Taking a look at why Clinton's down but not out

Chuck Todd's got an interesting article up on MSNBC this morning. Titled "Can Clinton Win Over Superdelegates?" Todd's write points out some primary-related issues being primarily overlooked. For example, here he is on why the Clinton legacy may dredge up bad memories for the Democrats:

Simply take a look at Bill Clinton's record from '92 to '00 and you’ll understand why they're having a harder time corralling party activists and elected officials to their side.

Remember, when his name was on the ballot ('92 and '96) the Democratic party lost Senate seats both times. Never mind the beating the party took in '94; a walloping often blamed on both Bill and Hillary.
Even in '98, which was, perhaps, the most successful Congressional election of the Clinton era, the party netted zero Senate seats and gained less than a handful of House seats.

Here's Todd on why the media's got Clinton still in the game:

A Clinton always finds a way to survive, so goes the myth.

Bill Clinton has escaped political death more times than any politician in history. And profiles of Hillary Clinton are rarely written without the word "resilient" being featured prominently.

Todd also spends some time explaining both the media bias towards keeping the campaign going and towards going with what history's taught:

Many a reporter believes that someone with the last name of "Clinton" should never be counted out.

My signif - who pointed me to Todd's write - often asks if there's media bias in covering the campaigns. I agree with Chuck that there's certainly desire to keep the contest going. However, it's most likely not an agenda outwardly discussed. It's much simpler than that. When there's actually something to talk about, it's better TV so too many producers and reporters fail to dig too deeply into whether there is really any there there.

But contrary to frequent assumption, I've never seen evidence of any larger conspiracy or agenda. Maybe something's happening with the suits well above my pay grade that I don't know about, but as for the newsies in the trenches where I've served, the grind is more about making a story come together and getting it on air in time than anything more complicated or coordinated.

DISCLAIMER: I've known Chuck for about 8 years now. I consider him to be one of the best and most sincere when it comes to dissecting politics and crunching the numbers. He's just a good guy who's good at what he does. Chuck knows his stuff.