Does repeating a falsehood make it true? "Hillary is the strongest candidate come November..."

[sfam]

We hear this all the time from the Clinton campaign, that she is the "strongest candidate come Novemnber", but there is very little backing this up. Forget the polls against McCain - those change as fast as the wind. Whether or not they show Obama or Hillary doing better, her campaign continually repeats the mantra, "Hillary is the strongest candidate come November."

My question, why does the MSM let the Clinton campaign get away with this? Aside from having more votes, more delegates and more states won,

Barack Obama has generated far more excitement than Hillary,

Barack Obama has brought far more new people to the Democratic Party,

Barack Obama is more appealing to Independents,

Barack Obama does not have a 50%+ negative rating (Hillary does),

Barack Obama significantly expands the potential electoral map,

Barack Obama does not have 8 years worth of previous baggage (Yes, he has Reverend Wright, but if you're one of those who think nothing in their past will affect this race, you've got a shock waiting for you),

Barack Obama does not take money from Lobbyists (Hillary does),

Barack Obama does not threaten to obliterate countries,

Barack Obama did not vote to go to war in Iraq,

Barack Obama does not have clear pandering positions like the holiday gas tax,

Barack Obama listens to economists.


I could go on, but the question of who the strongest Democratic candidate in November would be is by no means "clearly" Hillary Clinton (I would argue quite the opposite). Yet the MSM acts like this is "Hillary's" territory. Are they going along just because her campaign has continually repeated this lie so many times now?

[rocktivity]

1. No. Not even when a Democrat does it.

:headbang:
rocknation

[NJmaverick]

2. The Hill supporters are trying that, repeat a lie enough, tactic

They will sink to any level to get their horrible candidate the nomination

[WA98296]

3. Actually repeating falsehoods often enough make them true. Just ask Hitler.

[NJSecularist]

4. You repeating your falsehoods doesn't make them true.

Barack Obama has generated far more excitement than Hillary,

Barack Obama has brought far more new people to the Democratic Party,

Barack Obama is more appealing to Independents,

Barack Obama significantly expands the potential electoral map,

All of these are falsehoods and myths.

[rinsd]

5. That would be an opinion so how could it be true or untrue?

"Barack Obama significantly expands the potential electoral map,"

Currently Obama puts CO in play while losing OH, PA, FL & MO (states Hillary currently beats McCain in).

"Barack Obama does not have 8 years worth of previous baggage (Yes, he has Reverend Wright, but if you're one of those who think nothing in their past will affect this race, you've got a shock waiting for you),"

But as you saw with Wright the danger is not the years of baggage (I agree that the GOP will use anything and everything so the concept of the teflon candidate is a myth) but the unfamiliarity with your candidate and the ability of the RW to use a partially blank canvass.

"Barack Obama does not take money from Lobbyists (Hillary does),"

A distinction that means little when Obama takes money from people working at lobbying firms and has lobbyists running key parts of his campaign. That they are not currently registered does not mean a whole lot to me in terms of appearance of influence.

"Barack Obama does not threaten to obliterate countries,"

No he threatens military action with more "diplomatic" terms.

"Barack Obama did not vote to go to war in Iraq,"

Barack Obama does not have clear pandering positions like the holiday gas tax,

No, he has more mushy pandering positions. ;-)

"Barack Obama listens to economists."

Except ones named Paul Krugman ;-)

[sfam]

6. Opinions are fine...how did this become "accepted wisdom" by the MSM?

This is my concern. You can clearly come up with an opposite set of rationales, and more power to you. My point isn't that Obama is the obvious winner here (although I clearly believe that). My question is why the MSM takes the Clinton campaign's statement as if this is accepted wisdom? And again, even when the polling data was completely in the opposite direction, they STILL gave this line.

To me, the answer is because the Clinton campaign has repeated this so many times, the bubblehead bloviators have just stuck it in place.

BTW, I believe Krugman wasn't really thrilled with the gas tax thing either...

[rinsd]

7. Because message discipline is key to any national Presidential campaign.

Its more a creature of the process.

Just like Obama's campaign had been diligent in pointing out many of observations in your OP.

Lastly, you are right, Krugman did not like the gas tax idea. I was referring more to the last 6 months.