Olbermann attacks Hillary for not defending herself on Bachtel

[metta 0]

####### media

For a campaign that has been declared over, and a candidate who has been declared dead, Hillary Clinton sure gets alot of attention from the Obama News Network (NBC), not to mention the Obama blog network (you know who I mean). I watched Countdown with Keith Olbermann for the first 15 30 minutes. After 10 minutes of bashing Clinton for firing Mark Penn (it seemed like that he was doing, to be honest, Olbermann was pretty incoherent), then 5 minutes of attacking Clinton on comparing her Iraq position with Obama's. Then 10 minutes of telling us that Clinton has no chance (begging the question, then why spend the first 25 minutes of your program blasting Hillary Clinton?

Olbermann wanted to attack Clinton on the Bachtel story, but it seems NBC got the memo that they were wrong (Olbermann graciously "gave that one" to Clinton) then attacked Clinton for an argument she did not make (but should) - that the Media LIED about the Bachtel story. Yes Keith, your Obama News Network spent the day LYING about Hillary Clinton's statement on Trina Bachtel.

More . . .

But Hillary Clinton would be wrong to even suggest your network and you, Keith Olbermann, are biased against Hillary Clinton. Suuuure. The man is Obama's O'Reilly. NBC is Obama's Fox Noise. But the kicker for me was Dana Milbank, who said well yes the Media got the Bachtel story wrong, but LIKE AL GORE IN 2000, it is Clinton's fault. The sad thing is I read the same thing at the so called "progressive" blogs now. We are through the Looking Glass - the "progressive" blogs who once saw their mission as countering the Media's bias against Dems like what happened to Al Gore. Now the cheer it on and indeed LEAD those charges. The progressive blogosphere is dead. Long live the "progressive" blogosphere!

[simple_male 1]

It is "Clinteresting."

<a href="http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/7/202333/8404" target="_blank">####### media

</a>

For a campaign that has been declared over, and a candidate who has been declared dead, Hillary Clinton sure gets alot of attention from the Obama News Network (NBC), not to mention the Obama blog network (you know who I mean). I watched Countdown with Keith Olbermann for the first 15 30 minutes. After 10 minutes of bashing Clinton for firing Mark Penn (it seemed like that he was doing, to be honest, Olbermann was pretty incoherent), then 5 minutes of attacking Clinton on comparing her Iraq position with Obama's. Then 10 minutes of telling us that Clinton has no chance (begging the question, then why spend the first 25 minutes of your program blasting Hillary Clinton?

Olbermann wanted to attack Clinton on the Bachtel story, but it seems NBC got the memo that they were wrong (Olbermann graciously "gave that one" to Clinton) then attacked Clinton for an argument she did not make (but should) - that the Media LIED about the Bachtel story. Yes Keith, your Obama News Network spent the day LYING about Hillary Clinton's statement on Trina Bachtel.

More . . .

But Hillary Clinton would be wrong to even suggest your network and you, Keith Olbermann, are biased against Hillary Clinton. Suuuure. The man is Obama's O'Reilly. NBC is Obama's Fox Noise. But the kicker for me was Dana Milbank, who said well yes the Media got the Bachtel story wrong, but LIKE AL GORE IN 2000, it is Clinton's fault. The sad thing is I read the same thing at the so called "progressive" blogs now. We are through the Looking Glass - the "progressive" blogs who once saw their mission as countering the Media's bias against Dems like what happened to Al Gore. Now the cheer it on and indeed LEAD those charges. The progressive blogosphere is dead. Long live the "progressive" blogosphere!

[HAL 9000 96]

Run for the hills!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bad, bad media. Maybe Hillary can squeeze another tear over this prior to 22 April.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

At this point in time, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has a 95-percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination. The window for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to win enough pledged delegates to persuade superdelegates to vote for her is pretty much closed.

She can't win the remaining contests by sufficient margins to appreciably close the gap at this point, and superdelegates are breaking more toward Obama than Clinton. Short of a Rev. Jeremiah Wright-level embarrassment visiting Obama each week for four or five consecutive weeks, this thing is over.

http://nationaljournal.com/cook.htm

[no name 1]

At this point in time, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has a 95-percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination. The window for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to win enough pledged delegates to persuade superdelegates to vote for her is pretty much closed.

She can't win the remaining contests by sufficient margins to appreciably close the gap at this point, and superdelegates are breaking more toward Obama than Clinton. Short of a Rev. Jeremiah Wright-level embarrassment visiting Obama each week for four or five consecutive weeks, this thing is over.

http://nationaljournal.com/cook.htm

Too bad your 'numbers' have no source. Just speculation.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

At this point in time, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has a 95-percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination. The window for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to win enough pledged delegates to persuade superdelegates to vote for her is pretty much closed.

She can't win the remaining contests by sufficient margins to appreciably close the gap at this point, and superdelegates are breaking more toward Obama than Clinton. Short of a Rev. Jeremiah Wright-level embarrassment visiting Obama each week for four or five consecutive weeks, this thing is over.

http://nationaljournal.com/cook.htm

Too bad your 'numbers' have no source. Just speculation.

About Charlie Cook...

The New York Times has called Cook, "...one of the best political handicappers in the nation" and noted that The Cook Political Report is "...a newsletter that both parties regard as authoritative," while Bob Schieffer of CBS News has called the Cook Political Report, "the bible of the political community." The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt once referred to Cook as "the Picasso of election analysis," while David Broder of The Washington Post has written that Charlie Cook is "perhaps the best non-partisan tracker of Congressional races."

http://www.cookpolitical.com/about/bios/cook.php

[no name 1]

At this point in time, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has a 95-percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination. The window for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to win enough pledged delegates to persuade superdelegates to vote for her is pretty much closed.

She can't win the remaining contests by sufficient margins to appreciably close the gap at this point, and superdelegates are breaking more toward Obama than Clinton. Short of a Rev. Jeremiah Wright-level embarrassment visiting Obama each week for four or five consecutive weeks, this thing is over.

http://nationaljournal.com/cook.htm

Too bad your 'numbers' have no source. Just speculation.

About Charlie Cook...

The New York Times has called Cook, "...one of the best political handicappers in the nation" and noted that The Cook Political Report is "...a newsletter that both parties regard as authoritative," while Bob Schieffer of CBS News has called the Cook Political Report, "the bible of the political community." The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt once referred to Cook as "the Picasso of election analysis," while David Broder of The Washington Post has written that Charlie Cook is "perhaps the best non-partisan tracker of Congressional races."

http://www.cookpolitical.com/about/bios/cook.php

Still not a source for that number.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.

One reason is fear of embarrassment. In its zeal to avoid predictive reporting of the sort that embarrassed journalists in New Hampshire, the media — including Politico — have tended to avoid zeroing in on the tough math Clinton faces.

Avoiding predictions based on polls even before voters cast their ballots is wise policy. But that's not the same as drawing sober and well-grounded conclusions about the current state of a race after millions of voters have registered their preferences.

The antidote to last winter's flawed predictions is not to promote a misleading narrative based on the desired but unlikely story line of one candidate.

There are other forces also working to preserve the notion of a contest that is still up for grabs.

One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business.

The media are also enamored of the almost mystical ability of the Clintons to work their way out of tight jams, as they have done for 16 years at the national level. That explains why some reporters are inclined to believe the Clinton campaign when it talks about how she’s going to win on the third ballot at the Democratic National Convention in August.

That’s certainly possible — and, to be clear, we’d love to see the race last that long — but it’s folly to write about this as if it is likely.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

[no name 1]

One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.

One reason is fear of embarrassment. In its zeal to avoid predictive reporting of the sort that embarrassed journalists in New Hampshire, the media — including Politico — have tended to avoid zeroing in on the tough math Clinton faces.

Avoiding predictions based on polls even before voters cast their ballots is wise policy. But that's not the same as drawing sober and well-grounded conclusions about the current state of a race after millions of voters have registered their preferences.

The antidote to last winter's flawed predictions is not to promote a misleading narrative based on the desired but unlikely story line of one candidate.

There are other forces also working to preserve the notion of a contest that is still up for grabs.

One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business.

The media are also enamored of the almost mystical ability of the Clintons to work their way out of tight jams, as they have done for 16 years at the national level. That explains why some reporters are inclined to believe the Clinton campaign when it talks about how she’s going to win on the third ballot at the Democratic National Convention in August.

That’s certainly possible — and, to be clear, we’d love to see the race last that long — but it’s folly to write about this as if it is likely.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

Still...NOT A SOURCE.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Still...NOT A SOURCE.

Perhaps try Vegas?

2008 US Presidential Betting Odds

By March that had all changed, with Barack Obama taking a dramatic lead as the big favorite followed by John McCain and Hillary Clinton's odds were as long as 7/2 at some online gambling websites.

http://www.gambling911.com/2008-US-Preside...dds-110807.html

[no name 1]

Still...NOT A SOURCE.

Perhaps try Vegas?

2008 US Presidential Betting Odds

By March that had all changed, with Barack Obama taking a dramatic lead as the big favorite followed by John McCain and Hillary Clinton's odds were as long as 7/2 at some online gambling websites.

http://www.gambling911.com/2008-US-Preside...dds-110807.html

I don't see the 'facts' that you do. I suggest perhaps you make the trip - Southwest has some deals!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Still...NOT A SOURCE.

Perhaps try Vegas?

2008 US Presidential Betting Odds

By March that had all changed, with Barack Obama taking a dramatic lead as the big favorite followed by John McCain and Hillary Clinton's odds were as long as 7/2 at some online gambling websites.

http://www.gambling911.com/2008-US-Preside...dds-110807.html

I don't see the 'facts' that you do. I suggest perhaps you make the trip - Southwest has some deals!

If you were a bookie, what kind of odds would you put on Hillary winning the nomination at this point?

[no name 1]

Still...NOT A SOURCE.

Perhaps try Vegas?

2008 US Presidential Betting Odds

By March that had all changed, with Barack Obama taking a dramatic lead as the big favorite followed by John McCain and Hillary Clinton's odds were as long as 7/2 at some online gambling websites.

http://www.gambling911.com/2008-US-Preside...dds-110807.html

I don't see the 'facts' that you do. I suggest perhaps you make the trip - Southwest has some deals!

If you were a bookie, what kind of odds would you put on Hillary winning the nomination at this point?

I'm not a betting person.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Still...NOT A SOURCE.

Perhaps try Vegas?

2008 US Presidential Betting Odds

By March that had all changed, with Barack Obama taking a dramatic lead as the big favorite followed by John McCain and Hillary Clinton's odds were as long as 7/2 at some online gambling websites.

http://www.gambling911.com/2008-US-Preside...dds-110807.html

I don't see the 'facts' that you do. I suggest perhaps you make the trip - Southwest has some deals!

If you were a bookie, what kind of odds would you put on Hillary winning the nomination at this point?

I'm not a betting person.

Hypothetically speaking. I can understand cheering for one's team even when the odds are against them...but you've got to admit her chances of winning are slim to none at this point.