I do think that Obama's biographical stuff has been a lot more thoroughly examined--that CNN had to send a reporter to his grade school indicates that kind of scrutiny (as did Kindergate).

They might get ahold of it, and draw the nasty, unwarranted, out-of-line conclusion that perhaps this media preference extends more generally to Dems rather than Republicans.

Moreover, if he is the nominee, the subtext to all coverage throughout the campaign will be the historical nature of the election. We'll be treated to countless stories about how we are on the verge of taking a giant leap forward as a country: the first black president.  The press will be openly rooting for him because they want to see that story unfold.

If Clinton or Edwards is the nominee, there is a very real chance that it will be 2000 all over again, with many members of the mainstream press treating the Democratic nominee very unfairly (just look at people like Chris Matthews already).  

It seems most likely to me that the R nominee will be the "darling" of the media: tough, down-to-earth, manly, drink-a-beer-with-able, etc. Whereas Obama would then turn into the untested, unserious, wimp.

Unless the nominee was Huckabee.

Is a super talent politician but unlike Bill Clinton, he has an aristocratic charm that makes the media think that they are royal handmaidens.

The truth is, if Hillary's campaign would just stop screwing up then maybe they would get some good press.  And as for people being likable, well maybe if Hillary could show us that she actually is a real human being once in awhile, instead of some kind of programmed political robot, then maybe more Americans would be able to relate to her as a human being. A little sense of humor once in awhile would go a long way to helping her.  The American people want to know who their candidate, what kind of person they really are, and I've been watching Hillary Clinton for 15 years now, and I haven't got a clue who she really is.

Notice that the Clinton campaign attacks the press for being too harsh on Hillary, and the next thing you know they go all touchy-feely kissy kissy.  Give me a break people please.  The press is supposed to be putting pressure on these candidates, that's their job. And they come up with these polls showing Hillary way ahead in New Hampshire, but what they don't tell you is that this poll assumes that only the old folks will be voting in the primary, I wouldn't count on that.

Think about the people who pay the salaries in this corporate controlled media, you think they have more to lose if Hillary becomes president, or Obama becomes president, think about it. Think about who is the establishment candidate in this contest, and who represents reform? Reform always scares the people with the money.  They know Hillary, she's vetted, tested tried-and-true, a known quality to the people who pull the strings in this country.  They know that they will be able to count on her, Obama on the other hand, he could do anything, like actually give this country back to its people.  A thought that genuinely terrifies many.

By the way Clinton is losing ground in California now, because the people on the West Coast are starting to pay attention to these early primaries, and they're taking a look at Obama, and they like him. Go figure.

[The New York Times has compiled the first comprehensive list of 97 donors who gave or pledged a total of $69 million for the Clinton presidential library in the final years of the Clinton administration. The examination found that while some $1 million contributors were longtime Clinton friends, others were seeking policy changes from the administration. Two pledged $1 million each while they or their companies were under investigation by the Justice Department.

Other donations came from supporters who had been ensnared in campaign finance scandals surrounding Mr. Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign.]

-------------------------------------------

[The $31.3 million donation, which was previously undisclosed, came from the Radcliffe Foundation run by Frank Giustra, a Canadian who has made millions financing mining deals around the world. Mr. Giustra has become a member of Mr. Clinton's inner circle, joining him on global trips and lending him the use of his private MD-87 jet.

For weeks, Clinton Foundation officials had suggested that the $31.3 million contribution listed on its tax return did not come from a single donor. They then said it came from a single source, but declined to identify it. Wednesday afternoon, a representative of Mr. Giustra contacted The Times and acknowledged the Radcliffe contribution.

This year, Mr. Giustra announced separate plans to give the Clinton Foundation $100 million, plus half of his future earnings from natural resource business ventures, for a joint project to spur economic growth in poor Latin American mining communities. Taken together, the contributions make Mr. Giustra one of the foundation's largest benefactors, if not the single largest.]

---------------------------------------

[To limit the influence of any single donor, federal election law prohibits foreign donations to presidential campaigns and limits Americans to $2,300 per election. But presidential foundations are free to accept unlimited and anonymous contributions, even from foreigners and foreign governments. Indeed, the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, a foundation linked to the United Arab Emirates, and the governments of Kuwait and Qatar have made contributions of unknown amounts to the Clinton Foundation.

"The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse," said Representative Henry A. Waxman , Democrat of California, who introduced a bill to force disclosure of presidential foundation donors. The bill passed the House, 390-34, in March but stalled in the Senate. ]

------------------------------------------

[Early on, donations to the library caused perception problems. The day after he left office, Mr. Clinton was embroiled in a scandal over his 11th-hour pardon of the financier Marc Rich who fled the United States in 1983 to avoid tax evasion and other charges. A Congressional hearing later revealed that the pardon came after Mr. Rich's former wife, Denise Rich contributed $450,000 to Mr. Clinton's library.

That spring, Mrs. Clinton co-sponsored legislation to publicly identify donors to foundations of future sitting presidents. She referred to that legislation in the debate three months ago, although the bill had died in committee.

Beyond the revelation of the Rich donation, the names of some other donors emerged after the library opened in November 2004, when a New York Sun reporter found a partial contributor list displayed on a public computer there. The list, with neither amounts nor dates, disclosed donations from the Saudi royal family and other foreign sources. After the Sun story, the computer plug was pulled.]