. That is true in Obama's "11 in a row" argument, but it's an embarrassment of logic to argue that Clinton did just that. Clinton won a few old-guard DNC strongholds and the state where her husband was governor for two terms. For Clintonistas to write off what Obama is doing now is arrogant and stupid. The assumption that this is a phenomenon is wrong. There is precedent, and it goes by the name of Howard Dean, 2004. Dean was derailed by The Scream, and he didn't have best-selling books to lay the groundwork like Obama does. Obama is sharpening what Dean tapped into - populist, Internet, youth-centric, inclusionary politics. This is not NEW. This is the future. Hillary is a post-Scream 2004 candidate in a new type of election.
Socctty: Clinton supporters don't dismiss what is going on but some of us try to fit it into perspective rather than pretend its the second coming or wholesale different from anything we've ever seen before.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
you mean ShorenstEIn.
Posted by Toobie | March 1, 2008 8:18 PM