HRC's 28% and Fairness.

Sorry for the negative tone here - but I am frustrated...

Last week a Gallup poll came out that stated that 28% of HRC supporters would vote for JM in the GE and likewise 19% of BO supporters would do the same.  These numbers are troubling but don't objective people think about why we are seeing these numbers?  

We keep hearing from the punditry that its emotional based on identity politics, I don't agree.  Further I would argue that we all know why BO supporters say they wont vote for HRC - actually we see it here, and on pretty well every MSM and on every comment, blog and article blanketing the internet world:  she knee-caps, lies, is disingenuous, is a racist, is shrill - there's more - but i think we all get it.

But what of HRC's supporters?  Why would they not support BO?  Hhhm - this is an interesting one, so let me give it a try:  The media continually bashes her and follows BO campaign talking points, BO fully exploits this by plausible deniability, he attacks her personally and then claims she is the one doing so, he and his campaign surrogates have called her racists, "Disingenuous", "Too polarizing to win", 'Divisive', "Untruthful", "Dishonest", 'Calculating', "Saying and doing whatever it takes to win", "Attempting to deceive the American people", "One of the most secretive politicians in America", "Literally willing to do anything to win", "Playing politics with war" and the just on Friday "Knee-capping"

All the while HRC supporters are getting more and more galvanized.  I don't think BO is helping his cause by nudging and winking HRC to get out of the race or attempting to hold the ball on MI and FL.  If he wants to win - it has to be perceived as fair by her supporters, because well, otherwise - the 28% may go home with their ball and hand JM a victory.

There's more...

The Failure of the Fourth Estate.

I keep going on and on about the press - but its just so unbelievable to me...

Often referred to as 'The Fourth Estate', the press has the role of shaping public perception in politics.  In this (and in fact the last 3) election cycles "The Press" has done a great disservice and failure to the American public and its implications have been felt around the world.

As I posted in other diaries, some observations of recent coverage:

"This week there is the treatment of the HRC comment that if her pastor had made the anti-American comments uttered by the Rev. Wright, she would have left the church. The media reaction was that HRC had raised the issue as part of a campaign to "destroy" BO. Only later was it acknowledged that she hadn't "raised" it at all.  Her comment came in response to a question from editors of a newspaper in PA, where she was campaigning."

"Even in the media treatment of normal campaign rhetoric, she suffers from a double standard. Every HRC criticism of the BO campaign or his record is pictured as part of a campaign to "destroy" Obama, to "tear him down. Some have even speculated -- you've got to be an idiot to believe this -- that her grand plan is to prevent his election in November so she can run again in 2012.  She'd sacrifice the party to her own selfish ambitions, according to this view promoted by some in the media. Not only is that simple-minded but slanderous as well."

"What about BO's anti-HRC comments? None has received such treatment - the media and his supporters clearly prefer him to her. She alone "attacks," as the media paints it; he merely criticizes. It's a comparison she can't win."

"When I compare the Canadian media coverage of the election to the American it makes my stomach turn as at least here while they may lean to one candidate over another - there is an attempt at real journalism - you telling the story without injecting a blatant position.  US networks, papers, magazines, websites, and blogs after another are unproportionately and unfairly attacking one candidate over the other.... You know there is a problem when Fox News is one of the more balanced networks in covering the Democratic candidates (they bash both equally)."

There's more...

Race Card Op-Ed.

Another Op-Ed by Princeton Professor Sean Wilentz that raises more interesting points.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/2 0080330_Obama_was_the_first_to_play_the_ race_card.html

Obama was the first to play the race card

Sean Wilentz
is the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus professor of history at Princeton University

Quietly, the storm over the hateful views expressed by Sen. Barack Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has blown away the most insidious myth of the Democratic primary campaign. Obama and his surrogates have charged that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has deliberately and cleverly played the race card in order to label Obama the "black" candidate.

Having injected racial posturing into the contest, Obama's "post-racial" campaign finally seems to be all about race and sensational charges about white racism. But the mean-spirited strategy started even before the primaries began, when Obama's operatives began playing the race card - and blamed Hillary Clinton.

Had she truly conspired to inflame racial animosities in January and February, her campaign would have brought up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his incendiary sermons. But the Clinton campaign did not. And when the Wright stories and videos finally did break through in the mass media, they came not from Clinton's supporters but from Fox News Network.

Although Wright had until recently been obscure to the American public, political insiders and reporters have long known about him. On March 6, 2007, the New York Times reported that Obama had disinvited Wright from speaking at his announcement because, as Wright said Obama told him, "You can get kind of rough in the sermons." By then, conservative commentators had widely denounced Wright. His performances in the pulpit were easily accessible on DVD, direct from his church. But Clinton, despite her travails, elected to remain silent.

Instead, she had to fight back against a deliberately contrived strategy to make her and her husband look like race-baiters. Obama's supporters and operatives, including his chief campaign strategist David Axelrod, seized on accurate and historically noncontroversial statements and supplied a supposedly covert racist subtext that they then claimed the calculating Clinton campaign had inserted.

In December, Bill Shaheen, a Clinton campaign co-chair in New Hampshire, wondered aloud whether Obama's admitted youthful abuse of cocaine might hurt him in the general election. Obama's strategists insisted that Shaheen's mere mention of cocaine was suggestive and inappropriate - even though the scourge of cocaine abuse has long cut across both racial and class lines. Pro-Obama press commentators, including New York Times columnist Frank Rich, then whipped the story into a full racial subtext, charging that the Clintons had, in Rich's words, "ghettoized" Obama "into a cocaine user."

The Obama campaign and its supporters pressed this strategy after Clinton's unexpected win in New Hampshire. Pundits partial to Obama, including Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and John Nichols of the Nation, instantly mused that their candidate lost because of supposedly bigoted New Hampshire whites who had lied to pre-primary pollsters - an easily disproven falsehood that nevertheless gained currency in the media.

Next morning, Obama's national co-chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., cast false and vicious aspersions about Hillary Clinton's famous emotional moment in New Hampshire as a measure of her deep racial insensitivity. "Her appearance brought her to tears," said Jackson, "not Hurricane Katrina."

Obama's backers, including members of his official campaign staff, then played what might be called "the race-baiter card." Hillary Clinton, in crediting both Lyndon Johnson as well as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, had supposedly denigrated King, and by extension Obama. Allegedly, Bill Clinton had dismissed Obama's victory in South Carolina by comparing it to those of the Rev. Jesse Jackson in the 1980s. (In fact, their electoral totals were comparable - and in the interview at issue, Clinton complimented Obama on his performance "everywhere" - a line the media usually omitted.)

Thereafter, Obama's high command billowed further race-baiter allegations into the media. Pointing to the notoriously right-wing Drudge Report, Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign of deliberately leaking a supposedly racist photograph of Obama in African garb, which actually originated on still another right-wing Web site. Finally, David Axelrod trumpeted Geraldine Ferraro's awkward remarks in an obscure California newspaper as part of the Clinton campaign's "insidious pattern" of divisiveness.

One pro-Obama television pundit, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, fulminated that the Clinton campaign had descended into the vocabulary of David Duke, former grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.

(In his Philadelphia speech on race, Obama pressed the attack by three times likening Ferraro to Rev. Wright.)

Since the Philadelphia speech, the candidate and his surrogates have sounded tone-deaf on the subject of race. On March 20, Obama described his Kansas grandmother to a Philadelphia radio interviewer as "a typical white person." The same day, Sen. John Kerry said that Obama would help U.S. relations with Muslim nations "because he's a black man." Another Obama supporter, Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, called him the first black leader "to come to the American people not as a victim but as a leader." Her history excluded and conceivably denigrated countless black leaders, from Frederick Douglass to Rep. John Lewis. Obama remained silent, refusing to take Kerry and McCaskill to task for their racially charged remarks.

Neither candidate can win sufficient elected delegates in the remaining primaries to secure the nomination, and so the battle has moved to winning over the superdelegates. Obama's bogus "race-baiter" strategy is one of the main reasons he has come this far, and it is affecting the process now. But by deliberately inflaming the most destructive passions in American politics, the strategy has badly divided and confused Democrats, at least for the moment. And having done so, it may well doom the Democrats in the general election.

Sean Wilentz's forthcoming book is "The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008."

There's more...

The Media: BO Campaign Surrogate?

I keep going on and on about the media and its treatment of the Democratic primary but I cannot believe what I see daily - it is so SHOCKING.  Everywhere I look the majority of media coverage parrots BO talking points and spin acting as though they are a surrogate to his campaign.

This week there is the treatment of the HRC comment that if her pastor had made the anti-American comments uttered by the Rev. Wright, she would have left the church. The media/BO camp reaction was that HRC had raised the issue as part of a campaign to "destroy" BO. Only later was it acknowledged that she hadn't "raised" it at all.  Her comment came in response to a question from editors of a newspaper in PA, where she was campaigning.

Even in the media/BO camps' treatment of normal campaign rhetoric, she suffers from a double standard. Every HRC criticism of the BO campaign or his record is pictured as part of a campaign to "destroy" Obama, to "tear him down. Some have even speculated -- you've got to be an idiot to believe this -- that her grand plan is to prevent his election in November so she can run again in 2012.  She'd sacrifice the party to her own selfish ambitions, according to this view promoted by some in the media/BO camp. Not only is that simple-minded but slanderous as well.

What about BO's anti-HRC comments? None has received such treatment - the media and his supporters clearly prefer him to her. She alone "attacks," as the media/BO camp paints it; he merely criticizes. It's a comparison she can't win.

As the campaign continues, HRC is coming under pressure on two other fronts. There's a push now among some in the media/BO supporters for HRC to throw in the towel for fear that she damage Democratic prospects in the fall. Question:  why would the press worry whether she "damages" Democratic chances?  This is just another example of how a supposedly independent media has lost its way.

Beyond that, there's no reason HRC should quit -- at least not yet.  There are still 10 states left on the primary schedule, enough to offer the possibility that HRC could overtake BO.  

Which brings up the second squeeze being put on HRC: not to press her argument that unelected superdelegates be free to referee the outcome if she wins the popular vote and BO the delegate count.  The role of the supers, under the anti-HRC formulation, is simply to validate the delegate count. Supers were created primarily as a kind of supervision to safeguard against a rash or runaway convention -- to overrule or somehow undo the nomination of a seriously flawed candidate or, if they chose, even one who just can't win.   THOSE ARE THE RULES.

The irony in all this is that the Democrats, who once complained about a "right-wing conspiracy" against the Clintons, now faces a "left-wing conspiracy" rooted mostly in the media.

There's more...

Wright, Obama and Race - a serious question.

Being a Canadian - I freely admit that I do not fully understand US race issues in the same way as an American would (this is not really an issue in the same way here).  

However - the continual bait and switch tactics on race being put forward by the BO campaign and its supporters are disturbing to me.  Here are a couple - Bill and Hill - who were considered until this primary, to be the most active and positive first couple in US history with regard to the Black community.  And now - well - they are being labeled as racist, race baiting, etc.  Again - not going to get into why they are not, but it seems that any questioning the HRC campaign did on BO was labeled as racially motivated.  

But this leads me to ponder the whole Rev. Wright/Race speech issue.  To me - it seemed that the Rev. Wright issue was more about patriotism than racism - yet it is being billed and responded to by BO as a race issue.  Can someone explain the correlation without hype please?

There's more...

Media wake-up call from an unlikely source!

A funny thing happened to Richard Wolffe today - he got bitch slapped by Joe Scarborough for the hype, hype, hype of the Obamamath.  Classic.

See around the 4:20 min mark where they talk about superdelegates.  Joe later (not in this clip) calls out the panel on extending the same benefit of the doubt they give to BO to HRC.  

How pathetic that it takes Joe Scarborough to provide balance...

not sure if the video above works - but here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sSEgN7IW ns

Kudos to Joe on this one.

There's more...

Mirror, Mirror on the wall - who is the biggest douche of them all?

As this race goes on it seems that we are back to the media/BO campaign/BO supporters back to bashing HRC for sport.  While I do not oppose an open and engaged conversation about the race, candidates, etc. IT IS GETTING RIDICULOUS - again.

When I compare the Canadian media coverage of the election to the American it makes my stomach turn as at least here while they may lean to one candidate over another - there is an attempt at real journalism - you telling the story without injecting a blatant position.  US networks, papers, magazines, websites, and blogs after another are unproportionately and unfairly attacking one candidate over the other.... You know there is a problem when Fox News is one of the more balanced networks in covering the Democratic candidates (they bash both equally).  

So you see in the name of "fairness" these douches put a conservative and liberal pundit on together to analyze any given topic.  What it then usually becomes (unless it is a stated HRC supporter) that even these so called Democratic analysts, strategist and pundit heads are bashing HRC - throwing around the `Clinton Rules.'  But when the media are continually and casually describing HRC in terms of `stealing the election' - `playing the race card' - `always moving the goalpost'  - `destroying the Democratic Party' how can there be any doubt?  This is especially troubling since these are exact BO campaign talking points. While I watched sadly as Al Gore was `Gored' (letting the media shape the candidates persona) in the 2000 cycle, I was hopeful that Americans would learn from past mistakes.

Better yet - ask almost HRC supporter where they go get their news - most will say it is becoming harder and harder to find balanced sources and are turning to place like myDD or other niche pro-HRC blogs to engage in some semblance of fair discussion.

So, my question:  Mirror, mirror on the wall - who in the media is the biggest douche of them all?

There's more...

The return of the "CLINTON RULES."

I guess the SNL shame effect is over because this week we are back to the "CLINTON RULES" of journalism as shown in today's coverage of HRC....  

For those of you that are unfamiliar with the "CLINTON RULES", I will briefly try and summarize.  

CLINTON RULES:
"The term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent."

A clear indictment of modern political journalism. It should go without saying that making up quotes or scandals in order to depict a politician as a liar is horrible journalism. It should go without saying that repeating long-ago debunked claims is, too.

2 main stories being run with today:  On Bosnia - HRC said she misspoke, and on her personal opinion statement on Wright.  On every very cable show, the pundits are analyzing, deriding her intentions, her timing, all posturing about her "REAL" intentions.  

But that's not all; the "CLINTON RULES" also apply to many in the BO campaign and his supporters, as indicated in the majority of the blogosphere in this democratic primary contest.  And is amusingly opined in "The Clinton Rules and The Obama Rules" - http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0 12147.php

Since the media and BO supporters aren't going to be able to beat HRC on the issues.  It seems the media and political rivals have decided for us that Hillary won't do.  So they made it personal - "tearing down Hillary through that mudpit but simultaneously instilling a visceral hostility toward her for not only being ambitious but -- as befalls, they tell us with a shake of their sage heads, ambitious women generally -- cold, calculating, venal: a bitch."

And again we hear the dialogue from the media and BO camps, we could skip all this unpleasant untidiness with elections and whatnot and they can just tell us now who we are allowed to have as candidates.  Forget about the 10 remaining states and superD's - we are at lap 460 - BO is ahead 20 laps - its over.   What utter nonsense.

Lastly to BO supporters, if you are sitting there snickering - if BO in fact becomes the nominee - he will sadly become a victim of the "CLINTON RULES" as all democrats eventually are (see Gore).

There's more...

Dream Ticket: Why aren't Obama and his supporters worried?

i hope, hope, hope that HRC overcomes her current deficit and takes the nomination - but for the sake of argument here let me be pessimistic for a second and say hypothetically that if she doesn't there are big problems for BO and the democratic party.

while its certainly clear that both HRC and BO supporters feel passionately about their candidate, however troubling recent news/polls/commentaries illustrate a very troubling scenario for the eventual nominee.

for example, http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/el ection2008/2008-03-24-Dreamteam_N.htm

illustrates that whomever the nominee is - that their rivals supporters would be almost equally dissatisfied and possibly not vote for the other.  

i am not sure why BO, campaign, supporters and punditry do not seem worried about this...  but they should be.

and you might point out the reverse of HRC and her supporters except one major difference....
HRC said that a 'dream ticket' is possible.
BO said nope.

Bad news all around guys.

There's more...

MIsleading Democrats? Clinton/Obama support crossover.

I watched Meet the Press yesterday and I was struck by some comments made by the panel with regard to crossover support.  Specifically they were parroting the BO claim that HRC supporters would support him, but not vice versa.  Am I missing something?  The most recent data that I seem to have seen does not support this - in fact - I believe its the reverse.

"According to Mississippi exit polls, 60 percent of Clinton voters say the New York senator should not make Obama her running mate, while only 34 percent say she should."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/03/11/exit-polls-clinton-voters-say-no -to-obama-for-vp/

"On several counts, Obama voters were more charitable toward Clinton than vice versa:

-58% of Obama voters said he should pick Clinton for vice president if he wins the nomination; 38% of Clinton voters said she should pick Obama as her running mate if she wins.

-72% percent of Clinton voters said they would be dissatisfied if Obama wins the nomination. 57%t of Obama voters would be dissatisfied with Clinton.

_ 44% of Obama voters said Clinton has offered clear and detailed plans to solve the country's problems. Only 23% of Clinton voters said that about Obama."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031102194. html

"In the new Franklin & Marshall College Poll (read it HERE) some good news for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and some troubling news for Democrats.
Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, 51% to 35% -- increasing her lead from February, when she was up 44% to 37%.  She leads among young voters, wealthier voters...voters in virtually every demographic group, with the exceptions of Philly voters and non-whites.
In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they'll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they'll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won't vote."
Sixty percent of Obama voters say they'll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won't vote.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/keystone-democr.html

Hhmm...  What is going to happen?

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads