Buried under an avalanche of glowing headlines hailing Obama’s having survived his Rev. Wright problem

Obama Weathers the Wright Storm, Clinton Faces Credibility Problem 

(something I doubt, but that’s a topic for another day) and buried inside the Pew report itself is this bit of bad news for Obama-maniacs:

One of the few negative trends for Obama following the Wright affair is that a larger number of conservative Republicans hold a very unfavorable opinion of him in the new poll than did so in February. The survey also finds that Obama no longer enjoys the favorable image rating advantage over McCain among independents that was apparent in previous polls.

USA Today links to a bunch of other polls that show the same trend—or, at least, which are being reported (or spun) as showing the same favorable trend for Obama. There’s also the usual caveat:

As always, we remind you that these polls are snapshots — not predictions of voter behavior in elections.

Snapshots, not predictions of behavior. I must remember that.

Taylor Marsh spins the pseudo-event another way.

Must run now …

Due to a cyber-accident, I deleted a post. Apologies for any inconvenience. Here it is again, lifted from my feed:up against the wall

Today, March 27, 2008, 2 hours ago | hepzeeba  

update: added a link and subtracted extraneous text

After my little “ephiphany” [ouch] and because the madness of trying to keep up is getting to me and because rather than stick to the relationship between media and culture, which is what I’m really interested in, I find myself getting sidetracked too easily, I’m going to try something new today:

Instead of madly doing the rounds of the blogosphere, I’m going to post on the basis of having read only the dead-tree New York Times and one blog post.

Ready? Here goes.

Brendan Nyhan clarifies the obvious reason for Hillary Clinton’s continued presence in the race [emphasis in original]:

Matthew Yglesias seems a bit puzzled that Democratic party elders haven’t stepped in to force Hillary Clinton out of the race. He writes that “insofar as it’s really true that [Nancy Pelosi] and ‘other leading members of Congress’ think [don’t think Hillary can win and want her to give up], they need to communicate it more clearly.”

By contrast, Marc Ambinder suggests that party elders have intentionally decided not to step in because “in their minds, the racetrack is open and horses, to beat that metaphor to death, are still trotting around” (via Michael Crowley):

John Edwards, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid - if these folks came together and threw their weight behind the nominee, Hillary Clinton would probably drop out by the end of the week. But the party elders have in some cases explicitly abstained from making such a determination because in their minds, the racetrack is open and horses, to beat that metaphor to death, are still trotting around.

But there’s actually a third possibility — that most party elders would prefer that Hillary withdraw but don’t want to pay the cost of pushing her out of the race.

Indeed! This isn’t because they are Democrats. It’s because they are politicians. Politicians never want to commit until they see where things are headed, because their first concern is always themselves.

Nyhan wrote the original post a couple of days ago. This morning, he updated it [italics in original; bold is mine]:

[M]y claim isn’t that the leaders would “defect… to Hillary’s camp” but that they would defect to a position of neutrality. Expect lots of mumbling about letting the process go forward, etc etc. The reason to do this that, while Hillary is likely to lose, her supporters (financial, activist, etc.) are and will remain powerful within the party. If you don’t believe me, ask Nancy Pelosi, who just got an ominous letter from Hillary’s top fundraisers:

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

So: The folks holding the purse strings in the Democratic Party are having their say. Is anyone surprised?

The NYT also made that point today [e.a.]:

Leading contributors to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton intensified their effort to keep the Democratic presidential contest alive on Wednesday and urged Speaker Nancy Pelosi to stay out of the superdelegate fight, admonishing her for suggesting that the candidate ahead in pledged delegates - now Senator Barack Obama - should become the nominee. …

“This dynamic primary season is not at an end,” said a letter to Ms. Pelosi, which was signed by 21 top Democratic fund-raisers. “Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.” …

The letter was signed by some of Mrs. Clinton’s largest fund-raisers, including Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, and Maureen White and Steven Rattner, longtime friends of the Clintons.

The letter, which carried threatening overtones in noting that many signatories were major Democratic donors, highlighted the deepening rift inside the party among supporters for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. While Ms. Pelosi has declared her neutrality in the race, she has said that she believes that the party’s superdelegates should not overrule the will of the voters and should back the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

Note that those holding the purse strings are only forcing Pelosi back into a position of neutrality. Even that is a win, no matter how short-term, under the circumstances.

And now a side note, which is more in keeping with the subject matter of this blog. ((And here I insert yet another reminder that I am not a politico; I’ve only gotten caught up in this, like everyone else, because it has gone viral throughout society and our culture, as noted in this piece in today’s NYT, and because it is now clear that the national conversation that Tina Brown tried to capture in her failed venture Talk magazine has moved entirely online, and that it is having a profound effect on public life.))

When I went to the NYT site to link to the article about Dem donors (”Clinton Donors Warn on Superdelegate Fight“), which I read in the dead-tree paper today, I discovered a curious thing. The website carries two different versions of the story: the one I linked to above, carrying a Times writer’s byline, and a Reuters story, posted three hours earlier on the Web.

That Reuters story, carried on the NYT’s website, has a slightly different cast to it [e.a.]:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of prominent Hillary Clinton donors sent a letter to House of Representatives Speaker

Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday asking her to retract her comments on superdelegates and stay out of the Democratic fight over their role in the presidential race.The 20 prominent Clinton supporters told Pelosi she should “clarify” recent statements to make it clear superdelegates — nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who are free to back any candidate — could support the candidate they think would be the best nominee. …The signees reminded the House leader from California of their support for the party’s House campaign committee and said “therefore” she should “reflect in your comments a more open view” about superdelegates. …Among the signees of the letter were prominent Democrats and Clinton supporters like Robert Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television; Bernard Schwartz, former chairman of Loral Space and Communications; and venture capitalist Steven Rattner.

In the text of the latter story, there is no mention of “threats”; the heavy lifting is done by the headline (”Clinton Backers Warn Pelosi on Superdelegate Rift“). This is, on its face, a more neutral article, but it leaves a curious (and probably unintended) disconnect of logic in the story.

Considering that the Reuters story paints the Clinton backers (politely) asking for “clarity” from Pelosi, the Obama camp is made to sound petulant and whiny when they complain about it:

“This letter is inappropriate and we hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.

Is this the tone from the Obama camp that Reuters wanted to convey? Because the same Reuters story has the Clinton camp firing back (virtuously):

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said Clinton had made the case superdelegates should exercise independent judgment about who would be the best for the party and the country.

“Few have done more to build the Democratic Party than Bill and Hillary Clinton. The last thing they need is a lecture from the Obama campaign,” he said.

The proprietary Times story, on the other hand, has Bill Clinton “warning” folks to get ready for more [e.a.]:

As former President Bill Clinton warned voters in West Virginia to “saddle up” for a heated duel between the candidates, …

Neither Times-website-sponsored story quotes him in full, however; but the HuffPo does [e.a.]:

Speaking to voters in Parkersburg, West Virginia, the 42nd president Wednesday said, “I don’t give a riff about all this name-calling that’s going on. They’ve been going on ever since Iowa. I’ve heard them say all these things about her….

“Let’s just saddle up and have an argument,” he continued. “What’s the matter with that? That’s what America’s about, right?”

And the proprietary Times story adds two additional bits of information, but you have to dig deep to find them—an indication of the pressure Bill Clinton knows how to apply and a hint of Barack Obama’s growing impatience to get this thing over with.

Clinton [e.a.]:

As he campaigned in Parkersburg, W.Va., on Wednesday, Mr. Clinton dismissed concerns that the increasingly bitter nominating fight could wound the party. He said the race should not end until all voters - and superdelegates - had a chance to weigh in.

“I think your vote should be counted, don’t you?” Mr. Clinton said, speaking to voters who are scheduled to cast their ballots May 13. “I know Hillary’s gaining on them when they say, ‘Oh, let’s shut this down now; we don’t want to be divided.’ “

Obama [e.a.]:

“I think giving whoever the nominee is two or three months to pivot into the general election would be extremely helpful, instead of having this drag up to the convention,” Mr. Obama told reporters as he flew to New York.

These are the developments that I picked up on. They’re really interesting, and I find myself able to empathize with both sides: Clinton wants to draw it out, and Obama wants to shut it down.

There are power plays and low blows and people all over the cable shows keep saying that it’s tearing the party apart (it’s too boring to link to them all) but the cable networks can’t get enough of this stuff!

When Larry King turned to a different subject the other night—World Wrestling—it made me stand up and take notice of what a fraction of the population’s attention politics is getting compared to entertainment:

Fight Night with Larry: WWE In King’s Ring!

Aired March 26, 2008 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

LARRY KING, HOST, LARRY KING LIVE: Tonight, there’s nothing bigger, nothing badder, nothing more brutal — and 16 million people a week can’t get enough of it. It is the business that dominates TV in 100 countries all over the world. Meet the muscle behind the mayhem — Triple H, John Cena and Big Joe, who aims to put the big hurt on boxing champ Floyd Mayweather.

We go behind-the-scenes with the WWE mastermind Vince McMahon and his cast of in your face heavyweights, next on LARRY KING LIVE.

I didn’t stay tuned to the show, but I made note of those numbers:

16 million people a week

dominates TV in 100 countries all over the world

Compare and contrast to TVNewser’s latest figures:

The Scoreboard: Tuesday, Mar. 25

25-54 demographic: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 246 | CNN: 198 | MSNBC: 113 | HLN: 100

Prime: FNC: 436 | CNN: 290 | MSNBC: 224 | HLN: 168

	5p:	6p:	7p:	8p:	9p:	10p:	11p:
FNC	ElectionHQ:	Hume:	Shep:	O’Reilly:	H&C:	Greta:	O’Reilly:
	161	278	319	470	494	344	317
CNN	Blitzer:	Blitzer:	Dobbs:	Brown:	King:	Cooper:	Cooper:
	211	219	386	348	249	275	264
MSNBC	Hardball:	Gregory:	Hardball:	Countdown:	Abrams:	Countdown:	Reports:
	140	154	194	364	147	160	128
HLN	Prime:	Prime:	Beck:	Grace:	Beck:	Grace:	Showbiz:
	46	72	124	163	147	206	144

Total Viewers: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 917 | CNN: 545 | MSNBC: 337 | HLN: 253

Prime: FNC: 1886 | CNN: 881 | MSNBC: 654 | HLN: 418

	5p:	6p:	7p:	8p:	9p:	10p:	11p:
FNC	ElectionHQ:	Hume:	Shep:	O’Reilly:	H&C:	Greta:	O’Reilly:
	778	1323	1407	2404	1729	1524	1255
CNN	Blitzer:	Blitzer:	Dobbs:	Brown:	King:	Cooper:	Cooper:
	658	798	1238	852	884	907	597
MSNBC	Hardball:	Gregory:	Hardball:	Countdown:	Abrams:	Countdown:	Reports:
	558	524	609	1027	495	439	315
HLN	Prime:	Prime:	Beck:	Grace:	Beck:	Grace:	Showbiz:
	223	173	337	478	429	377	344

Once upon a time in the late 1950s, there was a TV game show with that ungrammatical name, hosted by Johnny Carson.

These days, it’s a question we have to ask ourselves every time we open a newspaper. Howard Kurtz reports in the WaPo:

The Los Angeles Times has acknowledged that it unwittingly relied on fabricated FBI documents, created by a con man, for a report that implicated associates of rap mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs in the 1994 shooting of rapper Tupac Shakur.

The story’s author, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Chuck Philips, said in a statement late yesterday: “In relying on documents that I now believe were fake, I failed to do my job. I’m sorry.” Deputy Managing Editor Marc Duvoisin also apologized, saying in a separate statement: “We should not have let ourselves be fooled. That we were is as much my fault as Chuck’s. I deeply regret that we let our readers down.”

The embarrassing admission came hours after a report by the Smoking Gun. The Web site, which specializes in law-enforcement records, said the Times “appears to have been hoaxed” by “an accomplished document forger” in its story last week tying Combs’s associates to the non-fatal shooting of Shakur 12 years ago.

Once more, online triumphs over print. Increasingly, the Web is a check on the MSM.

Across the Pond, a more traditional check on the media brought judgment to bear last week. In a first for the British media, the tabs apologized to one of their victims:

The headline, splashed across the top of the front page of The Daily Express on Wednesday, could not have been clearer or more jarring: “Kate and Gerry McCann: Sorry.”

The paper indeed had something to be sorry about. In the ensuing article, it admitted that much of its coverage of the case of Madeleine McCann, who disappeared shortly before her fourth birthday during a family vacation in Portugal last May, was completely wrong. Especially the part where it had repeatedly accused Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry, of murdering her and then covering up their crime.

I don’t follow the British media to know what kind of effect this had, or is expected to have in the future. But at the very least it’s a kick in the pants for the outrageous British press … for now.

Meanwhile, we’re all left with the ungrammatical and nagging question: who do I trust?