Abrams: The Media Shoudn't Write Off Hillary Clinton

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:09:12 PM EST
Tags: Dan Abrams, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Dan Abrams tonight on MSNBC counts the reasons the media is counting Hillary Clinton out too soon. He says "Obama lovers" have become obsessed and are incapable of making an objective analysis. To balance him, he's got two guests who are pro-Obama, and Lawrence O'Donnell who is playing the part of the unbiased observer:

1. She's ahead in polls in Ohio, Texas and PA. She gets a win in New Mexico. And the story line is "what if she loses?" No one is talking about the possibility that she could win big in those states.

2. Her campaign is re-tooling her field campaign.

3. The superdelegates: She's leading 260 to 181. Dan has been trashing the process for the last two weeks, but he says, these are the rules and she's ahead there. He says if it's close enough at convention time, we'll see a big fight for them.

4. The underdog factor. She has it now.

< The Superdelegate Criteria | Hillary's Good Day Coming to a Close >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Abrams: The Media Shoudn't Write Off Hillary Clinton | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Super delegates (1.00 / 1) (#15)
by Jgarza on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:56:37 PM EST

Right if super delegates pick my candidate, i won't just not vote for her, i will campaign against her.

Your last sentence is puzzling. (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:01:02 PM EST

: i'm a democrat (none / 0) (#18)
by Jgarza on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:02:11 PM EST

so my candidate as in the democratic partys

I suggest (none / 0) (#20)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:03:45 PM EST

that you campaign to try and get the rules changed for next time.


you;ll do that anyway (none / 0) (#21)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:04:51 PM EST

you have been one of the most ardent Obama supporters here...for a long time, too.


I'm watching it now. (none / 0) (#1)
by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:11:39 PM EST

now going to the Underdog factor.

So glad she is getting credit from (none / 0) (#2)
by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:15:29 PM EST

some of the media...I am very grateful to Dan for this...

it's about the only show (none / 0) (#3)
by OldCoastie on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:25:13 PM EST

I can watch these days... on another note, I've heard on the radio and read in comments in various blogs that Hillary skipped the FISA vote and Obama voted against it...

except, when I go to the Senate rollcall, I see he has not voted on this either...

Am I making some kind of mistake?

Neither voted on the final bill (none / 0) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:33:40 PM EST

Obama was there earlier in the day to vote for the Amendment that would have stripped the bill of telecom immunity. The amendment failed by a wide margin. Later the bill with the immunity provision in it went on to a vote -- Obama did not vote on that and Hillary wasn't there either. It wouldn't have mattered had they been there. The bill passed by a vote of 68 to 29.

Both were present and voted a few weeks ago against cloture on Dodd's amendment. That was a big deal and it is to both their credit they were there for that.

Hillary released this statement on FISA. More on this is here, please make any further comments about it on that thread or an open thread.


FISA Vote (none / 0) (#8)
by PennProgressive on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:37:33 PM EST

You are absolutely right. I have checked the Senate vote also. Three senators, Clinton, Obama and Graham (SC) did not vote. I don't understand why some blogs noted, along with some in MSM that Obama voted "no". Are we missing something here?


No (none / 0) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:40:39 PM EST

you're not missing anything.


: You're missing a bit (none / 0) (#27)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:18:16 PM EST

To be frank: Obama did vote no on the amendment, but not the final bill, Clinton skipped out on both and stayed in Texas.

This is VERY RARE- (none / 0) (#4)
by kenosharick on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:27:52 PM EST

the media is mostly declaring her over. Neither candidate can get enough delegates to win ouright, so how does that make this over? The media attacks her speeches, commercials, husband, ad everything she says and does. Meanwhile they cheerlead Obama. It is a miracle se is doing as good as she is.

He is giving her (none / 0) (#6)
by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:34:19 PM EST

a "cheap shot" on the debate commercial.

: Not seen as cheap shot in Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:48:35 PM EST

where the Obama answer that there is another debate soon just doesn't do it -- since it's two days after the Wisconsin primary. And a lot of his supporters as well as hers are saying they're disappointed.
Many (call-in shows) also point out that the Obama answer that there have been 18 debates doesn't address that only one of them, the last one, focused on just the two of them . . . and that a lot of Wisconsin voters are just tuning in now to the primary and the political scene.
Even more seem to just be really tuning in to the two of them, because these callers are the Edwards supporters -- a big group here, where he did well before -- still among the "late deciders."

: new segment (none / 0) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:37:18 PM EST

he's giving Obama a "mistatement" for claiming in his ad that Reich says his health care plan would save the average family $2500.00.

Hey when the media praises your (none / 0) (#10)
by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:44:57 PM EST

every move and cuts down your opponent, you should be ahead, no matter what....what are they so afraid of from Hillary?? Why do they love Obama?? These are questions that need to be answered.....Who owns the media??

What?! (none / 0) (#11)
by Josey on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:45:49 PM EST

Abrams should start with pro-Obama MSNBC!

You Obama supporters better hope that (none / 0) (#13)
by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:48:46 PM EST

Hillary doesnt quit at this point, because then all eyes will be focused on Obama and that could get really interesting...

She needs some (none / 0) (#14)
by Saul on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:55:09 PM EST

big gun surrogates. Bill Richardson needs to step up and campaign with her in Texas. Henry Cisneros would not hurt either.

NAFTA (none / 0) (#17)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:01:51 PM EST

In the mis-statement, cheap-shot segment of Abrams, someone pointed out that....

Obama voted to extend N A F T A!!!!

I wasn't aware of this, but it's good ammunition for the next time someone says, "But Hillary supports NAFTA!"

The differences between these candidates are so minor on so many issues, they should be Siamese twins.

If only Obama's televangelical style didn't creep me out to the point that it literally terrifies me. I would be a happy girl.

link? (none / 0) (#19)
by Jgarza on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:02:38 PM EST

: I'm relying on Abrams Report (none / 0) (#22)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:08:16 PM EST

for this information. I'm sure a transcript will be up shortly.
I googled. This is the first hit I found:
I'm sure you can find more about it by Googling it yourself, since it happens to be true.

Hawaii may not provide as (none / 0) (#23)
by standingup on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:09:38 PM EST

large a margin of victory for Obama either. Per Geekesque's post on Dkos, this article in The New Republic notes that the Asian American population in Hawaii could follow along the lines of those that voted almost 3 to 1 for Hillary in CA and NY.

Abrams is right (none / 0) (#24)
by AF on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:09:44 PM EST

The media overreacted big-time to the Potomac primary. It makes Obama the front-runner by a hair, but fundamentally the race is still close. A lot of folks have been talking as if it's a fait accompli and it really isn't. I say this as an Obama supporter.

: Good for you for common sense (none / 0) (#25)
by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:24:03 PM EST

and not getting swept up in the media nonsense.
Of course, you also may see that this may not be good for Obama -- just as the "inevitability" meme was turned on Clinton, it's taking away his underdog status plus setting him for a fall if he has even one loss or just one less delegate than hath been decreed with this media construct.

: Very true (none / 0) (#26)
by Marvin42 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:31:01 PM EST

And honestly it may actually not serve Sen Obama and his supporters either. He has as good a shot at the nomination, but by declaring this over, saying he it the frontrunner, it may set up a marcher harder hit if Sen Clinton wins all three major states.
This MSM madness has to stop. I just wish I knew how.

If We Assume that Obama (none / 0) (#28)
by bob h on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:41:22 AM EST

loses Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, how can he claim with a straight face to be the best nominee?
We will then have a candidate with perhaps a small elected delegate majority who is clearly unelectable in the November election. Superdelegates are designed for just this purpose.

My hope: Edwards and Richardson ride to the rescue with HRC endorsements.