Media coverage for what its worth. (Say thanks HRC)
Many times the question has been asked.
If Obama would have lost 12 straight contest in a row( including VT) would he still be relevant?
Absolutely not. It would've been over after the Patomac primaries.
So why you ask yourself is there a double standard in this regard.
The Mainstream press has a tough time letting the Clinton's go.
The story which sells the most papers, gets the most ratings, develops the most yahoo.com and google searches.
The Clintons.
It is absolutely amazing to me how this occurs but we forget one thing.
Ratings and sales are what truly matter in the "News world"
As
long as the Mainstream press can find a glimmer of hope for HRC to win
the nomination, they will try to milk that story for all its worth.
Is it fair?
Ofcourse not, but just look how Wolf Blitzer for example will cover an Obama win.
" What will Hillary do now that Obama has won the Chesapeake's primaries"?
Nothing about how Obama is doing. The story line begins with Clinton.
Watch out for it when you watch the news. (Well except for Olberman).
"HRC is down in the polls"
"HRC is crying"
"HRC WINS NH!!! OMG SHE'S BACK"
"HRC WINS NV (oh yeah, but Obama won the delegates)"
"WJC compares Obama to Jesse"
"HRC Loses the Patomac's what will she do now."
"HRC loses wisconsin, "her" core voters are shifting?"
"Oh poor HRC, "SNL- the media is being unfair to her... :( tear)"
"HRC IS BACK!!! WOO HOO!!!"
Give us a break MSNBC, CNN !
your news organizations, cover the news without making it or keeping it alive.
I apologize for this not being my regular writting format, but its emotion I'm trying to let out.




