Hillary’s Voice

McCain Gets Least Coverage But Best Media Narrative (Project for Excellence in Journalism)
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama attracted more attention from the press than John McCain last week. But the two Democrats were often engaged in serious damage control while the GOP’s candidate was basking in some pretty positive coverage.

THEIR MASTER’S VOICE: (by Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler)
Good grief! In the midst of his standard snark, Dana Milbank gives us a portrait [Tuesday] of the press corps in its full glory. [Monday], Candidates McCain and Obama addressed the annual meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. In this passage, Milbank describes what happened just before McCain spoke: “MILBANK (4/15/08): McCain’s moderators, the AP’s Ron Fournier and Liz Sidoti, greeted McCain with a box of Dunkin’ Donuts. ‘We spend quite a bit of time with you on the back of the Straight Talk Express asking you questions, and what we’ve decided to do today was invite everyone else along on the ride,’ Sidoti explained. ‘We even brought you your favorite treat.’”
Just before George Bush took office in 2001, some major news outlet ran a story about how great it was that the White House press corps would be made up of people who had been on the campaign trail with him, because they were friends with Bush and he had pet nicknames for them.  I wrote at the time that it was a reason to fire them all.  Some of them have yet to wake up from their stupor.

The Bloom Is Off The Rose (by Steve Soto at The Left Coaster)
[B]oth Obama and McCain went before the nation’s newspaper editors [Monday] at an event hosted by the Associated Press. While McCain was treated to the usual lovefest by the allegedly objective and not-in-the-tank Fourth Estate, Obama got a chillier and inquisitorial reception several hours later. Yes, it was just several months ago that Clinton supporters like me at the time whined about Obama’s kindly treatment from these same media, while we also suspected that the media would eventually turn their knives against him. Don’t blame Hillary for this, because the media was always going to choose their crush McCain, regardless of whether or not Clinton ran a demolition derby against Obama. What this demonstrates is that Democrats have little room for error in a race against the media’s darling.
But there’s a serious problem here.  Obama supporters who refused to stand up against the attacks on Hillary Clinton will have no standing whatsoever to complain about the medias differential treatment of McCain and Obama.  They will have no credibility at all.

Faux News Reporting (by Jeralyn at TalkLeft)
I caught the intro to Countdown with Keith Olbermann announcing that Obama’s ahead in Indiana and Hillary’s lead is gone in PA. I changed the channel. Is it too much to ask that cable news and talk show hosts like Olbermann at least fairly report the news before they put their spin on it? How could he not mention the multiple dueling polls? Starting yesterday, Big Tent Democrat and I catalogued every poll (other than daily trackers) in the states yet to vote regardless of results… We didn’t cherry pick and report only those we agree with or that favor one candidate or the other.
Examples:
The LA Times/Bloomberg Poll on PA, Indiana and NC (Hillary by 5, Obama by 5, Obama by 13 respectively)
Survey USA: KY (Clinton up by 36)
Survey USA PA: Clinton Up By 14
Quinnipiac and Rasmussen PA: Clinton Up By 6 and 9, respectively.
Survey USA Indiana: Clinton up by 16
Public Policy Polling NC: Obama Up by 18.
Rasmussen on Bitter-Gate: 56% Disagree With Obama’s Remarks
Susquehanna Univ. PA: (pre Bittergate): Clinton up by 3.
American Research Group PA: Clinton Up by 20
That a cable news network can’t do the same — even on an opinionated news/talk show — is pathetic.

There Goes Florida (by Taylor Marsh)
McCain takes out Obama in a general election Florida match up. “The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida shows McCain attracting 53% of the vote while Obama earns 38%.” Oh, and speaking of Florida, you know that rumor about Al Gore allegedly pairing with Jimmy Carter to resolve the primary fight? Pure rubbish. I heard it from Gore’s communication’s director Kalee D. Kreider today via email….As for Clinton v. McCain in Florida, it’s a toss-up: “If McCain is matched against Hillary Clinton, the race is a toss-up—Clinton 45% McCain 44%.” Lord knows what other swing states we’ll lose once the 527s get involved. Combine Wright and Bitter-gate, and you’ve got quite a gift. [Emphasis added.]

50, No 48, No 47 . . . State Strategy? (by Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft)
Got to have a little fun with our friends at daily kos who now tell us some states do not actually matter: “There’s never been any reason to expect Obama to do well in Appalachia, so even if Clinton hangs around through Kentucky, a big win there won’t mean much either in delegates gained or in creating a perception of momentum.”… For the record, I do not think any Dem has a chance in Kentucky or MS, GA, AL, AZ, TX, ID, UT, WY, ND, etc. But I do find it rich that the Big Orange now tells us it is ok to say some states do not matter.

Woe Is He (by John B. Judis, The New Republic)
To win in November, a Democratic presidential candidate has to carry most of the industrial heartland states that stretch from Pennsylvania to Missouri. That becomes even more imperative if a Democrat can’t carry Florida–and because of his relative weakness in South Florida, Obama is unlikely to do so against McCain. Ruy Teixeira and I have calculated that in the heartland states, a Democratic presidential candidate has to win from 45 to 48 percent of the white working class vote. In some states, like West Virginia and Kentucky, the percentage is well over a majority.

The Democratic Debacle of 2008 (by John: south of Melrose at Liberal Rapture)
An ongoing fascination I have with the Snob-gate story is the ongoing cluelessness of the Obamites. None of them seem to understand why Obama’s remarks in San Francisco are so offensive to so many people. They truly don’t get it: including the man himself. Obama did not say he was wrong, merely that he did not say it very well. What he said was, in essence, Marxist. The masses are stupid but needed. If they were not stupid they would not use guns and religion as an opiate. Obama has yet to refute this sentiment. His supporters are befuddled that everyone can’t see the inherent wisdom of Saint Obama’s remarks.

A Living Lie (by Thomas Sowell at Real Clear Politics)
Obama’s election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed. There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation — nor any other significant legislation, for that matter. Senator Obama is all talk — glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.
That National Journal analysis is flawed, I believe.  Obama’s voting record isn’t much different from Clinton’s—or Joe Lieberman’s, for that matter.

Tavis Smiley Seeks Relief from Crazed Obamites (by Glen Ford at the Black Agenda Report)
Tavis Smiley never wanted to pick a fight with Barack Obama. In point of fact, it is not in the media entrepreneur’s nature to pick fights with persons of power or popularity. But Obama’s zealots do not accept anything less than abject, unqualified loyalty to their leader, whom they treat more as a messiah than a Chicago politician with close ties to Wall Street. Smiley suddenly found himself branded as “a hater, sellout and traitor” for questioning Obama’s failure to appear on Smiley’s “State of the Black Union” event. Finally, as syndicated radio host Tom Joyner put it, Smiley ended his 12-year association with Joyner’s show because of “the hate he’s been getting” from Joyner’s audience. If they’ll run Tavis Smiley out of Black radio, these are fanatics, indeed.

From a media professor (a real professor) who is on my mailing list, via email:
Carolyn, I have been impressed with how well you have restrained yourself in your criticism of Obama. I suspect your desire to have a Democrat win is trumping your anger at the treatment Hillary is getting from the media. I sort of like politics as a blood sport. I am looking for a website that supports Clinton and attacks Obama will complete gusto, even if it means Obama could not get elected dogcatcher. Can you recommend any?
Harty har har, professor.  But can it really be your position that Democrats voting in a primary should not have all the information possible about a candidate who is being sold to them in the same way as a get-rich-quick scheme?  That they should be surprised, and only know the downside about him when it’s brought out against him in the general election, AFTER he becomes the nominee?  Barack Obama has been a huge disappointment to me as my senator, and he would be a huge disappointment to all but the most ardent supporters if he is the Democratic nominee, and even if he manages to become president, which I doubt he can do.  So am I supposed to stand by and let Democrats lose this election in November, just because a lot of people have allowed themselves to be fooled by Obama’s PR campaign?

Paul Lukasiak, responding to a comment on a post of his at Firedoglake (thanks to Marsha at the HillarysVoice message group):

Commenter: I agree that Clinton’s negative image was built on a myth UNTIL she started sounding like a Repub, trashing Obama and seems to be going for a scorched policy - that she is going to take Obama out and damn the consequences. I was an Edwards backer because I liked his policies. When he dropped out, I decided that I would probably support Clinton. Now, however, I cannot.

Lukasiak: Is it a timing thing? Because all the Democrats, including Obama, did whatever they could to “scorch earth” Hillary’s chances starting in September. I don’t know if people just forget about it, or don’t think it matters, but Hillary Clinton was running a relentlessly positive, issue oriented campaign through las[t] September — in fact all the candidates were up until that point. But no one was getting any real traction — Hillary’s numbers went up all summer, and Obama’s went down, Edwards couldn’t get media and laguished in third place, and there were another half -dozen “WHO?” candidates.

Running positive against Clinton wasn’t working, so everyone, including Obama (except for Richardson) went negative on her — attacking her relentlessly to drive up her negatives so they would have a shot.

So is it just the timing? Or have people forgotten about that.

And, when it comes to “scorched earth” campaign tactics, nothing beats the “swift-boating” of the Clinton[s] on the race issue in South Carolina by the Obama campaign and its supporters. And it was “swift-boating”, it was a big fat lie that Clinton was running a racist campaign, and the accusation made no sense; given the demographics of South Carolina, why would Clinton choose to start running racist then?

so again, I ask, have people just forgotten how we got where we are, or is it a question of timing? Is it okay to pull sh*t early in a primary season, but not later because of the potential impact it will have on the general election?

New Obama ad in PA features jeers at Clinton (On Politics, USA Today)
Democrat Barack Obama has seized on some jeering of rival Hillary Clinton yesterday to create a new TV ad starting today in Pennsylvania. It’s a response to what his campaign calls a Clinton attack ad, and reflects a return to his core message of “getting past the politics of division and distraction” to get things done.
Obama has been jeering at Clinton since he announced his presidential candidacy.

Signs of Bush Tactics & Hypocrisy in Another Obama Campaign Email (by D. Cupples at No Quarter)
In March, I objected to a fund-raising email (signed by Barack Obama), which claimed that Hillary Clinton was attacking Obama’s supporters.  The implication: she’s coming after you, personally, the way Darth Vader went after Luke.  Fostering a bellicose, with-us-or-against-us mentality worked for President Bush after 9/11, and Obama’s use of that tactic is as factually questionable as it is divisive. Yesterday, I found another Obama campaign email (signed by David Plouffe), a double whammy that includes: 1) a similar line about Hillary’s so-called “attacks” on Obama’s supporters; and 2) the oft-repeated — and highly hypocritical — message that Hillary and McCain have taken special-interest money, while Obama hasn’t.
As MakeThemAccountable readers know, Obama does take donations from friends and family of special interests.

The Feminist Reawakening (by Amanda Fortini, New York Magazine)
Not so long ago, it was poss?ble for women, particularly young women, to share in the popular illusion that we were living in a postfeminist moment… Then Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy… It was hardly a revelation to learn that sexism lived in the minds and hearts of right-wing crackpots and Internet nut-jobs, but it was something of a surprise to discover it flourished among members of the news media… Many women, whatever their particular feelings about Hillary Clinton (love her, loathe her, voting for her regardless), began to feel a general sense of unease at what they were witnessing. The mask had been pulled off—or, perhaps more apt, the makeup wiped off—and the old gender wounds and scars and blemishes, rather than having healed in the past three decades, had, to the surprise of many of us, been festering all along.
And the very worst part was to learn how much sexism exists in the so-called progressive media.  Click through to read more of this long but quite illuminating article.  In some of the message groups I belong to, we’re talking about starting a new feminist movement.  That’s how serious this ridiculous situation is.

McCain Proposes Special Summer Tax Break for Exxon (by Dean Baker)
That is what the headlines on Senator McCain’s proposal to remove the gas tax for the summer driving season should have read, since that would be the predicted effect of his plan… According to the oil industry, they have their refineries running flat out, producing all the gas they can. This means that the price is determined on the demand side. We have a fixed amount of gas entering the market, the question is simply what price clears the market. In this context, if we reduce or eliminate the gas tax, the price doesn’t change, the lower tax will simply allow Exxon and other oil companies to keep more profits (unless of course they were lying about running their refineries at capacity). Since most people do not have much familiarity with economics, the media should be informing the public about the impact of Senator McCain’s proposal.

Fox News anchor’s son asks why Hillary is ‘hitting the sauce.’ (Think Progress)
During MSNBC’s Hardball today on the campus of Villanova University, a questioner asked John McCain why Hillary Clinton recently took a shot of whiskey. Asking a slanted question worthy of Fox News, the student said, “Do you think she’s finally resorted to hitting the sauce just because of some unfavorable polling?”… Politico’s Jonathan Martin reports that the questioner was Peter Doocy, the son of Fox & Friends anchor Steve Doocy. Martin writes, “Peter Doocy…is a junior here and a spitting image of his father.” Spitting image in more ways than one it seems.
Click through to watch the video.

Lots more really good stuff at MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com