In what I thought initially as a desperate move, Hillary Clinton's campaign called out the media.  Clearly, according to her advisors who trained at Baghdad Bob's School of Spin, the media is out to get her.  They are the ones who have given Obama a free ride, while she gets put under the heating lamp.  

While the truth of this is arguable (although I believe the media has given Obama less criticism), one cannot deny that Clinton's campaign has never done a good job with its dealings with the media.  Obama has done a better job, which may explain why the media has given him the benefit of the doubt.  And the question of her timing on this issue has been scrutinized and, largely, questioned.


Surprisingly, I think she's on to something.  She wants what the media want - continuing coverage of her vs. Obama.  She does not want Obama vs McCain.  Her accusations against the media will not help her cause, necessarily, but it will turn the light onto Obama.  This keeps her in the news, and gives her free press.  Tactically, then, she may have scored a win by forcing the media to look more carefully at Obama.


The media, in my opinion, does not mind this at all.  They would love to continue the Hillary vs. Barack struggle.  It ups their ratings, keeps viewership high, and, accordingly, increases their ad revenue.  More Obama shots in African garb and more Clinton rage.  More pundits telling us that Obama is an empty suit, and more analysts telling us that Clinton is losing it. 


How do I know this?  Well, of course, I'm just a normal person - I don't where the pundit badge, nor am I a well read blogger - I'm just giving you my opinion.  But here's my observations on why the media wants it this way.


1.  Note that after the Wisconsin primaries, almost all the pundits and analysts were saying that Hillary need to win big (20+points) to stay in the race.  Now, the net is flooded with articles saying that she just needs to win Ohio and barely eek out the Texas popular vote.   Nothing has told us that she's gotten momentum to explain this line of thinking, but yet its taking hold.  Why would they say that?  They want us to believe that the race is still compelling, even if Hillary doesn't gain much in delegates - that somehow, winning one big state is enough for us to think Clinton could come back.


2.  The increasing attacks on Barack on his character.  Everyone knows their issues - we've had 20 debates and it all ends in a draw.  But now, we've had more and more time devoted to his African ancestry, his middle name, his boring debate style, his cultish behavior, his terrorists ties, etc.  The media has done a good job of framing it in a pro-Obama bent - by brining it up to somewhat criticize it.  Exposure to it either way.  


3.  Decreasing coverage of his stump speeches.  We've focused now on craziness and press conferences.  This plays to Hillary's strength of course, and neutralizes Obama's greatest strength. 


Now,  I have no proof for my thoughts.  I'm just thinking out loud.  But, its interesting to think about, isn't it?  Are we just falling into the hands of the media?  I'm no Clinton supporter, but she may have something here - is the media that influential, that they could partially be responsible for her downfall and, now, Obama's lighter ascent (its not accelerating as fast as it was right after WI)?  


Ultimately, I think the timing is horrible.  It ends up benefitting McCain more than her - and that's a problem.  If the democrats want the White House back, they need to unify and help each other win it back.  Hillary clearly isn't looking at it this way - she just wants to get back to the ultimate House in this country.  But in doing so, she and the media is now making the DNC's chances worse. Just look at the new LA Times/Bloomberg poll for proof.  Scary poll... isn't it.