VIDEO: Dan Abrams exposed how that the media wants "Clinton out of the race now"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 24, 2008 - 9:46pm.
Media
Hello Everyone:
Here is the MSNBC 'Verdict with Dan Abrams' video link from Wednesday, April 23 where Dan Abrams in my opinion correctly argued that many in the media "want Clinton out of the race now," "the press is not being intellectually honest about this," and where Pat Buchanan correctly said that many in the media "want Obama as president. Why don‘t they come out and say it? We‘re all for Obama:"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24283052#24283052 (09:09)
Media blaming Clinton?
April 23: Even after a decisive victory in Pennsylvania, Dan Abrams says the media is piling on Hillary Clinton. Dan's joined by political analyst Pat Buchanan, Huffington Post editor Roy Sekoff and former judge Catherine Crier.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24283052#24283052 (09:09)
Here is the 'Verdict with Dan Abrams' transcript link of this video with the key points of this video from Dan Abrams and Pat Buchanan:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24293411/
'Verdict with Dan Abrams' for Wednesday, April 23
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show
Guests: Norah O‘Donnell, Roy Sekoff
DAN ABRAMS, HOST: "But first, it is blame Hillary day among many in the media. Following Clinton‘s nearly 10-point win in the Pennsylvania primary, you would think this would be a good press day for Hillary Clinton but then she‘s running against Barack Obama. So many in the press blaming Clinton today for everything from dividing the party to negative campaigning to giving a boost to John McCain. By staying on the attack she turns off voters and under cuts the rationale for the candidacy to not winning by enough.
The “New York Times” saying in an editorial today, “By staying on the attack, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don‘t like negative campaigning, she undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her.”
The Huffington Post saying, quote, “Even though Hillary Clinton won last night‘s Pennsylvania primary by approximately 10 points, the real victor is John McCain.”
“The Atlantic,” quote, “Clinton has the burden of explaining why a potentially quixotic quest is worth the damage that might be accruing to the Democratic Party.”
Hillary Clinton won last night and the story in the media seems to be because she won, she lost. They are finding all of these different ways to say it. But isn‘t what they really mean, what they really ought to say is that they want Clinton out of the race now. Joining me now, political analyst Pat Buchanan, former Judge Catherine Crier and Huffington Post founding editor Roy Sekoff.
Roy, just say it. You want Hillary Clinton to get out now...
ABRAMS: Again, this is not an insult. Kathryn, the point is I‘m concerned that the media doesn‘t want some in the media don‘t want to admit. I think “The New York Times” regrets having endorsed Hillary Clinton and now they are basically saying Hillary Clinton get out because it‘s not the politically correct thing to say...
ABRAMS: But Pat, am I crazy, isn‘t the translation here that that‘s a bad thing for Democrats?
I mean, what am I missing?
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC ANALYST: All three of those sources you quoted, what is their motivation, they want Obama nominated and want Obama to win the election and Hillary Clinton is an impediment because she beat the day lights out of them in Pennsylvania and they‘re howling about that. They‘re saying you‘re helping McCain. They want Obama as president. Why don‘t they come out and say it? We‘re all for Obama and everything that gets in the way...
ABRAMS: How can you put on the front page, I‘m a big fan of the Huffington Post, how can you put on the front page, the headline is that Hillary‘s win is a big win for John McCain, how can anyone not translate into, any win for Hillary Clinton, as far as the Huffington Post is concerned is a big win for John McCain...
ABRAMS: Anything bad for Obama is translated—I‘m not disagreeing, the press is not being intellectually honest about this..."
This is not the first time that many in the biased media have called for Hillary to get out of the race. Hillary in my opinion is morally obligated to stay in the primary race as I have credibly documented:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15133
The biased media wants Hillary to drop out; 3 moral reasons for her to stay in!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 28, 2008 - 8:47am.
There is absolutely no question about anti-Hillary media bias as I have also credibly documented:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15163
Videos & Transcript: Lou Dobbs and his panel discussed anti-Hillary media bias!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 1, 2008 - 5:34am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15163#comment-294649
There is NO question in my opinion of anti-Hillary media bias...
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 1, 2008 - 6:05am.
Please forward this information on so that more Democratic primary voters and superdelegates will be aware of it and will hopefully resent what many biased pundits in the media are trying to do to Hillary right now!
It is the voters and the superdelegates who should be picking the Democratic nominee based on who they honestly think is the most qualified and electable candidate, not the media picking the nominee based on who they like the most!
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!
Even Dan Abrams, who is (by MSNBC standards)realistic about the attacks on Hillary, tossed out the oft-heard new line in the sand: "Hillary should drop out if she doesn't win Indiana!" Maybe some of the MSM is just trying to generate more excitement by naming a competitive state. I'm surprised some Obamaniacs don't declare that NC is the last-stand state! It's ridiculous to assume that Hillary would go this far and then toss it all over IN, a medium-sized, very red state. Why not proclaim that WV, John Kennedy's do-or-die, is the have-to win? Probably because BO has had the audacity to compare himself to JFK and now has little hope that he can best Hillary there.
he could win white-dominated blue-collar workers and rural America. They are up in Indiana and with the resources they have been pouring they probably felt (wrong) they could end Hill's good run lately. The polls have tightened (dead heat) and I am sure they have another spin ready just in case (and it will happen). A tightened result in N.C. will be a loss for BO. Heck, they claimed that in Pennsy, why couldn't Hill do that.
an Obama headquarters. KO religiously ensures that his disgust with Hill is blatantly clear every night. Huffington people must have ingested some bad historical anti-Clinton seeds while young. That goes with a lot of MSM old attack dogs who are extremely joyous to find the Clintons are back on stage. Dick Morris living up to his name, has a single mission in his miserable remaining life - get even. For a while, only Joe, Pat and Tucker can be heard with a few good things to say for Hill. In fact I recall Tucker, in his shelved show, came out ( before SNL and others) pointing the MSM bias. Unfortunately, he lost his show not long after that and he did say that his views were not with the prevailing trend. There is a little bit of a turn around lately following the debate and Pennsy victory. I have a pretty good idea,though, how long it will last.