Novak speaks in half truths

"There seems to be no way Clinton can overtake Obama in delegates and the popular vote" Robert Novak

Politics has always been a nasty business.

Robert Novak, the journalist who outed Valerie Plame, is telling everyone today (in his WP article) that Obama is in trouble. Of course he would be looking for the negative - that is the way Novak usually writes, he is a conservative with a mean streak.

The NYT is following his lead... I saw the word "struggle" written at least three times in articles associated with Obama, including the title of an article on the candidate.

The same is occurring on "This Week" -- Cokie Roberts (who I used to respect) and others keep saying over and over that Obama is having a bad week, doesn't have a chance, etc. etc.

It is not so much that I am for Obama - I have my moments when I do think he is right for the job and other times, despite her lying, that I think Hillary might be better. It is that I'm seeing a clear trajectory here. The media is guiding what they hope will be the outcome of the election.

This problem also represents what has always been so common - and these days it is easy to do add up the negative words, it is a clear demographic fact.

Non-minorities can repeatedly exhibit unethical behavior (nice way for calling them liars) but are encouraged and promoted, but people of color, esp. a black guy from Harvard who is running for President - are labeled by the media as being in trouble -despite that he is solidly winning so far.

If you don't believe words can make a difference, take a look at the book Brown Tide Rising by Otto Santa Ana.

-----
Trouble Ahead for Obama

By Robert D. Novak
Washington Post
Thursday, April 24, 2008; A21

When Pennsylvania exit polls came out late Tuesday afternoon showing a lead of 3.6 points for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, Democratic leaders who desperately wanted her to end her candidacy were not cheered. They were sure that this puny lead overstated Obama's strength, as exit polls nearly always have in diverse states with large urban populations. How is it possible, then, that Clinton, given up for dead by her party's establishment, won Pennsylvania in a 10-point landslide? The answer is the dreaded "Bradley effect."

Prominent Democrats only whisper when they compare Obama's experience, the first African American with a serious chance to be president, with what happened to Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley a quarter-century ago. In 1982, exit polls showed Bradley, who was black, ahead in the race for governor of California, but he ultimately lost to Republican George Deukmejian. Pollster John Zogby (who predicted Clinton's double-digit win Tuesday) said what practicing Democrats would not: "I think voters face to face are not willing to say they would oppose an African American candidate."

If there really is a Bradley effect in 2008, Zogby sees November peril for Obama in blue states. John McCain could win not only in Pennsylvania but also in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, and he can retain Ohio for the Republicans. There seems to be no way Clinton can overtake Obama in delegates and the popular vote. For unelected superdelegates to deprive Obama of the nomination would so depress African American general election voting that the nomination would be worthless for her. In a year when all normal political indicators point to Republican defeat on all fronts, the Democratic Party faces deepening difficulties whether Obama is nominated or rejected.

for complete WP article click here