I found this at Talking Points Memo and it comes with the same caveat I am going to give it to you with. Howard Fineman reported on MSNBC that internal talk within the Obama and Clinton camps believe it is “highly unlikely” she will ever lead with pledged delegates. In fact Fineman calls it “virtually impossible”.
The caveat is that “Fineman is something of a paragon of the mainstream media” as TPM puts it. I will go further and say that when it comes to Clinton and Obama Fineman has been anything but unbiased. Fineman, like many others at MSNBC, is clearly supporting Obama and because of it the “analysis” he gives is not only layered with opinion but has often turned out to be wrong. With that said, like TPM, numbers are different than pure opinion plus Newsweek has a lot of resources and so it might well be true that both camps see a major shift occurring.
Again the ending of Fineman’s comments are a clear attack on Clinton’s hope that superdelegates will sway her way rather than tie themselves to the voting. The delegate information is major news if its true, I just feel bad it has to come from this source and with this much questionable commentary surrounding it. But there you go!
After so many hours of media time spent on the Teddy Kennedy endorsement, did it really have an effect? Honestly? Clinton won Massachusetts despite having Kennedy, Kerry & the Governor on Obama’s side. Hispanic voters, whom the media told us would rise up because of the memory of Robert Kennedy and the warm place in their hearts for Ted, went overwhelmingly for Clinton. Meanwhile California despite not just Teddy and Caroline but Maria Shriver and the awesome power of Oprah still went to Clinton by a decisive vote. So, where was the power of the endorsement?
Not to be a wet blanket but, I told you so. The media needs to calm down. After many hours declaring “game over” because of these endorsements and after the media highlighting polls showing Obama would take California and NJ, while ignoring other polls and caveats that showed the opposite, I really think we need to start talking seriously about “bias” in this race and the misperceptions it is creating.
Okay, this is interesting. I’ve just learned that CNN has told top Dem strategists James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman — who are CNN mainstays but are all Hillary supporters — that they will not be doing any more political analysis on the network until the Democratic primary has reached a conclusion.
I’m also told that this move came after the Obama campaign repeatedly complained to high level officials at CNN about the presence of Carville and Begala on the network.
After I reached him today and pointed out that he hadn’t been on CNN in some time, Carville confirmed to me that the network had told him that he wouldn’t appear until the Dem primary is resolved.
Sam Feist, CNN’s political director, also confirmed the decision to me. “As we got closer to the voting, we made a decision to make sure that all the analysts that are on are non-aligned,†Feist said, adding that the decision had been made around the start of December. “Carville and Begala are two of the best analysts around and we look forward to seeing them on CNN plenty of times in the future, once the nominating process has ended.â€
Though there are plenty of other contributors on all of the networks who are less than objective this is probably a decent move by CNN.
Typically Tim Russert ends appearances on Meet the Press by mentioning a candidates favorite sports team or some other lighthearted thought. With Hillary Clinton this weekend Russert ended the program by bringing up her husbands affair. Then he said goodbye and the show ended. Well… that wasn’t uncomfortable.
Just a moment ago as MSNBC gears up for tonight’s debate I heard Andrea Mitchell report that Hillary Clinton cannot possibly stand for change in any way and that she is facing an “impossible” situation tonight to do well. OK, well, why is she even showing up then?
What does Obama need to do according to those assembled? Why, simply show up and continue taking amazing positions on all issues as he has on Iraq. So, I guess we already know the winner then. Good to hear.
Should be a fun and fair debate. What time is American Idol on?
I have noted a few times on this blog how MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has spent the last few months publically fawning over Barack Obama. The Daily Show seems to have noticed the same thing. You can see the individual take on Matthews here but if you have a minute and want to see the entire media mocked by Stewart check out the shows coverage of media coverage from New Hampshire which also includes the Matthews moment:
Meanwhile check out this clip of Matthews talking about how he teared up watching an Obama speech.
You can also see this clip of Matthews declaring an Obama win in Iowa will be equivalent to the fall of the Berlin wall and elections in South Africa and the “biggest news story to come out of America since Reagan beating Carter.”
I am as guilty as anyone else in the media or blogosphere when it comes to New Hampshire. I assumed, like everyone assumed, because everyone assumed, helped others assume, that Barack Obama was going to run away with the win and because of that, we were witnessing the potential end of the Clinton campaign. What were we all thinking? (The same thing the Clinton campaign was, they though they would lose too!)
The truth is, polling often works and works well. There is almost no better way of finding out what people will do than asking them. However polling is not perfect, people lie, questions are asked in weird ways or at the wrong moments, but most importantly our “interpretations” of polling are often what get the nation into trouble, especially when everyone agrees on something without really looking into it.
After a few days of commentators on MSNBC praising Barack Obama’s strategy of not using race to divide the electorate, host Chris Matthews appeared on the networks Morning Joe program and claimed New Hampshire voters lied to pollsters because they were afraid to admit their racist feelings about voting for an african american. What are they putting in the water over there?
It wasn’t the only odd bit of logic or outrageous claim made by Matthews this morning. Rapid City Journal also saw the broadcast and recapped it quite well.
“She didn’t win on her merit,†Matthews said. “It was about the humiliation of Bill Clinton.â€
Well,OK. But it doesn’t say much about Hillary, or New York voters.
Nor does Matthews’ position on the alleged polling lies say much about the strong turnout of women voters for Hillary in New Hampshire. But Matthews has it figured: Dumb voters in New York. Racists liars in New Hampshire. And a woman who isn’t even qualified for the Senate now back in the race for president. It beats simply saying you were wrong, I guess.
Matthews also said that from now on Obama would have to take 10% “off the white vote” in remaining states when looking at polls.
