Skip to main content

Multiple diaries and articles have been written about the fact that the media refuses to ask why Clinton cannot win Obama voters. I must say that I view these diaries with some skepticism. We all know the reason that the tm will not ask Clinton those questions. The answer is that once they ask questions like that it becomes obvious that the Clinton candidacy is really over. The media, as Chris Mathews pointed out the other night, is holding up the Clinton campaign and the idea that she still has a legitimate shot to win.

The hesitance of the media to delve into real questions is not limited to the Clinton campaign itself. It has been said several times, sparingly on pundit shows, that the issue based campaign ended long ago. It ended at the time that Clinton really lost a legitimate shot at winning. That time is right after the Potomac and Wisconsin primaries. After that point it became a series of he said she said distractions.

Think about the constructed dynamic of the race. Clinton is the establishment candidate. The accepted and bloviated wisdom is that the insurgent must fully knock out the established candidate to win. The established candidate is the default candidate. The media has perpetuated this idea of the knock out blow that forces Clinton to leave. That is why you hear the, "why can’t he close?" questions. However, the real knockout blow was the blowout wins long ago. The media chose not to recognize this and insisted that Clinton could turn it around in Ohio and Texas and later Pennsylvania. The over allowed the spin and over extended the process.

The way things have been set up if the media begins to ask those tough questions the Clinton campaign is over. There is just not a legitimate way for her to win. Therefore, the focus must remain on Obama. The media continues for two reasons then, they make more money this way and they save the real embarrassment of people finding out they do not know what they are doing. The media often talks about Obama being gracious and leaving an opening for Hillary to leave with grace. What they do not say is that that they need Clinton to use that opening to keep what credibility they have left.

How will it look when Obama is declared the nominee and people look at the race and notice that nothing really changed after Wisconsin? That is the current scenario. The media is aghast at the idea that Obama can just run out the clock. That simple and safe plan defies the constructed knock out narrative. Even though they recognize that Clinton will not catch up in delegates they need to keep the race going for their own benefit. it it too late for them to completely reverse the narrative of the campaign to one that reflects reality. All they can do is hope that something bails them out.

Most of the media people are fairly intelligent. They know Clinton cannot win. That is why they are so shocked when polls come showing that her supporters still think she can win. They do not buy their own hype, yet they are surprised that others do? It is almost like they do it just to pay the mortgage. Go on T.V. or write a column that you do not really believe because that is your job.

So there will be no questions to the Clinton campaign about there incredibly shoddy logic and vanished rationale. Those types of questions bring the Clinton house of cards down. The media just cannot have that, sorry. They have too much money and too much credibility riding on the continued process. I trust Rachel Maddow when she says that the media could still write on issues if they wanted to. They don’t and they won't.

Originally posted to Liberal Youth on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:33 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I know its late but.. (7+ / 0-)

    i just felt like writing something.

    Colin: Its symbolic of our struggle against oppression! Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

    by Liberal Youth on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:34:07 AM PDT

    •  here ya ... i just posted a silly diary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soms

      with links to local media on obama .. it has been such a frustrating infuriating media week. But, you know, I don't agree with Maddow that 'reporters' actually do have the freedom to write/report on real issues. Not anymore. Maybe Maddow is given some license right now but that is only because they want to generate some following by progressives so they can just ultimately fuck with us ...

      •  i think that the idea (0+ / 0-)

        still holds that it is a conscious decision not to write on topics of substance. the convergence of money and power maintenance are still essential in that decision. where the ultimate decision is made? you are right that it is up in the air.

        Colin: Its symbolic of our struggle against oppression! Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

        by Liberal Youth on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:51:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And you are right. eom (0+ / 0-)

      "In the unlikely story that is America, there's never been anything false about hope." Barack Obama for President

      by Chi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:59:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Clinton is waiting for Gore's endorsement... (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary's last stand is to hope for Al Gore's endorsement, that's why she's still in the race.  She's hoping that Gore endorses her and she surges in the polls once again.  

  •  Don't think so, (0+ / 0-)

    After the way she's been trashing him and Kerry, she's in for a long wait.

    The problem with Us vs. Them...there IS no Them.

    by Maori on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:50:46 AM PDT

  •  I don't really have a crush on Gore. (0+ / 0-)

    What is the deal with everyone swooning over him. I won't deny he is a pretty good guy, but I could care less who he might endorse.

    •  i suspect that that is the general feeling (0+ / 0-)

      among most people. People are not going to vote for someone just because al gore tells them to.

      Colin: Its symbolic of our struggle against oppression! Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

      by Liberal Youth on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:08:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  let me count the ways (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NeuvoLiberal

      I don't really have a crush on Gore. What is the deal with everyone swooning over him.

      The Nobel committee might take issue with your characterization that they "swooned" over Gore. But let me try to enumerate a few of the many reasons people respect and admire Gore.

      He's tremendously intelligent and farsighted, having been way ahead of the curve on the environment and the Internet, in particular, though he also did work on other difficult scientific and technological issues like arms control and genetic engineering.

      Indeed he is so farsighted that the politicians of today have not yet caught up to the radical environmental vision he expressed in Earth in the Balance, sixteen years ago, in which he predicted the end of the internal combustion engine and called for a Global Marshall Plan, a multinational, multi-decade, multi-billion-dollar effort for sustainable economic and agricultural development, education of those in poorer countries, controlling overpopulation, and reversing environmental devastation.

      He has a profound understanding of and feeling for the American system, for the idea that people are capable of enlightened self-governance, that this is a republic of laws and not of men. He is almost the last politician to speak of the separation of powers, to urge that Congress stand up to the executive as a coequal branch of government, and to insist on the primacy of the Constitution as the law of the land.

      There is also the strong feeling that he was the rightfully elected president in 2000. The people chose Gore and rejected George W. Bush, both in the popular vote and the electoral college; but the Supreme Court took the illegal and unprecedented step of intervening in an ongoing election to throw the election to Bush.

      He is also entirely gracious. In his criticisms of the Bush administration, he has never once been merely partisan, but urged us to consider the deeper reasons why our system of government has failed us so badly. He doesn't try to divide us, but to emphasize that we are all in this together.

      He is honest; he never panders or dumbs anything down, but explains simply and clearly what's on his mind. He talks as an adult to adults, unlike nearly all contemporary politicians.

      And he is courageous, because most defeated presidential candidates just settle into a quiet retirement; but Gore, after being so profoundly burned by the Supreme Court decision and public vitriol, threw himself back into his lifelong fight for a cause that concerns all of us on this planet.

      And he's got a wickedly dry sense of humor, making cracks about playing a streetwise pimp on Futurama and parodying himself on SNL, long before it was cool for politicians to come on the show.

      No doubt there are many other reasons; these are just the few that I could come up with on short notice. I invite others to chime in with what they like about Gore, but I hope my humble list has done at least a little bit to enlighten you as to why people regard Gore with such great affection and esteem.

  •  Silly Human Being Imagining You're a Citizen (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, Spekkio

    Obama is the most people-powered candidate.

    Therfore Obama must be destroyed for all time.

    Then it'll be McCain vs. Dangerously Inexperienced Clinton.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:32:47 AM PDT

  •  It's not a question of why she can't (0+ / 0-)

    win them. It's a question of why she lost them, and continues to in increasing numbers.

    -6.00, -7.03
    Obama '08

    by johnsonwax on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:35:29 AM PDT

    •  the larger point is that the question (0+ / 0-)

      is no longer even relevant. she lost any tough questions, about winning voters or losing them is not going to be good for her.

      Colin: Its symbolic of our struggle against oppression! Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

      by Liberal Youth on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:57:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  She can't win? But can he? (0+ / 0-)

    As I see it Obama can't receive a majority of delegates either. Of course, I could be wrong. But I've looked at several predicted results of this race and don't understand how either of them can get a majority. I voted for Obama and hope that he does get the nod but this seems headed for the convention without a clear winner. I don't quite understand why anyone thinks the Clintons should drop out when Obama can't get a majority of delegates. So, we have a convention where the delegates will have to decide this issue and if it gets by the first ballot then they may pick anyone not just the Clintons or Obama. I really wanted this over after PA but those folks didn't support my wishes. So, I'm looking forward to seeing one helluva convention. Actually, I think it will help the party and the transparency may convince more Americans to vote for the Democrat in Nov.

    •  Let me try to explain (0+ / 0-)

      Both can win, and both can get the majority. Simply the path for Clinton is far more steep than for Obama. Based on current projections, Obama needs 43 additional superdelegates to deny Clinton the nomination whereas Clinton needs 173 (the details of the analysis are here, if you are interested).

      It is far more likely that Obama reaches this number than that Clinton does. Essentially Clinton would need four supers every time that Obama gets one.

      And there's only 235 uncommitted superdelegates uncommitted superdelegates (I'm not counting the add-ons here).

      How does it look to you?

      An' when they was no meat we ate fowl. An'when they was no fowl we ate crawdad. An' when they was no crawdad to be foun', we ate San'. -- Moses

      by Fairy Tale on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:07:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is a Myth.. (0+ / 0-)

      that is perpetrated by the Republicans -- that this long projacted fight is somehow "good" for the Party!  That belies commonsense. How anyone can buy into this nonsence shows you just how many unthinking people there truly are, who are willing to beleive any lie if it is told long enough, numerous times by several surrogates, that somehow it must be true.  People have to wakeup, speak out and let them know they can no longer brain wash the thinking American public!

  •  Media Owned By Republicans-Have Their Own Agenda! (0+ / 0-)

    Most of the corporate media, cable news, ABC, NBC are owned and Republican controled.  They tell us what they want us to Hear, not what we need to Know to truly inform us as a society, which will give us power and aid in their demise!  

    They know Clintons have ailenated African-Americans so they are now actively courting their support while trying to elevate Hillary and deflate Barack. They MSM are not asking Hillary any of the pertinent questions, not on Iran, not on Mark Penn, although he is still on conference calls to this day, not on a pending lawsuit in California or anything elese that might damage her candidacy in the eyes of the people.  There is even some talk of personal dalliances of Bill Cllinton which they know about and plan to release if she is nominee.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site