|
February 6, 2008
– You remember the game. George Bush was "gaining
momentum," we were told, even in Blue states.
Reality was those were just lies which
created a sense of momentum. Bush didn't come close in those
states. However, that didn't stop the media from universally
pushing the right-wing's line.
Well, we were told Obama had erased
Clinton's double-digit lead in New Jersey. Momentum.
Surging. We were told he was wiping out a large lead she had
in Massachusetts. California - just about a dead heat.
Now that we see that those were all just
nonsense - Clinton won by double-digits in NJ and Mass., and by a
sizeable amount in California - we get the picture clearly. As The
Moderate Independent has been pointing out all along, the
media is in smear Hillary, push Obama mode. Which, as luck
would have it, is the same mode right-wing liars like Drudge and
Limbaugh are in.
It is not relevant at this point where
the misinformation is coming from, whether from poll takers or
pundits.
The facts are simple. In New
Hampshire. In New Jersey. In Massachusetts. In
California. Again and again the media has told us Obama
momentum was wiping out leads in states that were supposed to be
sure Clinton things only to have it turn out to be completely false.
At the same time, not once have they said the opposite - that
Hillary is surging, only to have that turn out to be false.
You do the math.
On another note, tonight the dirtiest
little secret no one wants to talk about played out - the reality
that Latinos are not so, shall
we say, open to voting for an African American candidate as other
groups are. Call it a racial thing. Call it simply
political preference. This is Obama's barrier in the West and
Southwest.
So, all the hype and speculation, etc.
aside, and, as luck would have it, we have
exactly what we told you we would have back before the Iowa
caucuses. We
wrote back on January 1st:
"Coming into Iowa, Hillary Clinton and
Rudy Guiliani were the untouchable frontrunners, according to
polls and the non-Moderate Independent media. But are they really
going to be the candidates in the end, and, more importantly, are
they each deserving of that mantle? And what about Edwards and
Obama? Romney and Huckabee?
"First, let's take on Mr. 9/11,
Rudolph "call me Rudy and don't mention my infidelity" Guiliani.
Let's not waste any time here. Guiliani is this year's Howard
Dean. He is an entirely unelectable early emotional favorite...
"And now for the sleeper: John
McCain. He used to be a Moderate Independent favorite before he
sewed his lips directly the the caboose of the Bush bus with
regard to Iraq and other issues. Yet John is the most credible
and qualified of the Republican candidates, and he is a true
conservative on many issues, and so would have a true appeal to
people on that side. If the Republicans know what is good for
them, they will make McCain their candidate. To this point,
despite many horrid gaffes over the past couple of years, he is
the Moderate Independent choice among the lot..."
Not bad, eh?
What about the Democratic side?
On January 8th, before the New Hampshire primary, when
everyone in the media was writing Clinton off,
I wrote:
...he may roll in South Carolina. But Obama's first real test
will be when the vote comes down to New York and California,
because in those states this cycle, regardless of what Iowa and
New Hampshire say, there are massive fears and reservations about
nominating an inexperienced black candidate. Sorry to be so
blunt, but that is the reality.
You see, these things are not as complex
as they are made. None of what the media wrote about an Obama
surge was true - no more than any of those old stories about a Bush
surge were true. It is the same old nonsense all over again,
which tries to be a self-fulfilling fantasy.
I said from the beginning, the media's
obvious bias against Hillary Clinton is disgusting - and directly
parallel to the Bush-right's desired storyline. Hillary took
on the media briefly, then went back to playing nice. After
this night, she should have the picture and never let the lies about
an Obama surge be sold again. They sold it before New
Hampshire. They sold it about New Jersey, Massachusetts, and
massively about California; Obama surges that didn't exist.
It's time for a surge in reality and a
surge in truth. Which, apparently, only M/I can bring.
That said, thanks to the Democratic
setup of not giving the winner of a state all the delegates, it is
game on. Had they had the rules the GOP has or the rules of a
presidential race, it would all be over - Clinton would have gone
essentially over the top.
But instead we have lots more time for
the media to push Obama and try to bury Clinton. At least
maybe she will get back on board and learn that she can't take on
the media just briefly - that her main adversary this election is
the media that sold us both Bush and the Iraq War, and it must be
dealt with in a serious manner - consistently.
If Obama had won NY and CA and NJ and MA
they would be screaming from the treetops that he dominated.
Did you hear that with regard to Clinton's wins tonight? | 
