Ambinder notes a "study", circulated by Clinton supporter, that shows what we all know, that the media root and have rooted for the underdog, Obama.
AS has a sharp reply.
Just two reasons why their attempt to argue that the media is biased against them is absurd. If Clinton had won ten primaries or caucuses in a row, do you think the MSM would have regarded Obama as still viable?
Actually, they might, if Obama had won Super Tuesday.
My take? How much does press vigilance really translate into votes, in the current context?
1. Limited impact.
I think I know Hillary's positions, by now. If she is having trouble with the Press, it hasn't interfered with her ability to make known what she wants to do (and from what day she wants to do it - hint: it's not day 3].
2. How much, in the end, for style points?
There is a certain amount of rally-round-the-flag with this "injustice" of the process stuff, especially among those who have been similarly aggrieved in life, one way or another; but, on the whole, both campaign and the media have been pretty timid.
