The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-Obama

Let's consider the following.

CNN has played downright pro-Clinton bias through out this campaign for over a year. Clinton got positive media coverage by almost all news media outlets through October; remember how they were all singing praises of the beautiful campaign she was supposedly running?

Obama did get some positive coverage after his IA win, but even there, tons of media people kept chanting Clinton's talking points including the "experience" meme. Even during this period, Clinton surrogates have been for more commonly found pushing those talking points and hardly any Obama surrogates.

Also, the Clinton campaign against Obama has been incredibly negative. Given Clinton camp's negative tactics/attacks against Obama, of course, they'd tend to get negative treatment when those events are covered by the media in any balanced manner. Yet, I don't think enough justice has been done to expose the negativity of the Clinton campaign, IMO.

Further, had Obama lost 11 states in a row, lost (or pulled even) on pledged delegates on every single primary/caucus day thus far (as HRC did), trailed in the popular vote, he would've already been sent packing from the race by the media.

And, how many in the media raised Clinton scandals (money scandals or sex scandals)?

Clinton started out with massive name recognition-based double digit leads (as the Clinton are popular among Democrats) everywhere before actual contests and campaigning took place.

The media declared Hillary Clinton the winner of most debates, and even when Obama did superbly (as in several of the recent debates), the media only called them draws instead of as wins for Obama.

As a simple example, consider this: had Obama fumbled Medvedev's name, we would've seen media playing that over and over like they played Dean's so-called scream.

Given all this, this whole victim-card business by Hillary Clinton is a political ploy, but it is pure nonsense on substance. In the balance of things, given Clintons' baggage, IMO, the media has given a far more favorable treatment to Clinton than to Obama.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Media (all tags)

Comments

57 Comments

Tip Jar.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-03 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Tip Jar.
The media has given Obama an easy ride.
Edwards did the heavy lifting against Hillary - while the media and Obamabots constantly bashed Edwards.
The media began the "inevitability" meme for Hillary and ignored Obama's involvement with Hsu and Rezko, but were eager to air Obama bashing unions and trial lawyers.
Even when it was still a 3-way race, the media focused on the "historical" Obama-Hillary horse race.
As stated here many times - Obama HAD to get positive coverage to give Hillary a "challenger."
by annefrank 2008-03-03 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Tip Jar.

Edwards DID NOT get favorable or fair media coverage in 2008.

But, at issue here is a logical comparison of the coverage that HRC and Obama rec'd over the course of this campaign. I am making argument that the Clinton camp's whining conveniently ignores some basics about how things played out.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-03 04:48PM | 0 recs
I've been writing a LOT of letters

Because I have thought the media were THRASHING Hillary and giving Obama a free ride..

I bet they have been reading those letters and they realize that lots of people are turning off to the MSM because of their obvious spin.

If I wanted spin, I could go to Free Republic.. I don't want to watch it on CNN too.

For example, the last debate. They have a lot of nerve.  Those reporters all have huge salaries and lets face it, regardless of who they support, obviously or subtly, they are seriously OUT OF TOUCH with 90% of the people in this country.

by architek 2008-03-04 06:41AM | 0 recs
Actually, the media should be even harder

against the negative attacks of Obama by Hillary Clinton. What might help

Edwards supporters (such as yourself) to think of is that had JRE been in Obama's place today, he'd be getting similar pattern of attacks from Hillary Clinton (recall that she did open those attacks in SC with radio ads just as Edwards started rising in polls there and threatened to cut into her support base there).

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-03 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, the media should be even harder
Obama aired ads against Edwards in Iowa.
And beginning last summer, we kept hearing Obamabots were spreading the rumor that Elizabeth was dying.
I never heard that Clinton supporters were spreading that lie.
Only Obamabots.
by annefrank 2008-03-04 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: The media

Look, as I keep telling you, I am a former edwards supporter who when Edwards dropped out became agnostic, but give me a break with this. You show your bias here by not being able to admit that the media clearly has  not favored Clinton. It doesn't mean your candidate isn't ulimately the better choice for a host of valid reasons. but one of them isn't that he got worse treatement by the media. That's simply isn't factually the case.

by bruh21 2008-03-03 02:29PM | 0 recs
I am arguing that in the big picture

Clinton has received plenty of favorable treatment, probably more than Obama did during the full year of the campaign.

Media's supposed positive treatment of Obama was hardly ever substantive. Eg, they were all feeding into a ridiculous frenzy between the IA caucus and NH primary, which only ended up harming Obama because it raised false expectations for him in NH (and may have fed into polls artificially). How many media people defended Obama when stupid claims that he doesn't have experience were thrown at him? Not even 5% of the instances, I'd say. Yet, he has plenty of experience (20 yrs of public service) and results.

In fact, the results expectations game as it played in the media has for the most worked against Obama so far.

If they're covering a negative attack by Clinton (of which there have been  so many), of course, part of the coverage will project Clinton in a deservedly negative light.

The people complaining non-stop about media's coverage are Hillary Clinton, her campaign and her supporters, not Obama or his campaign.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-03 02:43PM | 0 recs
NL, I have seen quantitative research on this

I can't remember where it was--Media Matters?--Clinton and Obama both received far more coverage than any other candidate. Clinton's was divided, and I think slightly more unfavorable than favorable, but I could be wrong about that.

Obama's coverage was overwhelmingly favorable, with the percentage of unfavorable coverage several times smaller than the percentage of favorable coverage.

This diary is just not credible.

by desmoinesdem 2008-03-03 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: NL, I have seen quantitative research on this

Exactly. It was probably journalism.org but also media matters has covered this as well so it could have been there.

On the Edwards front it was definitely journalism.org that showed that he received 1/10th the coverage of Clinton or Obama. I don't even know if the rest o the field was even on the scale, and this was before any primary had occured back in Oct 2007 so there was no rationale for it except the media choosing the narrative for us rather than evidence based analysis.

by bruh21 2008-03-03 02:49PM | 0 recs
Did that study isolate and separate cases where

Clinton deserved negative coverage for her negative attacks and tactics? If it didn't then, the study can't be considered accurate, IMO.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-03 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: You are committing a logical fallacy

This is to circular reasoning. Can you not see this?

by bruh21 2008-03-03 03:08PM | 0 recs
If you wage an exceedingly negative campaign

which the Clinton campaign most certainly has, you SHOULD get negative treatment for it. That'd be fair coverage of negative attacks. You can't use negative stuff and expected to be praised for it.

And it's ludicrous to later complain that your negative stuff didn't get positive coverage.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-03 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: If you wage an exceedingly negative campaign

your assertion above is circular logic, and I can tell from your response that you aren't really interested in a fair argument.

by bruh21 2008-03-03 03:37PM | 0 recs
It's a simple point I am making actually.

What I said is not circular logic because of this. If, let's say, some media show is covering Hillary Clinton calling Obama a "blank screen" (as she recently did). I expect the media people to be harsh towards her for such bullshit attacks on Obama.

If you then count that as an instance of negative coverage for Hillary Clinton (as part of some kind of study of coverage, say), you're not counting things accurately WRT to positive vs negative coverage. HRC deserves negative converage in response to her shrill/negative attack.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-03 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: It's a simple point I am making actually.

Your argument amounts to she deserved because she deserved.

by bruh21 2008-03-03 05:21PM | 0 recs
You're trying to gloss over HRC's very negative

campaign. You won's succeed.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-03 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: If you wage an exceedingly negative campaign

By the way, I also find it interesting that on the one hand you are more than willing to engage in unfair arguments against CLinton, but on the other you want us to be fair to McCain in the GE. I just don't get many of you at this point other than you are so far gone into your emotions that you don't see how it no longer makes logical sense. Exactly who do you see as more of a threat- Clinton or McCain? If you answer Clinton, then you need to think about that for a minute and question from where this thinking is derived.

by bruh21 2008-03-03 03:45PM | 0 recs
you've mixed things up incorrectly.

I am against false/specious negative campaigning but I am not  opposed to responding forcefully to false negative attacks.

Hillary Clinton has been running a negative campaign for quite sometime. Barack has to respond forcefully in kind to such attacks and pivot onto his positive message. Likewise, in the GE, if McCain goes negative on Obama.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-03 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: you've mixed things up incorrectly.

I asked a simple question. You haven't answered it. And , let's be clear here. You are making false specious arguments in this diary, first in the diary itself, and now with me by using circular logic. So when you so you are againt it, I see no proof from your own behavior. So once, again whom do you consider worse, Clinton or McCain, and why exactly aren't we allowed to engage in the same attacks without provocation that you engage in here against McCain, but its okay for you to do so here?

by bruh21 2008-03-03 04:28PM | 0 recs
asdf

"You are making false specious arguments in this diary"

No, you're making false and specious claims. I am making observations as I saw and see them.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-03 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: asdf

Actually I've provided places people can go to test your theory as being false and also questioned your underlying logic. This is really getting tiring with you and some other supporters from both camps. The response back to someone with whom you disagree should be a little more inventive than "I know you are, but what am I." I can cut and paste the number of times I see the exact argument you just made to try to place me on the defensive for calling your argments both logically and factually faulty.

by bruh21 2008-03-03 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: asdf

I browsed media matters episodes for Obama vs Clinton (they report negative stories).

During 2008, there were 155 episodes of attacks against Obama.
During the same period there were only 140 episodes of attacks against Clinton.

During the same period, Hillary Clinton and her campaign have attacked Obama in myriad ways. Here is a partial list.
attacks on Obama. Here is a list:


Hillary Clinton's negative attacks and tactics against Obama:
3/2/2008

1. "Shame on you, Barack Obama"

  1. 3 AM Ad
  2. "Obama is a blank screen"
  3. "He isn't ready to be commander-in-chief" (as she implied)
  4. Xerox stink bomb
  5. the "cult" meme (Sidney Blumenthal spread this)
  6. plagiarism nonsense attacks (Wolfson peddled this)
  7. misleading "15 million" mailers (to which he responded with his own HC mailers)
  8. NH abortion mailers
  9. all sorts of race baiting and ghettoizing tactics found here
  10. Muslim/Madrassa smear peddled by surrogates and smear emails forwarded by surrogates
  11. Her latest attack saying Hillary: McCain would be better than Obama!

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-03 05:39PM | 0 recs
Non issues

All of the issues you raised were legitimate points that Hillary made, and indeed, made them later in her campaign than many wanted..

I think that you need to realize that this is not some high school opularity contest in which everyone is going to be fair. Its a CONTEST for the MOST IMPORTANT JOB IN THE UNITED STATES.

Many of us want to see THE BEST CANDIDATE REGARDLESS OF WHO THAT IS, get the job.

So stop whining.. That is politics.. If Obama wins, you will be a quivering mass of jelly then because this stuff wont stop, its just BEGINNING..

Why does the GOP want to run against Obama?
There are lots of reasons, lots.

Its not 'the race card', (GOD, do I HATE that term..)

its lots of reasons.

Personally, I think its because they ALREADY have some dirt on him which they are saving.. If they had dirt on Hillary, they would have used it LONG AGO..

Or, they may be thinking they want him to WIN.

Ever see "The Godfather" ?

by architek 2008-03-04 06:51AM | 0 recs
Not 'all' excuse me.. "many"

sorry.. I meant to say that many of the issues HRC raised she should have raised earlier..

She actually did not raise several of the issues in the posts, which is part of why they made me angry.. its more spin..

by architek 2008-03-04 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I am arguing that in the big picture

I simply don't think either according to studies that I ve seen such as through journalism.org, Bowers site over at Open Left which is anti Cli nton, Ezra Klein etc , your argument is sustainable. It's also not sustainable on a gut check level of what I've seen. I honestly don't expect to convince you, but you are sowing unnecessary animousity with this up is down, down is up type of a diary. Conceed people points when you know they are right rather than pretending they aren't right about a point. It's not only the right hting to do, it's good politics.

by bruh21 2008-03-03 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I am arguing that in the big picture

I think you will find Journalism.org shows this is not the case.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3 /4/114715/4802/287/468568

Follow the link to Journalism.org..

by Why Not 2008-03-04 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

Sorry, but before I believe anyone's claim of media bias, I want to see concrete, methodological studies. Anyone can point at a few anecdotes and claim that they prove a general rule.

My experience with the media is that it tends to balance itself out over time - kind of like the stock market.

by amiches 2008-03-03 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

This may be true, however, there seems to be an awful lot of handwringing around convalescing around the idea that it is Obama and not Clinton getting the benefit from the media.

I am glad to see somone acknowledge the fact that there has been an extremely favorable streak for Clinton and Obama at times as well as a very unfavorable streak as well.  

We are closing on a negative cycle for Obama (admittedly the first in several weeks), but to lose sight of Clinton's inevitablity and how that was played in the media is loosing sight of the forest for the trees.

by Why Not 2008-03-03 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

Just because one diarist writes something that fits into your emotional beliefs doesn't mean they are aknowledging facts, which would be the standard if you were really into finding out something more than reinfoced beliefs. I think some of you have a real problem at this point in the primary separating out what you want to believe versus what's the case.  There have been studies on this, and it doesn't agree with what the diarist writes at all. How does that fit into your calculation of your own emotions regarding this?

by bruh21 2008-03-03 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

Lets see some links, lest you be accused of having "a real problem at this point in the primary separating out what you want to believe versus what's the case"

seem fair?

by Why Not 2008-03-03 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

Please cite your independent, nonbiased studies on the media coverage of this primary. Thanks.

by amiches 2008-03-03 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

journalism.org
media matters

there are others you know who follow these issues, and they provide data. if you are truly interested, you can also test the theory by doing a google study as an Edwards supporter did back in Jan about media bias to in which he or she went back over a period time himself comparing stories and their coverage etc.

by bruh21 2008-03-03 03:38PM | 0 recs
I'm sorry

but Media Matters isn't unbiased and journalism.org has studies about magnitude of media coverage and not the tone of that coverage. I hope you don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that the media has been biased against Obama as this diarist is. I'm just saying that there's no real evidence to suggest that the media as a whole have been tilted the other way.

Just so you don't doubt my consistency, I don't like it when our side claims widespread media bias against Democrats, either.

by amiches 2008-03-03 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm sorry

I see. So anyone who disagrees with you isn't unbiased. Where's your proof while we are at you trying to deconstruct the ones I have provided. I don't care about your consistency if it's wrong. You are also wrong on the point about coverage of Democrats versus Republicans.

by bruh21 2008-03-03 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm sorry

Well, no, Media Matters is a progressive site. I think they're pretty clear about that. I'm not the one making assertions here - you are. You're the one that has to come up with substantive proof, not the other way around.

by amiches 2008-03-03 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

By the way- the interesting thing i that many of you who are coming into to the diary to support Neuvo don't seem to know this. At a minimum you should have googled the subject as I did back in Jan and have periodically followed up with to find out whether the diarist is right. At the time, it was a fellow Edwards supporter I was testing. That should tell you something about your own approach here.

by bruh21 2008-03-03 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

Yes, I'm sure Clinton donor and supporter Walter Shorenstein has an objective view on the coverage. Thanks for the link.

by amiches 2008-03-03 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

Look, I think Media Matters is a pretty cool site too, but I wouldn't call it unbiased.

Again, the Pew studies in the letter you linked to are mostly based on quantity. I think we can agree that there have been more stories on Obama than on Clinton. That is natural when one candidate has had the kind of success he has in the past month. Love him or hate him, he hasn't lost a primary since Feb. 5. The qualitative remarks focus on the media's examination of the Hillary campaign as faltering, and again, from an unbiased POV, that's clearly what was happening. Even this week, her advisers have been snipping at each other in the press.

You don't get to claim bias when the media reports negative truths about your candidate when, by any independent measure, Hillary had a HORRIBLE February.

by amiches 2008-03-03 06:12PM | 0 recs
hahahahah! Thanks for the laugh.....nt

by Rumarhazzit 2008-03-03 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

The fact that the media take the Clinton candidacy seriously at this point is evidence of bias.

If Obama had lost 11 contests in a row, had to borrow money to keep the campaign going, fired his campaign manager, and raised less money is there any possibility that the media wouldn't have treated his candidacy differently than they have treated Clinton?

by mainelib 2008-03-03 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

BS. Both Clinton and Obama have individually more delegates and vote than any other candidate  who could eventually go on to lose than in any Presidential cycle in recent memory, and are so close that they can deny each other the nomination out right. The idea that this isn't something that should be covered by the media as implicited in your post again affirms many of you lack anything relating to objectivity on the subject. It's truly sad to read the commentary here.

by bruh21 2008-03-03 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O
The fact that the media take the Clinton candidacy seriously at this point is evidence of bias.

Is it, really? And if it is, are you so certain it's positive bias? Have you heard commentators saying things like, "The last thing you want to do is count a Clinton out"? Well, they're right, but that doesn't mean they like it. The media know the Clintons well enough to realize that it's a bad idea to write them off. Their reluctance to say, "She's finished!" reflects nothing more than due caution. They're afraid she'll turn things around.

In fact, it sometimes seems almost as if they're likening her more to a cockroach than a person. Kind of a "No matter how many times you try to get rid of them, Clintons always keep coming back" mentality.

by sricki 2008-03-03 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

Ask yourself: Would Obama be treated the same if he had the same win-loss record?

by mainelib 2008-03-03 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O
No, he probably wouldn't. I'm not sure exactly how they'd be treating him, but I imagine it would be something along the lines of, "Oh, such a shame. Another promising politician chewed up and vomited out by the corrupt Clinton machine."

But the fact that the MSM hasn't left her for dead doesn't mean they don't have an anti-Clinton bias. Their reluctance to count her out doesn't mean they like her -- it just means they're wary. They don't want to stick their collective foot in their collective mouth. The Clintons have a reputation for being difficult to get rid of. The media continues to focus on her not because they like her, but because they figure there's always a chance she might find a way to surprise them. "Getting a lot of coverage" and "getting a lot of positive coverage" are two entirely different things.

Obama doesn't have the same long-standing reputation the Clintons have: a reputation for staying in the thick of things, no matter how hard their opponents may try to crush them. (Not having their reputation has often worked to his advantage, of course.) So yes, he would have been counted out if he had her win-loss record. But not because they were biased for her or against him. Amusingly enough, they might say, "Ah, he'll never win," but I bet they'd keep reporting every move he made.

by sricki 2008-03-03 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: nice pretzel logic

Your comments and your signature line are insulting to those having a reasoned conversation here, and to top it all off, you're too stupid to even spell "Hale-Bopp" correctly.

by amiches 2008-03-03 04:17PM | 0 recs
LOL! Right. How could I have been so blind?
by sricki 2008-03-03 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

Bias is such an ugly word.  It implies something that may or may not be there...an actual intent to portray Senator Clinton in a negative light or Obama in a positive one.  

I won't argue that the media has been harder on Obama than on Clinton, because I don't think they have.  But "bias" implies something above and beyond a disparity in positive or negative coverage.  

Have we stopped to consider that maybe Senator Clinton has gotten more negative coverage because she's done more negative things?  

For a long time, she was the clear frontrunner.  Obama got hit in the media for not attacking her to try to make up ground.  Every debate the coverage settled on a key point: "Hillary won, because she didn't lose.  She was the frontrunner going in, and she's the frontrunner coming out."  Hardly negative.  

Then, when Obama did make up ground (in Iowa), not by going negative but by coming into his own in the debates, she had that "Now the fun part begins" moment.  It got a lot of coverage, but if it portrayed her in a bad light, is that really the fault of the media?  Are the media really responsible for reporting on a comment that makes Senator Clinton out to be the calculating, and even mean spirited politician that so many middle of the road, independent voters believe her to be?  Her negatives were high going into this campaign.  This was a story that highlighted one of the reasons for those negatives.

And then she lost Iowa.  The underdog story came to the front, and it's tough to blame the media for latching on to that one.  Why wouldn't they?  It was, by far, the biggest story of the day.  And then, when she cried in New Hampshire, I thought it was certain that they'd slam it as a politically manipulative moment but, with the exception of right-wing windbag and Bush apologist Bill Kristol, that's not how it played.  

The media have, on the other hand, been behind the two biggest embarrassments for the Obama campaign.  They built him up far more than need be in New Hampshire.  I suppose Clinton supporters might see this as favorable to him, but when he failed to meet those lofty expectations (losing by one 3%, if memory serves), it was a tough one to swallow.  And the same thing happened in California.  One poll (ONE POLL!) had Obama up 13%.  Another, from the same time period, had Clinton up 10%.  They reported the 13%.  "Obama surging in California" was all the rage.  And, then, when the -10% poll turned out to be EXACTLY correct, it was a big loss for Obama, and an embarrassing one, allowing Clinton to claim "victory" on Super Tuesday, despite actually losing in net delegates.  

There are two sides to every story.  Clinton supporters see this as bias.  I see two major instances of Obama being embarrassed because the media got it wrong in her favor.  Also of note is the willingness of the media to allow the Clinton camp to move the goalposts at will.  The story out of Wisconsin was pretty clear.  Clinton needed BIG wins in Texas and Ohio to be one pace to pull even in pledged delegates by the end of this race.  Now they're actually reporting this "if Obama doesn't win BIG in all four, he has a serious problem" notion, lending ridiculous credibility that Clinton can keep losing and somehow still be "the winner."  

So, we can blast the media all we want, but NeuvoLiberal is right about one thing...had Obama lost the last eleven contests, they'd have run him out of town by now.      

by freedom78 2008-03-03 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

People are giving you a two for this? Seriously?

Let's take one of your examples. It wasn't the media who built up Obama in NH. It was Obama who built up expectations. Indeed, people came on here prior to his lose in NH saying they absolutely didn't understand how Obama's media team was justified in their approach to the expectations game. Indeed, that's been a quesiton mark about him in general. Does he know how to play the expectations game- when to build it, when to reduce it, etc. To say that's the media or Clinton's fault is just yet another sign of you people being outside of reality at this point.

by bruh21 2008-03-03 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

I seem to recall every poll favoring Obama here and some of them by over 10%.  Clinton's own internal polls showed Obama by similar margins.  So to say it was Obama building it up is absurd.

It was Clinton's and NOW's dirty tricks that turned this thing around and swung 15% of the women back to Clinton.  So it was just a bit of trending poll data luck, a strong play, and a dirty trick that won it for Clinton.

by Why Not 2008-03-03 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

You're kidding, right?

In New Hampshire, Obama's polling (RCP average) was 38.3%.  His actual total in the voting was 36.4%.  That's close enough.

Clinton, on the other hand, had a 30% RCP average and a 39% actual.  The media latched onto that polling and built the greatest story that wasn't true...that Hillary was finished.  Now, when that turns out to be false, does Hillary look bad?  No, she doesn't.  She looks fantastic!  But Obama looks bad.  His camp does not play the expectations game as well as hers, and that's lucky for her.  Otherwise, all of her losses in states where she was up ten, fifteen, or twenty points might actually make it seem like she's losing this campaign!  Fortunately, we have "you people" to tell us why that's not true.

by freedom78 2008-03-03 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

I am kidding about what? I am telling you what Obama did in the lead up to NH and after his win in IA- so when you say I am kidding. maybe you need to thinka bout what I actual wrote.

by bruh21 2008-03-03 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The media has been more pro-Clinton than pro-O

That's an interesting piece, but it doesn't address my point that the amount of negative coverage of her, when compared to Obama, may be directly related to the number of negative things there are to report on.  

Senator Clinton carries a lot of baggage with her.  

Also, I'm curious what they define as "negative" in these studies.  She's losing the popular vote.  She's losing the delegate vote.  Talking about her situation as a mathematical reality may seem negative, but the truth is just that...the truth.    Can't the tone of coverage for his campaign be positive because he's been winning?  Isn't winning positive?  

 

by freedom78 2008-03-03 04:00PM | 0 recs
pro-Clinton media?

Wow, that's the funniest thing I've heard in ages!  You should work for "30 Rock"!

by demmonty 2008-03-03 03:22PM | 0 recs
Oh, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA  
by Shazone 2008-03-03 03:40PM | 0 recs
Oh, amiches.....
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
by Shazone 2008-03-03 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: hahahahaha

No sadly he's serious, and sadly can't see that his own bias. Iam giving up now because its clear they are to far gone to realize how out of touch they are.

by bruh21 2008-03-03 03:40PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads