But the media coverage has just been ridiculous. No, of course the Clinton campaign aren't saints, and have played hardball. But the Obama campaign has done the same.

By playing the "I'm being unfairly attacked" card in the latest round, they have played perfectly into the mental illness that is the media hate of the Clintons. And I think people are starting to buy it.

In the 90s, when they did it against Bill Clinton, a lot of people saw the Republican partisan angle behind it all, and rallied around Bill. But now that it's between Democrats, the Democrats are starting to believe it too.

Is trying to win the media wars a sufficient reason to choose a nominee when all other things may be close to equal?  Dunno.  I think perhaps we need to turn up the heat on the media.   The MSNBC coverage was disgrace and I like the way BTD critiques Keith Olbermann by comparing him to Fox.  I actually found it easier to watch Pat Buchanan on CNN and Fox News last night because it wasn't an irratinal Clinton hatefest.

The point about the Clintons is significant.  Will they be neutralized as a force to help Obama?  It seems to me that if the narrative is 'Obama is a repudiation of the Clintons' then their role will be confined to motivating the base that still loves the Clintons, but in ways that won't attract huge media attention (is that even possible?)  Or will it be the ultimate proof of Obama as a uniter when he deigns to include the Clintons in his new age of politics (ugh, that narrative makes me ill just thinking about it).

I just don't get why, in a year when the Dems should rule, we feel we have to do it by tearing down the Clintons instead of embracing them as a success story.  

For some realtime fun, check out this DU thread, where I'm taking on what seems like several thousand Clinton haters.

And, BTW, I'm an Edwards supporter. But I'll borrow my blogmate Lambert's boilerplate:

* OFB PROPHLACTIC Yes, I am paid by the Hillary campaign. Yes, I hope to get a job in Hillary's administration. Yes, I am a shill. Yes, I am a hack. Yes, I am a liar. Yes, I am a racist. Yes, I am a purist. Yes, I am a troll. Yes, I am ignorant. Yes, I hate Obama. Yes, I ignore all facts that don't square with my [lying|racist|purist|shilling|hackish|trollish] preconceptions of Obama. Yes, my reading comprehension is poor. Yes, I have a hidden agenda: I hope that the Democrats lose, and to that end I support [not Obama]. Yes, I could be older than you. Yes, I think all young people are stupid. Did I mention I'm a shill and a hack? Good. Anything else?

Well, live by the spin, die by the spin.

BTD, I think you understimate the rage that women feel over Hillary Clinton's treatment by the media, the blogsphere, AND the democratic establishment (including Barack Obama and John Kerry and others).  They (the opponents) seem to say, well, why should we object, if it benefits us??

Suppose it was the other way around.  Suppose there was a lot of racism, and Hillary was getting the preferential treatment.  I think and I hope that you and the democratic establishment would have been mad and indignant about it.  Blacks would have been mad about it.  

You know that what Hillary faces (in addition to jealosy of her and Bill's enormous talent) is misogeny, plain and simple.  Yet, you, whom I have known to be the voice of reason, say that it's OK.  It may work for us.  

As they say, you are making a pact with the devil.  Obama may not be the second coming of Bush, but his campaign is unfortunatly run the same way.  He is, in fact, inexperienced. He has far less experience than JFK or Clinton in 92.  I may even suggest less than Bush 2000.  In the face of enormous challenges America (and the world) face, he may make rookie mistakes, and listen to advisors too much.  There is nothing to replace the intution that is borne of experience, nothing.  I think advisors are there to give you facts and possibilities. The president must make the decision, and for that he needs HIS OWN experience (earned the old-fashioned way).  

Yet another example of the media spinning Clinton's words into something that was not intended.

You are ready for the secret ceremony.  To become a Novice you drink the sacred drink (red KoolAid naturally).  To become a full member you get an Obama logo tatooed on your left buttock. If the member is formerly Republican they can choose the right.  The logo is the one that got leaked on this diary.  To become a Master you get a lobotomy.

Seriously, BTD, I was glad to see that you got the full context of the Reagan comments recently.  And your apology was noble.  

But I have to admit I have been alarmed how in the progressive blogosphere, people are often taking snippets of comments and completely misunderstanding or purposely distorting them.  I've learned not only to get the fuller context via text, but view videos to see body language, setting and other elements of context that don't come across in transcipts.

Which is why Obama can push Reagan as "transformational" and Republicans as the "party of ideas."  Obama does not pick up on the partisan stuff because it is not really relevant to what he thinks about - Obama.

I can already see the hit ads with Obama pressing the wrong buttons when voting, then voice-over asking if we can afford a president who might push the nuclear button by mistake. I can also see pictures of Obama sucking up to Rezko over and over again. The cons are always getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar, so they would love to do that to a democrat.

The only time the media loses its timidity is in the case of the Clintons. The documented lies of GWB, the DOJ8, torture, the mendacity and greed of the deregulated banking industry, arms sales, etc. all go glossed over, but give them a good Clinton bashing opportunity (altho Bill had a case of horse and mouth) and suddenly these eunuchs grow cajones.

Here's another Obama rule in the media: Make it all about race in whatever the Clintons say, but ignore all the ways that Obama genders his attacks.  Every time he talks about "two Clintons," women hear what he is saying:  That a woman candidate can't compete on her own, that her husband is more important and the real opposition, etc.  

Corollary Obama rule, of course, is that Hillary isn't facing two Obamas, although Michelle has been out there on the campaign trail and dissing the Clintons, too.  But that's okay with the media -- which also are not picking up on the astonishing report that Michelle's husband went along on one of her job interviews before he would  let her take the position.  Btw, guys, the verb "let her" is a red flag to women.  And we're spreading the word on that incident in the past of the "two Obamas."

He was asked what it said about Obama that it "took two people to beat him."

Mr Goolsbee is Obama's economic guru. A tribute to Goolsbee by George Will led me to do a bit of research on the University of Chicago heavyweight.

The media has been talking all week about how an Obama win my be a pyrric victory if he took only mostly blacks.  Maybe Clinton had been researching the last time that happened.

I didn't like the statement, but I think it was taken WAYYY out of proportion.

And BTW, I won't vote for Hillary NOR Mr. Kumbaya in the primaries.  My initial desire was to vote for Obama, but his supporters on the net have turned me completely against him.  They are a cult and a bunch of bullies. They've already destroyed the DailyKos, turned it into the equivalent of a Yahoo Message board (remember Yahoo message boards?)

I can handle them, it's just BS I don't need. On the other hand, they play the victim strategy to the point that I think THEY may be racist, because they're trying so hard to play the race card to protect Obama. If they win?  I'll be off the message boards because I suspect they'll be as poor of winners as the Republicans are.  

Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign.  And Obama ran a good campaign here."

Is it an example of hatred for Clinton to quote him playing the race card?