If the other candidates want to win, the easiest way for them to stop Hillary Clinton is to get out the meme that "the television media is trying to choose the Democratic nominee."
Hillary Clinton is a part of the power base in DC, and most of the so-called "pundits" on television are made up of former politicos who still have access, contacts, and agendas. Sure, Biden and Dodd have been in DC for a long time, but they aren't a Clinton. It's not the same thing.
The media is trying to choose the Democratic nominee, and have been doing so all year because they know that most people get exposed to the candidates through the television set. Most of the polls reflect the television coverage, because that's how those polled have been exposed to the race.
There isn't anything complicated about it.
The Pew Research Numbers reflected the impact of television coverage on the race, which is why 78% know that Clinton is running for President versus a guy like John Edwards who has been running since 2003, and only 28% know that he is.
It's going to be difficult to stop Rodham-Clinton until all of the other Democratic campaigns (probably minus Obama), start pointing out at these debates that they have had enough of the television media trying to choose the Democratic nominee.
Chris Dodd had that clock tracking how much time candidates get at debates. They need one to show how many stories Hillary Clinton gets each day on CNN, MSNBC, and the Evening News at 6:30pm (EST), compared ot the other candidates. Get one of these liberal watchdog groups to keep track of it.
Show that disparity as well, to put some meat behind the clear intentions of the television media to choose the Democratic nominee (Hillary Clinton), by convincing the public that they should be supporting Clinton.
It's only effective if all of the other candidates make this point at debates, and it works because it's not "gaining up on Hillary" like the media will want to spin it. When they try to spin it that way, it would only reinforce the point that they are trying to choose the Democratic nominee.
Probably a year and a half ago, Clinton and Obama were both losing in the polls to Giuliani and McCain, and Bush was just as unpopular than as he is now. His approval was around 32%, then, and Clinton and Obama were still losing to Giuliani and McCain. Edwards was still beating them most of the time.
What changed?
Since John Edwards announced for President in December 2006, the television media hasn't stopped talking about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The television coverage has increased their poll numbers, and once the media stops talking about them, if it gets either of them nominated (like the Republican party wants), then you will see just how little support they really had, nationally.
I mean, even when only 32% of people approved of Bush, Clinton and Obama were still "weak" candidates without the media. What are they going to do when the media turns on them?
Puny minds focus on poll numbers.
Poll numbers are backwards looking. An October 2007 poll has zero to do with November 2008, because you don't know what people are going to be thinking about at that time. Odds are, they will be thinking about whatever the television news tells them they should be thinking about.
Right now, it's telling them they should be thinking about Hillary Clinton. As the adage goes, "out of sight, out of mind." If it's all Clinton all of the time, that's what the poll numbers are going to reflect.
Earlier in the year, it was telling them to think about Clinton v. Obama, with headline after headline on MSNBC and CNN screaming "Clinton v. Obama, Clinton v. Obama!!!"
Poll numbers are a joke. And they are just one more tool that the media is using to try to choose the nominee. They know that these national poll numbers (which includes states where no one is actively campaigning yet) reflect what people are exposed to on the television set, but they don't explain it that way, because it would be "the truth," and the media isn't about the truth any more.
One thing, though:
It's only effective if all of the other candidates make this point at debates, and it works because it's not "gaining up on Hillary" like the media will want to spin it. When they try to spin it that way, it would only reinforce the point that they are trying to choose the Democratic nominee.
I can see the response from the media being, "ohh, the White Male candidates are boo hooing because the woman and black candidate are getting more attention than they are. Well, isn't it time for that?" Or some other statement about how the Democratic Party talks about racial and gender equality, so they should be happy that Clinton and Obama are getting so much attention.
Something to try and spin it away from the fact that the television media is indeed trying to choose the Democratic nominee.
Well, if the media brings up the Democratic Party's beliefs on "equality," then maybe the other campaigns should spin it back in their faces, and start talking about "equal time." If CNN and MSNBC are going to report a story on Hillary Clinton that has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that she exists, like "Bill is romantic" or her "birthday bash," then maybe they also need to do a story on how Joe Biden rebounded after the death of his wife (and I believe one of this children), or how Dennis & Elizabeth Kucinich met, or maybe why Chris Dodd decided to have children later in life.
Same kind of "fluff pieces." Give them all equal time, if the media want's to bring up "equality."
It's a winning argument for all of the other campaigns: "The television media is trying to choose the Democratic nominee."