An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Here’s looking at you…

The Ancient Mariner Hugs the Albatross »

The Bottomline on Yesterday

Posted by PETE ABEL, Managing Editor in Politics.
Mar 5th, 2008 | Comments

Earlier this morning, TMV’s Shaun Mullen summarized his bottomline view on yesterday’s Democratic contests — offering a conclusion very similar to the one reached by Slate’s chief political correspondent, John Dickerson:

The larger point the Clinton aides will make to superdelegates and voters in the next big primary state of Pennsylvania is that the Texas and Ohio results reflect what happens when the two candidates are compared side by side. Obama can give speeches and draw crowds, but when it comes to matching him against a competitor, as the general election will demand, Obama can’t stand up to the comparison. Will any of the Clinton arguments work? We’ll see in the coming days if hundreds of superdelegates allow the primary process to continue without continuing to move toward Obama. Clinton is pleading for time, arguing that voters should be allowed to have their say in future contests. But even in this she comes up against a contradiction posted by Obama’s lead. Because she must rely on the superdelegates to beat back Obama’s likely lead in the popular vote and among pledged delegates, she is essentially asking those superdelegates to listen to the people—but only long enough to be persauded to vote for her. Then she expects them to undo the will of the people by voting against Obama in Denver. Clinton has rescued her campaign from free-fall, but the ride from here to the nomination is still going to be very bumpy.

  • I suspect the prevailing wisdom is that there is going to be a 7 week lull in which the press is going to dissect Barak Obama and make him answer tough questions that he has basically been given a free ride on.

    During the next 7 weeks the real Barak Obama will stand up and when the populace sees what he presents then we are going to see a Barak Obama Free fall.

    Quite simply Hillary and the press gave Obama a free ride I think that ride is over. Even the bloggers are starting to delve into who is this man who might actually be in the White House come next January. What they are seeing is a bit disturbing to say the least.
  • What do people make of the anecdotes out there about the Obama campaign's pickiness with its press and media contacts - that the campaign is too stingy with the press and media? True, false, spin?

    I've not had a problem when I've wanted access etc. through others but I've read accounts in the MSM of griping, by the MSM.
  • "What they are seeing is a bit disturbing to say the least."

    What is it that they are seeing?
  • mikkel
    I, for one, agree completely with Glenn Greenwald's take
    Here and here.

    In fact, I'll go as far as saying that when Clinton says that Obama hasn't been vetted like she has, that she doesn't necessarily mean she thinks he is corrupt, but just that the media won't have much in the way of new innuendo to target her.

    Jill I think the problem is that you are actually concerned with gathering real information. Personally, I've read a lot about Obama and he always seems willing to answer tough questions. The thing is, most media handling these days is not about what actually happens, but about sensationalism. Obama seems to have decided that whenever he feels like the press is looking more for a soundbite to use against him than information that he will then clam up.

    In fact, up to this point he seems to be taking a gamble. If he doesn't play into the machinations of the press then he might because of untrue perceptions, but if he does, then he'll always have to worry about that during a presidency. In the end, I hope he just answers people like you that are looking for real information and trusts the voters -- of course Kerry tried that and it didn't work out too well.
  • mikkel
    Oops..."If he doesn't play into the machinations of the press then he might lose because of untrue perceptions..."

    I really have to say I've been disgusted this campaign season with the media. They spent more time focusing on Hillary's "emotional outbursts" than her vision when she was ahead, breathlessly passed along Obama "rumors" when he was ahead and most likely will really beat him down now, only to turn back on Hillary in a couple months if she does OK.
  • BBQ
    "Come on guys I answered like 8 questions." Except more of that, I think the media is finally ready to fall out of love with Obama. And it's about damn time.
  • mikkel
    BBQ: Actually, if you read the accounts he got irritated because the people that were asking the questions were the same Chicago reporters that have been asking them for a couple years now. He said that they were asking the exact same questions over and over again to get attention instead of trying to learn anything new.
  • Mikkel - the anecdotes I've read have had more to do with access - not giving it or offering it. On the plane with him, that kind of thing.

    I think it's great that BOTH candidates challenge the media to move on to new topics - we heard a number of candidates earlier on in the cycle do that - Clinton, but others too. I know I was shouting at the screen several times because of wasteful questions.

    I don't know- I need sleep. lol
  • "What they are seeing is a bit disturbing to say the least."

    What is it that they are seeing?

    Answer.

    He is far left. He has no experience. He was in bed with a slum lord. His church has some distrubing qualities. He has ducked 131 votes. His foreign policy consists of inconsistencies. His domestic agenda will cost about 3 trillion a year to implement. His wife said that she finally has reason to be proud of America for the first time and shes in her 40's. His wife is on the board of one of those evil hospitals who cast out the poor and go after deadbeats who cant pay their bills. Louis Farrakhan. Moveon.org. Jesse Jackson Jr. Letters to Canada explaining what he really means about Nafta.

    There are tons and tons of unanswered questions about this man and the next 7 weeks the press is going to get bored and start asking him to splain himself.

    Hillary has had to splain herself for the last 30 years. Its time He splains himself. If he cannot bear up to the scrutiny of the press I think most reasonable voters will most likely not want him in the White House.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    Who does the media really like?

    Shouldn't McCain also splain himself?
  • Whocares,
    He's far left? Are you joking? That's a standard meaningless Republican attack line. Far left would be people like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and perhaps Dennis Kucinich.

    Obama has as much legislative experience as Hillary Clinton. If she or her supporters want to play that game, I hope they plan on voting for McCain, the candidate with decades of experience.

    The Rezko connection is all innuendo, like your entire argument. Prove that Obama has done something illegal, or give it up.

    The 130 votes he voted present for in the state legislature have already been explained. I suspect you're being purposefully dense on that subject.

    His wife's pride in America is not an issue. I have yet to be proud of American politics in my life.

    He never asked for support for Louis Farrakhan or took money from him. What's the issue there?

    Lies and innuendo is all you've got.
  • PaulSilver
    Whocares,
    All the candidates have faults and weaknesses. But your exaggerations only undermine your ability to persuade me.
  • casualobserver
    You gotta admit, this is kinda funny.

    Wednesday, March 05, 2008
    "I don’t think it is fair to suggest somehow that we have been trying to hide the bone on this."
    Said Barack Obama. And that real estate transaction, it was "a boneheaded move." No one wants to pay attention to Rezko, and for some reason, Obama's answers all contain the word "bone." Surely, there's a skeleton somewhere.

    h/t Althouse
  • pacatrue
    After all these comments, I forgot the original post. Trying to get back to that, Clinton only has two chances. 1) Actually win the most pledged delegates by performing in a way that she's never performed in the entire campaign, namely doing at least as well as she did in Ohio (Texas ain't good enough) in every single dang contest left or absolutely kill (in the 65% range, which is a (substantially) greater margin than every state she's won so far except Arkansas) in the biggest states. In short, she's got to destroy Obama so that everyone abandons him. There can be nothing but attacks from this point if she wants to win the most delegates from Democratic voters. 2) Have a very large number of superdelegates vote for her. This, too, will be hard if you look both a) at a recent poll where even the majority of Clinton supporters think the superdelegates should follow the party members' selection and b) read some of the interviews with undecided superdelegates, many of whom seem to also think they should follow the voters' decision.

    Still, difficult is not impossible.
  • No what I have is honest and legitimate questions. I hope your candidate can bear the brunt of these questions better then can his supporters.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC