CNN "Commentator" Paul Begala

One of the most important parts of spinning the electorate is receiving positive unpaid media attention. Last night, I saw this taken to a new low as a Clinton surrogate appeared on CNN as a neutral commentator. What makes this so effective is not the surrogate part, but the "neutral commentator" part. The persuasive effect is compounded by the fact that no other campaign had a vehement supporter advocating for it under the guise of a neutral commentator. Unknowing voters are watching CNN while Clinton is subtly spinning the election results and receiving remarkable unpaid advertising.

Let me back up a minute. As I have been following the primaries, I have watched CNN and Fox News extensively. Although I really like Bill Kristol on Fox News, I have tended to watch CNN as I feel that CNN offers a wider array of more talented commentators. However, I have felt that CNN's "Democratic Strategist" and "Commentator" Paul Begala was really just a subtle Clinton surrogate. As other commentators criticized and praised candidates, Begala only praised Clinton and only criticized her opponents.

What is so effective about this is most viewers do not know Paul Begala's history. Paul Begala's official CNN biography states the following:

"He first entered the national political scene after his consulting firm, Carville & Begala, helped elect President Bill Clinton in 1992. Serving in the Clinton administration as counselor to the president, he helped define and defend the administration's agenda and served as the principal public spokesman." (source)

The Washington Post calls "Paul Begala a campaign strategist for [Hillary's] husband and a Hillary Clinton supporter" (source).

Given that Begala has been an unabashed supporter of the Clintons for over 15 years and nearly joined Hillary's campaign (see source: Fox News), why is he appearing as a neutral commentator on CNN's election night coverage?

Last night, this subtle persuasive spin became to much to take. Given that I have not noticed an Obama or McCain surrogate under the disguise of a neutral commentator, it just seemed patently unfair and biased. But, what else should we expect from the Clintons.

For evidence of Begals's persuasive spin commentary, consider the following excerpts from the CNN transcript:

"[ANDERSON] COOPER: What gives you hope for Hillary Clinton and what makes you worried about her tonight?

BEGALA: [Begala briefly mentions Hillary's defeat in Georgia.] A lot of good news in Tennessee. She won the John Edwards vote in Tennessee. In fact, if I was a Barack Obama supporter, I'd be very concerned. Barack did 24 percent of the white vote in South Carolina, 24 percent in Tennessee, no growth. Hillary --" (source)

Let's remember that Barack beat Hillary in Iowa (a white state if ever there was one). Andersoon Cooper, ostensibly realizing that Begala is giving only half the story, chimes in:

"COOPER: That's huge growth in Georgia for Barack Obama.

BEGALA: Yes, he campaigned hard there, didn't campaigned hard enough apparently in Tennessee. Now, he spent about $300,000. He had a presence there. He had some ads on and pulled them down, but he's got to be concerned. Now, Hillary moved 27 points among white voters in Tennessee. I think it's because she focused on the economy. She had a town hall meeting focused on the economy, instead of all the issues in the world, 3,500 people showed up in Nashville." (source).

So Barack should be concerned because Hillary had 3,500 people show up to an event? But, Paul Begala should know that Barack Obama is receiving record crowds at his events. For example, on February 2, 2008, Barack Obama held a rally in Idaho that attracted more than 14,000 people (source).

But, Begla kept on spinning. On another segment, Lou Dobbs questioned Begala:

"[DOBBS]: I want to turn, if I may, over to you Paul Begala. Where will Senator Clinton in this contest with Senator Obama, where will she have to make end roads and show strength?"

"BEGALA: Well, I think she wants to reach up for example into Massachusetts. That should be Obama's state. The governor there, Deval Patrick, is a close friend of Barack's, endorsed him early and then John Kerry and then the big kahuna Teddy Kennedy. But you know, a lot of democrats up there have been saying surprisingly she's doing quite well there." (source).

Why didn't Paul Begala mention that Hillary had been polling about 20 points ahead for a long time (until about two weeks ago, when she lost the inevitability factor)? (source)