I think it is to Hillary Clinton's credit that her supporters maintain such loyalty to her and her campaign. However, I see the issue of potential media-bias in favor of Obama in a different light.
There is a favoritism toward Obama in the news media, but I do not believe it is out of some vendetta against Clinton or desire to elect Obama from the Fourth Estate. Frankly, what it comes down to is that the media love a perceived winner. The winning candidate simply now happens to be Obama instead of Clinton.
For three years, from the end of the last election to January of this year, Clinton was not only the perceived winner among Democrats but the Inevitability President. The media among others presented her as the only formidable threat to the Republicans (and for most of 2007, the perceived winner was Rudy Giuliani: where are the howls of media bias against him now?). She was placed as such a shoo-in, the media claimed the race was essentially hers to lose. Well, now she's lost. Obama upset her inevitability expectations in Iowa, and the media took note. Perhaps this was premature at the time, but the fact that Clinton not only lost the very first contest but came in THIRD after expectations were so high signalled a sea change in the race. The media were guilty of nothing more than noting where the momentum was going. Sure, their enthusiasm is pretty fevered at times, but I don't feel it is driving the race at this point. Obama has the legitimate edge, and Clinton is visibly struggling. The media is only following a pattern already established.

To a certain extent, you're right, but what will the reason be when the press turns (as they are in the process of doing) against Obama in favor of John "The press loves McCain. We're his base." McCain?

Presumably it will be based on the mistakes Obama may make on the stump or debate circuit. Admittedly, the expectations for him are as high as they were for Hillary in January, and McCain's are somewhat lower given all of his troubles with his base and lobbyist history. Essentially, what I am accusing the media of is being fickle, not devious. Less a cabal of journalists than a gaggle of "American Idol" groupies. If they detect a shift, they will follow it en masse.

I have noted before that I think the strong supporters of every candidate thinks the media is biased against their candidate. As an Obama supporters, I am constantly "outraged" that they repeat the "All words, no action" trope of the Clinton campaign as though it is true when it is not true, or when they fail to capture his point by suggesting that even though he talks about "hope" and "change," his record shows he's pretty moderate. More recently, I've been "outraged" that no one picks up the utter hypocrisy of Clinton's whining about "unfair" mailers, given that her campaign premiered "smear" mailers on his support of women's reproductive rights, his healthcare plan, and his proposal to raise the cap on income taxable for social security above $97.5K. I have not seen the press "correct" these "egregious errors".... (LOL at myself.)

What impresses me time after time about Obama is that unlike me, he doesn't seem to have a need to respond to every single affront or clarify every little misunderstanding. (And there were plenty last night that had me jumping up and down in my livingroom.) As has happened so many times in this campaign, his noteworthy restraint on petty matters drives home for me why he is an effective leader. He knows how to pick his battles and he doesn't "sweat the small stuff." In contrast, it seems like HRC is constitutionally unable to get over even the smallest perceived slight. It's hard to imagine how she would focus on the big problems that face us when her sense of victimization so seems to interfere with her ability to see the forest through the trees. I probably would have the same problem that she has, so I empathize; however, it's still not a good quality in a leader.

I have to strongly dis-agree because as so many are quick to forget, only until very recently did Obama have the lead and the media has been kissing his butt since the very beginning.

There are three reasons why the media has hated to no end on Mrs. Clinton:

A) Sexism is the only acceptable form of discrimination in America while racism is completely taboo. The media loves drama, they love having a god and a devil and since they have been demonizing women in power forever it only makes sense that they continue with the tradition.

B) With all of the young, independent support Obama picked up in the beginning, it was very easy to spin him as the candidate that was for the "young" and wanted "change." Being young is cool, while being old is not cool and all the media cares about is what is trendy and popular and what will sell papers, not what is right.

C) Obama's entire campaign is based on celebrity endorsements and the media loves a known, likable face to throw on the front pages of their publications (again, it sells). Those of us actually paying attention know that it wasn't until OPRAH jumped on the campaign trail in Iowa, thus gaining heavy media attention, is the ONLY reason why his numbers suddenly jumped.

So why don't you just admit it and apologize now Obama supporters: You have bought into the fake media hype and could possibly ruin the chance for the democrats to have a strong and worthy nominee: Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton!!!

Oh so true. Who would want to vote for someone endorsed by Oprah? I don't care how good he sounds, he's still an unknown quantity ...

Insight,

As to the fickleness of the media, it seems you agree with my point:

"... all the media cares about is what is trendy and popular and what will sell papers..."

"...the media loves a known, likable face to throw on the front pages of their publications (again, it sells)."

If the primaries had gone as both the Clintons and media conventional wisdom expected, with Clinton winning Iowa and New Hampshire by the expected double-digit margins she had held over Obama for months, I assure you news organizations would have declared the nomination settled. This is what happened in 2000 when McCain lost to Bush in South Carolina: his campaign was declared fatally wounded. It turned on a dime, and news pundits went with it.

However, Clinton didn't perform to expectations in either contest, even in winning New Hampshire. I would even postulate that it was media buildup in her favor preceding this that hurt her by raising such huge expectations. This damaged her front-runner status perception-wise and failed media CW. I'm not saying it is a fair way of judging her viability. I am saying that she was so sky-high going in that ANY loss small or large after this buildup would damage her cred as a winner among the media.

Her mailer cant be considers smaer since they are factual. His healthcare plan does not cover or require everyone to be convered. He only requires children to be covered. We have that its called chip. His support on womens reproductive rights is nonexsistant. In Illinois he voted present. That means he didnt support or reject. So we dont know how he would vote. He does plan to raise social security to above 97.5k. They cannot be considered smear if they are true.

The sad thing is the media doesnt report this. they report clinton to sending out smear mailers and how bad that makes her. What they should be saying is that they are TRUE!!

Your just being ridiculous. Obama's entire campaign is based on celebrity endorsements? Is that how he wiped the floor with her last night at the debate with no one else on the stage? Was Oprah behind the curtain putting words in his mouth? You are just being a disingenuous, sore loser -- much like your candidate I might add.

"The sad thing is the media doesn't report this"????

What are you talking about? Have you even been watching the primary coverage? The media won't report that his health care plan will not cover everyone? He brings it up himself, he is not hiding that he does not mandate adults to buy health insurance, in fact, he even touts it as a superior aspect to HRC's plan. Did you watch any of the debates? Last night? The media won't report his 'present' vote on abortion rights? Uh, yeah, they have mentioned the fact that he cast 100s of present votes many times, and they still mention it. What do you want the reporting to be like -- "Mr. Obama voted present on an important abortion rights bill, and while he publicly and consistently claims that he supports women's reproductive rights, we think he might be lying!" LOL, is that the fair and accurate coverage you want, the media accusing candidates of lying without any basis?

Give me a break. The best testament to the fact that we have a good media in this country is that it acts as a Rorschach Test for nearly every American. Everyone sees a media that is biased against their candidate, because the media is critical but not slanderous to all the candidates. If you love HRC so much, maybe you should start the HRC Times to provide fair and balanced smears of all her political opponents.

Insight,

Are you forgetting that for the 6-9 months or so leading up to the Iowa caucus that the media was all but preparing for HRC's inagural address? To claim now that the media has always been with Obama is just silly, most of the media thought that he wouldn't make it to super Tuesday let alone be leading the now two person race.

If HRC had lived up to her experience mantra and run an effective campaign, the media would be biased agaisnt every other candidate, as they were when the race (at least in the media) got going.

Stop whining and admit that you backed the wrong horse, b/c you bought into the media hype about her 35 years of experience and could possibly ruin the chance to have a democrat in the oval office by staying in this primary and writing the republican play book on how to smear Obama.

As I have not been in the US for the last two years, I missed most of campaign coverage. What I have seen of the coverage of Obama and Clinton seems to be leaning heavily in his favor. Maybe it is actual bias or maybe it is just hard to criticize him. He is almost a "nothing" to me. He reminds me of commercial that is emotionally evocative but you don't really know what the product is for. He is the "perfect candidate". He is a blank slate that people can paint how they want and call it change. I was never enchanted with him and I get less enchanted everyday. Really people, what is he for and what has he done?

I think race has played a part in the media's soft touch. Of course, race as an issue is covered ad nauseam but I feel like teh man himself is getting a pass because he is African-American. HRC gets no pass for being a women. She shows no emotion than she is a cold bitch. She cries and she is weak or a manipulative bitch. She gets angry then she is just a big old bitch. If something vaguely racial that just might have possibly come from someone tangently associated with HRC, they are mudslinging racists.

Some people say Obama is a better candidate because he can reach across the aisles. Much of the support he gets is from independents and fed-up republicans, less from Dems. He gets shouts outs from Hollywood because he lets multi-millionaire stars pretend they are forward thinking liberals. Ok, those are people who like Ob but I still don't know anything about him.

He gets compared to JFK, maybe that is a fair comparison- both can bee seen as cCharismatic, outsiders that appeals to Hollywood and youth. But JFK was not really all that great a President, and not moral in private or champion public virtue. I don't think we need another JFK.

Sorry to go on and get sidetacked.

IRS eyes UCC over Obama's Hartford speech: The IRS said in the letter that it was concerned about articles posted on the church's Web site and on other sites stating that Obama had addressed nearly 10,000 people at the event. The agency also said Obama volunteers had staffed campaign tables "outside the center to promote his campaign." <link>