When has a frontrunner not faced challenges? Gore, Bush, Mondale all had setbacks, all had to fight

[Herman Munster]

So Hillary is going through a rough patch, partly media generated frenzy to get a "horserace", partly smart campaiging by Obama, partly some dumb blunders by her campaign, so she will have to fight. So did Gore, Mondale, and Bush - the other "inevitable" nominees.

[AX10]

1. I hope you are right.

Much of Hillary's troubles are media generated. They HATE her and they are sandbagging her.
It is absolutely sickening to watch this. Every little thing Hillary has done from day one has been under a microscope and attacked.

[Occam Bandage]

2. And when she was coasting to victory, her detractors were blaming the media.

I wish the omnipotent Media Gods would make up their mind about who they're supporting.

[Herman Munster]

3. the storyline will change

If Obama wins a couple primaries, he'll be the frontrunner and get all the heat. He'll have to deal with his 2 years national experience before he became an absentee senator and all the other scandals. Hillary will become the underdog and all the attention will be on tearing down the newest media generated sensation in Obama. The media loves tearing people down. It's fun. They did it to Hillary. They'll do it to Obama, whether in the primaries or if he wins in the general election.

All for ratings.

[AX10]

4. I hope you are right.

Because the media is controlled by the right wing and they want to sack us with a loser.

[Herman Munster]

5. just keep your chin up

I know it feels like a dark time for Hillary supporters - especially after reading the circle jerk of Hillary hate here. But she still has an enormous amount of advantages.

One big one is this: women.

The polls that show her down or tied all have one thing in common: Obama beats her with women. You honestly believe when all is said and done that Hillary's gender gap will evaporate? For Obama to win, that is what has to happen.

Hillary has 3 weeks to get women on board again. And she has the money and organization to do so.

Remember if Teresa Vilmain can pull a rabbit out of her hat and win Iowa for Hillary, everything changes. The last couple months become a distant memory. A win is her elixir. The Clinton's know this. Watch them double down in Iowa the next 3 weeks and fight like hell for it. Because they know if they win Iowa, all their current problems disappear.

[AX10]

7. I understand.

[emilyg]

9. Good post. Thanks.

[emilyg]

10. You're right.

[saracat]

6. These mistakes aren't media generated, they are Clinton Campaign generated.She is bringing this on

herself with dirty tricks and whisper campigns.This is really stupid but this is what happens when you hire with Mark Penn.She deserves what is happening.When you lie down with dogs......

[napi21]

8. I'm convinced by history that most long time front runners rarely win.

Unless there is a "chosen one" as Shrub was (Pubs are notorious for that) it seems likea candidate really wouldn't want to be the early and long running front runner. I was firmly convinced we were going to have a President Dean, and to be honest, I wish we would have! But you remember what happened there! If I remember right, Gephart was an early front runner too, and well.....

I think the media plays a hugh part in who the frontrunners are in the early months (or years now!), but most voters don't pay the amount of attention to politics as we here do. When they start looking, things change...a lot!

I happen to like that! I want the media talking heads to have to say "Boy were we wrong!"

[Herman Munster]

11. it's not about media frontrunners per se

it's more about establishment candidates and who the powerbrokers are backing.

In 1984, that was mondale.

In 1988, that was gary hart and bush. Hart imploded with monkey business. Bush lost to Robertston in Iowa but still won.

In 1992, there wasn't really an establishment candidate. That's what allowed Clinton to rise.

In 1996, Dole was the establishment candidate and won.

In 2000, Gore and Bush were the establishment candidates and won.

In 2004, Kerry was the establishment candidate and won.

In 2008, Hillary is the establishment candidate. If history is a guide, she will win, but along the way there will be setbacks. The setbacks may be this rocky period we are in now but she wins Iowa and then sweeps the rest of the primaries. Or she loses Iowa and other primaries but makes her stand on Super Tuesday after the media runs Obama through the media gauntlet he's never experienced before but Hillary has for 15 years. Either way, the establishment candidate usually finds a way of winning unless they implode because of personal scandal.

[lvx35]

12. The setbacks are just what she needs to mobilize her base.

The "inevitability" meme has been hurting her alot recently. What she needs to do is get out there and convince a bunch of Dems that she's worth fighting for, and NEEDS to be fought for, which I think she's capable of doing.

[sandnsea]

13. If she didn't have half the media on her side

She'd have been buried with her lackluster persona and landslide of mistakes a long time ago.

[cali]

14. Actually, she doesn't have th media on her side

A few weeks ago a reposted a kos diary that had an article that had broken down the positive/negative stories over a period of time, in the MSM, for both Clinton and Obama. She had far more negative stories than positive. He had more positive stories.

[sandnsea]

15. Actually she does

I remember that article and it was including articles from way back before the campaign really even got going. She had the media on her side most of the summer and early fall, they didn't say hardly a peep against her. Even this Shaheen thing, how easy was it for that to get into the media. Do you think he expected to have his name mentioned? No. Because they have their contacts and always have had. Have you forgotten her Sunday talk extravaganza? No no, the Clintons have plenty of media power. They just don't use it against Republicans. Go back and read what she was actually saying all through 2003 and 2004. The narrative that the Dems just wanted to fight the Iraq war better came directly from her. It's true the right doesn't like them, but it's not true that they don't have equal ability to fight in the media when they want to. They just haven't wanted to.

[cali]

16. Actually, you're wrong. And here's some objective analysis

You're providing opinion, with no factual underpinning, and a lot of supposition.

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

[sandnsea]

17. There's no objectivity with this media

They think repeating Bush's lies is good journalism too. I know what I've seen the last 4 years and there is no doubt the Clintons have as much media control as the Bushes. If she fails to win it will only be because they completely misread the electorate.

[AX10]

18. Right on Cali.

The Clinton's are hated by the MSM.
These are the facts.