« Obama and Rezko: Is there a Syrian and Islamic Connection? | Main | Larry Sinclair Sues Obama and is Offered $100K to Take Polygraph »

Media Driving a Stake Through Clinton

Mark my words, she'll take it all the way to the convention floor, and put up a hell of a fight every step of the way.

I saw a news story the other day, and when they showed a clip of Obama on stage at political rally the crowd behind and around him was cheering wildly, and when they cut to Clinton in an equally large venue with a similar-sized crowd they chose a 3 second clip where Clinton was talking and the audience was listening intently. No cheering. No enthusiasm...

No bias there -- eh?

Like this photo and headline, and note how they've chosen a still that appears as if Mrs. Clinton is looking up in the air in despair, looking for help.

Odds are stacked against Hillary Clinton, say experts

alg_hillary.jpg

Here are the actual "odds" given by the experts, and note that they aren't "stacked against her," in fact - three of the "experts" have it within 5 points of even, better odds than the pollsters and "experts" were giving Clinton going into New Hampshire's primary.

  • Chris Lehane, Democratic consultant
  • "If you were trading political futures, she's a good bet. Blue-chip stocks are always a good deal in a down market."
  • Clinton's chance of winning the nomination: 50%
  • Larry Sabato, University of Virginia
  • "She's come from behind before -- first in New Hampshire, and again on Super Tuesday."
  • Chance for nomination: 47%
  • Rich Galen, Republican strategist
  • "They're not going to fold the tent. They've got the tools to work with."
  • Chance for nomination: 45%
  • Don Kettl, University of Pennsylvania
  • "The wheels really started falling off the Clinton campaign in South Carolina. On top of the leadership-change-experience issue, Bill Clinton's voice was dissonant."
  • Chance for nomination: 30%
  • Steffen Schmidt, Iowa State University
  • "If it is close in Texas and Ohio, Obama will have bragging rights and Clinton will fade quickly."
  • Chance for nomination: 29.9%

Meanwhile, Dan Ambrams at MSNBC fights a losing battle as he outs the media bias against Clinton, and the exchange exemplifies the problem [MSNBC Video 2/14/08]



Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3/5 (6 votes cast)


Comments (15)

Well Clinton who got all the votes in NY voting precincts, including Harlem, brought this on herself. she knows that 5 million can go a long way I guess

John S:

Massive vote fraud by the Clinton machine. I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!

Here in N.H., on primary night I discovered 300 people standing in line for same-day registration. Never seen these people in my community before, never seen them since. But because our newly installed Democrat legislature made it illegal to check these same-day voters for their Massachusetts driver's licenses, they were registered and their votes counted. Amazingly, the Clintons eked out a few thousand vote "victory" on a race they were supposed to lose big. Landslide Lyndon would be proud.

Lee Ward:

Clinton won in NH by 7,500 votes, and you're suggesting that well over 7,501 people crossed state lines to vote for Clinton, and not one word, not one single person, blew the whistle on this fraud?

Glad to see rawdawg is sharing the crack pipe with his conservative cohorts in the "I hate Hillary" club.

Steve Crickmore:

Chris Lehane, Democratic Consultant who gives Clinton's chance of winning the nomination: 50% would be better described as a former Clinton Consultant but active Clinton surrogate...First his history...He was the one who laid out the 'conspiracy commerce' memo which became the 'vast right wing conspiracy theory'..

In 1995, the White House counsel office produced a memo, "Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce," commissioned by Fabiani and written by Lehane Through the investigations, from Whitewater to Lewinsky, the mantra was sports-related: No free layups..Chris got it right away." said Fabiani (the former deputy mayor of Los Angeles to Tom Bradley).

Then in 2005, he said Three years ahead of the election she dominates the field and "is in the strongest position any non-incumbent presidential candidate has ever been in the modern history of the Democratic party"

Lehane is not working for the Clintons now but obviously must hope his loyalty and spin for them, will be reciprocated in the future.

blockquote>I think history is pretty clear that those folks who are loyal to the Clintons find the loyalty is really reciprocated -- and that is one of the reasons why so many people have stuck with them for so long,'' he said. "They really do respect and appreciate it when someone is loyal, and that manifests itself in many ways ... that is what good politicians do.'

And as we know from the awful campaign the Clintons have run, that they stress loyalty and partisanship "the old politics", over competence and judgement.

danny driesen:

Hi Lee.

The media does affect people's thinking.

However, has this guy gone off the deep end?
34 minute speech + ~ 13 minute q & a.
Please watch the whole thing:

[spam link to 47 minute off-topic video deleted - I watched the first ten minutes and found it had nothing to do with the media's coverage of the Democratic primary - sorry, Danny -- Lee]

Lee Ward:

Lehane was communications director on John Kerry's campaign, and was a campaign aide to Al Gore, but you point to a consulting job he did 12 years ago for Bill Clinton as some kind of nefarious link back to Clinton, and suggest he's a Clinton insider?

Steve, Steve, Steve - you're really reaching for that one.

I'm sure if I looked I could dig up some dirt on the consultants who gave Clinton low odds, but rather than stoop to attacking the messenger, feel free to comment on the message of this post, the media bias against Clinton.

You conveniently ducked the issue at hand in your glee to twist the knife in Clinton, Steve....

...exactly the same way the media leaps for the negative spin against Clinton, avoiding the issues, etc....

danny driesen:

The topic of the essay above feeds off of the assumption that the media can and does use it's power to sway people's thinking. I linked a video on You Tube. It is Evan Sayet's speech titled "How modern liberals think". Lee determined that it was off topic spam. I disagree. I think it is a relative tangent to this post. But Lee helps run the place here. Okay.

I really hope anyone open minded enough will take the time to find it and watch it. It successfully demonstrates just how very powerful and dangerous an agenda driven modern media is. The video is only thirty-four minutes followed by less than fifteen minutes of q & a.

The arguments presented in the speech, spoken by such an unlikely candidate, are very powerful.

Steve Crickmore:

Lee, I just checked out the one expert you cited, the one who gave a 50/ 50 chance for Clinton. That seemed very high to me at this moment. I was suspicious and sure enough the second link in my comment gave a stronger Clinton connection. He seems a fullly paid up Clinton apologist or will be. But as you suggest it would be hard to find a Democract consultant who has not worked for the Clintons or one who doesn't have strong views pro or even negative one, as the case with Dick Morris.

But your post is really about the media bias. I'm sure it is true. No argument with your argument. There is an underlying bias against Hillary and now Bill, as there is against Bush (not enough of one I say for Bush).. But I think in large measure Hillary has earned her bias with her aloof treatment of the press over the years, and her propensity to go way over the top by suggesting there is 'vast right wing conspiracy' or the like, whenever it seems she doesn't get her way. For example..

Breaking her silence on New York's failed bid to host the 2012 Olympics, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) today blamed a "vast Euro conspiracy" for awarding the prize to London.


"Obviously the committee was stacked with extremist judges," Clinton said when stopped by reporters on her way to the Senate cafeteria. "What we have here is a vicious partisan attack. The [International Olympic] Committee is practicing the politics of municipal destruction."

Seriously, I don't think we want someone like that for the head of any delegation, do you? but perhaps it is my incorrigible misogyny speaking.


Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Driesen wrote: "The arguments presented in the speech, spoken by such an unlikely candidate, are very powerful.

The arguments are nothing more than an anti-liberal Republican screed recorded at a Heritage Foundation event. The speaker has the opinion that liberals "really do hate America".

He starts with the opinion that "everything liberals do is wrong for America" and goes downhill from there.

I listened to the first ten minutes, Driesen, and the only mention of the media is the statement that liberals in Hollywood promote promiscuity with film, siding with "evil" -= but wait -- he then corrects himself with the statement that liberals aren't evil - they are just incredibly stupid.

Take your hateful message back to the right wing cesspools - it has no place here.

Election Study Finds Media Hit Hillary Hardest:

Press Release:

Election Study Finds Media Hit Hillary Hardest

Obama, Huckabee Fare Best;
FOX Is Most Balanced (not a typo)

TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University. The study also found that Fox NewsChannel's evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks.

For a PDF file of the complete press release, please click here

Contact Information

CMPA
2100 L Street, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20037

Phone: 202-223-2942

Fax: 202-872-4014

Email: [email protected]

CMPA, 2100 L Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037 | Phone: 202-223-2942 | Fax: 202-872-4014 | [email protected]

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Not sure where the pdf file referenced above is located, but I found this on the CMPA website.

What we need now is to find out how Karl Rove bought the Mainstream Meda lock, stock, and barrel.

Or did he just rent the media for a few months, and now that Obama is leading and running away the media will finally start vetting the Man of Steal?

danny driesen:

Lee said: "Take your hateful message back to the right wing cesspools - it has no place here."

I didn't post a hateful message. I posted a request to watch a speech. I said the speaker's arguments were powerful. It is relevant to the essay above. We agree that the modern media has and exercises power over people's thinking.

Some 'former liberal' called a group of people with like minded ideologies stupid.

I am still on the fence regarding his arguments supporting a collective agenda whose existence could only be explained (in his opinion, mind you) only by either evil or ignorance. The flip accusation that in a general way I was 'hateful' scores an easy one for his side regarding ignorance. I agree that that certain people can be blindly ignorant simply due to their political persuasion. We see it every day from Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats. A prime example of it can be found above. It speaks for itself when it says 'right wing cesspools' but accuses someone else of being 'hateful' in the same sentence!

Hateful is this 'Republican' stabbing his brother-in-law over politics: http://wfmz.com/view/?id=227902

Do you still really think my comment was hateful? If not, please apologize and choose a better word.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

You come on a left-leaning blog and link to an off-topic 45 minute screed that labels all liberals as stupid, and you ask for an apology because I referred to the right-wing blog sites that love and foster this kind of hateful talk as "cesspools"?

danny driesen:

Lee,

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I asked for an apology for inferring that I am hateful. Forget it.

I misunderstood what you said. I interpreted the comment as being directed toward me. I saw the word 'your' directly preceeding 'hateful message' and took it as a personal insult. You weren't referring to me, you were referring to the speaker.

I am not a right-wing person. I went on a tangent from your essay because it was interesting to me and wanted input from Wizbang Blue readers and editors.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

English is wonderful language, I hope to learn it someday.

Sorry for my contribution to the misunderstanding.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.