Dan Abrams Calls the Press Out on Clinton

[russian33]

video here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/23175735#23175735

[DJ13]

1. Dan has a crush on Hillary

I think he longs for a momma figure to run his life.

[Radical Activist]

2. They pushed her as the front runner for a year.

She benefited from the NY and DC media centers. Yes, some of it was bad, but the media has given her far more coverage for the entire campaign.

There's a good reason some in the media would be down on Clinton's chances. She's in a terrible position after being the presumed inevitable winner for the past year. Dan Abrams is spinning like a top.

[anamandujano]

4. They pushed her to create the mind set that she couldn't lose in order to set

the bar very high. Then they slammed her endlessly and said that she is not performing as expected so she's a loser.

Child psychology at it's finest.

Dan is the lone fighter. MSNGE doesn't see any sense in firing him because the guy can easily get a job anywhere.

[Radical Activist]

8. So the media is all part of a double secret reverse psychology conspiracy?!?!!

Come one. You give them too much credit.
Clinton has benefited enormously from being pushed as the front runner and getting the most coverage. She can't blame the media for finishing third in Iowa.

[rinsd]

18. Yeah I forgot media framing has no effect upon the populace

:eyes:

[anamandujano]

19. Where have you been? Did you not watch TV when voters were brainwashed

into voting for someone to drink beer with?

Did you not hear them laugh at Gore for claiming to invent the internet, after they distorted his comment?

Did you not watch as Max Cleland was smeared and eventually voted out of his seat?

The entrenched pundits and talking heads have their paychecks written by Repuke bosses. They are brainwashing people to install the weaker candidate. They are afraid of Hillary. The forces that be have almost emptied their wallets slamming Hillary since she first hit the scene. She is still standing.

Hillary can beat the Repukes in the general and so they chose the primaries as their battleground. Don't get me started on the huge Repuke crossovers meddling in our primaries; They will be doing a "so long sucker" for the general.

[jackson_dem]

10. She won Super Tuesday by almost 100,000 votes yet the msm called it a loss for her

You are very right.

[Major Hogwash]

33. That's not how I remember that night - they were cheering for her like she had just cured cancer.

Almost all of them were saying what a great night she had had.

And she didn't cure cancer either.

[rinsd]

16. Bingo raising the bar for Hillary like they lowered the bar for Bush.

[Straight Shooter]

23. They lowered the bar for Obama, also, as the current issue of The Economist concludes its analysis.

"But what policies exactly? Mr Obama's voting record in the Senate is one of the most left-wing of any Democrat. Even if he never voted for the Iraq war, his policy for dealing with that country now seems to amount to little more than pulling out quickly, convening a peace conference, inviting the Iranians and the Syrians along and hoping for the best. On the economy, his plans are more thought out, but he often tells people only that they deserve more money and more opportunities. If one lesson from the wasted Bush years is that needless division is bad, another is that incompetence is perhaps even worse. A man who has never run any public body of any note is a risk, even if his campaign has been a model of discipline.

And the Obama phenomenon would not always be helpful, because it would raise expectations to undue heights. Budgets do not magically cut themselves, even if both parties are in awe of the president; the Middle East will not heal, just because a president's second name is Hussein. Choices will have to be made—and foes created even when there is no intention to do so. Indeed, something like that has already happened in his campaign. The post-racial candidate has ended up relying heavily on black votes (and in some places even highlighting the divide between Latinos and blacks).

None of this is to take away from Mr Obama's achievement—or to imply that he could not rise to the challenges of the job in hand. But there is a sense in which he has hitherto had to jump over a lower bar than his main rivals have. For America's sake (and the world's), that bar should now be raised—or all kinds of brutal disappointment could follow."

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=10689547

Apparently many conclude that because Obama has great campaign management, that he will be able to govern as competently. Good luck with withful thinking.

[jackson_dem]

9. While attacking her, building up Obama, and ignoring Edwards

There is a reason St. Obama leads 4.3 to 1 in newspaper endorsements.

[Radical Activist]

12. Yes, the reason is that Obama is a better candidate.

He's more thoughtful, more genuine, and connects better with voters.
Hillary has been attacked AND propped up with positive stories in the media. Pretending all her coverage was bad is revisionist history. Its been a mix of both.

[NMMatt]

27. The media over estimate the ability of the media to sway voters -nt

[blm]

3. Elliot Abrams cousin has always been grateful Bill deep-sixed all the IranContra

matters were still outstanding when he took office.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Ever watch his cold and nasty coverage of Kerry in 2003-4, the lawmaker who UNCOVERED IranContra?

[grasswire]

5. I thought Dan was his son.

Isn't he?

[NYCGirl]

6. Dan's father is Floyd Abrams, noted Constitutional Law expert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Abrams

[blm]

21. No - cousin - Floyd is his father.

When Dan was a teenager his big cousin Elliot was a big shot in Reagan-Bush administration.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. do you have a cite for that?

All I can find is a post on a blog that makes the claim that Floyd and Elliott are first cousins.

[BeyondGeography]

7. The press has totally missed the positives of losing 8 straight, going broke and mass firings

Their one-sided coverage is an insult to Her Majesty.

[jackson_dem]

11. It is hard to win when 81% of the msm is supporting the other candidate

[Political Heretic]

13. 81% huh?

[jackson_dem]

28. Going by newspaper endorsements, the most objective measure of msm support

[Radical Activist]

14. Sounds like a good reason to nominate Obama.

[jackson_dem]

29. It worked for us in 2000 and 2004 with the msm backed nominees

[BeyondGeography]

15. It's also hard to win when your campaign is TOTALLY inept

Poll after poll shows voters value the ability to change the government over experience. She could be the first woman President and she completely ceded the change terrain to her opponent and ran as an inevitable quasi-incumbent.

She counted on a Feb. 5 knockout and had no organization in place for the 10 contests that followed.

She ignored small states and red states, letting Obama make places like Idaho (net gain of 16 delegates) more valuable than New Jersey (net gaing of 12 delegates for Clinton).

She built no ground game in the caucus states. Where she has won caucus states, her strategic overemphasis on the established base let Obama run up the score in rural counties, meaning he has fought her to a draw in terms of delegates or even beat her as happened in Nevada.

Her big-money fundraising model was blown out of the water in January by Obama, forcing her to write a check for herself.

Etc., etc.

What we have here is an able candidate who has done next-to-nothing to build on her inherited name recognition and her strengths with women, the white working class, Latinos and older voters in very blue states. Your media BS is a crock; if she weren't running such a lame campaign, she wouldn't be losing.

[LSK]

26. .

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=hillary+inevitable&spell=1

[jackson_dem]

30. How does net negative coverage help you? An Edwardian should know this...

[elixir]

17. Pretty great video. I love Abrams diligence!

[russian33]

20. dilligence...exactly

i don't see anyone in this thread refuting Abrams' statements...just regular Hillary bashing, if they don't agree with the report

[Debi]

22. I have to turn the volume down when watching Abrams

He's OUTRAGED about everything! :wow:

If he's like that 24/7 living with him would be a nightmare!

[Clinton Crusader]

24. I saw Abrams that night....

A rarity, I never watch MSNBC anymore and I give him credit, the ONLY pundit who's telling the truth anymore. He actually told the Obama obsessed panel that they ARE obsessed with a media creation. And I wrote Dan and thanked him for telling it like it is.

And all you Obamabots would have done the same thing if the MSM was Hillary obsessed. And don't give me it's because she's losing. This has been going on for a long long time. The populace are sheep, they do whatever they're told to do. If Tweety and the rest were blathering non stop about Clinton, and didn't give Obama the time of day, you'd all be stamping your feet and screaming not fair.

[Major Hogwash]

31. Hahahahaha - Abrams is another one of Hillary's water boys.

What an asshat!

Put down the bucket, Danny boy.
Your girl fell down the hill and hurt her lead!

LoL

[AtomicKitten]

32. And all his guests seem to disagree.

Why is that? Buehler? Anyone? Because Dan's assertion is flat-out untrue, but the ruse fools the Hilliards into thinking otherwise by ignoring the chorus of guests begging to differ. Easy peasy.

[Dogmudgeon]

34. Check out the guests' credentials

It's usually the intense Obama supporter from HuffPo, Larry O'Donnell (pro-BHO but more of a wonk), and a random third pundit, usually a right winger. Dan argues for HRC, and the other three argue against him.

Of course, since Obama followers don't like to listen to points of view other than their own, this is probably lost on you.

--p!

[AtomicKitten]

35. And you go straight to the bias claim in 3, 2, 1 ...

I've seen his show. His guests, in fact, are actually deferential in rebutting the nonsense about the press being mean to Hilly. In fact, Dan is the station manager and almost certainly is smoothing the faux ruffled feathers of Clintonites who confuse reporting of factual information with bias, which is strangely reminiscent of the wingnuts.