Hello Everyone:

Here is the MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams video link from Monday, February 4 where Dan Abrams talks about Super Tuesday media coverage bias against Hillary Clinton:

Feb. 4: Media biased against Hillary?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23002971#23002971 (10:58)

Right below is the MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams transcript of this very informative dialogue!

Here are some of the key points that Dan Abrams made in this video from the transcript below which I very strongly agree with, that really disgust me when the media is supposed to be objective, and which I think that all people definitely need to be aware of as they watch Super Tuesday media coverage of the election returns:

1) "There‘s no doubt in my mind that many in the inside D.C. media are rooting against Hillary Clinton."

2) "But a recent study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs bears out exactly what I‘ve been saying for weeks. From December 16th to January 27th, 84 percent of Obama‘s coverage has been favorable compared to just 51 percent for Clinton."

3) "But again, when you are covering it unfairly a lot of the time and I‘m again, now talking about Bill Clinton, again, same study, 74 percent of the coverage of Bill Clinton, negative."

4) "But if she (Hillary) wins the vote and the delegate count in those 22 states tomorrow then, she wins the day, right? But don‘t count on hearing that from the inside D.C. media taking together their obsession with momentum and trends, their love on the horserace and disdain for Hillary Clinton will short of a blowout lead them to suggest she lost and that analysis, I think could unfairly impact future primaries."

5) "My concern is even that even after the numbers if Hillary wins by a little, let‘s say. And again, if Obama wins here, wins by a significant amount, wins by a little, I think you‘re going to have the media anointing him et cetera. And look, if he wins by enough, fair enough. That‘s what they should do. But my concern is: the reverse is not going to apply to Hillary Clinton."

I really appreciate Dan Abrams for taking such a principled stand on this very important issue. It would be nice if he said something about this to Chris Matthews and to other pundits at MSNBC. In this show, Dan Abrams welcomes any comments and feedback and gave his e mail address where you can write to him:

"We read your e-mails at:

. Tell us when we were right and wrong. Be sure to include your name and where you are writing from."

Please forward this video link and information on to the people who you know in order to help expose the obvious media bias that is going on toward Hillary's campaign along with Barack Obama's free ride and lack of scrutiny on his record along with his past that he is getting from many pundits in the media right now!

Mitch Dworkin

http://www.securingamerica.com/

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!

--------------------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23011366/

'Live with Dan Abrams' for Feb. 4
Read the transcript to the Monday show

Guests: Roy Sekoff, Michelle Cottle, Peter Beinart, Stephanie Miller, Tony Blankley

DAN ABRAMS, HOST: But first: Super Tuesday voting begins in less than 12 hours, 24 states and possibly the nomination for each party on the line. John McCain appears to be pulling away from Mitt Romney, he‘s now up nationally by 18 points. But it‘s in Democratic race that could not be a whole lot closer. Polls have been coming in all day and the average of the latest polls shows Clinton up by about 2 percent nationally, certainly within a margin of error.

But what is really important is the state by state, the county by county battles, particularly in the most delegate rich states. In California, Clinton is up an average of about 42 to Obama‘s 41. In Massachusetts, Clinton 41.4, Obama 41.9. In Alabama, Clinton 43.3, Obama 43. While on her home state of New York, Clinton has an overwhelming lead, 53.5 to Obama‘s 36.3. While in his home state of Illinois, Obama is up by even more, 55.3 to 23.3 for Clinton. In Missouri, also, neck and neck, Clinton 45.7, Obama 44. Bottom line, it is really close.

And since none of the Democratic primaries and caucuses are winner-take-all, meaning, the delegates are awarded proportionately, the race is still remain officially undecided after tomorrow. So, how the media assesses the results tomorrow could be as important if not more important than the numbers themselves. There‘s no doubt in my mind that many in the inside D.C. media are rooting against Hillary Clinton. Could be because she‘s old news, because her staff has developed testy relationships with the many of the press because she knows how to avoid making news, I‘ve talked about this before, who knows why? But a recent study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs bears out exactly what I‘ve been saying for weeks. From December 16th to January 27th, 84 percent of Obama‘s coverage has been favorable compared to just 51 percent for Clinton. If Obama wins, some of the major contested states like California, Massachusetts, Missouri or even New Jersey, can expect to hear him coronated the winner. If he‘s walking away with more of the significant wins that is entirely fair. He deserves it. What if Hillary Clinton has more significant wins? What if she wins in most of the major close races? I‘m guessing you still hear the vast majority of commentators talking about how much progress Obama made, which is true. How much closer he came than he was months ago, it‘s an interesting discussion before the voters have spoken. But if she wins the vote and the delegate count in those 22 states tomorrow then, she wins the day, right? But don‘t count on hearing that from the inside D.C. media taking together their obsession with momentum and trends, their love on the horserace and disdain for Hillary Clinton will short of a blowout lead them to suggest she lost and that analysis, I think could unfairly impact future primaries.

Here with me now is Roy Sekoff with the “Huffington Post”; Michelle Cottle, senior editor with “The New Republic”, and political analyst, Lawrence O‘Donnell. All right. Roy, let me ask you this because you and I have been battling over this for weeks. I‘m guessing that you are going to be one of the people that even if she wins, you will not declare her with the winner, what will it take for you to declare Hillary Clinton the winner tomorrow?

ROY SEKOFF, HUFFINGTON POST: Dan, if she wins, she wins.

ABRAMS: That‘s it.

ROY SEKOFF: Yes, but you‘re making it sound like Oliver Stone should be directing her next, you know, commercial. There‘s no conspiracy. It‘s journalism 101. Barack Obama coming from 20 points back to within two points is a remarkable story. I mean, that‘s‘ what were seeing here, you know, it‘s not that anybody is turned on off of Hillary, it‘s that they‘re turned on to Barack Obama and the amazing story that we‘re seeing.

ABRAMS: So, when I‘m Oliver Stone the conspiracy theorist, I‘m conspiratorial, Lawrence, when I read the following more from that study which showed that since the New Hampshire primary, Obama‘s gotten 83 percent positive coverage, while, Hillary Clinton has just gotten 47 percent. I continue to be Oliver Stone?

LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, Dan, I‘m with you on this. I‘ve been saying for quite a while on MSNBC that inside the media, inside the traveling press corps and the campaigns, the people who cover this day-to-day, Hillary is not popular. They generally like the Obama campaign better. Look, there‘s also a question in those kinds of statistics of you know, what are they counting and are they counting just some straight reporting on Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton‘s campaigning in South Carolina which was largely reported as negative. But let‘s go back to New Hampshire, Dan. The night of the New Hampshire primary when Hillary won by three points and as Roy was pointing out a three-point win then was amazingly small compared to what it was predicted a month before, but because the polls had indicated Obama was going to win, that three-point win was reported as a big win for Hillary and I think was vastly overemphasized by the press at the time.

ABRAMS: OK. Michelle, I‘ll accept. I think it‘s a fair analysis and critique from Lawrence with regard to New Hampshire alone. But now we‘re dealing with 22 states and tomorrow could be the make-or-break day. Do you agree with me that if Hillary wins by a little tomorrow and again, how we define winning by a little, we‘re not going to discuss how you define delegate count versus how many states, but let‘s say, if it‘s uniformly, she gets more votes in key states and more delegates by a little that you‘re still going to hear the pundits say, this isn‘t really a win for Hillary Clinton?

MICHELLE COTTLE, THE NEW REPUBLIC: Well, you‘re going to hear them say it is a win. But let‘s not pretend that it‘s not an impressive achievement for Obama if that‘s what happens. I mean, you can‘t look at it as though she hasn‘t been kind of a 800-pound gorilla all along and he is the insurgent. And yes, and you‘ll talk about it. The press loves a horse race. The press has you know, conflicting relationships with a lot of Hillary‘s people. And they like shiny new people and there‘s nothing shiny and new about the Clintons at this point.

ABRAMS: Yes, but you know, but you say achievement. And it would be a great achievement for Obama. But again, it seems to me that we‘re talking about something so important. You know, the future candidates in particular here, we‘re talking about the Democrats, that simply talking about how much someone has achieved to me is a media story and it‘s not a practical reality of what the voters did. Roy, I see you‘re champing at the bit to get in to that one. Go ahead.

SEKOFF: Two thing, first of all, Dan, I didn‘t say that you were

Oliver Stone. I said you were painting the media as if there was some

Oliver Stone conspiracy going on. I didn‘t want to -

ABRAMS: All right, but look - you go ahead.

SEKOFF: No, but exactly. What is going on here is not a game and it‘s not a horse race. It‘s something remarkable and it‘s something noteworthy and I think that‘s what you‘re seeing here. What you‘re seeing is that wherever Obama has gone and has been able to contest, people have turned his way. Hillary was the presumptive nominee from the media. The media was anointing her; they‘re putting the crown on her head for a year now. So, what we‘re seeing is a remarkable thing and it is noteworthy. And I don‘t think it‘s some kind of fun and games. I think it‘s something that is inspiring and is worth us covering and that‘s what we‘re doing.

ABRAMS: Yes, what you know what? But again, when you are covering it unfairly a lot of the time and I‘m again, now talking about Bill Clinton, again, same study, 74 percent of the coverage of Bill Clinton, negative. I mean, when you have 51 percent for Hillary is positive. You‘ve gotten in the mid 80s for Barack Obama positive. I‘m not making this stuff up. I mean, this to me is a reality and I feel like I‘m going to be the only one calling this out tonight to say, look out tomorrow. Watch out how they cover it. Look at what the pundits are saying and how they‘re saying it and be careful. I mean Michelle, it‘s fair to say, is it not, be careful when listening to how they characterize it.

COTTLE: Sure. But the example you‘re using there, Bill Clinton‘s coverage being negative. I mean, let‘s not pretend that he didn‘t come out with some pretty trashy politics for the last couple of weeks. There‘s a reason he has gotten so much negative coverage and he has been playing hardball. So, I‘m not sure why you would expect to be anything different than a controversial coverage.

ABRAMS: Well, look, the whole Bill Clinton deserves it to me is the same kind of coverage we hear about Hillary Clinton which is: she deserves to get beat up because she and Bill Clinton, and I will let Lawrence take this one, because she and Bill Clinton play this sometimes aggressive politics. You‘re seeing Barack Obama playing more aggressive politics now. Again, I‘m not going to make a judgment about who‘s been more aggressive or less aggressive. No question Bill Clinton‘s been tough out there. But that to me doesn‘t justify saying, 74 percent is negative. Look, if that‘s the case, fine. We have to call them out on it, Lawrence.

O‘DONNELL: Well, I don‘t know how they evaluated what was a positive and what was a negative story. You know, I mean, a lot of this coverage works both ways. You know, some of the thing Bill said that a lot of people think we‘re negative, I‘m sure moved some voters in the direction of Hillary Clinton and worked in a positive way for the campaign. But, Dan, I don‘t think the media is going to be able to cheat the call tomorrow. Remember, one other thing about the media, we all want to be the guy who‘s the first to say, it‘s all over. Look. I‘ve just interpreted the data.

Here are the results. Hillary put it away. Obama can‘t recover. Look for

Tim Russert on this air tomorrow night to get his numbers out and contact

those delegates and see how many are left and see whether Obama can make a

move for those or Hillary can. I think -

ABRAMS: Michelle, I‘m all for numbers. My concern is even that even after the numbers if Hillary wins by a little, let‘s say. And again, if Obama wins here, wins by a significant amount, wins by a little, I think you‘re going to have the media anointing him et cetera. And look, if he wins by enough, fair enough. That‘s what they should do. But my concern is: the reverse is not going to apply to Hillary Clinton.

COTTLE: Well, as you point, tomorrow, you‘ve got not winner-take-all contest and (ph) this is the Democratic Party so, if Hillary wins by just a little, this is still a race. I mean, Obama still could come back and do this. And people will be fascinated by this because as you know, we‘ve have been pointing all along, everyone kind of assume that this would be the year the Democrats had their front-runner and she just kind of plowed through everyone and the fact that she has been unable to do that is a story whether or not you like those numbers you knew.

ABRAMS: Look, it‘s a story and if these were the world of media where

we decide in the journalism of putting up a story -

COTTLE: No. Let‘s not pretend the media is making up this story.

American voters are moving in Obama‘s direction. What this is - is you‘re

saying, all the polls are tightening. Absolutely, that‘s -

ABRAMS: No, what it means that the polls are tightening, but it

doesn‘t mean when the votes come in, if more people vote for Hillary

Clinton that the press shouldn‘t say more people voted for Hillary Clinton

today, instead -

COTTLE: Of course they are going to say.

ABRAMS: No.

COTTLE: They‘re all going to it in the context.

ABRAMS: In analyzing it, what they‘re going to say is: yes, more people voted for Hillary Clinton today but you know what, Barack Obama made the comeback of the year and that is going to affect future primaries and that‘s my point. Final thought, Michelle.

COTTLE: That is what they did to Bill Clinton in New Hampshire back when he did his thing. These kind of things are always put in context. The hard numbers matter, but they‘re not the only thing that matters.

ABRAMS: All right. Fair enough. Michelle, thanks a lot. Roy and Lawrence, you guys are going to stick around, Roy, I‘m saying goodbye to you. Thanks a lot, appreciate it.

SEKOFF: Good night, Dan.

Coming up next: The outsider‘s guide to tomorrow‘s Super Tuesday coverage. My five tips including how to watch the pundits with a skeptical eye...