Sen. Hillary Cinton has hit a slump in her presidential campaign, so Media Matters (the so-called media watchdog Hillary claims to have helped start) is whining that her “inevitability” was partially a creation of the media:
Many in the media certainly seemed to be building Clinton up prior to the Philadelphia debate  though it should be noted that they were doing so strictly in a horse-race context. Clinton wasn’t getting the kind of fawning media coverage that George W. Bush, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee have enjoyed at various points in recent years. The storyline wasn’t that Clinton is a “straight-talker” or someone you’d “want to have a beer with” or an apolitical “maverick” with “folksy charm.”
Instead, media built her up as “inevitable.”
Were they doing so simply so they could knock her down?
The cheap shot here would be to point out exactly why Hillary Clinton does not get portrayed as “straight-talker” or someone you’d “want to have a beer with” or an apolitical “maverick” with “folksy charm.” Barn sides do not come much broader than this.
And it is true that the press does like a horse race, and that the media builds up people (inside and outside politics), only to turn on them later.
But maybe — just maybe — there is another reason Media Matters missed.
For example, the fact that the Real Clear Politics national poll average has shown HRC with a commanding lead since at least February. And that the RCP averages for New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida also consistently put HRC in the lead (and as of today, still do). And that as the Philadelphia debate approached, HRC had finally passed Edwards and led over Obama in Iowa. Not to mention commanding leads in other early contests, such as Nevada and Michigan. Or the fact that Clinton has long had the advantage in organization in most states (with the possible exception of Edwards in Iowa). Or the fact that Clinton raised the most money in the third quarter and ended up with the most cash on hand also. Or the fact that InTrade  and the Iowa Electronic Market still have HRC above all the other candidates.
Maybe that is why the media was discussing HRC’s “inevitability.” Maybe that’s why she remains the most likely Democratic nominee.
Not that any of the above matters to Media Matters, which examines the “media creation” of HRC’s slump without once mentioning the topic or using the word “immigration” — even though HRC’s non-answer and subsequent flopping about on the issue at the debate that seem to have been the turning point for HRC’s poll numbers. The closest Media Matters comes to mentioning it is to assert that:
Considerably less attention was paid to the fact that her struggles in that debate came in response to false and misleading questions from the debate’s moderator, Tim Russert, who misquoted her previous statements as well as his own. The Annenberg Center’s nonpartisan FactCheck.org website ultimately agreed that Russert had been “breathtakingly misleading.”
In typical Media Matters fashion, if you actually follow the link, you discover that the quoted phrase refers to one question regarding the release of documents by the National Archives — and that the Annenberg Center had initially made the same mistake Russert did. The center’s overall assessment remained that HRC “ducked some questions and gave misleading answers to others,” including the question on immigration.
It should be no surprise that Media Matters completely ignores her problems with the immigration question, as it made the same omission when it attacked Russert immediately after the debate.
Indeed, in their current complaint about media coverage of HRC, Media Matters inadvertently blurts out their modus operandi:
The candidates’ performance is for others to assess; our interest is in the “media creation” side of things.
How Media Matters manages to assess whether something is a “media creation” without reference to the candidates’ actual performance is left unexplained.
ya know, Rush Limbaugh is always saying that MM is a Clinton front group and I’ve never been too eager to agree, but this may change my mind.
Media Matters? A Clinton front group?
Nah!
On Sunday, 12/16/07, Ron Paul broke campaign fundraising records set by two prominent Democrats — surpassing John Kerry’s 2004 record of 5.7 million, as well as Hillary Clinton’s [disputed] record of 6.2 million in a single day. If the GOP wises up, they will realize Ron Paul’s viability against the Democrats — or , more importantly, his superiority to the hollow, pre-packaged choices being offered by both parties. The GOP may just have to view Dr. Paul as a “necessary evil”. That’s what I have had to do with my vote for the last eight years.
RP08
thejaykob@hotmail.com
I will not drink my own urine if Hillary becomes President. I will simply grimace as though I did
What’s up Dan?
Who let the RonPaul nut in?
Oliver Willis: like King Midas, only with teh stupid.
[…] After Ron Paul inevitably loses the Republican nomination, his next step will likely be a run as an Independent candidate (the Reform Party is sniffing , the Libertarian Party needs someone as well). Ron Paul is floundering in the Republican Party (something about the BDS he’s spouting is so…Democratic), so jumping to an Independent platform is as inevitable as is…a Hillary nomination? […]
Nor backsides much broader than hers!
And thanks for a good laugh, thejaykob. If there’s anything more pathetically deluded than a Ron Paul supporter who thinks he’s actually a viable candidate I’m sure I don’t know what it is.
[…] But if you check their sources it doesn’t pan out. […]
Ron Paul is not a viable candidate for President.
Much of his “support” is based on that. Think of him as a human embodiment of “None of the above is acceptable”.
What he represents is a large, and growing, segment of the population who are thoroughly disgusted with, and disaffected from, the existing political establishment. There is a long tradition of third parties being absorbed into the two main consensus strains — indeed, there’s a line of thought that says the U.S. doesn’t need a Parliamentary system because we have two of them already, and they take turns. Whichever party manages to incorporate Paul’s supporters into the mainstream of its thought will gain a tremendous advantage over the other; think Democrats and Populists cerca 1900. If neither party manages to do so — and I’m not sanguine; it would be a tremendous stretch for either — they will be even stronger and less inclined to be cooperative next time around, and dismissive sneering at the “Paulbots” will make things worse, rather than better.
Regards,
Ric
It would be easier not to sneer at them if they didn’t keep acting so damned sneer-worthy.
Ric, I don’t think the sneering at lunacy hurts anything. They are worse than the description you give of essentially rational but disaffected voters. They are NUTS, to the last one. Insane, ridiculous, disturbed individuals. If they are trying to restore the government to first priniciples, I thank them for my share of the favor, but I don’t like their way of getting presidents.
MediaMatters, a Clinton Front-group?
The deuce you say!?
Sweet post, Karl.
I like to think I remember seeing such good work in newspapers and magazines once upon a time.
But I’m probably wrong.
No Ron Paul fan here, but there doesn’t seem to be any limited government, fiscal conservative, social agnostic out there. I’d guess Thompson comes closest, but it is a weak field on both sides.
I thought Media Matters was a donut delivery system for Oliver Willis.
Easy. They’re completely full of shit.
Ron Paul is a loon magnet.
Ron Paul is a loon magnet.
Hell, even the neo-Nazis at Stormfront have endorsed him.
[Warning: real Nazis at that link!]
Ron Paul may say some things that sound reasonable … but I put him in the same category as Pat Buchannan … the extremism outweighs the reasonable.
and .. IMHO .. Romney is vastly more experienced than any of the Dem candidates to be President …but some can’t seem to bridge the “Mormons are icky” river. And the MSM is eager to insist on only covering the “faith” issue in the Republican race.
the kind of fawning media coverage that George W. Bush
What?? I must have missed that media coverage.
My problem with Romney is that he’s even more of a nanny-stater than Giuliani, not that he’s Mormon.
#22 JO
To the snivelers at MM, Limbaugh and Hannity = the Media. Nevermind that the Alphabet Networks have been trashing “Shrub” since the very beginning of the 2000 campaign.
It’s not the Mormonism that makes Romney icky.
Uh hunh. I invite those with relatively long memories to consider the things said around here, and elsewhere around the right blogosphere, regarding the “nutroots” cerca 2004 and 2005 — factoring in the results of the 2006 election. The Kos/Pelosi/Sheehan movement had (and has) a single important supporter, George Soros. The Paulbots are getting massive support (by third-party standards) from individuals.
The Paulbots know you despise them, and revel in it. You just need to watch out. As more and more people’s opinions get lumped into the “despised” category, they don’t just disappear — and if Ron Paul offers them a home they’ll go for it.
For the record: I think Paul’s proposals are foolish and counterproductive in the main, but there’s stuff in there the mainstream parties should co-opt. Republicans are best situated to do so, but only if they can sideline the Ted Stevens wing of the party, and if Democrats try to do it they will naturally adopt the silliest and least useful features.
I don’t like John McCain, but could hold my nose and vote for him against any of the current Democratic field. If the contest came down to Clinton/Huckabee, I’d vote for Ron Paul Chicago-style — early, often, and with maximum effort to round up others to do so.
Regards,
Ric
I’ve been trying to look at the GOP candidates on a pragmatic basis. It’s really either Rudy or Mitt that has the best chance of defeating Hillary/Obama. Thompson doesn’t seem to have caught on, Paul is a non-starter and Huckabee is Jhimmah Carter-lite.
Does anyone really want to concede the White House for the next 4-8 years to Pelosi and Reid?
Ric
IIRC, wasn’t it Howard Dean who raised oodles of money from individuals from the ‘net last go-around?
Yes, oodles.
And if it weren’t for his “I have a scream” speech, he’d be President today.
Wouldn’t he?
“You just need to watch out.”
For when the Paulbots come for me? Look, their ilk has been around for a long, long time. There is no reason to dignify the zeal of kooks, which will always be with us. If Ron Paul has or had anything useful to say, he messed it up by a: being crazy and b: encouraging the attentions of mentally unbalanced Truthers/Birchers/Larouchites/NeoNazi fringers/Scientology/mixed up emo kids.
I’m all for third parties dragging ideas into the mainstream where people have to pay attention to them. But Paul is fail, fail, fail, because he is so distanced from polite consideration as to be completely and totally irrelevent, no matter what any merit any of his positions might have.
You mean like the slobbering ass kissing that Joe Klein gave Hilster on the cover of Time Magazine this past Nov. 7th? I nearly died in a diabetic coma after reading that testimonial.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1681670,00.html
Media Matters seems to reflect the arrogance of the person who founded them.
I usually have a lot of respect for your opinions Ric, but no matter how much you cajole, I’m not going to give the Stormfront Nazis and the 9/11 Troof brigades a pass. Congressman Paul is, which is why I could never support him.
If Ron Paul doesn’t run as a Third Party, his supporters are not going to vote Republican or Democrat, at any rate.
– I thought Liberals, and their lap dogs, the Dems, were anti-creationist. That aside, The Dems look as confused as a cow on astroturf. They have a choice between a candidate that stands a smoeball chance in hell, and all the rest. The Media Matters Mavins, like a number of other Liberal loving MSM laimbrains, aren’t sure just where to spin, or even go with this election. The story line is just not forming up.
– The Dems are worse than the Reps, in terms of platform. What are they going to run on?. Hey, “look what a desaster the Dem controlled Congress has been”. Or how about, “We were first to call for cut and run in Iraq, but now that its not red meat anymore, suddenly its simply vanished off the political map”. Oh I know, how about “We’re for open borders, fuck the banckrupted state services, and an angry to spit fire electorate, we need the damn votes.” theres always “George Bush is a fascist”, or the ever popular “Hillerycare, when you care enough to bankrupt the whole nation”. They’ve got less than nothing.
– The spinless Reps will probably find numerous ways to make it a close race, in spite of the ponderous pile of palpible political malprops the Dems have handed them in a Shu box, but really they’d be safe even if they said nothing.
– Not going to be a classic Dem “off year” victory, regardless.
– Ron Paul? If aliens landed in their saucer on the White House lawn and asked to be taken to him, I still wouldn’t believe it. Its creepy to think people that delusional are actually allowed to vote.
[…] Earlier today, I noted in passing that there is a reason why Hillary Clinton does not get portrayed in the media as â€Âstraight-talker†or someone you’d “want to have a beer with†or an apolitical “maverick†with “folksy charm.†[…]
The ONLY reason Hillary! EVER had any chance for a Presidential run was the enablement by a fawning media bent ignoring her past. Her lack of anything people associate with a Presidential Candidate, other than a well oiled, experienced campaign staff is stunning (though, for some Democrat voters, having a vagina is enough qualification). It is a testament to her un-electability that she is losing ground rapidly as more of her is revealed that cannot be controlled thru staged control-freak presentations that take spontanaety completely out of the mix. She can’t think on her feet without revealing her Marxist tendencies. Her only hope was an unquestioning media, which is why Russert was attacked for daring to ask her a “tough” question.
*shrug*
I’m sure they revel in being despised. I’m also sure I don’t give a rat’s ass; I despise the Paulbots because they act more like cultists than like folks interested in political discourse.
Sounds like a win-win scenario to me. They can’t say I never did them any favors.
But they probably will anyway.
That’s an ironic conclusion, Rob.
Ric, after all these years, is it an indication of their finally overt, public agreement with Big Government that Republicans refuse to take Paul seriously? Besides all the stereotyping and guilts by association, I mean. Given that the man’s foundational concerns are about grossly bloated and damaging government, aside from his not taking a hard stand on Iraq, I find his rhetoric runs surprisingly parallel to what I always assumed Republicans thought they believed and valued.
I think Paul’s foreign entanglements thing really bugs the Pubbies, but as a principle, it shouldn’t. With that misrepresentation he resembles the bullshit Left and that die is then cast. A shame, really.
Saying that won’t make me any friends around here…which kinda starts to answer the question, but I’m genuinely interested in precisely when the majority of self-identified conservatives started eschewing conservative principles publicly en masse…
Or, where would Paul be today if he didn’t change a thing but spoke out vigorously against Iran, NK, etc.? Myself, I think he’s running a bit of an experiment, utterly nonplussed by the power and principally interested in offering a truly legitimate alternative to the DC monolith.
That neo-Nazis and other malcontents give the campaign cash strikes me as no more of an ideological stopper than that Chinese dishwashers gave to Clinton or fundie southerners to Huckabee. Mit’s Mormon connection I’m only a touch less comfy with, but I’ll readily cop to that inconsistency.
So who’s going to hang Paul up — I mean really hang him up — on a legitimate failure in his actual platform? Not saying it can’t be done, just that it rarely is, in favor of the emoting.
I pretty much agree with Paul on everything but his foreign policy and the Gold Standard thing, but those are pretty big. The world is too small for isolationism to be practical, and I wonder at the lucidity of people advocating it.
– If the Reps are smart they’ll nominate Rudi. Living with his pro-abortion stance, such as it is, isn’t going to change anything unless the SCOTUS decides to hammer Wade. The Pres. won’t matter, unlee the nature of the court changes. He would beat Hillery, hands down, because he trumps her in every conservative departmen, owes her on some of the Liberal issues, and puts her ass in the dirt on the whole range of experience. The management, and 9/11 experience gives him an edge on the WOT and foriegn policy, if hardball is the thing. McCain is popular in a lot of circles, but even his backers think hes over the hill. The rest of the Rep feild is just using up oxygen, and the Dems have no one else that can beat a Rep period.
– If the Reps are smart enough to pick Condi as Rudi’s running mate, that trumps the “woman” thing, and the “Black American” thing in one card. Leaves Hillery with an empty wagon to run on. But I doubt the Reps are smart enough to do that, so this round will be a mess as usual.
– Paul is the usual pissed off electorate momentary surge, until things get serious.
Yep, it isn’t Paul — I too agree with many of his stands save foreign policy — it’s his supporters that bother me. They seem to run the gamut from deranged to dangerous, nihilists to anarchists, and I don’t see Paul having a Sister Souljah moment any time soon. That bit about ‘knowing they’re despised and reveling in it’ speaks volumes.
RE Media Matters: You’ll find Winston Smith working in one of their cubicles. Unfortunately, he is in his “I Love Big Brother” stage. You know. Two plus two equals three, or five, or all of them at once. Nothing matters to him anymore but Media, ha ha ha!
Loved that MM went to FactCheck.org. Talk about Orwellian! My only question is, who’s checking the Fact Checkers?
Ron Paul’s supporters are the right’s own nutroots. I’ve seen the left’s, there is no way I want myself associated with his supporters. Isolationism didn’t work in 1800; the worlds’ econmy is past the gold standard. Sorry, but no.
And although I am not married, can anyone speculate what a gold standard for currency would do to the jewelers? What price a wedding band?
Ric,
It ain’t Chicago style voting unless someone in a union windbreaker hands you a palm card with a list of who to vote for, the precinct captain calls your house if you haven’t voted by 3:30 pm, and you just got your alley repaved…
Major John,
Except for the Union windbreaker — not many of those around here — that all sounds familiar, except that I’m the guy with the list :-)
Regards,
Ric