I just tuned in five minutes late to Air America's The Rachel Maddow Show, which simulcasts MSNBC's Race for the White House in it's first hour, only to hear that Maddow is taking David Gregory's post as moderator today (I missed the explanation for why at the beginning).  This is very interesting, not least because Gregory is one of the front runners to take over Meet the Press.  It also speaks to the increasing inevitability that Maddow will soon get her own show on the network.  Race will be around until November, presubmably.  If Gregory does get MTP, it is possible they'll make her the moderator until then?

Last night on MSNBC Rachel Maddow made an interesting observation: every time Hillary Clinton wins a primary, the narrative in the media becomes about counting down to the next "make or break" contest as though a loss for her would in fact end the campaign. Clinton keeps winning "when she needs to", of course, so the theory hasn't really been tested but Maddow I think quite rightly called this phenomenon the primary election equivalent of the Friedman unit. "2 more weeks...6 more weeks...2 more weeks." Adam Nagourney in today's NYTimes is a perfect example:

Even with her comfortable victory on Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton still faces significant, though certainly not insurmountable, hurdles to securing the nomination, and it remains possible that her candidacy could come to an end in as little as two weeks, when Indiana and North Carolina vote.

Maddow's point, of course, is that this is a ridiculous assertion and the media needs to stop falling for it; no matter what happens on May 6th, this. primary. will. continue. Hillary Clinton signaled as much with the timing of a couple upcoming fundraisers. From Ben Smith:

My colleague Ken Vogel notes that Clinton has planned two fundraisers -- one with Hillary, Chelsea, and Dorothy; one with the Arkansas delegation -- for the day after Indiana and North Carolina.

Another media narrative that gets propagated every time Clinton wins another primary is how bad the continued race is for the Democratic Party. Again, Nagourney, whose article, I should point out, is linked on the frontpage of Huffington Post with the alarmist headline: "And The Winner Is: John McCain," provides a case study:

For better or worse -- and many Democrats fear it is for worse -- the race goes on.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defeated Senator Barack Obama in Pennsylvania on Tuesday by enough of a margin to continue a battle that Democrats increasingly believe is undermining their effort to unify the party and prepare for the general election against Senator John McCain.

I must give credit though, MSNBC's post-primary coverage today has given much air time to the opposing view. The heads of both the North Carolina and Indiana Democratic Parties were interviewed separately but essentially said the same thing: the energy and the boosts in registration and operations on the ground that the extended primary is affording their states will be good for the Democrat in November. And I just caught Matt Stoller on MSNBC as well, essentially re-iterating the spirit of his "Democrats Are Going To Be Fine" post from last night:

ANCHOR: Do you think Pennsylvania even matters?

STOLLER: Yeah, we have a huge registration advantage in Pennsylvania, activists are excited, voters voted, it was really good for Democrats. Democracy is a good thing. Now I think both candidates, Obama and Clinton, are leading McCain in Pennsylvania, so it's good.

What Matt is referring to here is this morning's Rasmussen Reports story "While Campaigning for Primary, both Democrats Gain Ground on McCain":

While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to compete against each other in Pennsylvania's Presidential Primary, both Democrats have opened a lead over John McCain in the Keystone State.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania finds Obama leading McCain 47% to 39% and Clinton with a 47% to 38% advantage. That's a significant change from a month ago when McCain was essentially even with both Democrats.

It's no accident that the talking heads who've been most ardently pushing the "Democrats in disarray" narrative have been rightwing pundits who have an interest in projecting their opposing party as weak. It would be nice if such a pillar of the liberal blogosphere as HuffPo didn't join the fun.

Update [2008-4-23 14:12:15 by Todd Beeton]:Along these same lines, Bill Daley, Obama's National Co-Chair, made a good point a few minutes ago on MSNBC:

But this is a tough process and as Senator Obama has said he's introducing himself, he is still new to the American people and so in a strange way this process may be very good for him in that he is able to go to parts of this country and make the case as a new fresh face on the American scene that he can make a difference.

OK . . . maybe for President of NBC!

Rachel Maddow on Countdown this week:

I feel like I`ve become kind of a semi-pro listener to the news, where I`m always listening for Democratic candidates and even their surrogates to say John McCain.  Every time I hear them say it, a little bell goes off in my mind, because that`s what I think Democrats--anybody who has an interest in John McCain not becoming president, whether or not you support Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Ralph Nader or anybody else in the race, Mike Gravel as the Libertarian, if you want John McCain to not win, you have to start hitting him now, because the default position of the press toward John McCain is so positive that unless other candidates are actively and specifically going after him all the time, his free ride takes him right to the White House.

I understand that people seem to fancy the distortion tactics we see so frequently as a means to further a bias as we see from political reporters or strategists, but doesn't it go a bit far to make a false claim?

A blogger actually posts a diary with a claim "Hillary:McCain would be better than Obama", and no where is that supported in the few quotations distorted from the CBS blog that he linked from a couple of days ago.

In a few threads here at at Huff in the last couple months many people named Rachel Maddow as their first choice replacement for Tucker Carlson should MSNBC decide to class up its act.  In fact, Rachel was the name most-often suggested.  I made the point a couple times that one factor MSNBC would clearly be considering was finding someone that would strengthen their election coverage specials.  Rachel would fit that bill nicely, I said. (It's pretty obvious Tucker does not.)

What joy, then, to see Rachel seated at the 'grown-ups' table last night, right alongside Howard Fineman.  A quick search turns up a couple extensive threads about her appearance last night, especially the contrast she strikes with Matthews - check out Crooks & Liars and DemocraticUnderground.com (I'd insert the links if I knew how - I'm a newbie to the diaries.)

As for the on-air discussion itself, I'll just say there was a wholly remarkable moment towards the end, when Chris was on a tear about partisan egos being the root of all our problems - barked at Fineman, who was given no opportunity to do anything but smile.  A truly embarrassing moment.  When Chris finally ran out of breath, though, Rachel smartly and gracefully trimmed his sails, and Keith then (happily, I'm sure) took us out to a commercial.  (Clip online at http://www.maddowfans.com/blog/?p=171 )