|
All day, yes I've seen positive coverage of Obama...as there should be. Obama has a strong lead in most polls outside of the outlier Suffolk University poll. But on every show I've seen, I've noticed people that seem frustrated...if not angry, at the positive coverage Obama is getting. The MSM was pumping the Clinton coronation angle for MONTHS...and no one was complaining. Obama was thrown a bone every once in a while (especially when he outraised her twice), but for the most part Clinton was considered all but the nominee. She was ALWAYS considered the winner of the debates, although Biden or Edwards may have had a better night. This is partly why it's baffly how Bill and Hillary can complain about the media coverage. As if they're SUPPOSED to be the ones getting ALL the positive coverage. As if it's the MSM fault that HER campaign has stumbled by themsevles...making gaffe after gaffe.
Keith Olbermann said it perfectly when he said it's almost as if people didn't REALLY expect him to do well. Like everyone was expecting him to really get 10% or something in Iowa.
I didn't follow the 2004 race until the General Election (and sparsely then too). After Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire back-to-back, what was the media's reaction? Did they consider it pretty much over? I ask because I don't see the MSM being realistic about Clinton if she loses big tomarrow. There are too many analysts getting upset visibly over her negative coverage, so the media will keep her in it...even if she goes 0-4...and Obama sweeps. It is UNPRECEDENTED that someone totally sweep the early states (Obama can potentially go 4-0) and still not be considered the eventual nominee. People have said it already, NO candidate of either party has ever won both Iowa and NH and not been the nominee. The momentum and success just won't allow it.
|