Also, I saw all kinds of stories by reporters complaining how inaccessible Hillary is to the press and how her staff treats newspeople shoddily (which is better than I’d treat them). This is bound to shape the way they write about Hillary.
“The surprise to me this year is the way the New York Times has treated Hillary Clinton.”
That is when it began to dawn on them that Hillary may not be the most electable candidate, and that the “Inevitablity” line was just propoganda...
The September Dem Debate changed EVERYTHING for many Dem-supporting liberals, when no leading Dem would commit on camera to a withdrawal date for Iraq...
Meanwhile, Pelosi kills the liberal orgasmic dream of Impeachment, while sending out another surrender fund-raising Email at the same time.
Sooner or later, even the liberal mind can figure out when they have been played as useful idiots...
I believe that a couple months ago, the media powers-that-be decided Hillary would have too many negatives against her in the general. There are so many facts, and even video clips of her, that portray her in such a bad light, that making Anti-Hillary Campaign videos would be childsplay! I think the Dems (and their media cohorts) decided then to start chipping away at her and putting up who they think could win. They may only HAVE Obama at this point, as many insiders are saying that this love child really IS Edwards’s.
There is not surprise in the coverage. They know very well that Hillary has the nomination sewed up. First of all 20 percent of the delegates to the Democratic convention are party officials and it is estimated that about 95 percent of them are going to vote for Hillary. The Clinton's have been dolling out money to local parties for years now. The local party officials owe the Clinton's big time. You can bet that if they do not vote for Hillary, that money will be cut off forever more. The party official delegates will vote for Hillary. It is not wise to do otherwise. Even if Obama wins a lot of primaries. Obama does not control the party money. The Clintons do.
Those party official votes give Hillary nearly 40 percent of the votes she needs to win the nomination on the first ballot. She has 40 percent of the votes needed to win before a single caucus or primary ballot is cast.
If the contest for delegates were a hundred yard dash, Hillary would get to start at the 40 yard line while the others start at the zero yard line. So if she manages to win 1/3 of the primaries she will be the nominee on the first convention ballot. Any other candidate must win 2/3 of the primaries just to tie Hillary.
So the media attacks Hillary in 2003 and a bit in early 2004. Then when they attack the Republican candidate in the two months before next falls general election they can say we are just being fair. We attacked Hillary just as much a year ago... It is only fair that we attack the Republican candidate now.
Wait and see next fall it will be time for the Hillary love fest and time for the media to trash the the Republican candidate.
You may not remember but leading up the the primaries in 2004 they were trashing John Kerry nearly every day. They were praising Howard Dean at every turn.
There were tons of stories about how John Kerry had to use his wifes money to be able to run. How he mortgaged her home to get the money to run. How the money he was using came from Republican John Heinz. It was implied that he married the Heinz widow just to get her money. It was not pretty coverage.