Tag Archives: Clinton

Can the Media Make a Promise?

On NPR: “If Obama wins both states, he will make it all but impossible for Clinton to catch-up in pledged delegates.”  Uh-huh.  Right, sure.  Like that isn’t already the case.  But please, please promise that if it does happen (even though I highly doubt it will), you’ll actually cover it as such?  Please?!

Anyway, prediction: Obama wins North Carolina by 4 points, Clinton wins Indiana by 4 points, the media continues to say Obama’s dead even though Clinton can’t win.

UPDATE May 6, 1:38 PM:
Actually, I didn’t really figure in Indiana undecided voters in my prediction for today’s primaries.  If they’re still undecided at this point, they’re likely to go with the safety vote, that being Clinton.  As such, updated prediction: Obama wins North Carolina by 4 points, Clinton wins Indiana by 6 points, the media continues to say Obama’s dead even though Clinton can’t win.

UPDATE May 6, 1:46 PM:
Oy, and I forgot to figure in the possible Republican-caused “chaos“…


Whose Poll is it Anyway? Obama is Both Tied and Ahead (Depending on Who You Ask)

CNN says that Obama [is] losing support, even though Obama and Clinton are tied at 46%, the same as they were a few days ago.  More telling, however, is that this figure is among all Democrats, not just primary voters, those who actually go out and vote.  Among primary voters, according to a new CBS poll (pdf), Obama is up 46% to Clinton’s 38%.

That said, following polls at this point is a little silly, especially since it’s basically impossible for Clinton to get the nomination no matter what happens.  However, a little balance to CNN’s coverage would be appreciated (or any of the media at this point).


Superdelegates Ratifying Racism?

Very interesting thought by John Dickerson in today’s Slate Political Gabfest:  “Let’s say they didn’t play the race card, but Hillary Clinton continues to win these contests because she has this advantage among white voters, do superdelegates, if they were to give her the nomination, are they then kind of ratifying the racism in the system?”


While I think Clinton’s advantage among white voters is incredibly overblown, this is a very important question.




The Media Are Doing Keg Stands on the Kool-Aid Tap

It started awhile ago, when the math against Clinton became clear and yet the media refused to acknowledge that she was in a dire situation.  The usually reasonable Gary Eichten of MPR actually called the race “virtually tied” on multiple occasions, even ignoring that Clinton just can’t overcome Obama in the popular vote or pledged delegates.


After some time, the media finally did come around to the fact that Clinton can’t win, and in reaction, started exploiting the Wright and “Bitter” “scandals” in order to keep a narrative going.  I’m not saying the media is biased, I’m saying that they’re inept.


And the ineptitude continues.  After Clinton won Pennsylvania, even though there is no significant change in the race, and certainly none in the delegate count, the media continues to pound the message that Obama is in trouble.  He’s in trouble because he can’t win a certain demographic.  Let’s not forget that Clinton can’t win over far more demographics, but that wouldn’t keep the narrative going, would it?  Let’s also not forget that the majority of that demographic would still vote for Obama in the general.  But again, that would mean the story would be over.


At least Obama supporters aren’t the only people who recognize such things.  It’s hard to find any such stories in the media of late, they’re probably afraid of appearing “biased” against Clinton by reporting the truth, as they have been attacked of all election, but they do exist.  Perhaps my favorite of late is from Slate’s Trailhead Blog:


Right now, the Clinton Kool-Aid is on tap, and the media are doing keg stands. The same writers who once said Clinton was doomed are now ignoring the fact that the math is even more oppressive for Clinton. Obama will likely need to convince 25 percent to 35 percent of the about 300 uncommitted superdelegates to support him, and he will reach the 2,024 delegates needed to become the nominee. Put another way, Clinton needs to convince 65 percent to 75 percent of them to vote for her. That’s 200 elected officials and party bigwigs she needs to convince not to support the guy who has the most pledged delegates.

It’s still nearly impossible for Clinton to win without superdelegates, and is completely impossible for her to overcome Obama in voters.  And yet, listening to the media, you’d think that they were “virtually tied.” 




New York Times: Clinton Is Hurting Democrats

From the New York Times:


The Low Road To Victory

It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the campaign’s negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.


Coming from the New York Times, this is rather shocking.  Not only have they endorsed her, but Clinton favoritism has even seeped into their generally fair coverage.  It’s about time for the media to start reporting on this instead of slinking away from it in fear of appearing “biased”. 

Of course, this is only an op-ed…




Reaction To Obama’s Speech on Race

Over the past week or so I’ve been doing nothing with this weblog except posting links to other things, which is really a shame since I’ve been getting a decent amount of hits.  Tonight, sadly, is not much different.  I’m not linking to something, but rather reproducing it here.  I wanted to write a long post in regards to Obama’s speech today, but given a lack of time, it just cannot be done.  As such, a wonderful response to Obama’s speech, as found on Slate.com’s discussion board “The Fray” (from the_slasher14):

I’ve talked up Obama a lot in the past few months (though as an independent in New York State, I couldn’t vote for him) mainly because I felt he had a better chance of winning in November than Clinton. Since it is my belief that it will already take a generation or two for the country to recover from the damage done in the past eight years by the tax-cut ideologues, I would be supporting just about anybody whom I thought had the best shot of replacing these lackeys of corporations and the rich. 

As far as the man himself, however, I had my doubts. I think Paul Krugman was right in his critique of Obama’s policy positions vs. Clinton’s, and of course he has no track record at all of governing (though neither, in spite of the pretense, does Clinton). If John Edwards were still a viable candidate, I’d probably be for him.  

But not after today. Today, Barack Obama showed me what he is made of, and it’s stuff I never expected to see in a major party candidate. He spoke to the American public on the most explosive subject our country has — race — and he never once addressed them as anything but adults. I’m told he wrote the speech himself, which is all the more impressive. He reacted to the largest threat to his candidacy with eloquence, reason, and honesty. Rather than simply trying to deflect the issue, he used it as an opportunity to enlarge the discussion in a positive way.

There was no sugar-coating of the anger felt by blacks, and there was an acknowledging of the anger felt by whites. Finally, there was a depiction of his own place in it — as one from both sides of the divide — and of his desire to work it out peacefully.  

My gut feeling is that the country really isn’t ready for this kind of honesty. That FOX News smears will, in the end, triumph over reasoned dialogue. The forces which control the media have no interest in solving the racial dilemma. To them, all it would mean is more taxes to rebuild the cities that are being allowed to crumble around the ears of the underclass, and, as we know, these forces would rather lose a war than pay more taxes. If Obama gets nominated, the same twisted rich old men will be financing ads that he’s a closet Muslim AND that his Christian minister is the second coming of Hitler.  

But it was nice, for once, to see that my beloved country has managed to produce a leader of this level of quality and that he could reach a stage this high. It was my good fortune, as a young man, to see in action and get to know some of the generation of blacks who shattered Jim Crow — the bravest men and women I have ever known. I doubted very much that Barack Obama was one of them. Not after today.

And a quick note/link.  Hanna Rosin on the speech: Amen to That.  Hanna Rosin, Clinton supporter and ardent Obama skeptic, liked the speech?  Wow.



Did Republicans Help Clinton in Mississippi (And Inflate the “Racial Divide”)?

It looks very possible that the answer to that question is yes.  Not only that, it appears that these numbers helped skew the “racial divide” in that state.  Daily Kos’ interesting look at Mississippi’s exit polls:



Geraldine Ferraro: Off The Rails Even Before Today

As for the whole Geraldine Ferraro stuff, anyone who listened to NPR’s Talk of the Nation last Wednesday already knew that she has seriously gone off the rails.  If you want to listen to it, and I promise you it will hurt, it’s towards the end of the show.  Even the host, the usually unflappable Neal Conan, had no idea what do with her.


Why Clinton Keeps Talking About Obama As VP

I was going to write this later today, but the Trailhead did it for me.  Why Clinton keeps talking about Obama as the Vice President, even though she’s losing the delegate count, the popular vote, and the state count:

Veep Shot

…Clinton knows she can’t win the pledged delegate count. (To learn why, see here.) So if she’s going to clinch the nomination, she will have to persuade superdelegates to vote for her—and overturn the pledged delegate outcome. Naturally, many superdelegates are uncomfortable with this scenario. But by floating the possibility of Obama as VP, she’s trying to ease their consciences…

In other news, Mike Huckabee says McCain would make a good Vice Presidential candidate under a Republican ticket headed by Huckabee.



It’s 3:00 AM, Do You Know Who Your Supporters Are?

Today’s edition of the RumpusGoopus weblog:  Copyright infringement!  Anyway, I link to the XX Factor so much that I highly doubt they’d ever complain:

Out of the mouths of “safe and asleep” babes!

“It’s 3 am… who do you want answering the phone?” — Barack Obama, thank you!

Thus, at least, saith Casey Knowles, the young girl who features in the opening segment of Hillary Clinton’s now-infamous “red phone” ad. The footage used in the ad is eight years old; Casey, a former child actor, is now seventeen and an active Obama supporter. (She served as a precinct captain for Obama in the Washington State caucuses.)

Whoops!  The Clinton campaign made much political hay this week over the gaffes of various Obama campaign advisors. Now they have a gafflet (?) of their own.

And how does Casey (who will be old enough to vote in November) feel about finding herself used in a Clinton campaign ad? “I think it would be really wonderful if me and Barack Obama could get together and make a nice counter ad,” she suggests.

Mmm hmm.

-Rosa Brooks

Oh, but you can’t help but be amused by this.  But hey, for good measure (from Chip Bok):