Obama Spokesman: No Candidate Has Been More Scrutinized By Media Than Obama Has

Comments (157)

Michael wrote on December 19, 2007 10:11 AM:

It depends.

If you mean overall, definitely Hillary.

If you mean since the campaign started, IMO definitely Obama.

And that's partly just a bit of circumstances: Hillary was a completely known entity. Biden, Dodd, et al, same deal. Edwards was the freakin VP nominee for the Dems in 2004. Obama, on the other hand, was completely unknown. So for him to have many more profiles run about his record in the Senate, in the state legislature, his careers pre-politics and his biography overall...makes sense. For the Rezko issue to be re-examined in a way that, say, Whitewater or Jen Flowers wasn't...makes sense. We already know the Whitewater story; we didn't know the Rezko story.

I try to read all the candidate biographies, investigative reporting, etc...and I have to say, it certainly felt like the ones on Obama out-paced the next most-covered candidate by at least 2-to-1, if not 3-to-1. They were constant, and everywhere.

But again, that's since January, and it's something makes sense given the state of affairs then. Everyone else was a known quantity, while Obama was completely unknown.

I find Burton's claim, in that context, to be much less specious than the Clinton's claim that Obama hasn't been vetted. I must've read over a hundred stories, both positive and negative, on the substance of the guy's history in the last year.

Helter wrote on December 19, 2007 10:12 AM:

Hillary has gotten a lot of attention, but she's also got her friends in the press ready to push her talking points like trained monkeys. I can think of one blogger/reporter in particular who is always ready to leap in with a pro-Hillary angle. Can you guess who that is, Greg?

John wrote on December 19, 2007 10:12 AM:

When reporters start digging up Hillary's kindergarten essays and visiting her schools, I'll agree that she has been more investigated this campaign. Over the last 15 years, of course she has been investigated more.

But what kind of digging has been done on her since she left the WHite House? I can't recall seeing any.

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 10:14 AM:

Thanks for changing the post. Your original post discussing the attacks against obama was really, really, really, really, really bad. I almost couldn't believe what you wrote.

On the question, disagree. Clinton II has gotten a total free ride. One question, did anyone interview clinton II's kindergarten teacher to dig up dirt? Nope. I think that gives you your answer.

Michael wrote on December 19, 2007 10:16 AM:

In fact, just to reiterate an example I used above:

The Rezko "scandal" surrounding Obama is nothing new. And yet I heard a lot about it, especially in the first 6 months of the campaign. Read a lot about, explaining the situation, what happened, how Obama responded, etc.

When was the last time someone wrote a retrospective going over the details of Whitewater?

That's a perfect example of what I mean: Hillary hasn't been closely scrutinized this campaign because she's already been scrutinized for years.

But Obama definitely has been more scrutinized in the past year. To the point where it's no longer at all true that he should be somehow considered an "unknown", regardless of whether voters were paying attention...since the general conclusion was, there's nothing there.

upper left wrote on December 19, 2007 10:17 AM:

Now that it is getting close to Xmas, Team Hillary realizes that they can no longer continue throwing mud, directly at Obma, with both hands. Whining about press coverage is a way of going negative, inderectly.

The substance of this claim is mixed. On one hand, I suspect that many in the press respond well on a persanal level to Obama's message and personality. Most college educated people do. Obama leads three to one in Iowa among those with a college education.

On the other hand, Clinton II is clearly the candidate of the corporate establishment and the corporate media. Clinton got months of positive press as the "inevitable" candidate. Her claims of "experience" have never really been challenged. Her past baggage from the 90s has remained unearthed. The press has largely been complicit in her attempts to blur the differences in Obama and HRC's positions on Iraq.
Overall I don't think Team Hillary has much of a case.

Regarding negativity, Obama made a few indirect criticisms of HRC while she and her surrogates hurled mud from every angle. Of course the press reacted differently, the behavior was different.

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 10:17 AM:

These guys are pretty good at attacking from the defensive position. They are trying to nip the surprise factor in the bud. Plus, Obama, unlike Clinton, controlled the dissemination of information about his past, which deprives the media of their favorite "look what we discovered" type stories. Also, what's not mentioned, but we all no is true, the Clinton's have done extensive oppo research on Obama and my guess is they've come up dry (otherwise how do you explain they're Erkel Offensive ("Did I do that?")

To the extent Michelle isn't channeling Naomi Campbell or Mommie Dearest, my guess is that they are a pretty typical family. I doubt there's any there there.

AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on December 19, 2007 10:18 AM:

I think both Clinton and Obama have pretty well been put under the microscope. Also, I also have read both autobiographies and found both candidates pretty forthcoming about their pasts (drug use, identity problems, flunking the bar, coping with infidelity, etc.). At this point, it's the whining that puts this voter off. Clinton, Obama, etc are running for president, for Pete's sake. This stop picking on me (mainly from the Clinton camps, but also from others) really is a diversions. Can they please talk about FISA, flag burning law votes, social security, etc.

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 10:18 AM:

Oops, I mean I agree with obama's spokesman's statement and disagree that clinton II has gotten any serious scrutiny since the white house years. Everyone has pretty much forgotten about that stuff, but I am sure we will all be reminded ad nauseum if she is the nominee.

My bad.

anon wrote on December 19, 2007 10:18 AM:

Hillary has certainly had more crap thrown at her than the rest. However, of the top 3 candidates, each has received a great deal of scrutiny and completely unfair sniping from other campaigns and from the media. It's certainly understandable why the Hillary people are paranoid and at the first sign of any criticism of any kind they howl "hater!" We all know that most of the criticism of her has always been because people (on the right) hated Bill with an unusual intensity, but her years in the Senate have given even more people reason to dislike her as is the case with any office holder.

Most of the criticism of Obama and of Edwards is because others fear them. Hillary fears Obama mightily and for good reason and her camp also fears Edwards who seems less of a threat. Because of Obama's mimicking of Hillary's centrist policies he doesn't seem to scare established Washington and the powers that be as much as Edwards who is unrestrained in his criticism of the corrupt, putrid system that dominates all three branches of our government. Edwards is the only genuine threat to the status quo so he gets the worst treatment in the press by mostly being ignored. They do take time to obsess about his hair and his home (helped along in that criticism no doubt by the other two campaigns).

The Hillary campaign has, been behind the scenes dishing dirt (whether legitimate or not) on both of her rivals for many months. They have been caught doing it any number of times. The other two seem to have done less of it, but it's the Hillary camp's stock in trade.

But the bottom line is that for any of the three leaders to complain or whine or say they have been more of the victim or more investigated than the others is unwise and certainly puts off anyone within earshot who isn't a true believer in that particular campaign's candidate. All that goes with the territory if you want to run for President.

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 10:20 AM:

Greg, first off I'm not sure why this parameter 'scrutiny' has any merit, however let's look at the case you present based on that nebulous premise.

You quote Dowd:
"Hillary doesn’t have to worry about her face. She has to worry about her mask. Back in the ’92 race, Clinton pollsters devised strategies to humanize her and make her seem more warm and maternal. Fifteen years later, her campaign is devising strategies to humanize her and make her seem more warm and maternal.

The public still has no idea of what part of her is stage-managed and focus-grouped, and what part is legit. It’s pretty pathetic, at this stage of her career, that she has to wage a major offensive, by helicopter and Web testimonials, to make herself appear warm-blooded."

Then you conclude:

"Right, right -- Hillary is cold and calculating and doesn't reveal her true self in public. But surely this is partly because of the very thing the rest of Dowd's column reflects -- the fact that the media, which is to say, people like Rush and Maureen, have been unremittingly hostile to her for years, and years and years, heaping contempt and derision on her every public utterance, on her laugh, and now, on her wrinkles."

I think your analysis is flawed given that Dowd clearly states that in 1992 efforts were being made to 'humanize' Hillary.

If as you suggest that it is the unrelenting criticism of the press and ferocity of media glare coupled with the venom of the right that makes Hillary so guarded and cold why were these same attributes demonstrated by her in 1992? Moreover, let's recall that Hillary RODHAM was the reason Bill was not elected to a second term as Governor in ARK. Those folks found Hillary to be offputting and just plain abrasive as well. So, your deducing that somehow this is a result of how she was treated by the press as First Lady in the White House just does not stand up to the historical evidence of folks finding Hillary to be cold and calculating as First Lady during her tenure in ARK.

It is far more likely that the attributes simply became more widely known and focused on when the Clintons reached the national stage.

All of which tells us that at her core Hillary despite being a highpowered intellectual lacks the political brillance, warmth and engaging personality of her spouse. What we see is what we get and the public having seen that decided they did not like how uncompromising, powermongering, calculating, equivocating and doubletalking Hillary is as a politician.

In short, Hillary is an intellectual not a politician, and she would make a great academic scholar or Supreme Court justice but when it comes to national and local politics she simply does not have the essential qualitys that it takes to succeed in that arena. That is Bill's strength not hers and his needing to prop her up throughout this entire campaign is proof positive of that.

The media scrutiny is not responsible for how Hillary have become they simply have EXPOSED what she is at her core.

Jeremy wrote on December 19, 2007 10:20 AM:

I'd bet all the candidates get investigated pretty thoroughly. What reporter doesn't want to break a scandal? The notion that one candidate gets singled-out is for the tinfoil hatters. Of course, there are differences in what turns up. I mean, reality has a well known liberal bias, right? The same may apply to the candidates. Hillary's oppo couldn't turn up dirt, so it's reasonable to assume that the reason there's less negative reporting on O's history is because there's less there.

Fish Bone wrote on December 19, 2007 10:22 AM:

It seems like some of you are confusing media coverage with crap the opposing campaign is pushing out there.

It wasn't the media digging into Obama's kindergarten records it was some Clinton staffer. All I saw from the media was discussion about how bad it was Clinton campaign to be putting this stuff out there.

Turn on MSNBC, all you hear about is Bill said this, a Clinton staffer said that, Hillary sliding etc. I'm not saying the Clinton campaign doesn't bring a lot of this on themselves but I think overall Obama has gotten a much friendlier ride from the media.

bridoc wrote on December 19, 2007 10:30 AM:

I agree with the first assessment. It is obvious that Obama's team wasn't trying to say that they have faced more scrutiny than Hillary ever, that would be quite impossible. They were simply saying that in the campaign season, he has been more under the microscope, and I completely agree. Up until recently, the media had been nearly completely silent on Hillary, aside from noting her as "inevitable" and moving on to discuss the other potential frontrunners on both sides.

I too also don't take this as meaning that Hillary is out of the woods in the realm of GOP attack ads/oppo research. The "vetting" she took in the 90s and since then hasn't been good for her, and she never learned to repel the attacks, if you look at her negative ratings among the general electorate you'll see the GOP trashed her reputation to the point where around 50% of the population will not vote for her. I see no indication that if/when they ramp up their hate machine again, it won't finish her off. I think they are counting on this. In a general election I see her as a liability, not a veteran fighter, she is a wounded deer, and the GOP is salivating at the chance for their final take down. Basically, I find Hillary's "experience against the GOP" argument to be ridiculous. It doesn't stand up to common sense.

savvy wrote on December 19, 2007 10:37 AM:

FishBone

The reason you are not hearing it from the media is because despite the media following up on the seeds of doubt and tidbits and tantalizing rumormongering from the Hillary camp they could not find anything of substance to support the slanders and character attacks, or 'slush fund' characterizations coming from the Clinton campaign.

As a result, the only folks willing to push those stories ARE the staffers for Hillary's campaign and all the reporters have left to report are those claims as they allow them to parrot their campaign talking points.

If the press was not in cahoots with the Clinton campaign they would not even report the nebulous claims which are unsubstantiated as they would deem it unethical and stand on journalistic integrity.

Instead the Clinton campaign is still able to push their 'dirtball politics' and have it regurgitated and 'denounced' on the news...but they still get to put it out their ...dirt and all.

Pathetic but true.

This thread is a classic example of that.

HRClintons new talking point is that there are 'no surprises' with her...obviously inferring their is something lurking in Obama's background yet to be uncovered and lo and behold
what is the premise of this thread to foster that 'no surprises' theme ...well it's about who has been MOST scrutinized!

Not that we are talking abotu scrutinizing Edwards, Biden, Richardson or Dodd mind you...only Obama...only Obama is suppose to be the unknown.

Fear of the unknown is the new fearmongering message we get from the Clinton campaign to go along with all their other fearmongering messages:

fear of muslims, fear of blacks, fear of change, fear of inexperience fear of risktaking, fear of the GOP machine....fear, fear, fear

That is all we hear from the Clintons...have they ever taken the GOP message to heart...they want Americans to continue to be fearful of the future and especially a future with Barack Obama as President.

riiiight...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself and that is the Clintons right now and their back to the future fearfilled vision for America.

steve wrote on December 19, 2007 10:42 AM:

This item practically made me spit out my morning coffee as I read it. Who is the Obama campaign kidding?!? Obama has barely been vetted, and has faced very, very little scrutiny. At first, that was fine -- he was a long-shot. But as he moved in Iowa, the media had an obligation to ask harder questions and dig a little deeper. That has not happened. As a result, we may well end up with a nominee who is not ready for prime time. And we'll only have ourselves to blame.

dajafi wrote on December 19, 2007 10:42 AM:

There's a distinction to be made here between quantity and quality.

Hillary Clinton has been scrutinized for her cleavage, her cackle and her tendency to always vote for war because she thinks it's good politics. The first two are nonsense, artifacts of a media culture that's less "Paris Review" and more "OK! Magazine." The last one is valid, and naturally it's gotten the least play--except in the early primary states.

What she hasn't been scrutinized for is just how much "experience" she has--how fair, or not, it is for her to claim all that Clinton White House mileage by osmosis, and how much, or little, she's actually "led" in what strikes me (though I don't claim to be neutral) as a very undistinguished Senate tenure, aside from the warmongering.

Obama has had a lot of people looking under his fingernails. He smartly (whether intentionally or not) aired a lot of his personal dirty laundry in his autobiography; otherwise he seems to be pretty much what he presents himself as. You can argue that there isn't a ton of substance there--again, I disagree, but again I admit I'm not objective--and (though we don't hear this one anymore) you can argue that his intent on the stump to be more intellectual than inspirational is a bad tactical call. But nobody has yet revealed him as a flaming phony or hypocrite, and it's not for lack of effort on the part of the Clintons.

TruthSeeker wrote on December 19, 2007 10:52 AM:

The press has left many unturned stones with the Clintons. It's just starting to delve into this story:

http://www.nysun.com/article/68332

Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 19, 2007 10:55 AM:

Scrutinized is not the correct word. 'WHORED to the public' is the phrase that comes to mind.

Scrutinized would mean that folks would know that he is NOT a rockstar and is riddled with shortcomings.

Nope. Obama has been trotted out like a pretty pony . . .

BluePuppy wrote on December 19, 2007 10:58 AM:

It's absurd. Of course Hillary has been investigated more. She's been in the public eye for 30 years and her life and papers have been gone through with a fine comb. Obama is largely unknown, entering the public arena in 2004 and self-promoted with books and speeches. He's a biography candidate. Knowing more about him is very relevant.

joejoejoe wrote on December 19, 2007 10:58 AM:

It's certainly true among the left blogs. It's hard to tell how much investigation big media does because a lot of what they look into isn't going to bear fruit. But internally on the left Obama has gotten the most scrutiny.

LJ wrote on December 19, 2007 11:13 AM:

If the issue is media fairness, I don't think it's Clinton and Obama we should be talking about. The media love them both, lavish tons of attention on them. It's often hard to tell that anyone else is running.

By and large the media is completely unfair to the other candidates, Kucinich in particular. Sure, they are willfully negligent in their coverage of Biden and Dodd, but they seem just barely able to conceal their contempt for Kucinich, and I really don't get it.

If we could get the media and the money out of politics, we'd be so much better off. Neither will ever happen because too many people have too much power to lose.

saharag wrote on December 19, 2007 11:14 AM:

Define "scrutiny." I am a marketing consultant for Fortune 100 corporations and a Afro-American man. I went to Harvard and have spent my entire life in mainstream surroundings--around white people... schools, neighborhoods, churches, you name it. I know good and well that given the time and funds, I could make Obama look like a cross between a political Little Nell and a spear-carrying Mao Mao. What I don't know is how Obama could counter those efforts, since he has never, ever run against a serious white Republican opponent in a state or national election. God know, the Repubs will pull out all the stops. This is politics and it's their job.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 11:18 AM:

Hm, for what my (admittedly pro-Obama) two cents are worth, I agree that it seems odd to say that Obama has received the most scrutiny of all candidates. To my mind that claim is squirley even if one limits the time frame in consideration to just this presidential campaign. That said, I think that the point is frivolous. If Mr Burton is exagerating when he claims that Obama has received the most scrutiny, it is only a case of turnabout being fair play, because the Clinton campaign is equally given to exagerations about how much more roughly they have been treated. None of the top three candidates can be fairly termed a "roll of the dice" or a "great unknown," as the Clinton people keep trying to convince us. The whole conversation on this track, in addition to being much less important than actual consideration of substantive issues like healthcare or the war, is composed almost entirely of bogus spin with little if any connection to verifiable reality. In short, Burton is wrong to say that Obama has received the most scrutiny, but no more wrote than Clinton's people are to say that she has received the most.

TexasEllen wrote on December 19, 2007 11:18 AM:

Until the Obama's daughters' underwear drawers have been gone thru by the FBI, the spokesman better rephrase his lament. Our press doesn't do investigations nearly as completely as a Special Prosecutor supported by FBI investigators.

Kefa wrote on December 19, 2007 11:19 AM:

That is the either the biggest joke this season told or maybe the biggest lie. lol

dcshungu wrote on December 19, 2007 11:21 AM:

No candidate has been scrutinized more than Hillary, and while Obama has had his share of media scrutiny, he has by far received the most positive coverage of ANY candidate, Repub or Dem. Don't agree? There is actually data available on this on which Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly, who just loves charts, facts, figures, had blogged on November 3, 2007:

The Project for Excellence in Journalism released a report a couple of days ago showing that so far during the 2008 campaign season, Democrats have gotten more favorable coverage than Republicans. Now, maybe you believe this and maybe you don't, but what caught my eye was the reason Democrats got such favorable coverage. Two words: Barack Obama. The chart on the right shows the results for each of the six leading candidates, and Obama's coverage is almost stratospherically laudatory. So I grabbed the raw data and removed Obama from the analysis entirely to see what would happen. Answer: the positive vs. negative coverage was virtually identical for Democrats and Republicans.

Bottom line: the press isn't in love with Democrats, it's in love with Barack Obama.

Emphasis mine...

RonK, Seattle wrote on December 19, 2007 11:24 AM:

Talk about "turning the page"!!! That's close to a total memory wipe.

Kefa wrote on December 19, 2007 11:25 AM:

If he thinks this is a spotlight....he ain't seen nothin yet.lololololololo. Welcome to the kitchen.

Susan Hiller wrote on December 19, 2007 11:27 AM:

Of course it's true. Obama was hit hard about all kinds of stuff in the spring when Hillary was given a free pass throughout the spring and summer.

In the last week alone, Obama has been slandered by the Clinton campaign (that was repeatedly covered by the press) on drugs, what he said in kindergarten and whether he was Muslim or not.

Hey Greg - how much is the Clinton campaign paying these days?

An Outhouse wrote on December 19, 2007 11:29 AM:

I for one am very suspicious of Obama since it was disclosed that he wanted to be a president when he was 5 years old. Who knows what he was conspiring when he was 2.

Sue wrote on December 19, 2007 11:30 AM:

Has anyone noticed that every time the Clinton's get in trouble (like the GOP) they blame the press?

Kefa wrote on December 19, 2007 11:32 AM:

Hey folks..we have new polling in NH..

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/19/poll.nh/index.html

Enjoy.

David wrote on December 19, 2007 11:35 AM:

One of the benefits of this campaign has been to remind all of us what a shameless opportunist the former president is:

Clinton was 42 in 1988, four years younger than Obama is now. Already one of the nation's longest serving governors, Clinton accomplished little between 1988 and 1992 that added to his depth of experience — other than winning a fifth term as Arkansas governor while promising not to seek the presidency before his term expired.

He ran against one of the most experienced incumbent president of the century: a two-term veep, former head of the CIA and incumbent president who presided masterfully over the end of the Cold War. And he says Obama is no match for a former First Lady? If Democrats buy this transparent b.s., they'll deserve the candidate they nominate.

bvd wrote on December 19, 2007 11:37 AM:

DAVID - Why are Obama's spokespersons "flacks" and Hillary's spokespersons "aides?"

Just wondering.

Barbara M. wrote on December 19, 2007 11:38 AM:

Can anyone imagine listening to this for the next 4 years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etk_O-nhlA4

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 11:42 AM:

Look at what he says 'examinations and investigations'. He's not talking about media reports or stories. Can anyone really say that reporters, other campaigns haven't been doing intensive investigations into his background? If he's such an unknown quantity, that would make absolute sense. Clinton is a known quantity. There haven't been as many investigations or examinations of her background. At least not in this race.

Jane wrote on December 19, 2007 11:44 AM:

Obama is just beginning to receive serious scrutiny and his spokesman is trying to nip it in the bud by claiming Obama is the most scrutinized which is simply laughable. No one knows whether there is anything to find but the media has not yet done the investigating.

Obama is so adept at playing the victim card. He says isn't it great I'm running. Biden in a very patronizing fashion says isn't it great Obama is running. The press says isn't it great that Obama is running.
And then Kerrey says isn't it great Obama is running and suddenly this is a vile attack by Clinton.

Very little has come out about Obama. It may or may not be there. Rezko did Obama a favor by buying neighboring property to Obama and selling part of it to Obama so he could have a larger yard. Obama says he paid market rate or better which is probably true but this is still a dodge: Rezko did him a favor by putting the property on the market when it would not have otherwise been available. So he owes Rezko on this at least.

The ethics reform that Obama pats himself on the back for in Illinois was a watered down version of what the majority of Democrats were aiming for. He had to face down the majority of his caucus to get it. Do we know if Obama's deal was the best available or whether it was a sell out? From the coverage so far we can't tell.

Anybody asking that another candidate's spouse's sex life be investigated is in no position to complain about the mild coverage he has received to date.

DaveWoo wrote on December 19, 2007 11:44 AM:

That's it. I'm done with this site.

I've been a loyal reader for years, but the pro-Hillary, anti-Obama bias on this site over the past few months has become intolerable.

I first started reading this site because it provided a fresh perspective, free from the flaws and biases of the mainstream media. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.

Goodbye.

m wrote on December 19, 2007 11:47 AM:

Well it's probably fair to say they all believe their candidate has been the MOST
scrutinized.

Anomyass wrote on December 19, 2007 11:50 AM:

DaveWoo

Don't let the door hit you on the way out....

DonnaG wrote on December 19, 2007 11:50 AM:

The 'Hillary is victim' talking point is really tiresome, and the phenomenon of its serial use should be more scrutinized.

Makes me think of abused women who genuinely can't figure out why they serially finding themselves in yet another abusive situation, but always declare themselves innocent of anything like codependency traits. After awhile, there are just no good excuses left to hide the fact that relationships are both magnetic and mutual.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 11:51 AM:

This is hilarious.

'Of course, I'm also not sure that it's a terribly relevant question, either -- we already know an enormous amount about both figures.'

The media narrative re Rezko has been NOWHERE near as fever pitched as it was re Whitewater.

As far as trying to parse the statement to cover just the campaign season, I'll ignore the irony of this coming from Obama supporters, but even that would be false.

Just earlier this year we had Kathleen Willey on Fox Radio giving credence to the claim that Hillary Clinton killed her CAT!!!

On an almost nightly basis, we have Chris Matthews chuckling about Hillary Clinton being a 'ball breaker'.

The odd stuff about Obama certainly gets mentioned, but usually gets passed off for what it is, trash, rumor and innuendo.

'Obama wanted to be president in kindergarten' in no way compares to 'Hillary Clinton is castrating'

R U Serious?

David wrote on December 19, 2007 11:52 AM:

Dave Woo-

I am feeling the same way. I have loved this site and Josh has been great but they have clearly become shills for Hillary. They are part of the MSM just like Mark Halperin was at the Note at ABC. Maybe, like Halperin with Rove, they are just trying to ensure access in a Clinton Presidency. Well guess what. If she gets the nom, there will be a Republican in the oval office.

DRinOH wrote on December 19, 2007 11:54 AM:

It's a perfectly reasonable assertion. I don't think anyone would quibble over who's been more scrutinized over the course of their career's - obviously Clinton. But we're talking about the campaign here, and it's a debatable question. People have flown to Indonesia to interview teachers and principles, and every aspect of his personal financial records have been under the microscope for the Rezko deal.

Media scrutiny is not the exclusive providence of the Clintons. And as for the "You've got to be kidding me" post on the front page, it's your credibility TPM, do what you want.

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 11:55 AM:

Also, I think the other relevant point is that Obama, apparently, hasn't made as many political enemies as the Clinton's and other politicians have in their careers. Without those enemies, it's harder to have even the appearance of scrutiny.

I mean, look at what's been rolled out drug use (book), background (book), Rezko (Chicago papers). That's it. All of it was known before hand. In his state senate races nothing ever came up and I doubt it was because of a lack of trying.

It might be hard to believe, but I'd challenge someone to demonstrate something that in his life that hasn't been examined.

loki wrote on December 19, 2007 11:58 AM:

Too comical that TPM can simply state the obvious and then be accused of bias because of it. Unhinged Obama Supporters Unite!

frankly0 wrote on December 19, 2007 12:00 PM:

I think it's good to take this issue as a litmus test for intellectual honesty.

If you think that the Obama spokesperson is right that Obama has received as much scrutiny as has, say, Hillary, then you've officially and publicly failed the test. We can pretty much discount any further argument from you as incorrigibly biased. You should be forced to wear a scarlet "BS".

Kinda disturbing to see how many have taken the step to so identify themselves.

Peter wrote on December 19, 2007 12:01 PM:

Obama does seem to be the only one accussed of being a Muslim and a drug dealer? Both of which are repeated by the press.

In todays fear-driven America, it is worse to be called a Muslim like they do Obama, then a bitch like they call Hilary.

brad wrote on December 19, 2007 12:05 PM:

He has certainly been the most scrutinized candidate by Clinton opposition research team.

Dave wrote on December 19, 2007 12:06 PM:

Media scrutiny is not the exclusive providence of the Clintons. And as for the "You've got to be kidding me" post on the front page, it's your credibility TPM, do what you want.

I think the worst part of that post is the loaded drug reference ("what's he been smoking?"). Haven't we seen enough racially charged drug references re. Obama the past couple weeks?

Seems to be very much in keeping with the type of press scrutiny Marshall labels "ain't right" and "ain't fair" in the same sentence.

Chino Blanco wrote on December 19, 2007 12:08 PM:

"... what's he been smoking?"

I don't know, you tell me, Josh.

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 12:10 PM:

The clinton II lovers are just way, way to funny. She has gotten a total free pass from the media. She was the heir apparent and presumptive nominee until her recent gaffes, which are of her and mr. bill's own doing. Now, the clintons are just whining about the media being "unfair."

On another note, it is really ironic that chris matthews is apparently the biggest thorn in their side. I stopped watching soft-ball months ago, until clinton II lovers on this sight started complaining in the last couple of weeks. I watched it last week when clinton II's karl rove was issuing a non-appology appology. Matthews picked up on it an actually has been trying in his own way to do some modicum of journalism concerning the clinton II machine.

The irony is that chris matthews was also a thorn in the side of the king's white house concerning the plame matter. Is that ironic, or what. Maybe its a forewarning about what a clinton II white house would be like. Too funny.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 12:11 PM:

No candidate has been scrutinized more than Hillary, and while Obama has had his share of media scrutiny, he has by far received the most positive coverage of ANY candidate, Repub or Dem... There is actually data available on this... Bottom line: the press isn't in love with Democrats, it's in love with Barack Obama.

I think that is mostly fair. That said, it seems to me to ignore a rather important question implicit in such an observation - is the preponderance of good press ink justified or not? I would submit to you that the reason why Obama receives so much good coverage is because there is so much good to cover in this instance. Yet another reason why we would be well advised to take him as our nominee.

DRinOH wrote on December 19, 2007 12:12 PM:

Right, as if, had TPM gone the other way, Hillaryites wouldn't be gouging their own eyes out.

You support your candidate and I'll support mine. In the mean time, don't insult my intelligence.

Kefa wrote on December 19, 2007 12:14 PM:

Not ready for prime time players club.

frankly0 wrote on December 19, 2007 12:15 PM:

I think the worst part of that post is the loaded drug reference ("what's he been smoking?"). Haven't we seen enough racially charged drug references re. Obama the past couple weeks?

Jesus Christ. You guys will trump up a charge of racism over anything, won't you? Obviously, you're suggesting that TPM is now trading in racist stereotype.

Have you no decency, sir?

DRinOH wrote on December 19, 2007 12:17 PM:

Greg, great point. Sometimes candidates get a ton of negative coverage because they deserve it.

And on the other hand, sometimes candidates get called "likable" and "inspiring" because they are. That's not a free pass, that's an observation and it's reflected in objective polling data.

Maybe your problem isn't the media, maybe it's your candidate.

oleeb wrote on December 19, 2007 12:18 PM:

Let me state I am definitely NOT for Hillary.

Having said that, you Obama people need to get a grip, chill, whatever before you stamp your feet and declare you're going home cause you don't like what's going on on the playground.

TPM and Greg have not been whoring for Hillary. I think by and large they have done a good job of treating the major Dems equally and without bias. The amount of space devoted to Hillary and Obama have been greater than the others, but given the neck and neck status of the race how could that not be so?

Bottom line to the Obama people: if you think this site is hard on your man I suggest you see about meds for the general because if he wins you'll be beside yourselves when you find out how quickly the media will drop the nicey nice treatment and start going after him. He's had his share of cheap shots the media has taken at him, but he hasn't been beaten up very much thus far. It's gonna get much worse before it ever gets better.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 12:18 PM:

'In todays fear-driven America, it is worse to be called a Muslim like they do Obama, then a bitch like they call Hilary.'

That Muslim story is so absurd...
no one in their right mind takes that seriously. (the full smear being Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate tryin to infiltrate the US government)

Only the most deranged of the deranged right-wingers would pay that any kind of attention. It's seriously crazy.

The MSM framing of Hillary Clinton as a 'bitch', using multiple euphemisms, is widely accepted as valid discourse on television and in print.

P Pepper wrote on December 19, 2007 12:19 PM:

Disagree

Whats that saying about Dems guns and their feet, Obama is getting a pass a cake walk and has the punditry class of Matthews, Will and Novak applauding him, a time when the left leaning blogs and they agree not a good sign for Americans. Obama has asked that we trust he would have voted the way he says on the war some believe him and have accepted on faith his anti Clinton cornerstone of character, on Iran again same tactic again different then Clinton and again no record, he has made blunder after blunder in the debates reported as just not his forum, his campaign made many rookie mistakes, he has displayed a lack of depth on issues rambling in response and has penchant for the one liner impulsive retort and grin that got him by for a bit. To HOPE, that his drug use as a child, his name, his lack of a record, his inability to debate, the debt of his experience, his left standing on all issues without footprints, and his race are not issues to be discussed but supressed is dumb and will loose the party the White House which may be appropriate, they while minor to many are also BIG weapons and an underestimation of a lazy independent leaning electorate not interested in more risk.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 12:19 PM:

Whoops, looks like I forgot to close my blockquote after "... in love with Barack Obama." Sorry about that. Nonetheless, I think that the folks here are clever enough to understand what I was trying to say, even if my HTML gaffe makes it slightly less clear.

Dave wrote on December 19, 2007 12:19 PM:

Not sure who "you guys" refers to (I think Bill Burton's statement is pretty ridiculous), but coming off of Bill Shaheen's recent statements, casual drug references regarding Obama are definitely loaded and, if you ask me, should be avoided.

DRinOH wrote on December 19, 2007 12:21 PM:

willyjsimmons,

I can tell you I've talked to at least 5-6 people who have said, "I don't know if I can support Obama since he's a muslim..."

And I can tell you a lot of Obama supporters who went home for the holidays and talked to their grandparents would beg to differ with you about the effectiveness of the Muslim tag.

Chino Blanco wrote on December 19, 2007 12:23 PM:

Decency? Sounds good. Failing that, how about a little impulse control. Lord knows those deliciously easy flourishes are the hardest to resist, but c'mon, Josh ...

sjc wrote on December 19, 2007 12:24 PM:

Wow, I remember when TPM actually tried to objectively investigate muck. Now we have Josh bloviating on the main page about how obviously Obama's not ready for prime-time because of an offhand comment his campaign spokesman made.

This is trivia, and lately I've noticed that TPM is obsessed with it more and more. There are legitimate, huge stories to be investigating; petty bitching about media scrutiny doesn't even merit a second look.

And yeah, the pro-Hillary bias around this place is pretty obnoxious. You can take the guy out of Washington Monthly...

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 12:25 PM:

'The irony is that chris matthews was also a thorn in the side of the king's white house concerning the plame matter. Is that ironic, or what.'

What?

That Chris Matthews spent minutes fawning over the 'king's' package on national television during the whole 'Mission Accomplished' charade?

That Chris Matthews STILL loves him some Bush no matter how many times he offers a quaint criticism?

That Chris Matthews actually commented on Fred Thompson's sent?

Ironic?

Damn Michael A:

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

hisgirlfriday wrote on December 19, 2007 12:31 PM:

Obama's opponents at EVERY POINT in his career have complained that Obama's coverage is more favorable than theirs. Maybe he's just a good guy?

But as far as HRC coverage goes... I am personally sick of all the coverage of the infighting in her campaign. That doesn't matter at all.

But the fact that the Clintons sold pardons on their way out the door is not an OLD story if you ask if that is something the Clintons would do AGAIN if they got to the White House. The fact that Bill had an affair with a White House intern is NOT an old story because there are questions whether he can keep it in his pants and keep us from having their marital problems distract them from this country's problems in this NEW presidency the way they did last time.

Greg, don't get spun in thinking all the questions about Clinton corruption and ethics issues in the past are old news. They're not. Those OLD stories tell us how the Clintons will act in the FUTURE. Those OLD stories are what Hillary is claiming is the EXPERIENCE that makes her the best candidate. Challenge that. Hold them to account for that. Please. Before it's too late.

dcshungu wrote on December 19, 2007 12:32 PM:

I am feeling the same way. I have loved this site and Josh has been great but they have clearly become shills for Hillary.

Statements such as these from Obama, Kucinich, Clinton, Edwards...supporters are unequivocal proof that TPM-EC is not biased in favor of any one candidate (Josh likes Obama but he's kept his shilling for him very subtle). TPM-EC just "goes with the flow"... Whatever the chattering class is hyperventilating is what TPM-EC also hypes...

frankly0 wrote on December 19, 2007 12:32 PM:

but coming off of Bill Shaheen's recent statements, casual drug references regarding Obama are definitely loaded and, if you ask me, should be avoided.

Oh, please.

Again, you obviously just don't care how many degrees of separation there might be between a comment and some racial overtone: you'll just declare it off limits because it's somehow "racist". Clearly, you're just trying to shut down all criticism of your candidate by playing the victim card.

Now maybe this little gimmick will get you somewhere in the Democratic primaries because so many Democrats feel a pretty intense white guilt, and can be cowed by accusations of racism into silence. But I guarantee you it's not going to work with independents, who just are not in a million years going to accept the idea that they can't openly criticize their President when they don't like what he's doing, and are will absolutely refuse to walk on eggshells because some identity politics inquisitors will declare them "racists" if they don't cease forthwith in their criticisms.

You better come to grips with reality on this point before it comes to grips with you.

dcshungu wrote on December 19, 2007 12:33 PM:

"...hyperventilating about..."

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 12:37 PM:

'I can tell you I've talked to at least 5-6 people who have said, "I don't know if I can support Obama since he's a muslim..."'

No time for anecdotal evidence, but...

I would suggest those 5-6 people are ignorant, and more likely bigots.

'And I can tell you a lot of Obama supporters who went home for the holidays and talked to their grandparents would beg to differ with you about the effectiveness of the Muslim tag.'

Now I am to believe that OLD bigots were planning on voting for Obama? But it's just the 'Muslim thing' that's holding them back?

No.

Andruw wrote on December 19, 2007 12:37 PM:

I don't recall seeing much scrutiny of Obama's IL Senate career at all.

That raises red flags for me.

frankly0 wrote on December 19, 2007 12:38 PM:

So let's see, in their quest to embrace and support the essential perfection of Obama, the Obama campaign and its supporters have tossed out Krugman and TPM as impure and unworthy.

Who's next, one wonders?

Chino Blanco wrote on December 19, 2007 12:40 PM:

frankly0, your commentary would be more convincing come from an actual, you know, independent.

But, while you're at it, why not enlighten us as to how a full-blown registered Republican might react.

Apparently, it's really scary.

Boo.

Dave wrote on December 19, 2007 12:40 PM:

"My candidate" is John Edwards. And I'm fine with people criticizing candidates, mine or otherwise.

But a drug reference a week after a prominent Democrat was forced to resign for insinuating Obama may or may not have been a drug dealer is treading on thin ice, in large part because of the racial undertones.

Rhetorically painting the first serious black candidate for President as some sort of druggy is problematic beyond the "white guilt" implications.

DRinOH wrote on December 19, 2007 12:41 PM:

willyjsimmons,

"I would suggest those 5-6 people are ignorant, and more likely bigots."

Right. And if you don't think bigotry, and ignorance in particular, are prevalent in America you are the ignorant one.

onceler wrote on December 19, 2007 12:41 PM:

wow, Josh's post about this on the front page here is pretty much the definition of 'over-reaction'! calm down a bit there, its gonna be OK. I agree with the first poster here. overall Hillary has been more examined than just about any currently living human. she's an extraordinary example, no one else in American politics really comes close except for Bill. but since the campaign started, I would say that yes, Obama has been more scrutinzed, attacked more overall, certainly attacked unfairly more, his policies have been picked over by Paul Krugman very publicly while Hillary's go completely un-analyzed.

the suggestion on the front page that this guy saying Obama has been highly scrutinized means that Obama himself is not ready for office is just plain childish.

DRinOH wrote on December 19, 2007 12:44 PM:

Dave,

Just to be clear, my comment on "you support your candidate and I'll support mine..." was directed at Frankly0.

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 12:44 PM:

Uh, willy, I guess you didn't follow the plame case. It was actually very enlightening and was an indictment of the right-wing corporate media and how it is used as a propoganda outlet by the political elite, such as the clintons. One of the issues in the case and that was part of the timeline was matthew's digging into the leak. Scooter called russert to put the heat on matthews to stop inquiring. It was a major part of the case. I guess you don't understand the word irony.

By the way, did I say that I liked matthew's? Did I say anything about matthew's jumpsuit comments about the king? Nope, just more clinton II diversion. Too funny.

By the way, I have been trying to figure out why tpm is so biased in favor of clinton II. I thought it was caaaaassssh, but someone hit the nail on the head. It's access to a clinton II white house. They are acting as shills for the clintons based on the assumption that they will get access if they win, which they won't. Very sad. Talk about cutting off your nose despite your face.

onceler wrote on December 19, 2007 12:45 PM:

I love it when people say things like "I haven't seen any coverage about Obama's time in the State Senate"...ok, why don't you get off your ass and look it up? I've seen hundreds of stories about all of that and its certainly worth reading. People, think for yourselves!

awrbb wrote on December 19, 2007 12:45 PM:

Greg is right... it's not a terribly relevant question.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 12:48 PM:

So let's see, in their quest to embrace and support the essential perfection of Obama, the Obama campaign and its supporters have tossed out Krugman and TPM as impure and unworthy.

Er, this is rather a large exageration, no? Obama's campaign (in case you had somehow missed it) is still buying ad space on this blog, so evidently they have not really "tossed out... TPM as impure and unworthy." Please do not generalize from the attitudes taken by some of the wackier (self-proclaimed) Obama supporters to draw conclusions about Obama's supporters in general or the Obama campaign in particular.

Chino Blanco wrote on December 19, 2007 12:49 PM:

frankly0, if you wanna defend Krugman's latest thoughts on the Obama campaign, I'm certainly in the mood to hear why you think they don't deserve to be tossed.

Andruw wrote on December 19, 2007 12:54 PM:

"I love it when people say things like "I haven't seen any coverage about Obama's time in the State Senate"...ok, why don't you get off your ass and look it up?"

That's not the point--I'm not personally concerned about it at all.

But you're crazy if you think the typical voterr has been exposed to much about it, and given his background as a progressive leader in Chicago, I'm guessing there may be some 'red meat' type stuff to use against him in a general election, stuff Clinton or Edwards wouldn't use because it would piss off people like you and me.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 12:54 PM:

@DRinOH

'Right. And if you don't think bigotry, and ignorance in particular, are prevalent in America you are the ignorant one.'

Surely it is.

But on OUR side?

The Democratic party is full of ignorant bigots who think Obama is a Muslim infiltrator?

(not sure if I should snark this or not? LOL)

@Michael A

'It was actually very enlightening and was an indictment of the right-wing corporate media and how it is used as a propoganda outlet by the political elite, such as the clintons.'

Nope. You don't know the meaning of irony.

So you're now suggesting that not only is there a 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy', but also that the Clintons benefit from it?

And the Libby case is what brought you to this conclusion?

*sigh*

Rooktoven wrote on December 19, 2007 1:00 PM:

Jebus, the guy who gets the most free and fawning coverage in years is whining because of rumors and questions about his background.

Grow a pair pal, and let it slide off of you. If you can't handle it now, it shows how well you'll deal with it when the GOP goes from being your best friend to the mugger in the alley.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 1:00 PM:

But you're crazy if you think the typical voterr has been exposed to much about it, and given his background as a progressive leader in Chicago, I'm guessing there may be some 'red meat' type stuff to use against him in a general election, stuff Clinton or Edwards wouldn't use because it would piss off people like you and me.

Because, of course, the GOP simply does not care about offices like United States senator and simply lets the democratic candidate run unopposed for those sorts of seats...

Seriously, are we really expected to treat this sort of insinuation as at all plausible? If there really were such explosive bombs waiting to be dropped, why were they not dropped in the U.S. senate race? It seems to me that this "taking a risk with Obama" meme is premised on some very flimsy assumptions.

Chino Blanco wrote on December 19, 2007 1:04 PM:

... I'm guessing there may be some 'red meat' type stuff to use against him in a general election, stuff Clinton or Edwards wouldn't use because it would piss off people like you and me.

Because our Republican opponents have never, ever, done anything that might piss off people like you and me. Or, if they have, we certainly wouldn't be able to make that case in a general election, because, well, we're scared shitless, aren't we, Andruw?

Andruw wrote on December 19, 2007 1:05 PM:

Actually, by the time the IL Senate race occurred, the GOP didn't care. Alan Keyes (R-Maryland) says hello.

There may be no 'bombshells', the issue here is 'most scrutinized' coming from a campaign that has been anything but that is absurd.

E-mail smears doesn't equal scrutiny.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 1:05 PM:

Grow a pair pal, and let it slide off of you. If you can't handle it now, it shows how well you'll deal with it when the GOP goes from being your best friend to the mugger in the alley.

This is rather an inaposite response to Burton's actual remarks. Burton was not complaining that Obama has received an unfair amount of scrutiny. He is simply pointing out that Clinton's claims of an unfair amount of scrutiny are baseless. Nobody has been given a free pass, so it is silly for Clinton's people to try to play their drops in the polls as the result of media bias. As I said earlier, I agree that Burton's claim is an exageration in the specifics, but in the substance he is correct - the media has not been ignoring the other candidates, as the Clinton campaign would like you to believe (and by extension her drop in the polls cannot be put down to this explanation). In any event, nothing in Burton's remarks suggested that Obama finds the scrutiny too much to handle, or in anywise constituted a complaint about the scrutiny.

DRinOH wrote on December 19, 2007 1:08 PM:

willy, "But on OUR side?"

Yeah. Newsflash, there are ignorant democrats. Shocking, I know.

Andruw wrote on December 19, 2007 1:09 PM:

"Or, if they have, we certainly wouldn't be able to make that case in a general election, because, well, we're scared shitless, aren't we, Andruw?"

Unfortunately, we often are--you are aware a draft-avoiding cokehead was elected over two guys who joined the military at the height of Vietnam, and we somehow allowed THEM to be portrayed as the weak fakers who fabricated stories to win medals?

And Mr. Chumbaya (Obama) hasn't instilled any confidence in me that he would make that agressive case.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 1:12 PM:

'If there really were such explosive bombs waiting to be dropped, why were they not dropped in the U.S. senate race?'

Are we forgetting who Obama had to run against...

Alan Keyes.

The GOP's LAST option in that race.

Not really a fight at all.

'It seems to me that this "taking a risk with Obama" meme is premised on some very flimsy assumptions.'

As would the Obama campaign's claim that Hillary Clinton would mark a return to the 'deviciveness' of the 90's. That 'deviciveness' being nothing more than republican hysteria and compulsion. (minus a race riot and OJ Simpson)

Cuts both ways don't it?

goodreverend wrote on December 19, 2007 1:13 PM:

I think the intent behind these comments may have been to get people to object to them, forcing people to recall Whitewater, Lewinsky, and all of the other investigations into the Clintons. It pushes the image of "Old Hillary".

Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 1:13 PM:

So now we want to broaden this to say that the vast number of people in the country haven't heard about Obama's "dirt". Fair enough, but I don't think that fact alters the question of whether his dirt has been examined or investigated. Certainly it means that it hasn't been misconstrued, but the Clinton's are doing their best to change that.

And to the extent there are political enemies looking to leverage that "dirt" one would think that in 11 years of public office it would have been uncovered, especially in Chicago/Springfield. So far, I haven't seen evidence of these political enemies, save the Clinton's.

Chino Blanco wrote on December 19, 2007 1:15 PM:

By the way, I'm heartened to see that the original post has been edited, cheers.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 1:16 PM:

@DRinOH

'Yeah. Newsflash, there are ignorant democrats. Shocking, I know.'

So...then...back to my original point.

What exactly makes you thinks these bigots had any intention of voting for Obama prior to the 'Muslim Infiltrator' charge?

You mean they gleefully overlooked the REAL fact the he is, you know, black?

You need more people.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 1:17 PM:

Actually, by the time the IL Senate race occurred, the GOP didn't care. Alan Keyes (R-Maryland) says hello.

If they really did not care at all, why did they bother to bring in a big-name carpetbagger to run in Ryan's place? Do you really mean to say that they cared so little that they could not even be bothered to smear an up-and-coming democrat with loads of juicy scandals just swimming around him? The idea is simply implausible. He has hardly been off the radar screen for the last several years. I simply find the idea that no one has gone looking yet for his dirty laundry to be really improbable.

There may be no 'bombshells', the issue here is 'most scrutinized' coming from a campaign that has been anything but that is absurd.

Well, like I said, I agree that Burton's claim is silly, but on the other hand it was made as a response to an equally silly claim. Clinton's people employed an exageration and Obama's people responded with one of their own. Fine. So let us dust away all of the exagerations obscuring the reality and look at this issue forthrightly: neither Obama nor Clinton has been given any sort of free pass. That there is not a lot of mud visible on Obama is not because it is being ignored, but because it is not there in the first place.

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 1:21 PM:

Gee willy, I guess that shows the weight of your arguments when you have to completely distort what I say, twice now. You clinton II lovers just crack me up. I also suggest you invest in a dictionary.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 1:22 PM:

'It seems to me that this "taking a risk with Obama" meme is premised on some very flimsy assumptions.'

As would the Obama campaign's claim that Hillary Clinton would mark a return to the 'deviciveness' of the 90's. That 'deviciveness' being nothing more than republican hysteria and compulsion. (minus a race riot and OJ Simpson)

Cuts both ways don't it?

Perhaps. I make no pretensions to any sort of above-the-fray objectivity here. I am an Obama supporter, and part of the reason why I have come to that choice is because I really do perceive Sen Clinton as divisive and polarizing. The assumptions necessary to reach that conclusion do not seem especially flimsy to me, but that may simply say more about me than about Sen Clinton. That said, if "republican hysteria and compulsion" are the assumptions necessary to reach the "Clinton-is-divisive" meme, then said meme's pre-requisite assumptions are not flimsy at all. Republicans are still just as hysterical and compulsive/compelling as they were in the '90s (if not more so).

Perry wrote on December 19, 2007 1:23 PM:

The only reason Hillary gets bad coverage is because she tried to pull off some dirty tricks against Barack.

Why won't she just take some responsibility? If she'd just say "Okay, I answered that question poorly" or "Okay, we've had a rough couple of weeks", it'd be fine and could be forgotten....but instead she blames Time Russert, the "boys" for "piling on", and now the media for her problems. We've already had a President for the last 7 years who wouldn't take responsibility for his actions....we don't need another

Non-Strong wrote on December 19, 2007 1:24 PM:

What I think is funny - is that the Clinton Campaign claimms that they know how to fight, that they are tough and vetted - then they whine when the microscope gets aimed at their history or their actions.

Which way is it HRC?

Are you tough?

Are you vetted?

Can you take the heat?

Or are you simply mouthing like a sockpuppet?

How strong are you HRC?

No one is talking about how such a strong woman remains with a man for year after year despite numerous bouts of adultery and scandal.

WHo is questioning how strong she is for that?

To me - that sounds like someone who is either not strong, or opportunistic.

How about people start talking about that?

How about someone in Edwards or Obama campaign having "friends" drop that line to the media a la Shaheen and Kerrey?

Would be fair no?

Chino Blanco wrote on December 19, 2007 1:25 PM:

Unfortunately, we often are [scared shitless]

If it's so unfortunate, what are you doing to change our fortunes? Not much, as far as I can tell, Andruw.

loki wrote on December 19, 2007 1:27 PM:

Michael A. has the same understanding of "irony" that Alanis Morisette has!

Oh, and Michael, you really need to brush up on your cliches. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Not despite your face.

Did you go to school with Dubya? ;^}

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 1:36 PM:

@Micheal A

'Gee willy, I guess that shows the weight of your arguments when you have to completely distort what I say, twice now. You clinton II lovers just crack me up. I also suggest you invest in a dictionary'

LOL

Did you not suggest that the Clintons benefit from the VRWC?

'It was actually very enlightening and was an indictment of the right-wing corporate media and how it is used as a propoganda outlet by the political elite, such as the clintons.'

Yes, you did.

What did I 'distort'?

@Greg DeLassus

'I make no pretensions to any sort of above-the-fray objectivity here.'

I would hope not.

'Republicans are still just as hysterical and compulsive/compelling as they were in the '90s (if not more so).'

And Obama somehow thinks that if we nominate him, the Republicans will 'play nice' with him?

No. So Obama's point is moot. As is your reasoning for supporting him over Clinton.

No matter WHO we nominate (throw Edwards in there too I guess), the Republicans aren't going to suddenly change their tactics.

And if we're providing full disclosure:

I support Gravel. Dodd second.

Only mailing lists I'm on.

DRinOH wrote on December 19, 2007 1:36 PM:

willy,

When I say there are ignorant democrats, that's not to say they won't vote for Obama simply because he's black (though there are some of them in our party too), I'm just saying that there are people who are susceptible to the muslim rumors, so you should dismiss their significance.

Second, in response to your allegation that the republicans didn't throw around any dirt in his Senate race b/c he was up against Alan Keyes, you're forgetting that for the bulk of that race (until July) he was up against Jack Ryan, a much more formidable candidate who was pretty much neck and neck with Obama.

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 1:40 PM:

Gee loki, thanks for pointing out another mistake on my cliches. I should look them up before I use them. You clinton II people keep me on my toes.

Wish I could have gone to school with the king. I wasn't born into privilege.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 1:41 PM:

'you're forgetting that for the bulk of that race (until July) he was up against Jack Ryan, a much more formidable candidate who was pretty much neck and neck with Obama.'

No I'm not forgetting.

What you're forgetting is that Jack Ryan's wife came forward alleging he was a sex freak.

Ryan had no time to worry about offense, when he was too busy playing defense.

CalD wrote on December 19, 2007 1:41 PM:

What do I think?

Scrutinized? Not so much. Or maybe just a little in the last week or so. Up to now though: Canonized, yes. Oversold, obviously. Not that he's a bad guy or anything. It's just that the media loves a good Cinderella story and isn't above making one up if they have to.

But if there's one thing the press loves better than building someone up, it's tearing them down again. So we may start seeing a little more in the way of actual scrutiny of Mr. Obama, now that he's being regarded as a more credible contender. Up to now though, he's pretty much been getting away with murder while Hillary Clinton has been getting broiled under the magnifying glass.

loki wrote on December 19, 2007 1:43 PM:

Michael,

Glad to be of help.

DRinOH wrote on December 19, 2007 1:43 PM:

willy,

Obviously I'm not forgetting or I wouldn't have included the fact that he dropped out. My point is, that race wasn't always a cake walk. Besides, as someone else has already pointed out, if you don't think the Republican's care enough about a United States Senate seat to dig up anything and everything there is to find, and use it, then in the immortal words of Josh Marshall, "what are you smoking?"

bvd wrote on December 19, 2007 1:44 PM:

Even as an Obama supporter I think it was a silly comment. But not even remotely as big a deal as is being made here. People are using this as a chance to say "SEE! SEE! Obama can't take the heat. Vote for Hillary!" Nonsense. I don't even think Shaheen's comments were sufficient to say "Now I'll never vote for Hillary." Let's put some of this in perspective, please.

Having said that, the WORST that can be made of Burton's comment is that it's stupid, self-serving and playing the victim card. But compare that to the comments and insinuations Shaheen and Kerrey and Bill Clinton and, unfortunately, now Josh are making (not to mention a LOT of people on this board). Forget the claim of "racism" someone made - these people are doing EXACTLY the same thing Bill Clinton haters did about not inhaling and draft dodging. Sorry, if you hated it coming from his opponents then don't do it yourselves. JOSH, I MEAN YOU ESPECIALLY.

There were countless controversies and scandals that came up during the Clinton admin involving both Bill & Hillary. If Obama is so evil and cunning and deceptive - as quite a few Hillary supporters here keep suggesting - then why haven't all those scandals (no, I won't list them here) been used against her by Obama? I mean, there were/are serious questions about ethics and honesty. But no Dem candidate is using that ammo against her.

Yet it will ALL be brought out again by the Repugs if she gets the nomination. And it's not going to be enough to say she already answered all these questions.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 1:46 PM:

Obama somehow thinks that if we nominate him, the Republicans will 'play nice' with him?

Hm, well call me crazy, but I do think that the Republicans will respond differently to different democrats. It would go to far to say that I think that they will "play nice" with Obama or Edwards, but I do think that they would view every move made by Clinton as an opportunity to appease their base by obstructing while they would be less likely to do this in all cases with a Pres Edwards or Pres Obama. Sen Obama especially is possessed of a charm and charisma which is (for better or worse) simply lacking in Sen Clinton (whatever her other virtues might be). In short, I guess that I am not convinced that my reasons for supporting Obama over Clinton are quite as baseless as you make out, but then again that may simply say more about myself than it says about either Sen Clinton or Sen Obama.

loki wrote on December 19, 2007 1:49 PM:

bvd,

What insinuations did Josh make? What was so over the top?

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 1:53 PM:

'if you don't think the Republican's care enough about a United States Senate seat to dig up anything and everything there is to find, and use it, then in the immortal words of Josh Marshall, "what are you smoking?"'

revisionist history?

Alan Keyes was kneecapped locally for being a carpetbagger.

He had no chance, the Ill. GOP knew it.

They tried to get Ditka to run for christ's sake.

LOL

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 1:55 PM:

Willy, I didn't say vast right-wing conspiracy anywhere in my post. I said the right-wing corporate media. If you don't get the difference, that's your problem.

Clinton II lovers are just way too funny. Yeah, I support gravel first also, that's why i'm defending the most right-wing dem nominee running. I'm a nuclear physicist also. Too funny.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 1:58 PM:

What you're forgetting is that Jack Ryan's wife came forward alleging he was a sex freak.

Ryan had no time to worry about offense, when he was too busy playing defense.

As a simple matter of documented and easily retrievable fact, Jack Ryan's ex-wife did no such thing. Both Ryan and his ex-wife chose to have the records of their custody proceedings sealed, as they both thought that the ugly allegations therein would be bad for their son. The Chicago Tribune and the ABC affiliate sued to have those proceedings made public and in June of 2004 they won, at which point Ryan was indeed forced to go on the defensive. Meanwhile, Obama took the democratic nomination officially in March 2004. That means the for most of March and all of May Ryan was not on the defensive. Meanwhile, Ryan was quite publically digging for dirt on Obama (see URL below). As such, DRinOH's point is not really so vacuous as you try to make out. The point stands that this "risky unknown" metanarrative is pretty flimsy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0405230433may23,1,3572265.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 2:02 PM:

@Greg DeLassus

'but I do think that the Republicans will respond differently to different democrats.'

Just re-quoting for the ridiculousness of it.

'Sen Obama especially is possessed of a charm and charisma'

Sounds like the anti-christ.

LOL.

R U Serious?

Nevermind your 'Hillary is a dud' framing.

'charm and charisma'??

Same damn thing they said about Bush.

How about his stances on the 'issues'?

Progressive Punch has Clinton with a lifetime ranking of 16.

Obama 24.

'charm and charisma'?

DRinOH wrote on December 19, 2007 2:04 PM:

And even more to the point, what difference does it make whether the GOP thought they had a chance or not. Candidates aren't the only ones who drag for dirt. The media can do that all on it's own (as Greg points out). You don't think the Chicago Tribune would have jumped all over anything salacious it could get its hands on? In fact, isn't that what this whole thread is about - the media's treatment of candidates?

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 2:04 PM:

the WORST that can be made of Burton's comment is that it's stupid, self-serving and playing the victim card.

Well, I grant that it is obvious that a lot of people here are taking (or at least portraying) Burton's remarks as a case of "playing the victim," but there is nothing in the comments themselves to lend credence to that reading. Burton is not complaining. He is simply highlighting the vacuousness of the Clinton campaign's complaints. There is no suggestion in the comments that the degree of scrutiny which Sen Obama has received has been too much or unfair.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 2:09 PM:

'but I do think that the Republicans will respond differently to different democrats.'

Just re-quoting for the ridiculousness of it.

Fair enough. Suffice it to say, I disagree, but I grant that I am in no position to prove my suspicions to be well justified.

'charm and charisma'??

Same damn thing they said about Bush.

How about his stances on the 'issues'?

Two brief responses:

1) You are changing the subject. I am happy to talk about the issues, but that was not the subject of discussion on which you were earlier deriding me just a moment ago. As in any campaign, there are legitimate considerations beyond the issues, and my point is that Obama is a strong candidate when those considerations are examined.

2) How about his stances on the issues? I gather that you think that something about them argues against him. Do you care to expand on that?

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 2:13 PM:

Hm, I really am a dud with HTML today. Obviously enough, I should have closed my most recent blockquote after "... How about his stances on the 'issues'?" instead of after "'charm and charisma'??". Sorry for the confusion there.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 2:13 PM:

@Michael A

My bad.

The 'right-wing corporate media and how it is used as a propoganda outlet by the political elite' conspiracy?

'Clinton II lovers are just way too funny. Yeah, I support gravel first also, that's why i'm defending the most right-wing dem nominee running. I'm a nuclear physicist also. Too funny.'

So now, I'm a liar?

http://www.sohhoverit.com/?s=Mike+Gravel

Also note the TWO things I wrote about Hillary Clinton

http://www.sohhoverit.com/?s=Hillary+Clinton

One 'positive' and one 'negative'.

Both dealt with issues larger than Clinton herself.

I would take it easy calling people lairs.

Might open one up to being called an 'asshole'?

Captain-Sky wrote on December 19, 2007 2:20 PM:

The More I Read You Obama's Fan Mail You Get Stranger & Stranger Every Day,Theirs Noway In Hell That Mr Obama Has Been More Scrutinized Than Senator Clinton,I Truly Do Now Believe That It Is Something Truly Mentally Wrong With You People,The Worst Part Is How You Continiously Defends This Man Knowing That He Has Nothing To Offer But Rhetoric,And Lies,So You All Just Pick Up His Lies From Where He Stopped And Continue His Pack Of Lies,Add This 15 Years,Plus One Year Equals Obama Wins By A Lanslide.Did Any Of You Flight Over The Cukkoos Nest,You Are Willing To Put A Man In Office Regardless Of If It's A Lie Or Not.

Pembleton wrote on December 19, 2007 2:20 PM:

did you read the front page? The insinuation that the comment somehow evidences that Obama is not ready and the arguably inflammatory "what have you been smoking" comment. Glad I could help YOU loki like you helped Micheal. :)

P.S. - the one I always used to mess up was "For all intensive (intents and) purposes"

bvd wrote on December 19, 2007 2:21 PM:

Loki -

"well ... what's he been smoking?" as the last joking line is doing the exact same thing Shaheen did - it's bringing up Obama's teenage, er, activities for no good reason. To say it's not would be disingenuous.

By the way, I asked earlier why the front page lede reads "Obama Flack" instead of "Obama aide" or spokesman or whatever. The word "flack" has a definite negative connotation.

Do a quick search on this website of the word "flack" and you'll find (aside from "catching flack" and "flack jacket" references) that's it's only used for Dana Perino and other Repug spokemodels. Never for Dems. Certainly never for Hillary.

May seem silly to some but the people who work at TPM are writers. Writers know quite well that words matter. They matter a lot.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 2:21 PM:

@Greg DeLassus

That link requires registration?

No thanks.

'You are changing the subject.'

No, I'm mocking the shallowness of your support.

'I gather that you think that something about them argues against him. Do you care to expand on that?'

Something tells me, you don't want to hear it. And even if you did 'hear' it, you wouldn't 'listen'.

Feel me?

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 2:21 PM:

Oh, gee willy, you're just way too smart for me. And, oh, Please, please don't call me an a**hole.

amber wrote on December 19, 2007 2:22 PM:

Bill Clinton can go on national television and talk about how unfair the media is to his poor, helpless wife, and you attack Obama's team for answering the Hillary camp's big propaganda gun. You really need to put things in the context of what's going on in the primary battle right now.

Hillary has been able to fire her cheap shots about drugs and use Bob Kerrey to lower himself to her level by being racist and antisemitic which has been kept alive by the gullible media, so the Obama campaign is answering back.

onceler wrote on December 19, 2007 2:26 PM:

re: Obama's Illinois Senate race - people who think the GOP didn't bother to do any research or try to dig up dirt on Obama are f-in' out of their minds! how old are you people? is this the first round of campaigning you've ever seen? Obama was set to trounce a popular Republican figure, who was then crossed out due to fairly extreme perversion and ill-treatment of his wife. you think motherf#ckers weren't looking for something to hit back with, no matter what??? there isn't much 'dirt' on Obama because he's ethically solid, and he's not all two-faced like the Clintons are. the reason the GOP ran Alan Keyes against Obama was that nobody with hopes for a future career wanted to impale themselves running against Obama who was sure to destroy whoever they put in his path. nobody wants to lose an election, and nobody wanted to run against him, so they threw in a token crazy person, because, well, then you can at least make the accusation that the various ignorami commenting here are making "he didn't really have a race, nobody discovered anything about him because he was running against Alan Keyes..."

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 2:26 PM:

Something tells me, you don't want to hear it. And even if you did 'hear' it, you wouldn't 'listen'.

Feel me?

Fair enough. Suit yourself. It is probably time that I got back to work anyway.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 2:26 PM:

@Michael A

'Oh, gee willy, you're just way too smart for me. And, oh, Please, please don't call me an a**hole.'

I'll accept your attempted snark as an apology.

I'm gracious that way.

I'd prefer not to name call but...

jstip wrote on December 19, 2007 2:28 PM:

I have followed this campaign daily. From January thru October 2007 Hillary had a free and easy ride. She was allowed to give vague answers to all questions, as if she were the Queen rather than a former first lady and Junior Senator. The press and pundits assumed the American people would follow her inevitability argument blindly. Then in October people finally started questioning her and she and Bill were shocked. The Clintons are now part of the establishment and Washington insiders that they once ran against. America is ready for New Leadership. We deserve Obama.

loki wrote on December 19, 2007 2:29 PM:

Oh bvd....really. How pathetic.

VSamuels wrote on December 19, 2007 2:37 PM:

The Clinton machine is in-between a rock and a hard place if they choose to attack Obama's state senate record. If they do and find nothing, they have just contradicted their narrative that he has no 'experience.' So, it is better for them to ignore his legislative record which is 11 years longer than Hillary's and count on her surrogates in the MSM to repeat over and over than he has no experience.

I would venture to say that many of our current Congressman followed the path of an Obama, serving at the state level, rather than simply running for US senate, after having no previous political experience. Hillary, it would seem would be wise not to go down the path of screaming about scrutiny, as when one opens up the door to how she got where she got, it would show a person who was bequeathed her status and standing rather than one who earned it based on her own doing.

Hillary and Bill simply love the spotlight when it is positive, but they scream and whine when it conversely points the larger picture of them. And, even if Obama comes up a little short in his bid for office, few will be moved to believe that Hillary has won the office on her own, rather she has been the 'gifted' candidated buoyed by a still popular, but disgraced ex-president and a cadre of media sycophants and democratic insiders clamoring to be back in power.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 19, 2007 2:38 PM:

'there isn't much 'dirt' on Obama because he's ethically solid, and he's not all two-faced like the Clintons are.'

Obama supporters cannot help but mention the Clinton name.

Flailing at the wind.

Liam wrote on December 19, 2007 2:43 PM:

What scrutiny?. Hillary has not been asked to explain why her brothers were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, by criminals seeking to obtain pardons from her Husband, The president of the USA.

That sounds like a serious matter that has been buried.

Liam wrote on December 19, 2007 2:52 PM:

Well, Obama must have been greatly scrutinized if Hillary was able to release his Kindergarten papers.

On the other hand she has not released her recent White House papers, so how can any one really scrutinize her claim to experience because of her years in the White House.

What is she hiding. One thing that needs to be looked into: Her brothers were in the White House, and they were paid hundreds of thousands by criminals seeking pardons from President Clinton.

How about explaining that to the voters, instead of Senator Obama's Kindergarten ambitions.

bvd wrote on December 19, 2007 2:59 PM:

Loki - I'm really not overly concerned with what you think. The rudeness of your posts says it all.

Regardless, TPM is as capable of slanting stories as any mainstream outlet. I still don't see what the big issue is here or why it's a top story - campaigns say stupid crap all the time. This comment wasn't attacking anyone, it wasn't implying anything about anyone else. I don't think it's much of a story - and I don't think TPM handled it well.

Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 3:08 PM:

Thanks liam, I forgot about the stupid pardons. There were congressional investigations right after the pardons also. I recall one of the issues was how much did rich pay to buy his pardon? Also, surprise, surprise the attorney representing rich in the purchase transaction was none other than scooter. Way, way too funny.

Maybe somebody should ask clinton II how much she will charge for pardons if elected. Nah, that would never happen since she is getting such a rough ride to the nomination by the right-wing corporate media. Oh, but she's been tested and vetted, yeah right.

votenic wrote on December 19, 2007 3:08 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

Peggy wrote on December 19, 2007 3:19 PM:

It sounds like Obama is the whiner here - and if he intends to run a national campaign, he'd better decide to like Senator Clinton, because she can teach the puppy a whole lot about the Republican machine. He will certainly be Swift boated, and I question his maturity for handling that sort of thing.
He has not been battle tested. I think that is one thing that even Obama supporters can agree with.
Obama - you went to Hawaii and pondered your Presidential run and came back to the mainland with your decision.
Live with it and all that goes along with it. I believe that you wrote the books to inoculate yourself from scrutiny. What's the matter, you expected a pass?
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, and when something isn't going right with your campaign, for once, just once, please stand up and take responsibility for it rather than placing the blame on your staff. Where does the buck stop with you anyway? You are a slippery guy on a slippery slope, so my advice to you is to pull down your pants and slide on the ice - Dr. Sidney Friedman, MASH.
There is no one, that I can think of anyway, who has been more pillaried by the media and bloggers, than Senator Hillary Clinton. She has withstood it all, for 20 years, with grace, resolve, and determination. Say what you will, she is a tough lady.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 3:37 PM:

Dear Peggy,

What are you going on about?

It sounds like Obama is the whiner here

Where? Where does Obama (or his staffer) complain about anything? Show me the words.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen...

Fine advice that, but what does it have to do with Obama (or Burton). Neither of them are saying that the 'heat' (as it were) is too much.

... and when something isn't going right with your campaign, for once, just once, please stand up and take responsibility for it rather than placing the blame on your staff.

Coming from a Clinton backer this is rich. 1) Nothing is going wrong with Obama's campaign. In case you had not noticed, he is steadily gaining on your candidate in all of the early races (except those where he has already overtaken her). 2) There is no blame being apportioned in the above quote. Read it again if you do not believe me.

question wrote on December 19, 2007 3:46 PM:

DRinOH wrote on December 19, 2007 12:21:

I can tell you I've talked to at least 5-6 people who have said, "I don't know if I can support Obama since he's a muslim..."

So did you do anything to dispel the myth, or did you let it proceed, since you're not clearly not an Obama supporter? Just askin'

Andruw wrote on December 19, 2007 4:12 PM:

BTW, I hope most of us here can agree that this Democratic primary campaign has been actually quite positive overall in the overall scheme of things.

After all, this is a campaign, you don't win simply by saying you have the best ideas, or you can bring the world together for a coke and a smile. You have to beat someone, and pointing out their so-called flaws is the price of admission.

The so-called attacks have actually been quite tame. This isn't a PolySci 102 debating class.

NCSteve wrote on December 19, 2007 4:32 PM:

Sorry I got here too late to make a comment before the 70 message inevitable degeneration into name-calling threshold was reached.

Anyway, just a few observations.

My take on the Obama side of this issue is this is that Hillary's campaign is--with some success if the post and the comments here are any guide--injecting an unstated assumption into this argument: absence of dirt = absence of scrutiny. It's an easy thing to believe, especially if you're a Clinton or a Clinton supporter. We are so used to our politicians being, at best, heavily-foibled, that that they don't even need to state it for many to assume it to be true. Certainly, I'm seeing a lot of that assumption at work among the Hillaroids here. Hell, even I had to get past an uncomfortable feeling of waiting for the other shoe to drop before I could step up to the Koolaid bowl.

Unfortunately for Hillary, however, that assumption flies in the face of another, more readily verifiable truism: there is nothing the press loves more than tearing down Democrats who seem too good to be true. Of course the MSM been digging around in his trash since his Senate campaign. The absence of dirt isn't evidence of a lack of scrutiny, its evidence of a lack of dirt.

The ridiculous little nothing stories that have come out--e.g. Harvard parking tickets that he paid off before he announced and the purchase of a strip of land from Rezko for market value--are clear indicators that they've been looking like crazy. I mean, they checked to see if he picked up any parking tickets while he was at Harvard and you claim he's gotten no scrutiny? Are you kidding me?

As for the "just you wait until those big, bad, terrifying Republicans get to work on him, then we'll see some dirt?" Bunk. Are you guys really claiming that the Republicans are better at oppo than Hillary? Do you doubt for a second that her oppo shop has been rooting through Obama's past like badgers on meth since about fifteen minutes after the 2004 keynote address? And look what have they come up with: kindergarten papers and the shocking, shocking news that his leadership pac gave money to politicians. Does anyone doubt for a second that, if they'd found anything at all, it would have been in John Solomon's inbox in a matter of seconds? They got nothin.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 4:50 PM:

Hillary's campaign is--with some success if the post and the comments here are any guide--injecting an unstated assumption into this argument: absence of dirt = absence of scrutiny... The absence of dirt isn't evidence of a lack of scrutiny, its evidence of a lack of dirt.

Exactly. Very well said.

Trover wrote on December 19, 2007 6:25 PM:

This a patent attack on Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama was not invited to appear on all 5 major Sunday talk shows--on the same Sunday. Mr. Obama was not the subject of major Sunday front page profiles in both the Washington Post and the New York Times two weeks ago--on the same Sunday. (Mr. Obama got separate weekdays.) Mr. Obama is not portrayed as the "frontrunner"--even though he is. And he's going to win, despite this kind of nonsense.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 7:18 PM:

Our Ivy League elitists are right. The mainstream media doesn't talk enough about the other candidates.

pretty wrote on December 19, 2007 7:35 PM:

loki

The sweater looks swell on you

norrismorris wrote on December 19, 2007 9:20 PM:

If Obama thinks he's come even close to the scrutiny and punishment the Clinton's have, then I would suggest he sober up.

Intense scrutiny has taken a pass regarding Obama, and the Press has been easy on him as they continue to hammer Hillary.

But Obama cannot emerge unscathed from the digging that will go on regarding his past in Illinois and elsewhere if he continues as contender.

As a nominated candidate he will be eaten alive by GOP.

While Rove and David Brooks of the NYTimes love Obama, why do you think?

Because they feel Obama is beatable. Republicans continue to trash Hillary and expound on Obama's merits. Isn't this obvious?

His voting record and alliances as State Senator in Illinois and his recanting of many of his former positions will be hurled at him. That his camp thinks he's been as "vetted" as Hillary has, is absurd and naive.

As Neitzsche said, "Without cruelty, there is no Festival".

Truth789 wrote on December 19, 2007 10:59 PM:

Hillary Rodham Clinton because she is the front runner is scrutinized much more than Barack Hussein Obama which is really a shame because she has done so much more good for the country than him.

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 8:22 AM:

Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post joined the new drum beat that Hillary is the victim of an unfair press: "Clinton's senior advisers have grown convinced that the media deck is stacked against them, that their candidate is drawing far harsher scrutiny than Barack Obama."

One thing Hillary and her desperate machine should consider: maybe voters are realizing that Hillary's candidacy is fundamentally dishonest. She is not Bill, she does not have exceptional experience, her Senate career is lack luster, she owes corporate special interests big time, her accomplishments are largely the result of being the wife of a powerful, influential politician.

When Hillary, Bill, her machine, and a media that was for months trumpeting "Hillary the Inevitable", voters hear dishonesty.

Edwards and Obama, as primary contenders, are not claiming to be something they are not. They both are self-made, on their own accomplishments, both with some big hurdles in life. They are not claiming to be something based on marriage, family or association.

Hillary's tendancy to play the victim is VERY unappealing for someone who wants to lead the nation and the world. No fan of Peggy Noonan here, but she hit the nail on the head about Hillary: "The point is the big ones, the real ones, the Thatchers and Indira Gandhis and Golda Meirs and Angela Merkels, never play the boo-hoo game. They are what they are, but they don't use what they are. They don't hold up their sex as a feint: Why, he's not criticizing me, he's criticizing all women! Let us rise and fight the sexist cur."

Will Hillary fell on her face in the Philadelphia debate waffling on stage about immigration, it was Tim Russerts fault? Now that Hillary's dishonest campaign is loosing credibility with voters and the press, its all the media's fault. Bill and Hillary have said so many things that peoples knowledge of them, life experience and common sense say are not true, the Clintons have lost the benefit of the doubt with many Americans. That's not the fault of stupid, idiot, morons, as Hillary's attack dogs like to claim, or of an unfair press, its the fault of Bill and Hillary and too many lies.

Desider wrote on December 20, 2007 9:27 AM:

Excellent, VSamuels now dismisses all of Hillary's Senate record, claiming Obama has an 11 years longer legislative record. (Hint from earth: Hillary has 4 years more in the US Senate, and Obama's state experience was 8 years.)

George of Palos wrote on December 20, 2007 10:08 AM:

So once again the Obama "Cult of Personality" reacts when comments are made that are not in keeping with their image of "The One."It reminds me of the messanic attitude that the right wing has about Bush.One must not speak against "the Leader." Here in Chicago we know exactly what Obama is.. a Machine political hack. He served two terms in the Illinois Sentate as the rep out of Hyde Park. This is a solid Democratic district so who ever wins the Democratic primary wins the general. The Chicago Machine does not slate any one that they can not control. In Springfield Obama did what he was told to do by Senate president Emil "Com Ed" Jones; one of the "Four Tops" of the Illinois Democratic party. And who is Obama's Campaign Manager? Why non-other than David Axelrod, Richie Daley's personal political operative. When the people of Cook County demanded a change in the presidency and the direct of the Cook County Board due to the corruption, the cronyism, and waste, who did Obama endorse? Todd "Erkel" Stroger, The Chicago Machine candidate.As a result services to the poor and indigent are being dramatically cut while Stroger and his fellows hacks are hiring their kinfolk to six figure jobs with the County. Call me racist or a "shill for Hillary', I don't care, but the bottom line is is that Obama is a product of the Chicago Machine,

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 11:04 AM:

Call me racist or a "shill for Hillary', I don't care, but the bottom line is is that Obama is a product of the Chicago Machine,

Fair enough. Meanwhile, you can call me crazy, but to my mind there are far worse things to say about a politician than that s/he got a start on the basis of a big city machine. The machines gave us FDR, Truman, Stevenson, Humphrey and a host of other public servants who have been a credit to their countries. I am not certain that it really is fair to call Sen Obama a "Machine political hack," but if it is a fair charge, I am not sure that such is not as much an asset as a liability.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)