It's hilarious to me how the press is spinning this campaign in Hillary Clinton's favor. I don't know if there was a time when the press was pushing Barack, but they are definitely promoting the story of a Hillary comeback now - and its perplexing.

With universal name recognition, and leveraging the equity of being First Lady, Clinton blows a 20%+ lead in Pennsylvania - a state that is full of people representing her base - and she is somehow seen to be the one with the momentum now??? How exactly does that work?

Barack maintained his almost insurmountable lead in the race for the Democratic nomination (his over-all delegate lead may fall by less than 10 votes). In fact, as I understand it, he clinched the majority in total elected delegates yesterday. The Pennsylvania primary also showed Barack increasing his share of white and older voters - continuing to broaden his coalition of support while eating into Clinton's base.

At the end of the day, Obama made significant inroads in Pennsylvania, cutting Hillary's lead from over 20% down to single digits (9.2 points as of now) and he is still in firm control in the race for the Democratic nomination. To use a tennis analogy, he "held serve". When he started campaigning there and was down 20 - that was all that could be realistically expected.

In practical terms, Hillary's campaign is reported to be essentially bankrupt. Barack, on the other hand, has $20 million+ in the bank and will no doubt continue to fill his coffers.

Spin is spin. Math is math. Sit down Hillary.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MBM,

quote:

Originally posted by EbonyRose:

Do you disagree with something I've written or are you similarly nonplused with the press?

~ ~

MBM

I hate to tell you, but Howard Dean is gonna find a way to give this thing to Hillary and Affirmative Action will continue to do what it does best...

I am, always have been and, will probably always be a critic of the press! They suck!

But, yes, I also disagree with something you have written .. as usual ... .

Such as, you not knowing whether or not the press has pushed Barack? I can't imagine where you've been not to know that for sure!

And I find other terminology you've used to highlight your Hillary Hate expectedly biased, as well, and as usual.

Personally, I do think that this probably gives her some kind of new momentum ... just as any win would for anybody! I'm surprised you're willing to call what happened for her a "win", quite frankly. But carry on!!

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:
MBM

I hate to tell you, but Howard Dean is gonna find a way to give this thing to Hillary and Affirmative Action will continue to do what it does best...

As I said in the piece, Barack has already clinched the majority of elected delegates. I don't think Howard Dean, nor any other politico, will have their name attached to overturning the will of the people.

quote:

Originally posted by EbonyRose:

I am, always have been and, will probably always be a critic of the press! They suck!

But, yes, I also disagree with something you have written .. as usual ... .

Such as, you not knowing whether or not the press has pushed Barack? I can't imagine where you've been not to know that for sure!

And I find other terminology you've used to highlight your Hillary Hate expectedly biased, as well, and as usual.

But carry on!!

Cool - the bottom line is that Hillary blew a 20%+ lead in one of her "home" states. Barack still has a seemingly insurmountable lead to the nomination, and Hillary is almost broke while Barack has over $20MM+ in the bank.

Do you disagree with any of those fundamental facts? If not, then the point of my piece was just how ridiculous the spin is - that Hillary got such a "HUGE win". BS!

Yes, I think maybe I do!

What you term as "Hillary blowing a lead" I see as Barack picking up votes and gaining in popularity. Which I think says the same thing .. only your choice of words (of course) has to put Hillary in a negative light!

Also, while you happily tout Obama's excess millions ... I'm wondering how significant that really is .. consider he spent 3x millions of dollars on advertizing for a longer period of time to still lose the contest. Money isn't everything. But, it seems you're happy to tout *media spin* when it works in your (Barack's) favor.

I also believe that a 10-point victory was/would be HUGE for Barack if/when he has gotten one, wasn't it? If I'm not mistaken, Hillary was *crushed* by such a large margin of victory. But ... Hillary's 10-point win is and media-hyped nonsense.

I'm just intrigued by the obvious double standard and the blantant and unapologetic way that it has been displayed throughout this whole campaign! It's just so *in your face* and aggressive!! Too bad we don't take care of ourselves in the same way we are willing to fall on our sworad for Barack!

But, I'm used to it now. And I'm sure there will be much more to come.

quote:

Originally posted by EbonyRose:

Personally, I do think that this probably gives her some kind of new momentum ... just as any win would for anybody! I'm surprised you're willing to call what happened for her a "win", quite frankly. But carry on!!

Actually, I'm surprised that anybody is calling PA a "win" for Clinton. But I do understand the mainstream media's need for a "competitive" race to help with ratings.

In order to qualify as a "win" it should have decreased the average percentage of delegates that she needs from here to the end of the primary season.

Unfortunately for Clinton, her showing in PA actually increased the average percentage of delegates that she needs.

The PA primary was just another nail in the coffin of her campaign.

By doing so poorly in PA, she has made the delegate mathematics for her even more difficult to overcome, not less difficult.

She managed to dig herself deeper in PA. When you find yourself in a hole, you need to stop digging at some point, and start climbing out of the hole.

Let's take a look at some of your points ER:

quote:

Originally posted by EbonyRose:

What you term as "Hillary blowing a lead" I see as Barack picking up votes and gaining in popularity. Which I think says the same thing .. only your choice of words (of course) has to put Hillary in a negative light!

I'm merely trying to offer a counterbalance to the overwhelmingly biased reporting that has saturated our airwaves. IMHO this isn't a big win for Hillary. A big win for Hillary would be to win North Carolina by 10+ points. As it is, she was up in Pennsylvania by 20%+ points. She only won by 9.2% Where is the big win in that?

quote:

Also, while you happily tout Obama's excess millions ... I'm wondering how significant that really is .. consider he spent 3x millions of dollars on advertizing for a longer period of time to still lose the contest.

ER - he's running against someone with universal name recognition. He has to spend more money to get his name and message out and frankly to offset a lot of the media bias against him. Moreover, the point of raising money is to . . . spend it. Believe me, if Hillary had it, she wouldn't be just letting it pile up in her bank.

quote:

I also believe that a 10-point victory was/would be HUGE for Barack if/when he has gotten one, wasn't it?

But that's the point. Barack won 11 primaries in a row yet Hillary wasn't forced to quit. She overwhelmingly lost plenty of all white states but yet the press never lauded Barack as the "presumptive nominee". Why not? She wins a couple after getting blasted in 11 consecutive and all of a sudden she's got all this momentum????

Let's also remember the bigger picture here folks. There was a time not too long ago when the nomination was, basically, Hillary's. She is one of the most well-known people in the world. She had the entire Democratic machine focused behind getting her the nomination, and what happened? She "blew it" to an absolute no-name state legislator, freshman senator: a black man with no national political foundations from Illinois.

While Hillary was First Lady, Barack was probably making pennies organizing black folks on the south side of Chicago - yet, now he's kicking her behind and even with all of her name recognition and "friends" throughout the party - he's poised to win the nomination and has a great shot at being president.

This race actually represents one of the biggest political implosions of all time!

Oh shame on you, MBM!

I was about to answer your previous post, but you just went from bad to worse ... and I don't even feel like trying to be reasonable with you right now!

Okay ... now that I'm home and have had a glass of wine and have calmed down a few octaves ... let me try to respond without wanting to you with respect to what you said earlier.

quote:

I'm merely trying to offer a counterbalance to the overwhelmingly biased reporting that has saturated our airwaves. IMHO this isn't a big win for Hillary. A big win for Hillary would be to win North Carolina by 10+ points. As it is, she was up in Pennsylvania by 20%+ points. She only won by 9.2% Where is the big win in that?

Overwhelmingly biased reporting saturating our airwaves???? You've got to be kidding me!! Please tell me you are kidding me!

Here you are writing about "media spin" and you're starting to sound like a CNN transcript yourself! You can't tell me that you don't hear the names Barack and Obama in your sleep due to all eyes focus on him! And he has been the media darlin' since they learned to pronounce them correctly. You wanna talk "biased"?? I really don't think you should go there.

Also, there is a historic election going on ... saturated (with both candidates) doesn't even begin to describe it. But .. all of a sudden, with this win in PA .. these adjectives are solely applicable to only Hillary? Do you think it's even possible for you to be more one sided?

Any win is a *big* win when you are the winner. Which one of Barack's wins were trivial and/or unimportant? I realize that you detest everything about Hillary, MBM. And I'm not trying to stop that. But distorting facts and reality is just not the way we should be handling what is going down here. Disillusionment detracts us from realistic and important matters, IMO.

quote:

ER - he's running against someone with universal name recognition. He has to spend more money to get his name and message out and frankly to offset a lot of the media bias against him. Moreover, the point of raising money is to . . . spend it. Believe me, if Hillary had it, she wouldn't be just letting it pile up in her bank.

You know, I was on the receiving end of that money-spending media barrage just before the primary vote down here in TX. I don't know how much money he spent, but he was every third commercial, at least. Unfortunately, it didn't help him win this state over entirely either.

And again, you'd have to be living in an underground cave to have not heard of Obama just as much as you've heard the name Clinton. Nobody above ground who isn't suffering from Alzheimer's doesn't know who he is. So that's a really weak argument.

quote:

But that's the point. Barack won 11 primaries in a row yet Hillary wasn't forced to quit. She overwhelmingly lost plenty of all white states but yet the press never lauded Barack as the "presumptive nominee". Why not? She wins a couple after getting blasted in 11 consecutive and all of a sudden she's got all this momentum????

Forced to quit??? Why should she be "forced to quit"? Because you don't like her? Well, there's a few million other people that do ... a couple of million who showed their *overwhelming* support last night.

Tell me, MBM .. how often have you conceded defeat before the game or contest was over? This is a democratic process to see who's going to be president of the United States. Nobody should drop out if they are serious about serving us as a people.

And, to be realistic .. it's not about Barack winning the most states ... it is important that he hasn't won one that elects presidents. A delegate count will be null and void in the General election. Null and void. Due to the election process being set up in the way that it is, it is imperative that a Democratic nominee carry certain states in order to beat a Republican into the White House.

When given a choice the people in those states have chosen to vote for Hillary, not Barack. If you take away hope and audacity and deal with what's real .. that little fact is very important. And each win in any of those states (let alone all of them) says a whole lot.

Hillary is still in the race because she is viable and wins when and where it is important for the bigger picture, not just this primary. She wins. The media has no way to *spin* that. It is what it is.

quote:

Originally posted by EbonyRose:
Oh shame on you, MBM!

I was about to answer your previous post, but you just went from bad to worse ... and I don't even feel like trying to be reasonable with you right now!

You're the one that's being unreasonable, ebony. The Hillary camp has been throwing low blows since day one. Firstly, name one presidential hopeful in the history of the United States that had a former president as a spouse.

Secondly, when Obama first began looking like a threat to Hillary's chances at the democratic nomination she started the crying game claiming she's being discriminated against but when it looked like her smear tactics started taking effect on Obama's campaign she's saying: "If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen." But no one seems to be acknowledging Hillary's double standard campaign tactics.

No one, not you, ebony, not even the media, has acknowledged the fact that Hillary has had the biggest political advantages in the history of the United States yet she's still being beat down by a virtual nobody.

The media is putting every ounce of energy into the only defense Hillary can use to justify continuing her pointless campaigning: Trying to prove her "electability." Otherwise, she has no chance at overcoming Obama's superdelegate lead.

quote:

Originally posted by EbonyRose:

Overwhelmingly biased reporting saturating our airwaves???? You've got to be kidding me!! Please tell me you are kidding me!

How many people have you heard in the press articulate the gist of my argument - that Hillary's "big win" ain't?

quote:

Here you are writing about "media spin" and you're starting to sound like a CNN transcript yourself!

OK go back to the original commentary and tell me what you either disagree with or what you think is "spin".

quote:

And he has been the media darlin' since they learned to pronounce them correctly. You wanna talk "biased"?? I really don't think you should go there.

Again, Hillary wins a few primaries and she's the one with the huge momentum swing. What bout the 11 straight that Barack won?

quote:

Also, there is a historic election going on ... saturated (with both candidates) doesn't even begin to describe it. But .. all of a sudden, with this win in PA .. these adjectives are solely applicable to only Hillary? Do you think it's even possible for you to be more one sided?

You know I love you ER but you're not making any sense here. The point is that Hillary is being propped up by the press and they are buying her campaign spin hook, line and sinker. Again she lost a double digit lead in one of her core states, yet she has the momentum? How does that make sense to you ER?

quote:

Any win is a *big* win when you are the winner. Which one of Barack's wins were trivial and/or unimportant?

If Hilary had won the 11 straight that Barack actualy did she would have been calling for Barack to step out of the race. Hillary,, on the other hand, coming from a position BEHIND Barack has the nerve to suggest that Barack can't win. Again, how exactly does that work?

quote:

I realize that you detest everything about Hillary, MBM. And I'm not trying to stop that. But distorting facts and reality is just not the way we should be handling what is going down here. Disillusionment detracts us from realistic and important matters, IMO.

Again, I challenge you to point out just ONE thing that I have distorted. Just one!!

Was Hillary up over 20%+ in Pennsylvania?

Did she win by only 9.2%?

Is that a double digit loss of support?

Did Hillary pick up only 9 delegates in Pennsylvania?

Does Barack still have a triple digit lead in total delegates?

Unless you somehow disagree with any of those fundamental facts, then I'm confused about what you are characterizing as distortion. I'm further confused as to how and why you think I'm distorting things yet you seem to be buying the media's characterizations without analysis. I look at the facts - at the numbers - and I can't see how the media comes to the conclusions that they have about this primary. Where is the "big win" for Hillary?

quote:

Unfortunately, it didn't help him win this state over entirely either.

It's all about demographics ER. Hillary didn't win South Carolina.

quote:

And again, you'd have to be living in an underground cave to have not heard of Obama just as much as you've heard the name Clinton.

C'mon ER - you can do better than that. There is a double digit percentage of people in this country who believe that BO is a Muslim. Are you really trying to suggest that Americans know Barack as well as they know Hillary?

How do you explain the fact that the more time Barack has to campaign in a state the better e does? If Barack has such universal awareness, then how do you explain the fact that he cut Hillary's lead in PA by more than half?

quote:

Forced to quit??? Why should she be "forced to quit"? Because you don't like her?

I've never said that, but why is Hillary suggesting that Barack can't win - yet she can't beat him?

quote:

And, to be realistic .. it's not about Barack winning the most states ... it is important that he hasn't won one that elects presidents.

What makes you think Barack won't win those blue states? That's another ridiculous argument spoon fed the media by the Clinton campaign. Just because Hillary won certain states doesn't mean that Barack won't win them in November.

quote:

Hillary is still in the race because she is viable and wins when and where it is important for the bigger picture, not just this primary. She wins. The media has no way to *spin* that. It is what it is.

Spin this: mathematically - she cannot win the nomination. So in reality, this is ALL about her spinning and playing politics and, of course, about her own selfish interests.

I know she must be distraught. To come from essentially having the system rigged for her to win (with the super delegates and with party insiders etc.), to be the overwhelming favorite when the process begun, and to now be stuck waist deep in quicksand - having been whipped by a relative party nobody - that's got to be really tough for her.

quote:

If Hilary had won the 11 straight that Barack actualy did she would have been calling for Barack to step out of the race. Hillary,, on the other hand, coming from a position BEHIND Barack has the nerve to suggest that Barack can't win. Again, how exactly does that work?

Here's another interesting spin: It's been talked about that Hillary had to win both Texas and Ohio to be considered a threat in the race. That was the original indicator. It was determined after the media had jumped the gun that Hillary had actually lost Texas but now the media's new strategy is to make it seem like Texas was a non-issue, that winning Ohio alone has kept her alive and Ohio is the sole reason why Hillary continues to be a threat to Obama.

quote:

I know she must be distraught. To come from essentially having the system rigged for her to win (with the super delegates and with party insiders etc.), to be the overwhelming favorite when the process begun, and to now be stuck waist deep in quicksand - having been whipped by a relative party nobody - that's got to be really tough for her.

It must also be embarrassing to have old friends, superdelegates and collegues alike, switch their support from Hillary to Obama.