Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
"...but you can never count out the Clintons"
Chances are excellent that Hillary Clinton will lose the Democratic nomination.
She faces near-insurmountable deficits in pledged delegates and the popular vote, and it is unlikely that the remaining superdelegates will break for her in such a way as to swing things in her favor.
A not insignificant industry has arisen since the late 1990s seeking to lay blame at the feet of the media for the various "scandals" the Clintons have faced and the failures they have endured. In many ways the media <i>were</i> to blame -- the most egregious example being the Whitewater sham.
However, it will be difficult to pin the blame on the media this time around, despite the Clinton campaign's vocal objections that they were going easy on Sen. Obama. The reason you can't blame the media for this one boils down to one phrase, written in newspapers and uttered on cable news several times during the month of February:
"...but you can never count out the Clintons."
This phrase was often attached to the end of the latest report on how Obama was continuing his winning streak and racking up more and more delegates.
For example, on February 20, CNN's Jessica Yellin filed a long report on how Obama had just cleaned Hillary's clock for the nth time that month, and seriously eroded her usually reliable constituencies in Wisconsin. At the very end:"I mean, look, she's a Clinton, so you never count her out. And she is a fighter and things can turn around."
For a long time we've heard about the media's war on the Clintons and the "Clinton rules." Now we see the media lending Clinton's doomed campaign what could be seen as undue credence -- <i>because</i> she's a Clinton.
Now some will say: "But what about all that cleavage stuff?"
Yes, that was silly. But imagine if Barack Obama had endured 11 straight losses by huge margins in February. The media would have been giving him and Mike Huckabee the exact same treatment -- "he has no shot, but he's interesting, so let's humor him."
Is he any less of a "fighter" than Hillary Clinton? Any less tenacious? I don't know. But the fact of the matter remains that the media kept the Clinton campaign on life support throughout their disastrous month of February when they could have easily written her candidacy off.
There are many reasons why the Clinton campaign failed, but I don't think the media is one of them.
Comments (8)
"There are many reasons why the Clinton campaign failed, but I don't think the media is one of them."
You are right. The MSM is preventing HRC from dying.
March 14, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So true.
March 15, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
True the Clinton campaign has "failed," at least by the terms set by Bill Clinton in 1992 when he denounced candidates who resort to fear tactics in order to win. But as far as getting the nomination this year, Sen. Clinton not only has not failed, but it looks like she will prevail, following this disastrous business with Sen. Obama's pastor.
Of course, she CANNOT and WILL NOT win the election in the fall---but you can believe that the Clintons will alibi that it wasn't their fault. They are as bad as Bush at always blaming someone else when things go wrong.
As far as Hillary being a "fighter"---what a crock!
If Sen. Clinton had FOUGHT one-tenth as hard against the Bush-Cheney regime as she has against Sen. Obama, why she would have clinched the nomination easily long before now. She fights ONLY to advance her own personal ambitions---and then she fights without restraint or scruples.
March 15, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually he denounced people who resort to fear tactics still in 2004.
But everything changed on 9/11!
..Of 2005?
March 15, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason why she didn't fight Bush-Cheney is because she is backed by the same power elite behind Bush-Cheney. Time people stop deluding themselves about her. It took Lieberman a while to "come out", and Hillary will, when the GE is over.
March 15, 2008 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just know the Republicans are thrilled to pieces as the Democratic candidates shoot away at each other. I feel as if Karl Rove is directing HRC's campaign. Why are people taking this Wright controversy so seriously ? My god, just because you go to a church and one of the pastor's sermons disturbs some people does not necessarily mean that you buy into what the pastor says. I know I do not always agree w/ my church's stand on a woman's right to choose and its views on homosexuality ( I am an Orthodox Christian).
This candidate fighting and accusations are providing fodder for McCain for the general election. I support Obama, because I feel there is a real chance for change and he will carry a lot of national candidates on his coattails. The change is already happening on a grassroots level. I live in MN and we have already changed our legislature back to a blue majority. The district I live in used to a pretty reliable republican stronghold and now is 3 state reps out of four are democrats and it is looking very bad for the one repub rep. Our legislature overrode a major transportation bill veto, because the people of MN have finally woke up and realized what you get when the Republicans are in power. w hav started on a state level, what the rest of citizens can do on a national level. I have always attended the DFl caucuses and believe me its a pain in the ass to take the time to attend one of these events. I was overwhelmed at the turn out that our caucuses had all over the state. People are so hungry for change. I think Obama can lead the national vote to make that change. I look at Clinton's campaign, and I just see a train wreck about to happen. These surrogates sent out to attack Obama i.e. Ferrraro, the Canadian NAFTA remarks are weakening our party base and we will fail to make the changes necessary to get a solid majority in Congress if she is the candidate. I have a strong fear that if Obama gets the nomination if these attacks continue his candidacy will be weakened. When Bill was in office, I feel he was a failure in leading the party and that is why we lost in congressional elections and gave the Republicans the solid power base, so people like De Lay and Cheney could run amuck and pillage the government. Hillary's past record is tepid, always middle of the road, looking for the safest avenue. I will always hold in the highest esteem the late Sen Paul Wellstone, who in an
election year opposed the war. I will never forgive Hillary for voting for the war. I have a great fear that if Hillary is nominated our party will be severely damaged by a sense of disillusion and distrust, especially by younger voters. These are the thoughts of a 51 yr. middle class, married suburban mom in the midwest. One side note, about MI and FL, I remember going to my son's sports activities a few years ago and I remember if you do not play by the rules there are no do-overs.
March 15, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is not getting my vote. I am not impressed at all.
March 15, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
To repeat what I’ve already said in previous comment threads, the MSM has successfully kept Hillary’s terminally moribund campaign on life support on behalf of the Republicans who would clearly prefer for her to become the nominee. Thank you, corporate media, for giving us Hillary Rodham Schiavo. Somebody needs to be sure to get some good video of her reaction to the convention balloon drop so we can send it off to Bill Frist for his diagnostic evaluation.
March 15, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment