Looking at the Florida (D) coverage…
CJR Daily’s Liz Cox Barrett writes about the Florida primary and, in part, about how the cable nets sort of got duped by Hillary Clinton…
It was clear that some in the cable commentariat felt played/duped/forced by the Clinton campaign to talk about something they considered a non-event. As if this—covering a politician’s photo-op, something “ginned up,” as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell put it—were somehow new to them. This one, however, seemed to stick in some craws, and the resulting commentary took on a surprisingly shrill tone, at times, even by cable standards.
For example, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann had this exchange as they awaited the start of Senator Clinton’s address to her gathered Florida supporters Tuesday night:MATTHEWS: Just remember, for the people watching now, this doesn’t count, what we’re watching here. This is an unofficial, unratified, outlaw primary. It’s banned and doesn’t exist. We’re watching what looks like a victory celebration in every other aspect. If you were tuning in, you’d think they just won something that matters. They did win something, but the question is does it matter in delegate terms. The Clintons are the ones that every second say all that matters are delegates. Yet, here they are celebrating the event of not winning any delegates tonight. This is politics. It’s what you do with what you got. What they got tonight is a victory in the numbers in Florida. Look at the excitement down there.
OLBERMANN: Let me read the official terminology we’re using. In the Democratic primary, please note, no delegates are allocated based upon the results in Florida, at least according to how the rules are written tonight and the candidates pledged not to campaign there…That’s not the official terminology…that’s my terminology. However Senator Clinton finished with more votes…It really is, I almost said, it’s your definition of what the word…MATTHEWS: Chutzpah!
OLBERMANN: …no, no, what the word campaign is.
MATTHEWS: They are really good, the Clintons. They have created a confection, a victory that will work for many of the newspapers out there, it’ll be on the wires….
OLBERMANN: It’s on our air now…
MATTHEWS: I keep forgetting, it’s on television as we speak. In fact, we’re talking about it! And watching it…
OLBERMANN: …We’re going to continue with our MSNBC coverage of the Republican primary and the Democratic whatever that is over there…
MATTHEWS: Hoopla!
It’s called doing their job. Hillary’s “victory” celebration was little more than a farce. She had signed an agreement with the DNC that she would not campaign in the state and would not make any appearance there. She violated this agreement in spirit with her post-vote appearance. Since the other candidates had not campaigned there or purcahsed ads there (except national ad campaigns which air of course on national broadcast and cable channels)—their was never any serious competition there against her. Her insistence on trying to grab the spotlight away from Sen. Obama following his huge win in SC in a legitimate election, was indeed questionable. The cable and broadcast folks just called her on her BS. Good for them.
Comment by Alison — January 31, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Forgot to add that there were ZERO delegates at stake in the Florida race. The DNC had stripped them of all delegates to the DNC convention because they had moved the state primary ahead of schedule. The GOP fined their candidates with 50% of their normal delegate load. Of course, now Billary wants to change the rules and get those delegates seated and is trying to use the canard that “two million voters in Florida aren’t being heard”. BS-they’ll be heard in November. Hill just wants to be a candidate come November and to do that, she desperately needs those Florida delegates-hence her little dog and pony show.
Comment by Alison — January 31, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
I wish one tv personality that interviewed Clinton would have asked her the question that would have put her actions in context. “Would you have been in Florida if Obama was leading the polls?”
Comment by chase — February 1, 2008 @ 10:01 am