This from PEW Research Center:"[T]he public is sending a strong message to journalists and pundits: It is too early to declare, as some already have, that the race is over.
"Fully 72% of the public - including comparable percentages of Democrats, Republicans and independents - say that journalists should not be anointing Obama as the Democratic nominee at this stage in the race. Just 20% say that journalists should be doing this."
Apparently, the 20% who support the media's ethically questionable interference with the Democratic race are people 1) who have forgotten recent history, e.g., the media's selling of the Iraq war to gullible taxpayers; or 2) who haven't yet grasped concepts like slippery slope or potential for abuse.
Or maybe they're so intensely preoccupied with seeing "their" candidate win that they don't care about how he does it or the long-term consequences of a "victory" via media fiat.
The first time I noticed Obama-friendly media calling for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race was in February, about a week before she won Ohio's and Texas's primaries. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter led the chorus, urging Hillary to drop out without participating in Ohio's and Texas's primaries.
In other words, he wanted Hillary to step aside so that Obama could take the nomination without breaking a sweat. This reminded many people of George Bush's operatives, who told Al Gore to "move on" and "get over it," so that Bush could take the White House before Florida's recount was complete.
The day after Hillary won the primaries in Ohio (by 10%) and Texas (by 4%), the Obama campaign joined Alter's chorus -- not in a courageous, upfront way, but instead by using strong implications. Below is some text from a March 5th mass-email signed by Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe (I'll forward the email if you email me):
"The task for the Clinton campaign yesterday was clear. In order to have a plausible path to the nomination, they needed to score huge delegate victories and cut into our lead.
"It's clear, though, that Senator Clinton wants to continue an increasingly desperate, increasingly negative -- and increasingly expensive -- campaign to tear us down."
Notice that Plouffe lacked the intestinal fortitude to actually say "Hillary has no chance, she should drop out." That's likely because such an absurd and arrogant-sounding pronouncement (coming from a campaign official) would have inspired fierce criticism of Obama, himself.
Subtlety aside, the phrase "increasingly desperate" made the Obama campaign's message clear to all who had received Plouffe's email: Hillary should drop out.
From a win-at-any-cost perspective, it seems logical that Obama wanted Hillary to drop out before the last primary in June. If she were to quit, she would have no chance of pulling ahead in the popular vote. Some super-delegates might commit to (or switch to) Hillary if she has the popular-vote lead in June.
Of course the Obama campaign wanted Hillary to drop out weeks ago, and his supporters in the media unabashedly tried to push her out.
Obama, himself, remained oddly silent for more than three weeks after Plouffe made the campaign's position clear. During Obama's silence, the Hillary-should-drop-out message swelled to a thunderous crescendo in the media.
After the absurd talking point had become an accepted part of our national discourse (i.e., after damage was done), Obama finally stepped up and publicly said that he's fine with Hillary's staying in the race. This he did during a March 30th speech.
In short, Obama represented himself as a reasonable guy who wanted to see the rest of America's Democratic voters have a say -- another example of the clashing of image and reality.
The rancid whipped cream on the sundae: most media failed to notice the clash between Obama's March 30th speech the campaign's March 5th stance (as evinced in David Plouffe's email).
It reminds me of the false racism-accusations that were hurled at Hillary before primaries in South Carolina and North Carolina (states with heavy African American populations). Nobody from the Obama campaign publicly accused Hillary of racism. Instead, they relied on prominent supporters (like Rep. James Clyburn) to hurl the accusations for them.
And Obama sat silently on the bleachers with his hands in his pockets, where they would remain unstained by the flying mud.
That's how Obama's campaign has repeatedly played the game: indirect attacks, technicalities, misleading statements, and hypocrisy.
Are those the sort of tactics that we want a president to employ? Haven't we already seen enough damage from the current White House occupant's use of such tactics?
So we know Obama is very clever as his strategy for working hard in caucus states toppled Hillary after a more-or-less atandoff on Super Tuesday. Then our minders-who-know-better activated the Thundering Herd mechanism, the winks & nods up and down the line were exchanged, Plouffe dropped his double-clutch-shuffle on March 5th and by March 30th, the Golden Boy graciously allowed that HRC could and should stay in the race----but wait. HRC activated her flurry of big wins and Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos was appearing to take close states like Indiana into the Clinton camp. So it was time to win the argument by condescension, always the liberals last refuge.
Now it is simply demode for Hillary to stay in and she is "failing to get the message." She fell out of style, yet persists her pantssuit parade of victories [in states that really don't count, note the libtards, who disdain White Americans who live in mountainous landscapes or warm climates outside California.] Plus Michigan and Florida don't count, by fiat from the DNC Doyen Gov. Dean the Scream Machine.
However, don't you see it's inevitable that Obama will win because "nobody" wants to continue the "failed" policies of the last seven years? [Except the surge is working now and the economy is showing signs of a recovery from what may have been a hiccup, but was characterized by the Krugboy e-con phalanx as a "full-fledged recession."]
Each time they lose, the libtards go back to the drawing boards to figure out how to con the American people into accepting a lot of questionable balderdash. They kinda know that about 20 different polls over the last decade show that the American people consider themselves conservative over liberal at a 5 to 2 rate [the same rate that Hillary won WV, oops, that happened long long ago.]
How do you get an essentially conservative base not to vote for McCain or possibly even con them into voting Obama?
Inevitability may not work, guilt-tripping is always tricky, but Mordor is busy in its mines and forges trying to craft new weapons for another onslaught on the Hobbits.
Footnote: On the question of Hillary's dropping out of the race, Fat Teddy went to the 1980 Convention 700 Delegates Behind and fought Carter tooth and nail for the nomination. So Puh-leez give the woman a chance.