Clinton wins Ohio, Texas; McCain clinches Republican nod (Roundup)

The Media is in the Tank for ObamaMar 5th, 2008 - 19:47:00

Another Media Delusion Punctured
John Podhoretz - 03.04.2008 - 19:22

Journalists love a good story, right? Just love one. Love the competition. Love a good race, especially in politics. Yes, there’s nothing like conflict — that’s the bread and butter of modern-day journalism. What media bias?

The last month disproves this fantasy. The relentless hunger of the mainstream media to run Hillary Clinton out of the race is palpable — even though there exists a real possibility of a battle that will continue all the way to the Democratic convention in August. What’s more, this battle is generating excitement and ratings, with MSNBC crowing about the 8 million plus viewers it got for last week’s Obama-Clinton debate. That’s ten to fifteen times its ordinary rating on a weekday night.

The great story would be — Hillary stays in. She’s tough. Obama feels the heat. Neither one of them has it nailed down. The superdelegates are up for grabs. It’s a fight for every last superdelegate.

But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, you will see, tomorrow and for the rest of the week, no matter what happens tonight, a constant drumbeat that Hillary must drop out. Politicians will be sought to deliver this message. Talking heads will talk themselves hoarse on MSNBC and others. Op-eds will be drafted on the nobility Hillary will show by giving way to Obama. And so on.

The night Obama slaughtered Hillary in Iowa, and delivered that brilliant stemwinder, media liberal hearts were lost to him forever. They want her gone because they want him. Oh, how they want him. And how they will fight, fiercely, the notion that it will be good for them that there be a hot race between Obama and John McCain. They won’t want that race. They want a coronation.

Report this comment

SP4: PerhapsMar 5th, 2008 - 21:03:20

...I just think the press wants a democrat. This is why McCain drives them nuts: He's not all that Republican...

Report this comment

The media decides who is going to be presidentMar 5th, 2008 - 21:44:26

Less than a month ago, our esteemed host noted the manner in which the establishment media serves as potential kingmakers, while operating under the cover of “objectivity.” New studies now quantify the phenomenon.

The latest report (.pdf) from the Center for Media and Public Affairs from December 16, 2007 through February 19, 2008, found:

Since mid-December, five out of six on-air evaluations of Senator Obama (84%) have been positive, while Senator Clinton’s coverage has been about evenly balanced (53% positive). Since Super Tuesday, however, Obama’s proportion of good press has dropped to 67%, his worst performance during any phase of the campaign, while Clinton’s coverage remained balanced (50% positive). For example, from the South Carolina primary (Jan 26) to Super Tuesday, a remarkable 96% of comments about Obama were positive.

Obviously, not all of that is attributable to a pro-Obama bias. For example, positive coverage after Obama’s win in South Carolina is to be expected. However, 96% positive coverage is a level probably not seen since Pres. Bush in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Moreover, there may well be a feedback loop that develops — glowing coverage boosts Obama in the polls, resulting in positive horse race coverage, etc. Furthermore, a net-by-net break down of the coverage is revealing:

Senator Obama has received 90% positive evaluations on both ABC and CBS, along with 73% positive comments on NBC. Senator Clinton’s coverage has varied more across the networks, ranging from 68% favorable comments on ABC to only 38% favorable on NBC, along with 50% favorable comments on CBS. Thus, the spread between the two candidates is greatest on CBS – a forty percentage point difference in proportion of good press.

The fact neither Obama nor Clinton gets a roughly similar level of positive coverage across networks demonstrates the subjectivity in the reportorial and editorial judgments made with regard to each candidate. The best example of this is the thirty-point gap in positive coverage of Clinton between ABC and NBC.

Since Super Tuesday, Obama’s positive coverage has dropped to 67% — but that is still higher than Clinton’s 50% positive coverage. Moreover, during this period, “98% of comments about Sen. Obama’s prospects for winning the Democratic nomination have been optimistic, compared to only 53% optimistic comments on Sen. Clinton’s prospects.”

On the other side of the aisle, John McCain got 97% positive coverage before the New Hampshire primary, but 30% positive coverage since.

Report this comment

Good for Hillary Clinton, good for DemsMar 5th, 2008 - 21:52:09

Wednesday, March 5th 2008, 2:47 AM

Barack Obama speaks to supporters gathered for a postprimary rally in San Antonio, Tex., Tuesday. Hillary Clinton took the state in a close race.

The red phone rang and Hillary Clinton was there to answer it. Yes she can!

Yes, she can keep going. Yes, she can win.

Clinton has not only earned the right to keep fighting for the nomination. She has a duty to. Cracks are showing in Barack Obama's campaign and he looks mortal and, dare I say it, almost ordinary. He picked a lousy time to get off his game.

Clinton can take much of the credit. Her ringing phone ad about her experience in a time of crisis was a gamble, but it paid off. Say the word telephone and the ad comes to mind. That's a smashing political success.

So, too, was her hammering on Obama's consistency and her complaints he had escaped media scrutiny. Those themes came together Sunday and Monday and helped save her dream. He may still have the hope, but she got the votes.

She finally found a formula that worked. She would be a fool to do anything else from now on.

She had two goals yesterday and achieved them both. She had to stop Obama's string of 12 popular vote victories and she did that with double-digit bangs in Ohio and Rhode Island.

She also had to cut into his delegate lead, which she did. One estimate had her picking up a net gain of perhaps 20 or more. When the close Texas count finishes, he will probably have a reduced lead of fewer than 100. With more than 900 delegates still uncommitted, her climb is not nearly as steep as it was.

Unless she won something last night, she had no argument for going forward. Now no one can reasonably say she shouldn't.

The fight is good for the party. If Obama can't knock her out, he shouldn't be the nominee.

I said two days ago that Obama was facing his third chance to do that. Twice before he failed - in New Hampshire and on Super Tuesday. Yesterday makes three failures and that could mean three strikes against him. Voters are increasingly unwilling to commit to him.

The finding by exit polls, for example, that late deciders in Texas and Ohio went heavily for Clinton is revealing.

Monday was one of the worst days on the trail for him, with a tainted contributor starting a corruption trial in Chicago, and the emergence of evidence that his campaign repeatedly lied about what an aide told Canadian officials on his trade policies.

Obama's effort to explain away those issues turned into a debacle, with him finally giving up at a press conference and walking away from shouted questions. He looked like an ordinary pol on the hot seat instead of the party savior who strides the stage in front of thousands of adoring Obamamaniacs.

The scene was striking. There's blood in the water now and it's all his. It won't be the last time.

Report this comment

ShellyMar 5th, 2008 - 22:56:07

By my calculations they have each received a little over 13 million votes and are in a tie for now, if you only count actual votes from actual voters.

Report this comment