Former ‘Crossfire’ Host Says Media Picked McCain and Obama

Change font size:  A |  A

Over the past few months, there has been great debate concerning which candidates media have been pushing in order to assist them attain the presidential nominations of their respective parties.

On Friday, former "Crossfire" co-host Bill Press, who currently has a talk show on Sirius radio, wrote a column at World Net Daily on this very subject.

For a variety of reasons, his opinion might raise a few eyebrows (emphasis added throughout, h/t NBer motherbelt):

[E]ven though no one candidate has yet locked up their party's nomination, we might as well cancel the rest of the primaries or caucuses. The media have already decided that this year's standard bearers will be John McCain and Barack Obama.

Yes, somewhere along the line, the role of the media has changed from reporting on the primaries to deciding the primaries. They pick their favorites, they give them preferential treatment, they tear down their opponents, and they anoint their winning candidates even before voters have a chance to go to the polls.

Hold on to your seats, for there was much more:

Step one occurs early in the primary process, when network executives decide which candidates get covered and which ones don't. Among Republicans, too bad for Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter. Once the media suits decided they weren't serious candidates, they got no media attention, which, of course, resulted in their never being taken seriously as candidates.

Still holding on? Good:

Step two occurs once the field narrows, when members of the media fall in love with their favorite candidates and start slobbering all over them. Is there any doubt, for example, that everybody in the national press corps is in love with John McCain? If you believe what you hear and read in the media (always a dangerous proposition), McCain can do no wrong and Romney can do no right.

[...]

Barack Obama gets the same worshipful treatment. We hear constantly about how "liberal" Hillary Clinton is too liberal, in fact, to get elected. Yet Obama's liberal credentials leave Clinton in the dust. Unlike Clinton, for example, Obama favors granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. As reported by the Washington Times alone, he also supports the decriminalization of marijuana. And the National Journal named him 2007's Most Liberal Senator. Who's the real liberal here?

Interesting points all. But was Press being honest with his readers?

After all, according to his website, his radio program airs from the Clinton think tank (emphasis added):

On June 27, Bill launched his new talk radio program - the "Bill Press Show" - broadcasting live from the Center for American Progress in downtown Washington, D.C.

Some coincidence that on June 21, NewsBusters reported on CAP's connections to the Clintons:

For those unfamiliar with the Center, its President and CEO is none other than John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton. And:

• The Executive Vice President for Management is Sarah Rosen, who was also a member of the Clinton administration.
• Senior Vice President for Development Debbie Goldberg worked for the Clinton campaign.
• Senior Vice President and Director David Halperin was a speech writer for President Clinton.
• Vice President of Communications Jennifer Palmieri was Clinton's White House Deputy Press Secretary.
• Senior Vice President for External Affairs Winnie Stachelberg worked at the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton.
• Vice President of Finance and Operations Brad Kiley worked for the Clinton administration.
• Ditto Peter Rundlet, Anna Soellner, Debbie Fine, and Michelle Jolin.

In reality, the staff and Senior Fellows listing of this Center reads like a Clinton administration Who's Who.

Now, I don't know which of the two Democrat candidates Press is supporting. But, with his radio broadcasts emanating from the Clintons' personal think tank, one has to wonder if he would write such a piece if Hillary was doing better on the campaign trail.

Do Press's ruminations reek of sour grapes?

*****Update: A January 10 column by Press gives some insight as to what horse he has in this race (emphasis added throughout):

It's one of the most amazing comeback stories in American politics — and one of the most embarrassing moments for members of the media. The day before the New Hampshire primary, everybody was writing off Hillary Clinton. Her campaign was falling apart. She was going to lose New Hampshire to Barack Obama by at least 10 points. She'd soon fire her chief strategist and campaign manager — assuming, that is, that she was still in the race. The Drudge Report announced she was dropping out.

Which isn't quite the way it turned out. Sen. Clinton surprised everyone by bouncing back and beating Barack Obama in New Hampshire by 3 points. A narrow win, to be sure. But still, a win for her and a defeat for him.

Excuse me, but Hillary winning New Hampshire was one of the most amazing comeback stories in American politics? Don't you think that's WAY overstating it, Bill? But there's more:

And then came the “emotional moment,” endlessly seen around the world, when Hillary teared up while responding to a question about how she put up with all the pressures of campaigning. No big deal when Mitt Romney's eyes filled with tears on “Meet the Press,” but pundits immediately and unanimously declared that her performance was the end of the road for a woman candidate. It proved, in fact, to be the exact opposite, showing a personal side of Clinton that voters had never seen before.

Amazing. So, like Hillary sycophants across the media plain, Press not only fell for her Crying Game hook, line, and sinker, but he also sold it to his readers.

I guess that answers a lot of questions, doesn't it? So does his parting advice for the junior senator from NY:

Having found it in New Hampshire, Clinton now faces a major test: not to it in Nevada (Jan. 19), South Carolina (Jan. 26), and Super Tuesday (Feb. 5). That means loosening up, letting her personal side show more, and relying less on her husband to carry the message. That also means sharpening her questioning of Barack Obama: What does he mean by “change”? What change has he ever accomplished? Will he be ready to lead from day one?

Any questions?