http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10257Did the New York Times Gets Played By Clinton's Campaign?
by RJ Eskow | Oct 2 2007
Here's the kind of coverage a campaign can't buy, from the New York Times blog:
A fundraising analyst, Costas Panagopoulos of Fordham University, said this morning that the Clinton fund-raising total is likely to convey an impression of superiority to voters than Mr. Obama will have to battle against.
"Clinton's blow-away third quarter fundraising total is likely to have, among other things, a profound psychological effect on voters," Mr. Panagopoulos said. "It will give the impression of growing Clinton strength -- both in terms of dollars and number of donors."
"Obama also raised impressive sums," he added, "but he may be seen as languishing relative to previous quarters. Obama's lackluster third quarter intake, relative to previous quarters, reflects, at least in part, waning enthusiasm for his candidacy and diminishing prospects for an Obama victory."
Wow. Pretty damning indictment of OBama's prospects, wouldn't you say? But here's something Patrick Healy, the author of the post, fails to inform his readership. From Mr. Panagopoulos' bio page on his website:
Dr. Panagopoulos was selected by the American Political Science Association as a Congressional Fellow during 2004-2005, and he served in the office of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY).
That should have been worthy of at least a mention, don't you think? After all, Mr. Panagopoulos describes Obama's campaign as "lackluster," "languishing," and suffering from "waning enthusiasm" and "diminishing prospects."
more...
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10257