Hillaryland Hits Back

It's no secret that Hillary Clinton's top aides have been angry for months at MSNBC for coverage they consider blatantly pro-Obama, including remarks that prompted apologies from Chris Matthews and David Shuster.

But Tuesday night, when Hillary got walloped in North Carolina and hung on for a narrow win in Indiana, was the last straw. Tim Russert, NBC's Washington bureau chief, told viewers: "We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be, and no one is going to dispute it." A number of other MSNBC pundits--and a few on other networks--agreed that Barack Obama has the thing sewed up. Russert repeated that yesterday, flashing his white board and saying that barring a complete Obama collapse or an act of God, "this race is over."

Jay Carson, Clinton's press secretary, fired off an e-mail yesterday to Chuck Todd, NBC's political director. While assuring Todd that he was "not trying to be a jerk," Carson wrote: "Can you think of one good reason we should continue to cart you guys around the country with us given that your network has declared the entire race over?"

This was not a serious threat to kick NBC reporters off the Clinton plane. Carson noted that he was just speaking "rhetorically," and besides, news organizations pay stiff fees for their campaign travel. But it is a measure of the anger in Hillaryland toward the folks at MSNBC. A network spokesman declined to respond.

In fairness, though, ABC's George Stephanopoulos, CBS's Bob Schieffer and others also said the race is pretty much over.

For the moment, there seem to be two separate media universes out there.

In the mainstream print galaxy, Hillary's "options" are "dwindling," her "path" to the nomination is "narrowing," the "math" is "challenging," Obama is drawing "closer" to the prize.

On MSNBC, the morning shows and the blogosphere, it's game, set, match. The race is finis, the last rites are being administered and the debate is about Obama's chances against John McCain.

It's a fascinating case study: Do the remnants of the MSM that are still treating this as a semi-competitive race not really believe that Clinton has a serious shot at the nomination, but feel bound by the rule of objectivity not to say so?

Or are the pundits going out on a limb, prematurely writing off Clinton as they have done several times before?

In meeting with reporters yesterday, Hillary certainly didn't sound like someone preparing an exit strategy. Now we learn that she's poured another $6.4 million of her own cash into the campaign. If enough superdelegates--and not just George McGovern--keep defecting, will that change her mind? When does the math become overwhelming?

When a '"senior Clinton official" tells The Washington Post that "we lost this thing in February," is that person reflecting the view of the campaign? Is this the same "senior campaign official" who told Lawrence O'Donnell that "we will have a nominee by June 15" and that Hillary is a reasonable person?