Saturday, January 26, 2008
NBC bias against Clinton?For all this blog's complaints about Hillary and Bill, it should also note that on NBC's nightly news for the west coast, in reporting the South Carolina primary results, it then presented a very long portion of Obama's victory speech (which was very good, by the way). Maybe it was timing (the special west coast version in sync with the speechmaking), but it was striking. It was worth millions of dollars in terms of good advertising/PR for Obama.
posted by Quiddity at 1/26/2008 09:20:00 PM
3 comments
It's long been a staple of political campaigns and news coverage that, if possible, you schedule a big event of this sort to catch broadcast news times to they'll dip into it live.
If Hillary had won and spoken at the same time, they almost certainly would have covered it live too.
I've appreciated all your posts today, but haven't commented because basically all I had to say was "same here, me too." But I'll add a couple commments here that are relevant to some of your posts.
When I spoke of how the Clintons were injecting race into the campaign, many people didn't believe me. After Bill Clinton's unsolicited Jackson crack today and the campaign's referring to Obama as "the black candidate," I think a lot more people will believe that their plan has included a subtle but scuzzy racial component for weeks now. I'm pretty livid about it -- I can hardly imagine how betrayed African-Americans who voted for these jokers feel. I think if Bill figured that it would help them win a few percentage points, he would let slip the "n" word 'accidently' near a microphone.
Re the intensity of online Clinton supporters mentioned in your long post today: I dont' get it either. Hillary is a standard issue DC Dem pol. She's got no more charisma than Kerry. She's functional as a speaker and entirely uninspirational. The only factors you may have overlooked are:
1) Gender identification. Most of the most vocal cheerleaders for Hillary seem to be female (as nearly as one can tell online, of course).
2) Patronage. I doubt many commenters are aiming for a patronage job, but perhaps one or two of them are insiders showing their dedication to go above and beyond for Hillary (or maybe some are explicitly Volunteers for the 'Net or something). It surely wouldn't explain more than a small handful of posters, however.
The thought-free manner of their posting and the rapidly ramping up to frenzied rhetoric does remind me of the style of Bushbots from 2000 to , say 2005.
This is all pretty distressing to me, since I feel that Hillary will probably manage to make it to the nomination with no real justification for her candidacy than "Someone has to be president--why not Hillary?"
However, I am via money and volunteering, trying to make Obama the candidate.
Anyway, thanks for the posts today, as always.
If Obama becomes pres. and Putin gives him hard time, will he claim racial overtones?
He didn't coverage of his speech in the mountain time zone, at least from my vantage in Boise. Still, he needed coverage in California and the speech was really electrifying. Watch his numbers in Feb 5 states jump.
|
