The MSM is gaming America about Hillary, just as they did with Bush

[ProSense]

HALPERIN’S TAKE: The Dangers Which Might Await Obama If He Makes Negative Attacks Central To His Campaign

In the last few days, Obama and his senior staff have been open about their intention to raise all sorts of personal issues against the Clintons. They have even started that process by, for instance, calling for the Clintons to release their tax returns immediately, before the April 15 date Clinton’s campaign has promised. He is also bringing up his rival’s policy and biographical background in a negative way as well.

It is understandable why the Obama team wants to go negative, even while such a tactic conflicts with the senator’s frequent statements that he planned to run a different kind of campaign. Clinton’s recent hammering of Obama’s personal missteps and professional weaknesses (national security readiness, the flap over Obama’s top economic adviser talking to Canadian officials about NAFTA, the criminal trial of former Obama fundraiser Tony Rezko) seems to have helped her win primaries in Ohio and Texas. Those victories have at least temporarily staunched the tide of Obama Inevitability, much to the dismay of his staff and supporters, who have become cozily accustomed to success.

<...>

But now it appears the campaign wants to make negative attacks, including those launched directly from the candidate himself, a more central part of its message.

Here’s why that is politically dangerous:

1. It takes him off his principal message of change, hope, and inspiration.

2. It could conflict with his message of rejecting the “old” politics of negativity and polarization, which clearly has appealed to many voters.

3. He might not be as adept at negative politics on the national stage as he thinks he is.

4. When you wrestle in the mud of negative campaigning, you get dirty.

5. Early on, Obama pledged to fire anyone on his staff who engaged in the kind of personal attacks his senior advisers are now openly launching on a daily basis.

6 As John Kerry learned in 2004 against George W. Bush, negative information about the lesser-known candidate tends to have a bigger impact on voters—it represents a higher percentage of the total information voters have about a candidate who is still introducing himself to the country — as compared to an incumbent or, like Clinton, a “quasi-incumbent” whose image has already been formed.

7. It could politically free up Clinton to engage in even more negative attacks, either on national security credentials or of a personal nature (and that Clinton machine is ruthless and ready).

8. Clinton usually does well when she’s perceived as a victim of a bullying man (both in terms of private resolve and public sympathy).

9. By attacking Clinton during a period when he is particularly vulnerable on the Tony Rezko case, NAFTA, and other unseemly matters, Obama risks more unfavorable scrutiny directed at him (especially during a period when Clinton is on a roll, given her charming appearances on late-night comedy shows, her comeback kid excitement, and her refreshed media confidence).

10. It could look and feel desperate — already Obama’s affronted reaction to those newly tough, “like, eight questions” last week made him seem rather naive and peevish; add cutthroat to that image, and Obama could have a bigger problem than he is trying to solve by changing strategies.

more

What. The. Fuck?

So Hillary goes Rove, Obama gets tough, and he is pictured with Hillary's main media shill James Carville? And Rove?

Hillary, over the past few days:

Video, Hillary: Thank you Karl

Latest Clinton tactic: Fake news reports

The Clinton campaign's latest tactic in Ohio is, apparently, a radio ad that tries to make listeners think it's a news report until the very end.

Stuff like this, if it succeeds in fooling voters, fairly seriously pollutes the information environment by trying to steal the credibility of the news media and use it to present a biased, exagerrated set of facts. Why can't we rely on people who want to be president to not engage in the kind of creepy behavior that you teach your kids not to do?

more

NATFA lies and hypocrisy

Drug dealer, fairy tale, imaginary hip black friend, gang bang, cult, shuck-and-jive, Hispanics don't vote for black people, Obama is Somalian, Obama meets with former terrorists, all from Hillary's campaign and surrogates.

In a Cabinet-style setting, surrounded by retired military leaders, Sen. Hillary Clinton said the public should ask whether Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama has met the criteria needed to become the nation’s commander in chief.

“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.”

more

(emphasis added)

A "critical criterion"? So is she suggesting that if she is not the nominee, Democrats should consider McCain?

Unbelievable!

Clinton aide compares Obama to Ken Starr

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson, taking the campaign a bit meta on a conference call today, attacked Obama for attacking Clinton, and compared him to a notorious Clinton foe.

"When Senator Obama was confronted with questions over whether he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief and steward of the economy, he chose not to address those questions, but to attack Senator Clinton," Wolfson said. "I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president."

Wolfson was attacking Obama's explicit strategy, in the wake of his March 4 losses, to attack elements of Clinton's record on the grounds of secrecy, and to revisit the questions raised by Clinton foes in the 1990s and earlier. Obama has demanded Clinton's tax returns, cited delays in releasing her White House schedules, and even made reference to trades in cattle futures in the late 1970s that became a subject of allegations during the White House years.

Wolfson also responded to the substance of Obama's complaint, that Clinton hasn't released her recent tax returns, and to the reminder today that Clinton (via Wolfson) attacked her 2000 Senate rival, Rick Lazio, for failing to release his tax returns.

more

Oh, lookie: most media pundits agree the press (they) are tougher on Hillary. How friggin convenient!

The claim that the MSM is unfair to Hillary is a game. They're gaming the public in the same way they did with Bush.

The media organizations aren't fair to Democrats. They spin and distort all Democrats. Look at what happened to Pelosi when she went to Syria (with Republicans). Hillary gets more negative press because she has more out there: from her past (money dealings) to her exposed distortions to Obama winning.

For example, Rudy Giuliani had no business being a leading national candidate. His entire appeal and strength was media hype. Yet if you look at an analysis of media reports, they show more negative stories about Giuliani (when he was in) than even Hillary, given that overall she received more coverage. The reason Giuliani gets more negative press than Hillary is not because the media hates him, it's because he says ridiculous things and is more corrupt. On the positive press, the best example is after Bhutto's assassination. Within 24 hours, at least two media organizations (one was the WSJ) claimed the killing was a positive for Giuliani (a candidate who couldn't even get 6% of his party's vote) on his 9/11 strength (a myth).

Here is why complaining about media unfairness toward Hillary is ludicrous

Then there is the Clintons' buddy Vin Gupta:

Info U.S.A.'s CEO is Vinod Gupta, a close ally of both Clintons. Gupta's empire also includes the Opinion Research Corporation, which conducts the political polling for the television network CNN.

CNN's question: Obama's patriotism

I've got to say, I've never seen a reader poll like this on a mainstream media website (or, to be honest, a right-wing blog). This is currently on CNN.com.

<...>

Tuesday changed nothing. The delegate wins sere split two states each for Obama and Clinton. Texas was so close in the popular vote that with 2.7 million votes cast, Hillary won 1.4 million, and Obama 1.3 million. Time for a cover story:



The NYT was exposed for trying to pass off the video clip of Obama adivsor Susan Rice without any context and updated the piece:

Update: Readers have been asking (we hear you!) for the full context of Ms. Rice’s remarks. Here’s a transcript from her appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show on MSNBC in terms of what was asked and said about the 3 a.m. phone call.

Yeah, "we hear you!" You're full of shit MSM!





Edited to add the link to Giuliani/Bhutto info, and typos.