CNN suggested SHE'd Assassinate Him. Twice.

CNN suggested she'd assassinate him. Twice.

We just sent complaints like this to the cable news stations.

On two recent primary nights a pundit on CNN in covering the primary answered the question of whether Obama should pick Clinton as Vice President.  In the first instance David Gergen said ,"Not if he wants to survive his first term".

Even though there were emails of outrage to CNN at the suggestion that Clinton would assassinate Obama to get his job, the very next primary night another pundit, Alex Castellanos (at 3:50 pm PDT May 13, for those who need a citation), in answer to the same question said,  "He'd have to hire a food taster".

Each night there were other pundits supporting Obama on the set and they and the anchors gave not one whit of disapproval.  The only reaction was general laughter!  Now those comments were undisputedly meant for the viewer to think of Hillary Clinton as a murderer.  And they were said and repeated and laughed at because they felt comfortable that there would be no reproach, no punishment, no outrage, no negative consequences to the pundits, the program , the others on the stage or CNN.  Why is that?  How were they so sure, so comfortable with those accusations?

There's more...

The New Republic's double standard

On Wednesday, The New Republic's senior editor, John Judis, boldly said that going negative on the first woman to run for president is ok, while going negative on the first (viable) black candidate to run for the same position is not. Don't believe me? Read the excerpt, and while you are at it, feel free to marvel at Judis' other double standard: that it was ok for John McCain and Mitt Romney to go negative on each other as well; Only Hillary was supposed to be extra-careful not to offend The One:


Clinton's second great political mistake lay in how she dealt with Obama's challenge. Sometime in December, having realized that Obama was going to be a genuine rival for the nomination, she and her campaign decided to go negative on him. They did the usual thing politicians do to each other: They ran attack ads taking his words somewhat out of context (Obama calling Reagan a "transformative politician"); they somewhat distorted old votes (voting "present" in Illinois on abortion bills); and they questioned old associations (Obama's connection with real estate developer Tony Rezko).

 

John McCain and Mitt Romney were doing similar things to each other--and Obama did some of it to Clinton, too. But there a was difference between her doing this to Obama and McCain's doing it to Romney--a difference that eluded Clinton, her husband, and her campaign staff. My friend David Kusnet, Bill Clinton's former speechwriter, explained the difference to me by citing what ex-heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson had once said about Muhammad Ali. "I was just a fighter," Patterson had said, "but he was history."
Obama, too, was, and is, history--the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Yes, Hillary Clinton was the first viable female candidate, but it is still different.
Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in American history--the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the 1950s and '60s. And if some voters didn't appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama's candidacy represented, many in the Democratic primaries and caucuses did--and so did the members of the media and Obama's fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him.

Another interesting remark in Judis' piece was the bold admission that the media has thrown its support to Barack Obama.

And if some voters didn't appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama's candidacy represented, many in the Democratic primaries and caucuses did--and so did the members of the media and Obama's fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him.

I agree with Judis. With the exception, perhaps, of the one or two weeks following the Jeremiah Wright's scandal, the media has been "throwing its support" for Obama, and relentlessly scrutinizing practically every word uttered by Clinton and her husband.

The latest episode of a mainstream journalist shilling for Obama came when Time Magazine's Joe Klein invented a new spin to the effect that Obama was really referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini or any other Iranian leader except for Ahmedinejad, when answering questions about whether or not he would meet unconditionally with the "leader" of Iran. This imaginative scheme was debunked by Politi-fact.com (named best newspaper website in 2007). link.

But that's another story.

There's more...

Edwards the "working class hero" myth debunked

Columbia Journalism Review's Zachary Roth does a fantastic job today debunking the group-thinking media's narrative that John Edwards is a "working class hero", who will give Obama a "boost" in the GE among members of that group. Here's an excerpt of this must-read piece:

In Iowa, entrance polls didn't ask about educational levels, which is how working class has generally been defined this primary season. But they did ask about income. And Edwards's best income demographic was those making over $100,000 a year--the richest group. His second- and third-best performances were among those making $50,000-$75,000 a year and $75,000-$100,000 a year. His three worst showings came among the three groups making less than $50,000 a year.

New Hampshire's results are slightly more mixed, but they still don't offer support for the idea of Edwards as a working-class hero. Edwards performed just as well with college-educated voters as with non-college-educated voters. Looking again at income, his strongest performances were with voters making $50,000-$75,000 a year or $75,000-$100,000 a year. He did as well with voters making above $100,000 as with voters making below $50,000.

And in South Carolina, his best performance by education level was among those with a post-graduate degree. And he did better among voters with a college degree than those without. In terms of income, by far Edwards's best result was with voters who made more than $200,000 a year.

The root of the problem here is the press's obsession with style and image--and simple, clear narratives--at the expense of substance and evidence and complexity. Throughout his campaign, Edwards reminded anyone who would listen that he grew up the son of a mill worker, and his campaign rhetoric was squarely focused on the economic struggles of ordinary working Americans. Apparently, that was enough to make many in the press assume that his supporters were working class--even in the face of empirical data suggesting a much more complicated picture.

And besides Roth's great points, I would add the fact that Edwards could not even manage to help Kerry win the state of North Carolina, where he served as senator. Indeed, Bush swept the floor with Kerry in the Midwest and South, known as white working class enclaves.

But big journos love a simpe story line they can recite as a group, evidence be damned, as Roth pointed out.

Whole story here.

There's more...

how to destroy a candidate....

one day at a time...

"so now the press tells candidates when to quit"

"rhymes with 'rich'"

"nagging voice"

"the double standard"

"crying fits"

"why does HRC dress so bad?"

"i hate her. i hate her. all that she stands for."

"you know how when your dog dies, your wife wants to get a puppy right away?"

"the reason she's a U.S. senator, a candidate for president, or a front-runner is that her husband messed around."

"a glaring double standard"

"hillary sexism watch"

"gender is hillary clinton's achilles heel"

"when democrats go post-al"

"sexism in the campaign"

weep for our daughters.

There's more...

How the Media Gave Barack Obama the Nomination

So now, we've come through 5 months of primary season, and it looks like Barack Obama may be the nominee for the Democratic Party. Well, while this his been a dirty campaign, there has been nothing as disgusting as the coverage the media has given Hillary, and the free pass Barack Obama got on everything. Hillary, a knowledgeable first lady who has been in politics for over 30 years lost to a Senator who has a mere 3 years in the senate, and a few more as another brick-in-the-wall state senator. We didn't come to this be sheer luck.

We came to this, starting in the early '90's, when anything Clinton or anyone related to them was witch hunted, second guessed, and trashed by the media. They covered a land deal of no consequence, Whitewater, they stewed up bullshit, like Hillary killing Ron Brown and Vince Foster, they covered a personal affair which Bill had every right to have in private, and they tore apart his vice President in the 2000 campaign, doing to him during the recount exactly what they are doing to Hillary: even tho the count is not over yet, they are calling for her to "get out for the good of the party" as they did with Gore and "the country" even tho there is no nominee yet who has gotten the magic number. We could go on an on about the '90's, but lets fast forward.

So comes campaign 2008. The media already has an obvious opinion on Hillary, and many know her as such. We have a media in which commentators get air time to express opinion, often devoid of other perspective and full of bias. For example, we can start with how everything Hillary does is "calculating" and "dishonest," about how anything she does is always second guessed. They call her "polarizing," and thus she becomes it, as many bloggers parrot the line as an excuse not to vote for her. They allow Obama a free pass on having no experience, and let him play the race card, and then blame Hillary and always say "is Hillary injecting race?" but don't question Jesse Jackson Jr's "Hillary didn't cry for black people in Katrina" or Michelle's "blacks will come to their senses" and claim Bill is hurting Hillary, even tho he draws huge crowds everywhere he goes, and gets the small town and rural voters, the swing voters in the elections out. They pump up every endorsement he gets, and barely mention the ones Hillary has.

Then, we have the stooges themselves. On CNN, Candy Crowley and Jack Cafferty shit all over Hillary in every Cafferty File question, and pump up Barack Hussein Obama, showing the only pro-Obama letters on the show. Then comes the commentators always on the show, the same old Jammal Simmons and Roland Martin, people who are obviously biased for Obama. Then, we have MSNBC. Chris Matthews has hated the Clintons for years irrationally, and gets "a chill up his leg" when in the room with him. Obama is a politician. Why is he so great, but he never shows the honour he should to President Bill and Hillary Clinton? You also had Tucker Carlson for a while, and he showed no mercy to Hillary too. It was always about how much "integrity" he thought Obama had, and how inspirational he was. Couple that with Keith Olbermann, who I used to like, now an Obama shill, always calling Hillary racist or using the term race card, (which means people who complain about oppression because they are a minority, AKA OJ Simpson saying he was framed because he was a rich black celebrity)and talking about how honest and imspirational Barack Obama is. Lest us forget David Schuster's "pimp out" comment, which clearly was meant as a sexist epithet. I am a white male, and I found that comment wrong. Of course, there is Fox News, and I won't go there, because trashing Democrats is their job. The whole media just took Hillary's comments out of complete context to cast it as racist, even tho Dems lose because they get blown out with whites, a path Obama looks to be on for November, as he loses whites in the primary states we can actually get in November. I am sorry, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming don't mean shit.

With Obama, its always about how he wins these states, that Dems will never win, but how "the world will look at us better" if he gets elected, as if anyone else cares about what race our President is. They talk of him as the new John Kennedy, even tho John Kennedy had experience. With the Wright controversy, which I'm surprised they even mentioned, they then trump out the picture with Bill, and allow the Obamalites to trump it, even tho it means nothing. They talked about Obama's so awesome speech on race, in which he throws his grandmother under the bus, calling her a "typical white person," but they don't cover that as much as they cover Hillary wanting to actually show well among "white Americans" even tho that comment demeans no one. The media has made Obama a saint, as continued its pile on of the Clintons they have been doing for the last 20 years, calling them racists because they dare to run in a race with a black man as an opponent. They blew her sniper comments out of such proportion, even tho she mispoke. They act like she's not as honest as Obama, but don't question if Obama really never heard Wright's racist rants, exposing his kids to such. They called for Hillary to drop out after Iowa. Then they're saying she should leave after New Hampshire, which she won. Then, after Rush announced Chaos, whose real effects were only to drive to liberal wing to do the opposite of Rush and vote Obama, now, they are crediting her win, her WIN in Indiana to Rush Limbaugh. Now, its "is Hillary ruining the party?"

Why did the media have to pick our nominee for us? Why do they have to continue to hate the Clintons, even tho they never did anything to them? Why did they cheerlead one candidate, and continually heckle the other one? They handed Obama this nomination, and we should never forget it.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads