Research shows anti-Clinton/pro-Obama bias

Bill Maxwell at the St. Petersburg Times wrote this column today that outlined the media's anti-Hillary bias, citing evidence from several new studies:

"...Several independent watchdog organizations, including Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and the Center for Media and Public Affairs, have documented persistent and widespread bias against Clinton and in favor of Obama.

"The Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that since mid December, when the Iowa caucuses came into play, Obama has received the lion's share of the positive coverage: 'From Dec. 16 through Jan. 27, five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84 percent) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51 percent) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton. The gap in good press widened since the New Hampshire primary, with Clinton dropping to 47 percent positive comments and Obama holding steady at 83 percent positive.

" 'NBC's coverage has been the most critical of Clinton - nearly 2 to 1 negative (36 percent positive and to 64 percent negative). Conversely, ABC's coverage was most supportive - nearly 2 to 1 positive (63 percent vs. 37 percent). CBS and Fox were more balanced - 50 percent positive comments on Fox and 56 percent positive on CBS.'

"The Pew Research Center found a sharp difference in tone between coverage of Clinton and Obama. Here, I also must address the pundits. Most, left and right, have been unfriendly to Clinton, some writing her obit and others advising her to fold up her tent. Obama, on the other hand, has been treated like the Second Coming."

more

Obama's Math Problem

Marie Cocco at WaPo writes about unmentionable's (I know, he's mentioned in the headline) caucus and primary wins show exactly why Hillary is the stronger candidate in the general election:

"Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat with a math problem. But the arithmetical difficulty that Barack Obama faces is fundamentally different from Clinton's: She doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to the nomination. He doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to a Democratic victory in the fall...

"There is a reason some states are called general election 'battlegrounds.' It is because partisan identification is roughly even, or because certain groups in the electorate, such as Catholics, Hispanics or blue-collar whites, switch their allegiances -- or split their votes. That's why Clinton made so much in her victory speech about the 'bellwether' nature of Ohio: 'It's a battleground state. It's a state that knows how to pick a president. And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary,' she said.

"There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually..."

more

The Times of London, "They Must Go for Hillary Clinton"

Anatole Kaletsky at the Times of London argues that Our Lady is the one for the job.

She's the one we've been waiting for

thanks to voxdixit at crapbuiltonlies for this image

Above it all he ain't (is that colloquial enough to use on the trail, in preacher voice?)

Apparently the unmentionable's staff really does assrape the press, and some don't love him for it. 

Oink

Don' get me wrong about pork (as in barrel spending--I'm vegan after all), but the unmentionable certainly loves a good earmark, fried. When will hopetards start the self mutilation out of despair? Oh, March 4. 

I miss grass. Sometimes

(hopetards: when unmentionable loses, feel free to take a break from your arms to help an old lady w/her lawn)