Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Cross posted at No Quarter

Something unusual has occurred during the past few days. An actual journalist has been questioning what has become the conventional wisdom concerning Hillary's campaign. Finally we have a respected person bringing in other respected people to discuss the issue of this Democratic nomination process without the constant influx of lies that the Obamedia has perpetuated.

This rational discussion began March 31st on Lou Dobbs Tonight. A segment of the show was dedicated to the negative media bias against Hillary. [The VIDEOS are BELOW.] Perhaps most significant was the fact that Dobbs actually presented hard evidence that proved that the media was biased in favor of Obama.

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT

Those voices in favor of Senator Obama say Senator Clinton should end her campaign for quote "the good of the party." And that a long campaign would quote "tear the party apart and ensure a Republican victory in November", but when it comes to the largest audiences the three nightly broadcast newscasts, the bias is seemingly most pronounced. The nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs has found that since last December, 83 percent of the reporting on Senator Obama was positive. Only 53 percent of the reporting on Senator Clinton was positive.

30% is a significant difference!
It seems clear that this pro-Obama media bias (Obamedia) is an intentional strategy concocted by the Obama campaign and the Obama media supporters.

Howard Kurtz, the Host of CNN'S RELIABLE SOURCES explains the strategy best. By keeping these all these calls for Hillary to drop out of the race in the news, it makes it impossible to use her best weapon in the arsenal: discussing the issues and presenting her solutions for America. If all people are talking about is how Hillary getting out now would be for the good of the party, or if she stays in and prolongs this nomination process it will tear the party apart and ensure a Republican victory in November then people won't even listen to Hillary's great progressive solutions to move our country forward. Because the solutions won't be covered. And that is exactly what has been happening.

I think that should be up to the voters to decide and I think that by making this topic (A) in the race, it means that her message can't get through on the economy or... Well, some of the stories have made that clear apparently, for example, calling on her to bow out. But look at my newspaper, "The Washington Post", on Saturday front page headline, Clinton resist calls to drop out; Sunday front page headline, Clinton vows to stay in the race until convention, although that was an interview initiated by the senator saying that she is not getting out, but we won't let her talk about anything else.

Get that? She won't be able to talk about anything else. Her plan to fix the economy... means nothing. "She should do what is right for the party." Her plan to provide for everyone to have health insurance... "but she can't get enough delegates for the nomination". Hillary up by double digits in PA, WV, KY and IN... "she is giving this election to McCain."

See how easy this strategy works?

Lanny Davis had the courage to say what many of us have been thinking and writing about not so quietly for so long: This dreadful obvious double standard.

The second point, very quickly, Lou, is the double standard. We had this tremendous media frenzy, because I believe she made an honest mistake where news reporters at the time described and this is from the "Charleston Gazette" at the time in Bosnia that there were snipers protecting the first lady in a combat zone. She made an honest mistake when she said she was fired upon and we had two days or three days of media frenzy.

Now in the last three days we had Barack Obama on the front page of "The Post" yesterday where he misrepresented his father coming over to America through the use of Kennedy money. We have him taking credit for an immigration bill which he actually according to Senator Dodd had very little to do with. We have him saying that he didn't know that Rezko was involved in wrongdoing...

So you all see how this double standard works now, Right? It is a very simple strategy.

First of all smear Hillary as a racist and a divisive figure who is only interested in herself and doesn't care about the party. Gloss over the fact that Obama has a 20 year intimate relationship with a racist and a bigot. Kill that "typical white person" story. Next, make the case that she is a liar and reinforce that Republican meme by finding a single mistake she made and blowing it up as if it was an international incident. Cover up the fact that Obama lied about Selma and about his father's relationship to JFK. Ignore the fact that Hillary has actually been all over the world and has met with countless foreign leaders while Obama couldn't even find the time to convene an important meeting concerning NATO and Afghanistan. Facts hardly matter. Then, harp on the facts everyone already knows. She cannot win enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright. But ignore the fact that Obama can't either. And finally make her appear evil to actually want the entire country to decide who the nominee of our party is rather than do what traitors like Bill thirty pieces of silver Richardson, Pat democracy only when it makes me look important Leahy and Chris will you please convince the people of Connecticut to love me again.. here Dodd suggest.

It is a very undemocratic strategy to be certain. And in fact it is reminiscent of some of the most heinous Republican smear campaigns ever enacted. This makes Bush's McCain sired a black baby campaign look like child's play. People like Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod should be proud to have taken this Democratic party into the realm of fascism, party bosses, henchmen and thugs that this Chicago style Obama campaign prides itself on. They will certainly go down in the history books as the most vile campaign managed in recent history.

But here... have a look for yourself what was said on Dobbs show Sunday night.

Pretty cool eh? Well, maybe not if someone is an Obama supporter.

The best thing to all of this is that Dobbs didn't just let the story go. It wasn't a token gesture of actual journalism. No, Dobbs brought back what I consider to be a forgotten time, when journalists actually reported the news and did so in a manner that merely reported the cold hard facts accurately. Dobbs is not a talking head. He is someone that Murrow would be proud of. And to those who don't know who I am referring to, it doesn't surprise me in the least.

For the second night of examining the Obamedia anti-Hillary bias Dobbs decided to level the playing field. He started out stating the obvious point that no one else seems to be discussing.

Clinton Makes Declaration to Fight Until the End

As an Independent and I've got no view one way or the other on the Republican or the Democratic side of this thing. But what you said was she can't win the nomination. Neither can Senator Obama.

Neither can Senator Obama! It's about time someone actually said that. And it explains exactly why they want Hillary to get out of the race. Because in their eyes, Hillary is standing in the way of the Democratic party of making history. God, what a bunch of undemocratic, misogynistic, fascist hacks.

But Dobbs wasn't satisfied just to state the obvious point that no one has even been whispering, he lays the whole thing out in a manner that even Axelrod and Plouffe won't be able to explain away. Nor Saint Obama the Unifier, for saying it was ok with him if Hillary stayed in the race. So kind of his arrogant, pompous, privileged ass don't you think?

And she has the lead in super delegate votes, so why in the world is there this compulsion, this absolute insistence in the national media to talk about the fact she can't win the nomination? Neither can Senator Obama. And I have never seen in my career greater favoritism being applied in the national media broadly speaking than in this campaign in behalf of Senator Obama and against Senator Clinton.

You know something Lou? I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime either. Not in over a half century. And frankly, it seems more like fascism than democracy to me. Pure propaganda. While the current bias of the media does not violate the letter of the law because it is not Congress that is suppressing the press, we are surely witnessing a concerted assault to the spirit of the law. And it is a grave insult and injustice to all those gallant patriots that have sacrificed their lives and limbs to protect our Constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of the Press.

And what of our voice? Our votes? Yes, that guaranteed expression of our voices has been suppressed as well. But not by the Congress. It has been suppressed by none other than the Democratic National Committee. Coming soon to an oxymoron near you. Yes Howard I am from the Autocratic wing of the Democratic party Dean has determined that the unfair rules that three states (IA, NH and SC) are allowed to violate are more important than the votes of every state.

There is nothing more unfair than not, not to have those votes counted in Michigan and Florida. And if this is decided by super delegates without recognizing and counting and enfranchising those voters in Michigan and Florida, that's when we'll hear something unfair is it not?

Well a division of the delegates is not a vote. And a vote is required to be Democratic with both a small "d" and a large "D" in both in Michigan and in Florida. Can we agree on that, gentlemen?

That bears repeating: A division of the delegates is not a vote. I don't know how anyone could have spoken this clearer.

In closing I leave you with the Mr. Dobbs himself. Because these printed words cannot possibly describe the absolute clarity and relevance of this wonderful American's voice. Our country needs a lot more journalists like Lou Dobbs.

He is beginning to cause me to reexamine my objection to human cloning.



Display:


Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (1.11 / 9)

WWaaaaaaaaahhhhhh the media are being poopy heads.  They are meanies and I don't like them.

You guys sound like Brent Bozell as this goes on!

McCain/Clinton 08!


My dream is Hillary will sponser a joint resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Trinity Church
by denounceandreject on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:41:55 PM EST

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 7)

Your sig line is obscene. This diary is right. When is the last time you heard ANYTHING about issues????
by Dave B on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 7)

Try to ignore the swarm. They only cause dispersion and confusion. That is their job. If you ignore them it is healthier for your sanity.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:58:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 7)

Hey welcome back! Great to see your diary, and yes it's totally right on.

I get so angry watching the msm sometimes I want to spit. Their conniving way of slanting things when they are not outright pillorying Hillary is maddening.

And it was infuriating the way they refused to cover her economic plan. Of course if they did cover it then it would become obvious how much more in command of the issues she is, over BO. We can't have that now, can we?


by 07rescue on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:26:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 3)

That is EXACTLY their plan: To keep Hillary from discussing the issues. Because she wins every time.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your whole premise is preposterous (none / 0)

How soon you forget. Just 2 weeks ago it was Obama who was in the MSM's doghouse, and you loved it.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:00:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Boy, are YOU RIGHT - Look at THIS video, then... (2.00 / 1)

the media coverage of same..

The video of Elizabeth Edwards this morning on MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/ 23919149#23919149

My take on the main thing she was TRYING to say - 1.) Hillary's health plan is the ONLY ONE THAT WORKS FOR SICK PEOPLE.

2.) The main problems with the other plans, is cost-shifting, which will negate their whole purpose by making the FULL COST of healthcare unaffordable, even if high deductable, or low-coverage 'insurance' becomes affordable, for employers OR employees... (in other words, the statistics look good, but PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK GET STUCK WITH HUGE BILLS or worse, get dumped, or cant afford to buy the insurance at all. They still pay much more than they can afford..

Thats (IMO) what she went on the show to say...

Notice also that while she was trying to make her points, she was trying to talk VERY FAST, so the idiot commentators, could not interrupt her..

Look at what the commentators asked her.. how the commentators tried to steer her to the sound bytes THEY wanted to get - anti-Hillary, pro-Obama sound bytes..

Knowing that few people would watch the video..

Then, look at the news coverage...

here's an example..

"On NBC's "Today," Elizabeth Edwards criticized McCain's health care proposal for not covering pre-existing conditions. Denied New York magazine report that she and Obama quarreled over his plan, though said Obama does not believe his plan is "truly universal." Said she does not believe continued fighting is bad for Democrats."

"On MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Elizabeth Edwards again swiped McCain's health care plan. Said she and her husband may not endorse the same candidate. Denied report that Obama was condescending when they met recently, calling him "charming."

What do people think, is the MSM biased pro-Obama, anti-Hillary, and especially, anti-CHANGE..


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:01:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Sinister Swarm? That's so elitist!. (none / 0)

The unwashed masses huh?

It's 2008 not 1908.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:03:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 1)

If the HRC campaign is using Jeremiah Wright to try to make super delegates fear nominating Obama, what right to HRC supporters have to complain that the media isn't talking issues?

Their own candidate isn't talking issues.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:01:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (1.00 / 1)

hush with your facts and logic

/ I read that somewhere in Obama's kindergarten essays!


My dream is Hillary will sponser a joint resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Trinity Church
by denounceandreject on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:07:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 2)

It is indeed a rare occurrence these days. Thanks!


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:11:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 3)

I thought they banned you? They should for that sig line.


allprogressives.com
by Scan on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:13:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (none / 0)

Bias is bias.


by christinep on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:06:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Brilliant... (2.00 / 8)

And spot on target!

Highly Recommended!


by MediaFreeze on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:44:37 PM EST

Re: Brilliant... (2.00 / 4)

Thank you!


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:10:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's ask the next question: Why? (2.00 / 5)

Why do you think the media is so biased in favor of Obama?

This is not an idle question. I believe that it is a very profound issue that drives to the heart of what is going on here. People's lack of scepticism about why the media would be so biased in favor of Obama drives right to the heart of the power of this unique and dangerous Republican propaganda regime that is the US media today.

By and large, I'm sure that people on these blogs, whether Obama or Clinton supporters have absolutely no problem with the conclusion that the media has a heavy bias toward the Republicans and their agenda. There are always two Republican commentators for every Democrat. Even the so called moderates spout Republican talking points day in and day out. All we need to do is look at the selling of the war in Iraq and the whitewash of Republican corruption. It is very clear that the media is biased in favor of the Republicans and the Republican agenda. The rise of alternative media, like these blogs, is in large part due to an attempt to tell truth to power, in effect to provide some balance against the Republican bias of the media. This bias is pervasive. I hope we can agree on that.

Why does this bias exist? The answer is very simple. The Republicans own the media. The corporations that own the media are run by Republicans. Those corporations do very very well under Republican administrations. It is that simple.

It is not the good of the people, or the good of the country that is at issue here. It is the good of the corporations that are busy transfering huge sums from public coffers into their private accounts. Wars, loose regulation, and tax policy are just a few of the means for this wholesale theft of the public trust. Democrats would bring in regulation, higher taxes, hearings into corrupt practices. This, of course, the corporations can not allow.

How do these corporations enforce this bias? Easy. It just comes down from on high. Program directors and commentators are not completely stupid. They know what their bosses want to hear. They understand when they are doing something that is OK, and when they are risking the wrath of the board room. Every now and then someone gets out of line. Remember Mike Donahue? I hardly do, but you can bet today's popular talking heads sure understand what can happen if you stray too far for too long. Of course, it is important to present some patina of "impartiality," so Keith gets to do his special comments," and Lou Dobbs gets to rant about the corporations, but they are the exceptions that prove the underlying gameplan. They are consistently marginalized by three or four to one. A parade of pundits spouting the prescribed talking points from the script--over and over--beating us down through repetition.

So, why are they for Obama then? He's a liberal. He says things that should send a shudder through the boardrooms of America. Why do they love him so?

Let's recap. The media is a Republican propaganda machine. The media is demonstrating clear, almost fanatical bias for the very progressive Obama. Why?

Obama supporters simply chose to believe that the media tiger has changed its stripes and is now so smitten with this man that they have become believers in his messages of hope and change and togetherness and whatever, but let's be a little more sceptical.

Say you are a finalist in a big tennis tournament. You are watching the semi-final from the other bracket. Now, do you want the better, stronger player to win? Or do you want the weaker player to get lucky and squeak by? The answer is obvious. Let's say your buddy is the chair umpire... You see where I am going.

Why is it so damn hard for people to see that the media is making Obama, so they can break him in the general? If I have the power to choose who my opponent will be in the general election, I want to pick the one who I know I can rip to shreds. This is not rocket science. It is a simple strategy of warfare. Give support to your weaker enemy to destroy the stronger enemy, then crush him.

People say...tin foil hat...conspiracy theory. That's just because they want to keep denying the obvious. Once Clinton is dispensed with, the media will pivot. They will turn on Obama and it will not be a pretty sight. If they make you they can break you. Obama was made by the media and as such they can take him apart. The one they fear is Clinton. She has been taking their shots for years and years and she's still standing. If she gets through to the general, they won't have anything new to spend on her. She can win the election. That's what the media is trying to prevent by annointing Obama the nominee.


by MediaFreeze on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:02:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's ask the next question: Why? (2.00 / 3)

Spot on!

This is the thing that baffles me the most about Obamacans. We all knew at one point the media was nothing more than a propaganda arm of the Repub Party. We knew it. Some of us still do. But a whole bunch of us -- those who have jumped on the O-bandwagon -- have decided to forget it for the time being.

So when Hillary's campaign goes to the SD and points out the ways that O will be stomped back to reality if he's the nominee, I think it is their duty and obligation to do this. I would hope the SD's are intelligent enough to figure this out for themselves, but then again, I thought the lefty netroots would figure it out, too...


by jen on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's ask the next question: Why? (none / 0)

Has it ever occurred to either of you that, if the MSM is a vast-right-wing conspiracy as you allege, either of our candidates, in fact ANY of our candidates is going to have it rough?

Do you really think it will be harder for Obama than for Clinton...?  You have got to be kidding me!  ANY Democrat has it rough against ANY Republican.  But especially this year when we are going up against the-man-who-could-do-know-wrong... John McCain.  This can actually be countered fairly easily given the vast majority of people view the MSM unfavorably.

Seriously though, trotting out a theory that the Super Delegates should be afraid to nominate Obama because he is an invention of the media and they will turn on him?  That is my new winner for weakest argument for giving Clinton the nomination.


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's ask the next question: Why? (none / 0)

To answer your first question I will pose one of my own. You do know that we support Hillary Clinton, right?


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:54:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Okay, I have still to be convinced.. (2.00 / 1)

Seriously..

that Obama is a real Democrat..

Look, for example, at his vote on this vote in the Senate.. on whether banks should be prevented from charging more than 30% - yes, THIRTY PERCENT annual interest on home loans..

HE VOTED NO!!!!!!

I actually at this point, think Obama is some kind of 'Manchurian candidate'.. (no offense intended to the people of Manchuria today, I am referring to the 1950s movie..)

No, I am not a nut, I just have seen too much and read too much to be complacent. The right is smart, and EVIL.

And a LOT of money is at stake. They are the most sophisticated, biggest thieves in the world.

Let me put it this way, to get my vote, you have to be a real Democrat.

I don't read the label, I go by ACTIONS.


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:10:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's ask the next question: Why? (2.00 / 1)

Of course Obama will have a tougher time. First, there will be professionally made 527 ads that will look like this only much worse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqp o4
And then there is the 30% of Clinton supporters that dislike him enough and are angry enough to either vote for McCain or stay home. (This percentage is growing by the day....)
And then there are all of Obama's other favorite characters - Rezko, Auchi, Meeks, etc. So far the media hasn't mentioned them. Just wait. The house deal, the 'present' votes, the wishy-washy voting record, the lack of experience and accomplishments - should I go on?
Because most of these things contain new information to the electorate, they will put him under.
by georgiast on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:54:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's ask the next question: Why? (none / 0)

You may be right, I maybe crazy....

However, I think a bigger reason for the media bias is they want this to drag on and on because it sells papers.  

Another reason they maybe biased is because basically, they don't like the Clintons from Bill days in the White House.


by chewie5656 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think a lot of black people HATE Bill Clinton (2.00 / 1)

because of his so called 'welfare reform' which basically acknowledged the de-facto disappearance of unskilled jobs and told people that there was a (four or five year, I forget) limit on welfare benefits WHETHER JOBS EXISTED THERE FOR THEM OR NOT.

many poor people are in no position to criticize him on that, but inside they are still SEETHING because those jobs aren't out there for them, they are being taken by illegal immigrants and there is ZERO chance for advancement, no benefits, etc. (and when they take these jobs, they LOSE healtcare benefits)

Many poor people don't have cars, childcare is next to impossible for them, and increasingly, they are being driven out of cheap apartments in desirable central city areas as gas prices go up, into suburban areas that are less friendly to both minorities and pedestrians. Their lives are falling apart.. and nobody is listening except the wife of the person who did that to them. So by flocking to Obama they are grasping at a very thin straw because the truth is just TERRIFYING to them, the truth being that they all have to accept that they are going to have to start living like illegal imigrants if they want to sav any money at all to get out of their mess.. which means doubling or tripling up in apartments, giving up all luxuries like cell phones and prepared food, and basically living like monks and working 16 hours a day, for years, with no promise that things will get better.

I am not talking about the black middle class, i am talking about the underclass, many of whom have problems like low literacy levels and non-work-friendly language habits.. plus the burden of children and lack of drivers license and car..

I grew up poor, worked my way up got the second highest SAT in my class, but had to drop out of college three times.. the first tie I got into a good college, but I couldnt afford books and I had nowhere to go during summer break (I had had to run away from home to go to college, dont even ask..) The thing that saved me was that I loved to read.. I read a lot..and I liked science, hoping against hope that I could be a scientist some day.
I took out loans.. got other family members to sign papers saying my mother was crazy.. (she - despite my high SAT, didn't want me to go to college, afraid that she might be asked to pay something!)

The third time, i went to a community college.. and I was blown away by the people who were being sent into the classes I was in.. many could barely read...


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:24:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry about my spelling errors. (2.00 / 1)

I make mistakes when I get emotional.. among other things.. I do know how to spell.. I should slow down.. trying to type as I think or I forget.


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:28:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

correction.. on TMI.. (none / 0)

sorry.. papers were that mother was not supporting me.. at age 17.. not that she was crazy..

anyway, the point I am trying to make is that many poor people have had it hard, very hard, and that the MSM and really, anyone who has not been there has no idea. NO idea.. Now lots of new poor people are competing with the longtime poor for the same pool of limited resources, and the economy is getting worse for them, and the relaistic person would say that massive change was necessary - but nobody wants to deal with that. So denial is the order of the day. I know this sounds like a strong parallel to draw but imagine you were a Jew living somewhere in Eastern Europe in the late 30s. Things are getting worse, you know you have to do something, but the things that make sense involve too much sacrifice for people and they disrupt their lives. They also feel as if this country owes them something and to some extent, it does.

This is the check that MLK mentioned that came back marked 'insufficient funds' - do you know what I mean?

But, in a sense, the ruling class of the US has strung us all along on that Horatio Alger myth for so long.. they just wanted to keep people coming here and growing the economy..sort of like MLM, but also afraid to promote from within the ranks.. Now, nobody gets promoted from within the ranks, they hire MBAs from without.. at least during GOP administrations, people without college degrees dont get hired by HR staff, the have to get hired by the people they will work with, despite them.

And work five times as hard, take no days off.. etc.


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:44:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's ask the next question: Why? (none / 0)

I agree with you. This is a profound question and a profound subject. But deep thought isn't exactly found among several in the other camp.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:52:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 1)

I don't think very many people who argue that the media hasn't been the best thing for hillary,

but we aren't going to allow you to go, so see she should be the nominee.

she knew coming in that Her and the Media were not friends after her stint in the WH, she wanted to run she has to deal with it.

is it fair? no, but you are an adult you know life is not always fair.

ok you have proven the Media is unfair to Hillary now what?


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:46:36 PM EST

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (none / 0)

Gotta agree. I mean, this is the campaign who made the media report from a men's restroom at one of her campaign stops here. And that was during the month-long period when Clinton was the darling of the media and Obama couldn't have gotten positive coverage if he cured cancer.

If that's not abject lack of respect for the media, I can't imagine what is. Sooner or later it was going to come back and bite the Clinton campaign pretty hard. It's starting to look like this might be the time.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wonder who the Supers prefer?? (2.00 / 2)

It is commonly accepted that the remaining super-delegates are more progressive than your average Democrat. The remaining supers are more the latte-liberal crowd, as opposed to the DLC-moderate crowd.

I actually agree with much of the DLC moderate positions, but support Obama for other reasons.

The supers can read through all this spin, and don't care what Lou Dobbs or Lanny Davis has to say. They also don't care what Olbermann has to say . . . though they may be more in line with Keith.

The narrative on MyDD needs to shift to McCain . . . that is how you are going to win supers . . . not by whining about the "liberal media."


by FOB92 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:48:40 PM EST

Well said. n/t (2.00 / 1)


by McNasty on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wonder who the Supers prefer?? (1.00 / 4)

latte-liberal?

Isn't that just milk and coffee?

McCain/Clinton 08!


My dream is Hillary will sponser a joint resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Trinity Church
by denounceandreject on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:57:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wonder who the Supers prefer?? (2.00 / 2)

Actually, the opposite has been written about Superdelegates in every single instance I have ever read.  It has been said time and time again that they are conservative Democrats, and for good reason - they want to produce a candidate that will win in a general election, and your odds of doing that are much better with someone that leans toward the center.

Obama has proven this with his own campaign - disavowing his previously liberal positions and pretending to be moderate - going so far as to deny filling out a survey in 2006 that has his own handwriting on it!

So, please provide a source to support your counter-intuitive suggestion that super-delegates lean Left of the party.

I don't think you can do it.

And if your point was to suggest that Obama is the more progressive candidate, I disagree.  Universal healthcare and one person, one vote are bedrock principles of the progressive movement.  Those are also principles that Obama has faught against in this campaign.


by bobbank on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:02:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wonder who the Supers prefer?? (none / 0)

The supers may be conservative in how they choose their candidate, but not on the issues.

They also know that a Presidential Election is more about Personality, and less about substance. That is a cold analysis, but it is why many DEMS went for style (BILL) over substance (TSONGAS) in 1992.


by FOB92 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:05:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wonder who the Supers prefer?? (2.00 / 1)

Well, show me a source that documents/explains/supports your assertion that Superdelegates are Left of Left.  Otherwise, it seems like you are just trying to shift the argument at this point.  You say you are offering a "cold analysis" but actually you are just stating your opinion.


by bobbank on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wonder who the Supers prefer?? (2.00 / 1)

Who can win the general. Take off the blinders. Get real.


by christinep on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:09:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wonder who the Supers prefer?? (none / 0)

McCain is not a saint. Both DEMS will tear his adulterous past apart.


by FOB92 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:54:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wonder who the Supers prefer?? (2.00 / 1)

I honestly have no idea what you mean.

Part of what makes this primary so frustrating is that we do not have any real metric or indication that one of these candidates will do better against McCain than the other.

For some of us, Wright is so much Swift Boat fodder that the notion of Obama surviving at all seems silly.  But no poll or number or result has yet validated that belief.  So it remains just that: a belief.

It is the same for people who are convinced that Hillary cannot win because there will be some mass exodus, especially African American, from the party.  But no poll or number or result has ever validated that belief either.

So when you say "get real", I honestly have no idea what you mean.  If "get real" means "stop being emotional and look at facts", then here are the unemotional facts:

Both candidates have made a rational, compelling case that they have a good chance of winning the election.  Neither candidate has made a compelling case that he/she is better suited at this than his/her competitor.

Spinless facts are so boring, eh?


by bobbank on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:25:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (none / 0)

Lou Dobbs!  LOL.  I used to respect Lou Dobbs, but his taking the Clintons side against Obama is so funny that I can't help but wonder why he is letting personal feelings about Obama getting in the way of his reporting.  If he continues on this road nobody will take him serious.  Again, Lou Dobbs and the Clintons.  Who would have thought it?


by Spanky on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:52:19 PM EST

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (1.00 / 6)

Hey Karl Rove loves Clinton as well

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/0 4/02/rove_on_hillary_clinton.html

McCain/Clinton 08!


My dream is Hillary will sponser a joint resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Trinity Church
by denounceandreject on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (none / 0)

And this is the 2nd diary on the recommended list praising him today!

Seriously, what kind of alternate universe is this?

I hate to break this to his fans... but Lou Dobbs is a talking head.  First he composes the narrative and then finds whatever source will back it up.  He did that with his rants about anti-immigration and used some incredibly specious arguments to "prove" his points.  The leprosy rate argument.... OMG!  My head twirled like Linda Blair.

He is Bill O'Reilly with an Economics background.  He also has a fairly serious axe to grind with Obama.  Just as I am immediately leery of people with a confirmed anti-Clinton agenda, so I am with people with confirmed anti-Obama agendas.  Lou Dobbs constructs the narrative and then finds whatever facts he can cherry-pick to support them.

I realize he is your God right now since he does not like Obama, but wait until the general... if Clinton gets the nomination, he will eviscerate her.  He may not like McCain, but he hates Democrats.

Now then...  has the media been unfair to Clinton...?  Yes and no.  They allowed her to trumpet things without checking them out, but then got around to checking them out.  Have the been unfair to Obama...?  Yes and no.  They allowed him to trumpet things without checking them out, but then got around to checking them out.  Are they talking about issues..?  Hell no!  The media has an absolute stake in keeping this race going.  The more mud slung the better.    The media absolutely loves an uninformed electorate.  They are much more reactionary than reasoned.


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:30:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

let's assume the media is biased (2.00 / 1)

why would the Democratic Party nominate a standard bearer who is disliked by the media?

What do Democratic constituents get out of nominating the candidate who is weaker at managing the media?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:56:10 PM EST

Re: let's assume the media is biased (none / 0)

This kind of thinking by HRC and her supporters make it seems like she's striving to be the righteous victim.

The Democratic Party didn't nominate Bill Clinton in 1992 b/c they were looking for a righteous victim. The party had "been there, done that". The Dems wanted to win.

For HRC it seems like winning is convincing a passionate minority that the rules should be retroactively changed so that in some alternate reality Clinton would win.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary IS a winner, a BIG, REAL winner.. (none / 0)

Thats why they are TERRIFIED of her..

They have a whole belief system based on a series of lies, and Hillary disproves all of them..

Poof, YEARS of work in the SPIN department.. wasted...


http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money
by architek on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:36:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Right (2.00 / 2)

So Bush really WAS a better candidate than Gore, then.  Thanks for setting the record straight!


by Trickster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:37:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right (none / 0)

Would you rather support a candidate from your party who is likely to win? Or one who is likely to lose?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:42:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right (none / 0)

Is this a trick question?


by Trickster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:56:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right (none / 0)

Why should Dem Party nominate a candidate that is either poor at managing the media or the media is already biased against her?

Why go with the weaker candidate when a stronger candidate is available?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:27:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 8)

Great work again Flea Flicker! Nice to see you posting!
And yup, I know who Murrow was. (and Conkrite, Huntley, Brinkley etc.) JOURNALISTS! Reporters of facts!
And the fact remains, NEITHER candidate can win and the Superdelegates will decide.

Read and rec'd


by ProudMilitaryMom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:56:52 PM EST

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 6)

Thanks so much. Glad that there are others that remember the days of actual journalism.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:00:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (none / 0)

I remember all of those guys to... but I cannot fathom for he life of me how you manage to fit Lou Dobbs into that group?

They were journalists...  he is a hack in an expensive suit.  There is no way Cronkite would have used Dobbs' sources.  Dobbs uses them because they back up the narrative he already believes.  And it doesn't matter if he is disproven, he won't admit he is wrong.

Type his name into Media Matters for a moment and watch your computer explode.


McCain/Palin... even scarier than Bush/Cheney... and that's saying something!
by JenKinFLA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:34:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 4)

Welcome back!  Also, I agree with what you and ProudMilitaryMom have written here.

For some reason, the free speech, which is supposed to support the marketplace of ideas is no longer valued in all instances.  Instead of allowing and indeed supporting the debate of ideas, the goal is to shut down those who explore different ideas, and instead, to support those, who tell us what we should be thinking.

This goes both for the media, and the blogosphere.


by cjbardy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:07:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 2)

Excellent points. I would love to see someone diary these very facts. Thanks! Spread the word.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:09:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 2)

I'm working on it.


by cjbardy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:10:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (none / 0)

Please let me know when it is up. I get so busy researching, writing and commenting that I forget to look for important things.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:27:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 2)

ok the Media is biased against Hillary now what?

that is not really a winning argument for the supers!

Hey you know John McCain media darling, well Hillary who is hated by the media should be sent against him?


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:57:20 PM EST

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 1)

I don't think they thought of it that far enough

Remember when this was suppose to end by Feb. 5


My dream is Hillary will sponser a joint resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Trinity Church
by denounceandreject on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:01:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Boy, Schneider sure did a 180 (2.00 / 4)

when Lou challenged him.   Great video!  


Reasonable people can disagree.
by mnicholson0220 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:58:01 PM EST

Re: Boy, Schneider sure did a 180 (2.00 / 2)

Yeah, I loved the turnaround.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:00:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (1.50 / 2)

Lou Dobbs is NOT A TRUSTED SOURCE unless You HATE MEXICANS and Think America's #1 problem is a lack of PATRIOTISM and FLAG WAVING


by edtastic on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:03:25 PM EST

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 5)

it's very disappointing that the media watch dog turn out to be a lap dog for Obama. They treated him so softly like a cotton candy.  
They should have covered about Wright as early as January.  Even now nobody question Obama about his campaign for Odinga yet.

They don't tell the people what they need to hear.  They have done a great disservice to the country.


by JoeySky18 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:05:52 PM EST

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 2)

Yes they have Joey. There are a few rare patriots that still believe in the freedom of speech and equality of all voices. And we will do whatever we can to get the truth out there.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:14:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Finally . . . Someone speaks truth to power (2.00 / 4)

You (via Lou Dobbs) have laid it all out beautifully.  The problem is, as with everything Clinton, "regular" people, aka the voters, see through the media bias, or don't care about the pundits.  The Clintons never, ever got good press coverage during the nineties, so that's nothing new for them.  But they are the consummate politicians of the people.  Count me in as a Hillary Hillbilly!  (Even though I live in Arlington, VA and drink my share of lattes, I originate from the mean streets of Philly!)  


by Middleagemom on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:11:49 PM EST

Re: Finally . . . Someone speaks truth to power (2.00 / 1)

Thanks. I enjoy a latte myself every now and then. And wine over beer any day.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Insider view (2.00 / 1)

As a member of the media, I can tell you that any conspiracy theory about why coverage is tilted one way or another misses the point. It's now what tone their reporting takes about the candidates, it's what stories they report. Do we care about Tuzla that much, or what Hillary's wearing, or that Obama is a crappy bowler? No. But ratings and keeping up with joneses counts. So when 50 journalists crowd around a candidate, they come up with the same bad ideas, and the same things that don't matter, because health care policy ain't sexy, and it's never going to be. That's why bogs are so crucial.


I will vote for Barack, I will vote for Hillary, I will vote for Obaminton or Clintobama, how about you?
by AnyDem2008 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:18:19 PM EST

Re: Insider view (2.00 / 1)

That's why bogs are so crucial

Bogs are nice. After all, we all need peat. And the media hardly ever does a story on them. But I think you meant blogs.  

;-}


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:24:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Insider view (2.00 / 1)

If your bog is full of peat you need to reach for the Ty-D-Bowl more frequently.  I speak with some authority on this subject.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:50:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Insider view (none / 0)

That was uncalled for and very amusing. Thanks!


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:28:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gotta love British humo(u)r (none / 0)

Or at least their idioms.

Excuse me, Their Nibses demand Squire's Time on the green. (Gotta walk the dogs. (And the preceeding sentance was gibberish.))


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (none / 0)

Sorry, blogs, not bogs.


I will vote for Barack, I will vote for Hillary, I will vote for Obaminton or Clintobama, how about you?
by AnyDem2008 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:20:22 PM EST

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 4)

Claiming your candidate doesn't do well because of media bias is the last refuge of a failing candidate.

Strong candidates and campaigns figure out how to drive positive media stories.  


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:24:37 PM EST

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (none / 0)

Where did I say that? And what makes you think my candidate isn't doing well?


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (none / 0)

"And what makes you think my candidate isn't doing well?"

Other than the fact that she had to deny she would leave the race (always a sign of strength)?

How about the total delegate count, the pledged delegate count, the popular vote total, the number of states won, cash on hand, fundraising totals, and (as you note) the media narrative?

Or are those the caucus states of indicators, and only count when they favor Hillary?


by Jay R on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:07:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (none / 0)

She only had to deny it because the Obamedia kept bring up the question and she got tired of the stupid question.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:59:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (none / 0)

Your ability to turn Obama's name into pejoratives is quite a talent.  I haven't seen such a knack for it since Rush Limbaugh coined "feminazi."  Really raises the discourse, AND deflects from the myriad points I raised (all of which would, ironically, be grounds for raising the question of whether she should keep running in the first place).

You truly are one rhetorically gifted individual.


by Jay R on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:19:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (none / 0)

Thanks. You ain't seen nothin yet.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:34:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Um the media is in control.... (2.00 / 1)

not the candidates. The media has been rigging this election from go. Only stupid people can't see that.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um the media is in control.... (none / 0)

I love the "only stupid people can't see that" line. What kind of myopic crap is that? Stop ascribing your theory about media bias to everyone. I'm not stupid, and neither are a lot of people who don't share your views.


I will vote for Barack, I will vote for Hillary, I will vote for Obaminton or Clintobama, how about you?
by AnyDem2008 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:55:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um the media is in control.... (none / 0)

And there are apparently a lot of them commenting.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:28:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You mean (2.00 / 1)

Strong candidates like Bush?

The two most media-biased Presidential races I've ever seen have been

Bush-Gore, and
Obama-Clinton

I don't think the evidence from the past supports your view that the media supports "strong" candidates.


by Trickster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:59:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean (none / 0)

Candidates who can't manage the media effectively lose.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:24:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (2.00 / 1)

But what I do not understand is that I keep hearing from Clinton supporters that ...

1.  Obama's campaign has convinced the media that he's better

2.  The Democratic establishment has all decided to give the nomination to Obama, and

3.  Because the caucuses require highly-motivated field teams, they have skewed to Obama.

All of which makes me think ...  damn! this guy is good!

My God - Clinton started this campaign with long-term relationships in the media, Democratic insider status better than any candidate since Ted Kennedy in 1980, name recognition among the electorate, a large campaign war chest, and a personal fortune.

Obama started with, at best, the spark of newness and his ability to speak well.

After a year, the media and the insiders have all decided there is a better candidate than Hilary (according to her supporters - that is the complaint).  So this is supposed to convince voters that Obama is insubstantial?  I think you are missing the boat.  To what do you attribute the weakness of your candidate vis a vis her competitor?  Why is she unable to keep the media and the Democratic insiders, and why can she not turn out the ground game required to win a caucus?  This shows flaws in her compaign, not in the people evalutating it.


by concordian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:25:34 PM EST

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven! (1.33 / 3)

get out of here with your facts and logic!


My dream is Hillary will sponser a joint resolution to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Trinity Church
by denounceandreject on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agree with the comment (2.00 / 1)

Still hiding it for the inexcusable tag line.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:55:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's simpler than that (2.00 / 3)

(1) 15 years worth of Republican anti-Clinton slime set the stage.

(2) If you'll remember the media's performance during the Clinton impeachment, it was shamefully anti-Clinton and horrendously out of touch with the mood of the people.

(3) Although most people saw through the the GOP's 90s anti-Clinton strategy, many who were the least-informed just heard the surface part of the argument, and didn't see get what it was really about.  This is especially true of those who were too young in the 1990s to understand politics well, but just heard background noise from the TV:  "Clinton bad, Clinton bad."

(4) These are the same folks who aren't aware that hope change change hope hope change has been the theme of pretty much every political campaign since the dawn of time and think they're onto something new.

I don't mean to tar all Obama supporters with the same brush.  I don't mean to suggest that there is no logical reason to support him.  But I do mean to suggest that, unless your issue preferences fit into a fairly narrow groove, the logic heavily favors supporting his opponent, particular if you don't give credence to the non-credible Republican attacks of the 90s and aren't trying to cast your vote based on who you want to drink beer with.  And I do mean to suggest that a very substantial portion of his voting base consists of people who are not very sophisticated about politics, people who fell for the Starr Report, people that haven't seen many campaigns before, and people who are looking for a candidate they would like to party with.

Again, my apologies to those Obama supporters who don't deserve this.  Admittedly, this is a very cynical post.  But I'm feeling pretty put upon by this election season, and this is just my true opinion as a student of modern Presidential campaigns and as a human being.


by Trickster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:54:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Preposterous (2.00 / 0)

You presume to assert the only logical thought processes on Earth are your own.  Talk about a very narrow worldview. The Clintons are beyond reproach in reality.  Only minds poisoned by lies do not behold their undeniable masterfullnes.

Preposterous.  

The Clintons have always, always grabbed the short-term political "win" and worry about any long-term ramifications later.  That is the hallmark of their management style and it is exactly what the nation does not need now. We got into Iraq over short-term 'feel-good' and another short-term thinkier is not what we need to get out.

I'll leave it at that.  If I were to respond to your post with a tit-for-tat that was equally dismissive of your ability to think for yourself, I'd earn myself a banning.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dude/dudette (2.00 / 1)

You presume to assert the only logical thought processes on Earth are your own.  Talk about a very narrow worldview. The Clintons are beyond reproach in reality.  Only minds poisoned by lies do not behold their undeniable masterfullnes.

Actually, I clearly stated that this was my opinion.  Sorry if you're offended to hear my thinking, but I'm not going to hold it back.


by Trickster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Offended? (none / 0)

Hardly.  Just calling you out for a preposterous statement.

As if I said,

...unless you have a vagina, logic clearly dictates Obama is the better candidate.

With a flick of a typing wrist I reduce all valid reasons to support Sen Clinton to mere hormonal manipulation.

Substitute in "Obama" and "media manipulation" and we are back to your comment. It's just so much stuff.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:06:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's simpler than that (2.00 / 1)

But Trickster, even if you are right, you still have to deal with the fact that these are the people who will vote.  

Suppose 70% of the voters refuse to support her because they believe her Zodiac sign is bad luck.  At some point, you have to accept the fact that they won't support her and move on.

For a long time, they wouldn't have supported her for her sex or Obama for his skin color.  At least we're getting over that.  You may think people are making the wrong decision, but if you think that the party and the press are against Clinton, then you are making an argument AGAINST giving your candidate the nomination.


by concordian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:04:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At some point that becomes true (2.00 / 1)

We're not there yet, and the future is always unknown.

I was merely arguing against the previous poster's idea that the positioning of the media indicates candidate superiority.  I'm very much not aligned with that view.  It's pretty much in opposition, I think, to the ideas that drove the creation of the left blogosphere.


by Trickster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:26:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's simpler than that (none / 0)

Superb points!


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:32:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's simpler than that (2.00 / 2)

Yes they are.

And doesn't it make you question, just a little bit, why the media would be pulling so strongly for Obama now?


by MediaFreeze on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:07:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's simpler than that (none / 0)

No, because I understand what is going on.


by Fleaflicker on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:00:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's simpler than that (2.00 / 1)

There are two major differences for me. One is issue preferences: I think Obama's considerably stronger on the economy and has a better handle on what we need to do moving forward in foreign affairs. Aside from that there's not an enormous amount of difference.

The second is related to this whole discussion: whether it's right or wrong, I think the bias of a lot of people against Clinton (whether deserved or not, and there are things on both sides of the ledger) will prevent her from getting anything much done as President, if she gets elected. I'm not sure she can get elected in the first place -- the EV greatly favors Obama -- but if she does I think she'll have fewer Democratic Senators and Representatives (a 9-state strategy hurts the Democrats badly compared to a 50-state strategy) helping her. I'm pretty certainly in Texas a Clinton nomination means we send Cornyn back to Washington; Obama means Noriega. I'd much rather have Noriega.

The place Clinton can be most effective at getting her agenda into law is the Senate. The Senate is a very collegial body (at least compared to the rest of the country, or even the House) and she works well there. The Presidency isn't, and coming into the office with negatives firmly set right about 50% isn't a recipe for much success in office.

I'm not saying it's fair. It's not fair. She gets part of the blame -- Tuzla's not the first time she's said or done something that kicks those negatives up a little higher -- but so do a lot of very unjustified attacks. But fair really doesn't matter. I just can't see a Clinton presidency as being very effective at getting very much done; I think it's likely a recipe for gridlock and a new Contract On/With American in 2010.

Obama could be the same; I'm not underestimating the right-wing side at all. But I think he's much more likely to get something resembling a honeymoon. I'm not sure Hillary's would last from the end of her inaugural address until she gets back inside the White House.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:43:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's simpler than that (2.00 / 2)

I'm not underestimating the right-wing side at all. But I think he's much more likely to get something resembling a honeymoon.

Oh, you think so, do you? Why?

Why do you think the corporate media would give any Democrat a honeymoon On what basis? Can you point to any example in recent history where the Democrats got a honeymoon from the media attack machine?

Or, are you just hoping? Because I can tell you something. Ho