home

Keeping Obama' s Media Darling Status Is The Key To His GE Chances

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Josh Marshall and John Cole write as if they just discovered what Republicans do. Cole cites Marshall thusly:

Hopefully, everyone can now see the McCain strategy for running against Barack Obama. Yes, we have some general points on taxes, culture wars and McCain as war hero who can protect us in ways that flash-in-the-pan pretty boy Barack Obama can’t.

But that’s not the core. The core is to drill a handful of key adjectives into the public mind about Barack Obama: Muslim, anti-American, BLACK, terrorist, Arab. Maybe a little hustler and shifty thrown in, but we’ll have to see. The details and specific.

Um, duh? But they miss the bigger point -- to withstand this onslaught Obama will need to retain his Media Darling status. NOW we see Marshall is worried about NBC. After spending months defending NBC for its outrageous bias against Hillary Clinton. As Bob Somerby regularly notes about Marshall and TPM, it is a little late to get religion on the outrageous work of NBC.

< The Nation: Obama's Position on Mercenaries in Iraq | Periodically, The Media Accuses Hillary Of Mood Swings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    OT, but I wanted to share this. My 74-year old (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Angel on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:51:40 AM EST
    mother has been volunteering at the Hillary campaign headquarters in Austin.  Yesterday, Bill Clinton showed up and gave a little pep talk to the volunteers, told them that Hillary will win Texas.  My mother got to shake President Clinton's hand and talk with him for a few seconds.  She said he looked worn out from all the campaigning and he said that he was operating on almost no sleep.  My mother was so thrilled to meet him!  And I'm so happy for my mother.  I know y'all will be too.  Thanks for letting me share her joy.

    TL Fundraiser In Progress (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:55:22 PM EST
    ******************
    Don't mind me, I'm just tucking in here with a fund-raising suggestion:

    Let's all donate something tonight before we logout, no matter how big or small - according to our individual means.

    Heads up: I'll be posting this elsewhere tonight at TL.

    Parent

    Makes those emails I got this week (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:02:20 PM EST
    from Chelsea and Bill look rather lame!

    Parent
    I always said the media darling status (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    was going to go away.

    I have a  feeling this is going to  be  a fairly unpleasant month for  Obama supporters.

    I think that someone is finally doing some digging (none / 0) (#51)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:06:56 PM EST
    because this is the first I've heard about this.  Apparently, Obama has a somewhat storied history in the IL senate of co-opting bills others have worked on and making them their own.  Makes all those "I agree with Hillary" debate comments look a tad more sinister (emphasis mine):

    state Rep. Monique Davis...sponsored a pair of significant bills -- one designed to track incidents of racial profiling, and another that mandates the taping of police interrogations in murder cases -- that were central to Obama's campaign platform.

    Though she worked closely with Obama to pass the bills into law, and says she toiled to keep the bills alive before he became their Senate sponsor, Davis claims her efforts were largely ignored.

    "I was snubbed," says Davis... "I felt he was shutting me out of history."

    State Sen. Rickey Hendon, the original Senate sponsor of both the racial profiling and videotaped confession bills, likewise felt overshadowed by Obama.

    LINK

    Parent

    woops (none / 0) (#52)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:07:36 PM EST
    "making them HIS own"

    Parent
    There's a lot more of that kind of thing (none / 0) (#54)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:24:49 PM EST
    from this Houston Press story about Obama's audacious start in Illinois.

    Obama screamed at me


    Parent
    You're forgetting the way the media sets up (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:59:05 AM EST
    the contest: it's good guy v. bad guy, and unless hell freezes over, or pigs take wing, the "good guy" in the general election will be McCain - regardless of whether the Democratic nominee is Clinton or Obama.

    Just think about how the media has played the Clinton-Obama contest, and imagine that it will treat McCain like it has treated Obama, and it will treat the Dem as it has treated Clinton.  On all the many things McCain could be vulnerable on, the media will happily provide either justification for, or ignore, while turning up the power on the microscope and the volume on the microphone, where the Democratic nominee is concerned - especially if it looks like McCain is the underdog.

    That some of what I considered the brightest minds in the blogosphere are being blind-sided by this realization has made me revise my estimation of them.

    Just a reminder... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by JohnS on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:04:22 PM EST
    Some of the biggest Gore smears in election showed up on the op-pages of the NY Times (we're talking specifically about Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich). Per MSNBC and the rest, you really should spend some time over at Bob Somerby's Daily Howler. I would particularly recommend yesterday's installment.

    McCain and the GOP have already begun work on BHO (I don't think it was Clinton who supplied Drudge with the Somalia photo),  and while McCain made himself look like a saint renouncing his boy Cunningham, they STILL managed to get the smear out while garnering big media coverage. That's how the pros do it. Smear the other guy with a proxy while you profess disgust and the press scoops it all up like a half-priced suit.

    Heads outta the sand now, please!

    A solution in the headline (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Mimir on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:08:11 PM EST
    Obama's chances with GE (the company) are one way to keep his media darling status.

    The ironic thing (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Lena on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:14:51 PM EST
    is that the only way to ensure that Obama continues to get his pro-Obama coverage is if Clinton stays in the race.

    After that, if he has the nomination, he's going to get the Clinton treatment.

    Yes! (none / 0) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    They refuse to see that the true wind at Obama's back comes from the blow-hards expressing their Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    When there's no more Clinton Derangement Syndrome, the wind will spew against Obama.

    Parent

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#20)
    by JohnS on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:23:59 PM EST
    Who will be the weakest Democratic nominee? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by BigB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:23:27 PM EST
    This is why I always thought Obama will be the weakest Democratic nominee.

    I always thought that the media darling status of Obama will last only as long as his opponent is Hillary. Once it is McCain, Obama will be savaged (which we are beginning to see). I don't think Obama can withstand eight months of negative coverage. Hillary has withstood at least six months of savage coverage in the media and she is still standing essentially tied with Obama in delegates and tied or leading in Ohio and Texas. With all this rock-star coverage, Obama still hasn't been able to run away with this nomination.

    Hillary can withstand negative media coverage (as she has proven) and will be the better general election nominee. She knows how to respond to negative campaign of the Republicans. Obama doesn't.

    She doesn't seem (none / 0) (#23)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:27:13 PM EST
    to be standing up very well to negative media coverage right now.  

    Parent
    Because? (none / 0) (#37)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    Long runs vs short runs for Dem Nomaination (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Saul on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:26:04 PM EST
    I believe that long runs serve the public better, because as time goes on  they learn something they did not know about their candidate that they did not know. Something good or something bad.  That's one great thing about the internet and blogs like this one.  I learned more about a candidate than by any of the other means at my disposable by looking at different blogs on information to each candidate.   I would like to thank Jeralyn and Amrando for their straight talk and how they have managed this blog site.  I did not agree with everything they say and they probably do not agree with every thing I said, but overall it has been a  wonderful way to learn about politics. I have scrutinized the two democratic candidates since last summer however.  I know it is a very passionate election year but I wanted to stay as neutral as long as I could before the date of my primary which is the 4th of March.  I felt this would be the only way in my opinion to make the best choice.  There were days I was swing toward Obama and then those days to Hilary.  I felt Hilary was treated extremely unfair by the media and Obama was treated with delicate gloves.  I always felt that the media did not attack Obama for fear of looking racial. I also believe that just like newspapers endorse candidates TV news station quietly endorse them to.  I honestly believe they are given instruction in the back rooms to uplift the stations candidate and downgrade the opponent.  MSNBC was paramount in this. Hilary, also made many mistakes as well  I also criticized any hypocrisy that was not consistent with the campign  rhetoric of each candidate.   If a person believes in something so much and preaches it but then is willing to compromise their beliefs for the sake of getting some votes then they loose some credibility for me. I wonder how many of the passionate voters on both sides really scrutinized their candidate and put their emotions aside to see what they really have done in the past, what they said in the past, how the rhetoric is different on what they say now, etc etc.  How many right now would switch sides if they had really tried to make a more unbiased and intelligent decision.  I will pick my final decision on March the 4th.  You never know what will happen between now and the 4th.

    and why Obama supporters refuse to see this (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:29:03 PM EST
    fact is beyond me...It is as clear as day....Hillary is the buffer for the Media Darling status for him....Once she is out of the picture, he is toast...

    Same re GE debates. He won't (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:33:37 PM EST
    be able to say "I agree with Hillary" anymore.

    Parent
    Maybe he should think about (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by sancho on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    "I agree with Hillary" as his GE strategy too. If this line doesn't work, he can still blame everything on her.

    Parent
    BTD (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:13:05 PM EST
    I agree with your premise..."keeping O's media-darling status is key to his GE chances.

    Since you support him, albeit tepidly, because of that status, what I want to understand is why and how YOU think he can keep it when almost none of 'the rest of us' have any such confidence.

    Do you think they will not turn on him?  Or do you think that even if they do, it can be overcome?  Or...what?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

    Why Credibility Is Important (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:28:16 PM EST
    1) Having shown no inclination to criticize the media when they were using sexist and other false smears against Clinton because she wasn't their candidate, the blogs, DNC folks and other Democratic voices are going to look like they're only complaining about attacks on Obama because they like him and not because the media is inherently unfair.  So basically, they've set it up to be 2000 and 2004 all over again.  Thanks!

    And

    2) Having allowed Obama to paint the Clintons as racists for such things as Bill's "fairy tale" remark and Hillary's LBJ remarks, that particular accusation will lose some sting in the future when Obama will be subjected to actual racist smears.   Again, it becomes hard to paint every single negative thing said about Obama as racist and at some point you start to lose credibility.  Unfortunately, I suspect we may already be past that point and the GE hasn't started yet.  So, the GOP probably can't use obvious smears, but more subtle ones will now be harder to successfully call out for what they are.  Thanks, again!

    Too late..... (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Camorrista on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:47:17 PM EST
    I don't think Obama will lose his media darling status.

    From what I see, it's starting to disappear already, like the air from a slowly leaking tire.  (Look at the debate coverage; the costume story; the Farrakhan story; the Wright story.  Nothing terrible, but nothing wonderful, like the good old days.)

    Assuming that Obama wins the nomination, the press will be confronted with two candidates:

    (1) Charismatic young novice--with no military service--opposed to the war.  Liberal Democrat.

    (2) Straight-talking mature veteran--and POW torture-victim--ready to battle on for American honor.  Maverick Republican.

    Nine out of 10 (if not 19 out of 20) big-time political reporters (or pundits) are middle aged white men--think Matthews, or Fineman, or Olberman, or King, or Blitzer, or Cooper, or Alter, or Buchanan, or Shuster, or Bernstein, or Cohen, or Kline, or Russert, or Williams, etcetera & etcetera.  (The women, with barely an excepetion, are nothing but camp-followers.)  

    Do you believe that this group--never mind the hyenas at Fox--would rather do a story on McCain's intricate (and thus hard-to-grasp) history with lobbyists than a story on Obama's supposed connection to the Nation of Islam?  

    Do you believe these men--none of whom served in the military and who now keep telling us the surge is working--would be more eager to brutally question the most famous guest of the Hanoi Hilton than the Chicago street organizer who wears funny (i.e., Muslim) clothes when he goes abroad?

    It's barely March.  Reporters have plenty of time to pivot so that Obama will (however slowly) replace Clinton in their free-fire zone.  I'd guess that unless McCain does something so over-the-top stupid not even Chris Matthews can ignore it, or suffers a medical moment inextricably associated with his age, the Hero will get a free ride.

    The real question, it seems to me, is not whether Obama can take the mud-slinging--he's neither soft nor stupid--but whether his supporters, so many of whom are new to politics and seem to think it should be patty-cake for grown-ups, will stick around when the going gets really ugly.  

    Given how loudly they complain at even the slightest suggestion of human flaws in their candidate, I'm afraid they'll vanish as fast as they showed up.  I'm afraid they will be the best allies a malignant media could ever want.

    Media (1.00 / 2) (#24)
    by mouth of the south on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:27:29 PM EST
    I am not so worried about the how the media treats Obama, but I am worried how the pro-Clinton blogs will treat him if he is the candidate.  I believe that sites such as this will do all in their power to take him down.  I just hope that their disappointment over Clinton's loss will not help hand the election to McCain.  I don't think you can blame the media for her loss. I believe the blame for her poor showing lately rests with her campaign plan which was to win it all on Super Tuesday with no plan for what to do there after.  She spent all of her money and put all of her hopes on winning Super Tuesday.  That was a very poor plan and was not the fault of the media.  If you want to get upset with someone, then get upset with Hillary and her staff for such an unrealistic plan.  Do not take it out on Obama if he is our candidate.  He had nothing to do with the Clinton's staff's poor planning.

    I think the Republicans will not need (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:32:58 PM EST
    blogs such as this one for the Republicans to sully Obama in the GE.

    Parent
    Every little bit helps (none / 0) (#35)
    by JJE on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    I'm sure St. John is grateful for every Obama-hater he can get.

    Parent
    It ain't over until it's over (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by JohnS on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    Are you equally worried about how the pro-Obama blogs would treat HRC if she were to be nominated?

    Parent
    mouthofthesouth (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Lena on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:08:15 PM EST
    writes:

    I don't think you can blame the media for her loss.

    Allow me to remind you of that if Obama gets the nomination and HE is the one on the receiving end of a relentlessly negative press.

    I DO blame the media for the fact that she isn't very far ahead of Obama. And I attribute her ability to keep the race tied at this point to the fact that she is so incredibly popular among the Democratic base. Despite the fact that the media is trying to convince us that she's a shrill, whining loser.

    Parent

    NOW (none / 0) (#32)
    by kmblue on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:46:18 PM EST
    you're worried about the support of Clinton
    supporters?
    That's nice.

    Parent
    He said Clinton supporters (none / 0) (#36)
    by JJE on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:02:30 PM EST
    Not Obama-haters.  Nobody expects Obama-haters to get over their irrational hatred.  Fortunately they are not numerous, only loud.

    Parent
    I think that's unfair (none / 0) (#43)
    by vj on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:01:15 PM EST
    It isn't for me to say, but I suspect that the people who run this site will be in fully in Obama's corner if he is the nominee.

    Speaking for myself as a tepid Clinton supporter, I will have no problem supporting Obama in the GE if he is the nominee, and certainly have no interest in seeing him "taken down".

    Parent

    FOX (none / 0) (#1)
    by joei on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:43:02 AM EST
    Republicans have FOX.

    And ABC (none / 0) (#2)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45:09 AM EST


    And talk radio (none / 0) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:05:34 PM EST
    And MICROSOFT GE NBC

    (Microsoft is in YET ANOTHER class action lawsuit (about Vista hardware certification).  Darned certain they're going to want a Republican in office...meaning that darned certain they're going to pressure MSNBC to make it happen.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#44)
    by Manuel on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:06:53 PM EST
    Microsoft donors have generally been supporting Clinton.  Google donors have generally been supporting Obama.  Here is a link

    Parent
    But not the upper management (none / 0) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:06:48 PM EST
    OpenSecrets.org:  Go there and look up Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer.

    They are first anti-Clinton, second, anti-Democrat.   Remember the Clinton-Democrats made their lives hell during the Microsoft anti-trust cases.

    I wish I could find the link, but Gates said something about the government (read Clintons) taking away his right to do business (read right to monopolize the software industry).   It's somewhere, out there.

    I live close to Redmond, WA, and followed the story reasonably closely.

    It doesn't matter what the worker bees do.  Not in the least.

    Parent

    I looked in opensecrets.org (none / 0) (#53)
    by Manuel on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:19:45 PM EST
    The top listed individual donor from Microsoft donated 100% to democrats.  Bill and Steve did not make the list.  I don't think they are big into contributions although as noted in te Seattle Times it loooks like Bill maxed out for Hillary this year.

    Both Hillary and Obama were featured in Bill's farewell video.

    Bill Gates isn't a right wing extremist.  Of course he has strong views on antitrust but his views are more complicated and nuanced than that.  For example, both he and his father have spoken out against reducing or repealing the estate tax.

    An interesting tidbit is that the records at opensecrets.org show that Jim Barksdale, of Netscape fame, is or was a republican supporter.

    Look, I don't want to get into an argument about Microsoft.  I would only point out that the Microsoft is evil meme is too simplistic.

    BTW I also live in Seattle.

    Parent

    Here's an article (none / 0) (#47)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:13:46 PM EST
    About Bill Gates and Republicans.

    Link

    I'm still looking for the one about Gates expressed feelings about his business and government.

    Parent

    Here's a statement made (none / 0) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:16:52 PM EST
    by Bill Gates regarding the anti-trust matter:

    Link

    Do you see why I speculated that he might be anti-Clinton first and anti-Democrat second...and how this might bleed over into how his part-owned TV network (MSNBC) behaves?

    Parent

    So why would he donate to her campaign (none / 0) (#55)
    by Manuel on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:33:49 PM EST
    and why would she appear in his farewell video?  Look, I don't have any direct knowledge of Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer's political beliefs but to suggest that they could or would influence MSNBC to cover the news in a prticular way doesn't sound credible to me.  They didn't do it for the Microsoft antitrust trial.  Michael Kinsley had full editorial discretion at Slate (which he joked about).

    Parent
    They're very, very Republican (none / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:56:47 PM EST
    Did you read the Time article I linked to?

    Parent
    Yes I read the article (none / 0) (#59)
    by Manuel on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:30:20 PM EST
    and they may be very republican but that doesn't mean that they will direct MSNBC to slant the news.  I seen no evidence for that.

    BTW I am not very very republican and I disagreed with the goverment's prosecution of the Microsoft antitrust trial.  In many ways it was another example of trial by media.

    Parent

    Nope. They're not (none / 0) (#62)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:12:54 PM EST
    very very Republican.

    Steve Ballmer and others, no doubt...but Bill, Melinda, Bill Sr. are Democrats, not unlike Warren Buffett.  They maxed out for Maria Cantwell's reelection campaign and support other Dems as well.

    Melinda co-chaired an Early Childhood Task Force with Mona Locke, wife of Dem. Gov. Gary Locke in the late 90s.

    Microsoft and their business lobbyists are not the same as Bill Gates and Paul Allen.  People are individuals and some of them even CHANGE!  Bill, Jr. certainly has through his close friendship with Buffett.

    Parent

    Easier Said Than Done (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45:30 AM EST
    Got any ideas how he can keep the press happy?

    the media darling status will drop away (none / 0) (#7)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55:37 AM EST
    and in the debates, Obama will get the first question for a change and he will fall on his nose trying to get out of difficult questions....IOW, he will be exposed for not being prepared....He best start studying hard...(Like the name of the new head of Russia)....IMO it will look like a train wreck....

    It would have been nice... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lambert on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:12:10 PM EST
    if in the last debate, Hillary had called Obama on his claim that he was "in the midst of" a "high stakes" campaign for the U.S. Senate when he gave his Iraq speech in October 2002. In fact, he didn't even declare until January 2003.

    Parent
    But wouldn't that have been racist :-) (none / 0) (#17)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:18:37 PM EST
    How would that have been racist? (none / 0) (#21)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:24:56 PM EST
    Are you trying to make the claim that any attack on Obama is racist?  

    Parent
    It was snark (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    playing off an earlier post.  Are you trying to be dense?

    Parent
    Because everyone knows (none / 0) (#40)
    by JJE on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:12:44 PM EST
    campaigns don't start until the day you formally declare.  How silly.

    Parent
    oh please (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by tree on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:32:02 PM EST
    explain how one can be "in the midst of a campaign" before you've even decided to run. In October 2002 he was running as an unopposed incumbent for the Illinois State Senate, not as a candidate for the US Senate.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#8)
    by NJDem on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:57:36 AM EST
    and ironically, March is Women's History Month!  

    Although it appeared there was no knock out punch from the last debate.  Since then, there have been a number of news stories about BO being too busy campaigning to hold meetings of his committee--as HRC pointed out (finally!), as well as stories agreeing with her that the media had been biased against her.  

    I'm not in the business of making predications, but I do think the glow is starting to wear off (which I think should be important to do before the GE so Dems know what they're getting into).

    And now we see the left blogs excuses (none / 0) (#13)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:09:35 PM EST
    If Obama fails to win in the GE.

    Timmeh is going NOWHERE (none / 0) (#15)
    by kmblue on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:14:27 PM EST
    make up your minds to that.

    I would not be so confident (none / 0) (#29)
    by vigkat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:35:57 PM EST
    That Matthews and Williams will maintain their present level of support for Obama.  They appear to be excited about Obama right now, but only in juxtiposition to Hillary.  Matthews has always had a crush on McCain and I doubt he will overtly choose Obama over McCain.  I just don't see it happening.  Olbermann is more of a wild card.  He is definitely on the Obama bandwagon right now, so we'll have to wait and see.  But he alone will not be sufficient to protect Obama.  These guys are reeds in the wind, bending whichever way it blows.

    Parent
    Think Olbermann Will Have To Stay With Obama (none / 0) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:52:33 PM EST
    If he did not, he would quickly lose the majority of his audience. The others IMO will support McCain.

    Parent
    Don't have the link (none / 0) (#30)
    by sancho on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:38:38 PM EST
    but Matthews has said McCain "deserves" to be President. He is totally "in the tank" for McCain.  Matthews will hit the inexperienced meme with Obama once the GE begins. Obama just makes him tingle as long as Hillary is in the race. If it ever becomes just Obama and McCain, then he tingles nonstop for McCain.

    THANK YOU! (none / 0) (#42)
    by Lil on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:35:38 PM EST
    Um, duh? But they miss the bigger point -- to withstand this onslaught Obama will need to retain his Media Darling status. NOW we see Marshall is worried about NBC. After spending months defending NBC for its outrageous bias against Hillary Clinton. As Bob Somerby regularly notes about Marshall and TPM, it is a little late to get religion on the outrageous work of NBC.

    Farewell, my darling (none / 0) (#60)
    by cann on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:09:21 PM EST
     Oh, a dash of "terror" will bring all those boys to their senses and they'll recognize that the old warrior is best for the job...or they'll begin to seriously wonder if the "Muslim" label will undermine  Obama's appeal - not that THEY subscribe to that kind of inaccurate label for Obama, but...
     Or...some other version of the above.

    Media darling of late night too (none / 0) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:32:26 AM EST
    So I watched my DVRed David Letterman and heard many insulting jokes about McCain, Nader, Hillary....and I waited for an Obama joke...not there.

    So apparently, Obamamania is actually David Letterman!

    Here's a listing of pretty much all of the political jokes in latenight.

    Link

    Honestly, this is starting to get downright scary.

    Nightline tonight w/ Hillary (none / 0) (#64)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 01:55:42 AM EST
    and Cynthia McFadden in Ohio.

    Rural Ohio...talking to small groups about gas prices, jobs, healthcare.

    She tells Cynthia, "Everywhere I go, people say to me...don't give up!  Don't give up!  I'm with you!"

    She won't be rolling over any time soon from the looks of it.  Appears we'll be going to the convention with nobody having quite enough votes to win the nomination.

    Parent