I'm so glad I don't have to read this article now.

It works both ways. People like to be on the winning team but they also like underdogs. Hilary began her campaign and pretty much anointed herself the winner, and it rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Not to mention her negative campaigning, her changing personalities don't help.

You know...

I think anyone who can't find their own information about the candidates, and think for themselves - especially as wide-open as the internet is - is just not interested in voting at all.

I have no patience for people who want to vote but don't bother to figure things out. By now, we all know the media spins things so that they're perceived the way the writer/editor wants them. It may not be ethical, but it's factual.

If Hillary's losing because the media says so, it's not the media's fault, it's the voters' fault.

I say no, for the most part.

The media is an angle, just like everything else, you have to use the media and play the media to your advantage - they will not be fair because this is the world of ratings, they will sell their best interest, the best story.

Remember when she was the front runner, the media had a bias for her, she didn't mind then - but she got that bias b/c of her history.

Obama used the media the same way politics uses clothing, slogans, colors, and commercials - he won the media.

Now I respect Clinton a ton, she is an amazing politician, but I must be honest and say she is not a likable person.

She even portrays herself as a "fighter" and after 8 yrs of fighting and becoming so divided the US is sick of it! People want to hear hope, a good future, and see someone approachable - Obama has OWNED this angle.

Therefore the media is giving us what we want, and Hillary Clinton did not make us want her.

She has lost 11 in a row. The very fact that they are talking about her as if she is still in the race shows that they are not biased against her.

If Obama would have lost 11 in a row, the media would be treating him very differently than the way they are treating her.

To me, it does seem like the media.
But they aren't treating her /that/ bad, not nearly as bad as Edwards...

Of course the media is partly responsible for her falling ratings! So many people watch the news and think they're getting real-time, unbiased information, when in reality, they're more concerned with ratings and appeasing their stockholders and sponsors than they are with providing you the truth.

They mainstream media shows you exactly what they want you to see and nothing else.

Of course it's the media's fault. You can't find coverage of Hillary ANYWHERE!

Hey a while ago all I was hearing was that she was the front runner. I think all politicians like it when things go their way and then whine when it doesn't.

To me John Edwards was ignored (she had no problem with that)

Sadly, I will be honest and admit 1-2 years ago I thought about voting her but as time goes on I just dislike her more and more. Today I actually don't like her

Yes, the media is biased. Every little Obama thing has been reported on, but not the same for Clinton. For instance, Edwards was in several private meetings with Clinton, but there was no mention of it in major media outlets. Then, Edwards had ONE meeting with Obama and it was reported everywhere. WTH?

At the moment, they are so close in not only delegates but in what they would change, it IS anyone's race. They BOTH need superdelegates to win, because the delegate race is so close. !! in a row sucks, but it's not over. If you feed people the info that it is, they don't go out because they figure their vote doesn't count. Now THAT in itself is a problem and the amount of sheep in the U.S. in disgusting, but it's the situation we are in atm.

The media, including Citizen Sugar, has published things that show McCain versus Obama and they leave Clinton out. No reason to, other than people believe whatever is spoon fed to them.

Ha! Should "11" not "!!" Hehe....darn shift key and capitals! =p

Well, I catched CNN covering her talks with Edwards both on the Situation Room and online.

I think if Obama had had 11 defeats in a row you would hear all about "the comeback kid" and so on. Not to speak of all his endorsements since super Tuesday, and it's not the media's fault that McCain is attacking Obama and not Clinton. He is getting attacked by both McCain and Clinton, but you don't see his campaign complaining about that. I can understand completely the feeling Clinton supporters now have, it is frustrating; but I think you need to blame the candidate as much as everyone else. There is no conspiracy after all.

If Obama did all the mistakes that she and her campaign have done these past 6 months, I think she would have nailed the nomination.

I think the thing that a lot of people are missing is that Obama didn't just win 11 in a row. He won over 10 contests by 60% or more. Hillary has only won 1 contest by 60% or more.

When you get 65, 70, 75% of the vote you aren't just getting young voters or black voters. You are getting the majority of ALL voters.

As Newsweek said, "Closing the gap would require Hillary to win all the remaining contests by crushing margins".

raciccarone, you are often very, very hilarious. Thank you.

I agree that the slant of media coverage can play a significant role in some people's political decision-making, and (even though I'm a huuuuge Obama supporter) I do have to admit that sometimes she does seem to get the short end of the stick, but I think there's one thing we shouldn't overlook: the media is much less about forcing their opinions on us, and much more about showing us what we already want to see. Obama's immense popularity has created a huge demand for positive coverage. That actually says something positive about his campaign.

I also agree with Jillness that Obama would be treated much differently--I think much more dismissively--than Hillary had he lost as many contests as she. It may be true that the public has less interest in loving her, than in Obama, which results in less loving media coverage, but it is also true that she has been given a much better chance by the media than other candidates in her situation would.

The media does have power. No one can deny that. But also don't forget that we have the power to do our own research and come to our own conclusions about who the best candidate is in our eyes--and if we're aware of the power of the media, we're more obligated to move past that and come to our own decisions.

I don't think so - if I recall correctly, Obama was still the underdog even after he'd had a long string of wins under his belt. Honestly, it's more surprising that she's still such a major player not having won very many significant victories.

Obama is not wining over ALL the voters, he still lag in the Hispanic vote, and blue c. democrats... and theres no way the democrats are going to be able to get a majority in November... their congress hasn't accomplish nada

I'm in agreement with Jillness. And musicisourhigh. And trésjolie.

So, I guess nothing new... but I'm still posting...

I laughed reading this post, because there was a spot on the Daily Show a couple weeks ago pointing out that Hillary maintained serious candidate status as the media had long ago decided Huckabee needed a miracle for his tanking candidacy to go anywhere. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156701&title=potom... and it is about 1:30 in)

I thought the spot was funny, but it also really highlighted that, from the beginning, Hillary has been the serious candidate and she has been at least taken seriously by the media. Obama has had to work to gain what he has, he wasn't just a chosen media darling from the beginning. And, yes, some candidates seem fringe and the media writes them off from the start, so we'll never really know if they could have had the ability to win the country in a fair game. Some, like Dean in his bid, are loved by the media and the spotlight burns them.

Obama is winning his delegates by winning by larger margins in more states. The math is with him. There is an electoral college system at the end of this race, and Obama is showing a better ability to win that. Dem candidates need to stop banking on California and New York and realize that the entire country votes, and in those states that swing the Dems need to win in order to lock a presidency. Bill won because he was able to add the South, but she's not accepted into that demo like he was. Obama will win the Dem strongholds that we always win, and he's made inroads on the states that we need to swing our way. I just don't see a good endgame for the Dems with Hillary, and maybe that is because I'm not living in a Dem stronghold but an area where she is extremely divisive in the community around me.

I don't know about blue-collar Democrats, but I've heard quite a lot in the run-up to the Texas primary about how effectively Obama has eroded Hillary's lead among Hispanic voters. Hillary used to lead Obama by a 2-1 ratio among Hispanic voters; the last Gallup poll indicated that Obama actually has a very slight lead over her in that demographic now. Which means that he's taken away a lot of her Hispanic base.

I read this most recently here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/navarette.opinion/index.html

(But by giving the link, am I playing into the Big Media Makes Hillary Lose problem? )

in my opinion she was hounded for being a woman over fifty and looking a certain way.it is still very hard for a woman to get elected to high ranking office here.we are so behind other nations as regards women.

look, they have 95% the SAME VIEWS.

She started out winning and getting all the attention - he attitude (acting like the winner in the begining), her negativity, her self-proclaimed "heated" comments about "meeting Obama in OH to discuss his tactics," and her "I'm a fighter" have lost this election for her.

She is not likable. It was her campaign and her demeanor that turned the public against her which in turn turned the media against her.

Rca is right. The media does not like Hillary, and 50+ women are a no-no. It does not matter that she has substance, they don't care for her style.
She is not "likable"...
So sad. After all these years we have a viable woman candidate, and this is what happens.

When you win by 75% and 80%, yes you are winning the majority of votes.

I think some of Hillary's "substance" is what makes her not likable. Not to say that you were implying this, but I don't think it is accurate to say that people are not voting for her simply for superficial reasons. How you run a campaign is reflective of how you would run a government, and I think her choices have caused her downfall.

The vast majority of democrats were willing to vote for her in early sample polls, and I don't think they changed their minds because the discovered she has a vagina.

I would LOVE to vote for a woman President, but I am not going to vote for someone whose policy I disagree with simply to further my gender.

This is what I believe, had Obama lost 11 states in a row, the media would not give him a chance to still win the nomination. They would have all but dropped him a long time ago, but because Hilary is a Clinton they're giving her a lot of leeway.

"The vast majority of democrats were willing to vote for her in early sample polls, and I don't think they changed their minds because the discovered she has a vagina."

So true, Jillness!

I think the Clinton legacy is a large part of what has defeated Hillary. To some extent she has to carry the burden of Bill's policies, but she is not as likable as he is (in a "go to the corner bar and tell dirty jokes" sort of way). She seems very artificial, which makes her difficult to trust. She often seems to be playing the media, either by whining about being treated unfairly, or squeezing out tears to win a pity vote. (Not necessarily my angle on it, but how I think a lot of people perceive her.) Obama at least seems frank and sincere.

kaenai: I agree that voters should be sure they are well-informed. However, it's often difficult, our lives are so full. For instance, on weekdays I'm up at 4:45, leave at 6:30 to take kids to school, report to work at 7:15, leave at 3:45, then juggle pick-ups, one kid with an evening class three nights a week, another with frequent after-school activities, groceries, dinner, laundry.... I'm dead on my feet by 9 pm. Weekends are for catch-up and sometimes other kids' activities. DH works erratic hours so I can't usually count on him for assistance. It's almost Orwellian, these self-righteous elitists stay in control because we're too tired, busy and preoccupied to realize what they're up to.

Lainetm, I am exhausted just listening to your routine!

Ha! I dont think its harmful. Or a self fullfilling prophecy. I think she's just LOSING.

"The vast majority of democrats were willing to vote for her in early sample polls, and I don't think they changed their minds because the discovered she has a vagina."

I read that to my mom on the phone just now and she busted up laughing.

It's funny because it is TRUE. Ditto on wanting to vote for a woman, but not quite willing to join the gender war and vote based on gender. It seems just as blind and biased.

"I don't know about blue-collar Democrats, but I've heard quite a lot in the run-up to the Texas primary about how effectively Obama has eroded Hillary's lead among Hispanic voters. Hillary used to lead Obama by a 2-1 ratio among Hispanic voters; the last Gallup poll indicated that Obama actually has a very slight lead over her in that demographic now. Which means that he's taken away a lot of her Hispanic base."

You're right, Jude. He has eroded her lead with the Hispanic voters and I BELIEVE the same is happening with the blue-collar voters, apparently she's even losing the support of the women who were once at the base of her foundation. It IS the negativity that's gotten her where she is today. I don't know about the rest of you but I'm tired of the dirty politics and I do not fully believe she's really all about the people. I don't remember who said it before on another blog but Obama is different to McCain and Hillary where he hasn't been waiting 20+ years, climbing the political ladder to get to this point. He doesn't have that baggage and that is just one appealing thing about him. He's basically the only voice of reason out of the three major candidates. He rarely, if ever, makes attacks...he absolutely does not denigrate his opponents and he actually LISTENS to what they have to say, even if they're trying to rip his campaign to shreds. His dignity, his integrity is unsurmountable and I'm extremely proud to be a supporter of a candidate like Barack Obama.

The reason Hillary is losing is Hillary. People have begun to examine her votes to go and stay at war 3times. She continues to want things her way. She was pro NAFTA when Bill was President, now that she is in Ohio attempting to win voters- she never supported Nafta. Which is a different slant when speaking to voters in Texas. She is smart and hard working but inflexible. She may be ready on Day one due to her intelligence but not with her temperament. Obama has consistently shown his integrity, experience and is able to remain calm " presidential" when fielding attacks. Obama 08

I'm glad to read all the comments on this thread. It is reminding me that I'm becoming a real grouch. Mostly because people tend to think that I'm basing my vote on a choice of pant suits, my dislike for women over 60, or coral lipstick colours, or news stories covering news. It is making me grumpy. Real grumpy. So, I'll leave the commenting for those who are still young at heart on the subject.

Tres - You're funny!

I never thought I would feel bad for Hillary Clinton. But I honestly do feel like she's gotten the shaft. The media declared her DOA practically the instant they fell in love with Obama. And boy do they love Obama!

Thats how the cookie crumbles, its politics not a tea party. But I think why I feel bad for her is that I have always believed the only reason she stayed with Bill through his BS is because she wanted to be President. So imagine, you stay with this no good SOB just to get yourself in power, you pour your heart and soul into it, give up your whole life practically, and then some kid comes out of no where and messes it all up?

That sucks. It was stupid choice to begin with, but I bet part of her is wishing she left him and did something else with her life.

Obama Scares the heck out of me. He has a very limited knowledge of foreign affairs and foreign heads of state. He has piggy backed Hillary's Answers so often I wonder if he has any of his own. And yet people are falling at his feet. The man is so arrogant and creepy I cant believe the amount of positive press he gets.

All you here is how he and Hillary are so close in their views but no one says anything about the fact that it wasn't always so. Obama has adopted most of her views. And yes she voted for the war and he says he has been against it from the start. But the fact is he didn't have a vote. And since he has had a vote he has consitantly vote to support the war, although he stands on his pulpit and claims other wise.

Just to be fair Hillary is also very arrogant and had she does come off as a little to unyielding. She also needs to start taking responsibility for her mistake because she has made them. And I'm not so keen on here universal heath plan and its mandates.
But the bottom line is she really is more prepared to deal with the vast problems facing this country here at home and abroad. She has much better grasp on the economic down slide and a lot more experience dealing with foreign leaders and policies.

So you don't like her neither do I.

Is she the better candidate?
YES!

Has she been treated unfairly by the press?
YES!

Just my opinion!

Hillary is losing because she isnt presidential in the slightest. not because of the media.

I get a little annoyed with the media getting blamed for everything. The media didn't make up the numbers, the canidates records speak for themselves, its up to you to make up your mind.

And yes, I am a memeber of the media, but still.

I agree that they have been sexist and unfair to her at times, but I do NOT like the way her campaign has been run, especially with all the whining, "shame on you"s and special pleading. She's played the gender card and the weepy thing way too much IMO.

"Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned"

Barack shows his true colors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAJYMgX4JuU

Having mostly formed my opinion of the candidates by watching their debates instead of reading news about them, I can say yes and no. I'm an Obama supporter, and yes, it does seem at the moment like the media favors Obama.

However, Clinton does not seem willing or able to help herself. She comes across as aggressive, emotional, and arrogant. Instead of taking opportunities to get it together- to appear calm, confident, and willing to work with all people, not just her target demographic, she does the weepy thing, the "shame on you" thing, runs roughshod over debate hosts- none of which has cast a flattering light on her public persona. So I think that there is a bit of a media bias, but her actions have fed into it and likely made it worse.

Thank You designrockstar! You prove the point. I've been watching the national news and campaign coverage on MSNBC, CNN and Fox News and have seen no sign of this story. If it had been Hillary it would be on every news program all the time over and over.

You hit the nail on the head "Barack shows his true colors".

Wow, I can't believe you would take that story at face value.

First of all, the "quotes" they used against him were split up and lacked context. They didn't even use quotation marks (sign of protection from libel). He could have said those words in response to other campaign mud that has been thrown.

Seems like more campaign time speculation to me. They had absolutely nothing concrete.

So they can't even name the person from his campaign that made the call OR the Canadian offical that received the call.

You give credibility to THAT??!?!?!

Cabaker, you're right. But I don't feel sorry for someone who lives an insincere life in order to affect a certain outcome. If the foundation was bad from the beginning, how can anyone be surprised and in her case bitter when the plan goes awry. I don't think the press makes her come off badly because she was their darling for a long time. Their adoration was hers to lose and she did indeed lose it because she simply showed who she is, an ingenuine and insincere person who seems to believe that she's entitled to the presidency just because she wants it.

The media is absolutely killing Hillary. The media kills candidates and sets the "news" all the time... ALL. THE. TIME.

You want examples? Ok.

"YEARGHHHHHHHHH!" was only the scream heard round the world because the networks would NOT STOP PLAYING IT! Howard Dean very likely would have done much better in future states if everyone hadn't seen one scream 84 gazillion times. I like him as head of the DNC, but who knows? Maybe we'd be out of Iraq already if it weren't for this media blunder over four years ago! (Also, I've heard -- from people who were there -- that he was just firing up the crowd and if you were there and his giant 90" face wasn't staring at you from a flat screen, it was normal and not scary in the least.I)

Richardson, Dodd, and Biden were (very arguably) far more qualified than either Clinton or Obama. Richardson has been in the cabinet, the House, and is a governor in a state where a controversial national issue (immigration) is a big deal for goodness sakes! They were all dead from the get-go though since it was Hillary and Barack! Hillary and Barack!

After getting rid of the others, Barack was annointed as the golden angel who could do no wrong (PLEASE don't get me started. They are OK with his PLAIGIARISM!). After that Hillary had NO chance. None at all. Of course it is in large part due to the media. Yesterday on CNN, the top headline was something along the lines of "Does the media hate Hillary" and two and three were along the lines of "Barack pumping up numbers in Texas" and "Barack dazzles crowd." Um, I think CNN answered their own question.

I also think it's the voters choosing style over substance, but that's another post for another day.

Yeah! The media is completely biased.