Hillaryland Hits Back at MSNBC

WP: Hillaryland Hits Back
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 8, 2008

It's no secret that Hillary Clinton's top aides have been angry for months at MSNBC for coverage they consider blatantly pro-Obama, including remarks that prompted apologies from Chris Matthews and David Shuster.

But Tuesday night, when Hillary got walloped in North Carolina and hung on for a narrow win in Indiana, was the last straw. Tim Russert, NBC's Wasington bureau chief, told viewers: "We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be, and no one is going to dispute it." A number of other MSNBC pundits--and a few on other networks--agreed that Barack Obama has the thing sewed up. Russert repeated that yesterday, flashing his white board and saying that barring a complete Obama collapse or an act of God, "this race is over."

Jay Carson, Clinton's press secretary, fired off an e-mail yesterday to Chuck Todd, NBC's political director. While assuring Todd that he was "not trying to be a jerk," Carson wrote: "Can you think of one good reason we should continue to cart you guys around the country with us given that your network has declared the entire race over?" This was not a serious threat to kick NBC reporters off the Clinton plane. Carson noted that he was just speaking "rhetorically," and besides, news organizations pay stiff fees for their campaign travel. But it is a measure of the anger in Hillaryland toward the folks at MSNBC. A network spokesman declined to respond.

In fairness, though, ABC's George Stephanopoulos, CBS's Bob Schieffer and others also said the race is pretty much over.

For the moment, there seem to be two separate media universes out there. In the mainstream print galaxy, Hillary's "options" are "dwindling," her "path" to the nomination is "narrowing," the "math" is "challenging," Obama is drawing "closer" to the prize. On MSNBC, the morning shows and the blogosphere, it's game, set, match. The race is finis, the last rites are being administered, and the debate is about Obama's chances against McCain.

It's a fascinating case study: Do the remnants of the MSM that are still treating this as a semi-competitive race believe that Clinton has a serious shot at the nomination, but feel bound by the rule of objectivity not to say so? Or are the pundits going out on a limb, prematurely writing off Clinton as they have done several times before?...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050800836_pf.html

She's done. She has run a good campaign, but it's over. They were simply saying what everyone already knows.

it was Friday, May 9, 8:07pm, during Olbermann's show. He and Jonathan Alter were struggling to figure out if Clinton is (a) Nixon, (b) Agnew, or (c) both. Yeeesh!

Wait for it, darlings. Once the general election campaign coverage starts, we'll be watching Olbermann and Alter struggling to figure out if Obama is (a) more black than white, (b) more white than black, (c) more Christian than Muslim, (d) more Muslim than Christian, or (e) more comfortable with terrorists (yes, that would be Ayers and Dohrn) than with "working, hardworking whites."

Really, how could such a heavy bloc of political programming on a news channel run by GE not tilt towards a candidate (yes, that would be McCain) who thinks a 100 years in Iraq would not be such a bad thing. GE certainly doesn't think it would be such a bad thing.

He couldn't find anything nice to say about Clinton , in fact called her campaign a fraud. Get over it Keith (and Tweety) she won WV. Not saying she will win but don't be so obviously angry. That Tamarlyn character in the AM will be furious. The republican from independent womens' forum was downcast