Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Cross posted atNo 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.

Tags: Barack Obama, CNN, Hillary Clinton, Howard Kurtz, Lanny Davis, Lou Dobbs, Media Bias (all tags)

Comments

186 Comments

Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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!

by denounceandreject 2008-04-02 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!
Your sig line is obscene. This diary is right. When is the last time you heard ANYTHING about issues????
by Dave B 2008-04-02 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

I have heard plenty, this is in the fourth month since the primaries started and if you don't know them by now, there is no hope for you.

My sig line is great and I hope she will. We can't have an anti American church spewing hate influencing our youths.  Think of the children for once!

McCain/Clinton 08!

by denounceandreject 2008-04-02 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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 2008-04-02 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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 2008-04-02 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 12:43PM | 0 recs
Your whole premise is preposterous

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

by Lefty Coaster 2008-04-02 06:00PM | 0 recs
Boy, are YOU RIGHT - Look at THIS video, then...

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..

by architek 2008-04-02 08:01PM | 0 recs
The Sinister Swarm? That's so elitist!.

The unwashed masses huh?

It's 2008 not 1908.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-04-02 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-04-02 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

hush with your facts and logic

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

by denounceandreject 2008-04-02 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

It is indeed a rare occurrence these days. Thanks!

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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

by Scan 2008-04-02 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Why do you support an anti- american church?  Where is your loyalty to your country?

by denounceandreject 2008-04-02 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Bias is bias.

by christinep 2008-04-02 02:06PM | 0 recs
Brilliant...

And spot on target!

Highly Recommended!

by MediaFreeze 2008-04-02 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Brilliant...

Thank you!

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 12:10PM | 0 recs
Let's ask the next question: Why?

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 2008-04-02 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's ask the next question: Why?

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 2008-04-02 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's ask the next question: Why?

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.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-02 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's ask the next question: Why?

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

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 04:54PM | 0 recs
Okay, I have still to be convinced..

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.

by architek 2008-04-02 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's ask the next question: Why?
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 2008-04-02 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's ask the next question: Why?

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 2008-04-02 04:23PM | 0 recs
I think a lot of black people HATE Bill Clinton

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...

by architek 2008-04-02 08:24PM | 0 recs
I'm sorry about my spelling errors.

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.

by architek 2008-04-02 08:28PM | 0 recs
correction.. on TMI..

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.

by architek 2008-04-02 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's ask the next question: Why?

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 2008-04-02 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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?

by TruthMatters 2008-04-02 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-02 01:27PM | 0 recs
I wonder who the Supers prefer??

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 2008-04-02 11:48AM | 0 recs
Well said. n/t

by McNasty 2008-04-02 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: I wonder who the Supers prefer??

latte-liberal?

Isn't that just milk and coffee?

McCain/Clinton 08!

by denounceandreject 2008-04-02 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I wonder who the Supers prefer??

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 2008-04-02 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I wonder who the Supers prefer??

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 2008-04-02 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I wonder who the Supers prefer??

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 2008-04-02 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I wonder who the Supers prefer??

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

by christinep 2008-04-02 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I wonder who the Supers prefer??

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

by FOB92 2008-04-02 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I wonder who the Supers prefer??

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 2008-04-02 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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 2008-04-02 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Hey Karl Rove loves Clinton as well

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

McCain/Clinton 08!

by denounceandreject 2008-04-02 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-02 01:30PM | 0 recs
let's assume the media is biased

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?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-04-02 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: let's assume the media is biased

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.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-04-02 12:11PM | 0 recs
Hillary IS a winner, a BIG, REAL winner..

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...

by architek 2008-04-02 08:36PM | 0 recs
Right

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

by Trickster 2008-04-02 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Right

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

by Carl Nyberg 2008-04-02 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Right

Is this a trick question?

by Trickster 2008-04-02 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Right

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?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-04-02 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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 2008-04-02 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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.

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-02 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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 2008-04-02 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

I'm working on it.

by cjbardy 2008-04-02 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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 2008-04-02 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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?

by TruthMatters 2008-04-02 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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

Remember when this was suppose to end by Feb. 5

by denounceandreject 2008-04-02 12:01PM | 0 recs
Boy, Schneider sure did a 180

when Lou challenged him.   Great video!  

by mnicholson0220 2008-04-02 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Boy, Schneider sure did a 180

Yeah, I loved the turnaround.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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 2008-04-02 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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 2008-04-02 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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 2008-04-02 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Finally . . . Someone speaks truth to power

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 2008-04-02 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Finally . . . Someone speaks truth to power

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

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 12:15PM | 0 recs
Insider view

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.

by AnyDem2008 2008-04-02 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Insider view

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 2008-04-02 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Insider view

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.

by Quicklund 2008-04-02 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Insider view

That was uncalled for and very amusing. Thanks!

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 01:28PM | 0 recs
Gotta love British humo(u)r

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.))

by Quicklund 2008-04-02 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Sorry, blogs, not bogs.

by AnyDem2008 2008-04-02 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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.  

by politicsmatters 2008-04-02 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

"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 2008-04-02 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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 2008-04-02 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Thanks. You ain't seen nothin yet.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 08:34PM | 0 recs
Um the media is in control....

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

by cosbo 2008-04-02 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Um the media is in control....

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.

by AnyDem2008 2008-04-02 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Um the media is in control....

And there are apparently a lot of them commenting.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 01:28PM | 0 recs
You mean

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 2008-04-02 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: You mean

Candidates who can't manage the media effectively lose.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-04-02 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

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 2008-04-02 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

get out of here with your facts and logic!

by denounceandreject 2008-04-02 12:34PM | 0 recs
Agree with the comment

Still hiding it for the inexcusable tag line.

by Quicklund 2008-04-02 12:55PM | 0 recs
It's simpler than that

(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 2008-04-02 12:54PM | 0 recs
Preposterous

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.

by Quicklund 2008-04-02 01:03PM | 0 recs
Dude/dudette

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 2008-04-02 01:23PM | 0 recs
Offended?

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.

by Quicklund 2008-04-02 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: It's simpler than that

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 2008-04-02 01:04PM | 0 recs
At some point that becomes true

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 2008-04-02 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: It's simpler than that

Superb points!

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: It's simpler than that

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 2008-04-02 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: It's simpler than that

No, because I understand what is going on.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: It's simpler than that

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.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-02 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: It's simpler than that

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. Hoping that the media will not turn on Obama the second that Clinton is out of the way and tear him to ribbons seems to be your only hope for change, and it is not a good bet.

by MediaFreeze 2008-04-02 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: It's simpler than that

At worst, the difference here is hope versus certainty. In my mind there's a certainty that they'll go nuts again Clinton, make the GE nearly unwinnable, and if elected, no honeymoon.

With Obama, it could go that bad. But while with Clinton it's a certainty, with Obama there's a chance of better.

I'll take even a small chance versus no chance at all.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-02 03:14PM | 0 recs
LBJ

The last Democrat who got a honeymoon.

by Trickster 2008-04-02 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Another well researched diary with much needed intelligent analysis.

Rec'd of course.

Thank you Fleaflicker!

by DemAC 2008-04-02 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Thanks for the compliment and your support.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 01:34PM | 0 recs
Whoa down there, hoss

Bully for Lou Dobbs if he wants to start putting the message out about how unbalanced the media coverage has been.  It's about time that somebody besides SNL made that the story--it's a huge story, the story of this campaign.

BUT. . . .

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  Lou Dobbs is a terrible journalist.  In fact, he's not a journalist at all, he's a bloviator.  His Lou Dobbs Immigrant Hate Hour show is the worst that that has been done by a reputable news source since God knows when, if ever.

Don't get the messenger and the message mixed up.  If he is telling the truth, publicize the truth he is telling, just don't publicize him.  He doesn't deserve it.

He is a Bad Man.

by Trickster 2008-04-02 12:43PM | 0 recs
Of course

that assumes there are equal amounts of negative stories. That's an assumption without proof.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-02 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Whoa down there, hoss

I don't agree with him on every issue. But he has this issue nailed cold.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Whoa down there, hoss

Lou is pretty scary when it comes to the immigration debate. The thing about him though is that he seems to have decided he will speak his mind, and let the chips fall where they may.

On this issue he is calling them as he sees them, and he is on the inside, so he's got a good view of what is going on.

Did you see how uncomfortable Bill Sneider looked during the interview. Kind of like the guy who is scared because he knows he's not supposed to be telling the truth, but here's Lou confronting him with it anyway. That was not in the script...

by MediaFreeze 2008-04-02 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Whoa down there, hoss

Yes, Schneider was definitely uncomfortable. That also impressed me about Dobbs.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 05:02PM | 0 recs
Another reason for the disparity

Sen Clinton leaves herself open more often and more deeply to criticism.

Bang!

Sorry, had to dodge a sniper round there.  Sayyyyy .... maybe gtting caught in a stupid pseudoheroic lie has something to do with  recent media statistics?

by Quicklund 2008-04-02 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Favorite line in your diary title: "proven."

". . . 30% is a significance 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."

Proven.

It's the cognitive dissonance of the hardcore partisan: the reliability and good faith of any argument are determined by whether they agree with me.  Clinton's losing elections?  Obama-Republican conspiracy!  The media's coverage doesn't report Obama's gaffes as much as I want them to and plays Clinton's gaffes more than I want them to?  Obama-media conspiracy! Party leadership doesn't want the nomination fight to permanently cripple the party?  "a bunch of undemocratic, misogynistic, fascist hacks."  (Yep, you proved it.)

Commentators from the right like Scaife, Fox News, Dobbs, Redstate, Hewitt, etc, suddenly embrace Clinton and urge her to continue the trench warfare?

Good-faith commentators who have seen the light!

"Because these printed words cannot possibly describe the absolute clarity and relevance of this wonderful American's voice."

Proven!

by Koan 2008-04-02 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

I didn't say a word about her losing elections. She has won every important one.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

And that's why those of us in most of the country -- the states in which there have been unimportant primaries and caucuses, the states that she's declared to be irrelevant and unimportant and minor and tiny -- aren't very happy with her right now.

By definition you're right. Should she happen to lose PA, for instance, it will immediately become unimportant.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-02 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

"I didn't say a word about her losing elections."

True, I was interpolating.  Poor form; my apologies.

"She has won every important one."

This of course, turns on how you define "important."  I greatly respect Clinton, and I voted for her twice for Senator.  But it seems strange to me to suggest that she's won "every important election" . . . and is still losing this nomination race by every conceivable metric.  Close?  Sure.  But still, currently, losing.

My broader point, though, was about the tendency of any partisan, Clinton or Obama, Democrat or Republican, to credit or discredit media sources based strictly on whether they agree with you or not.  Conservatives are usually worse about this: when the media overwhelmingly reports evidence that undermines their tropes, they close their ears and eyes and try to wave it all away by saying "liberal media! liberal media!"  Cognitive dissonance: they have to construct a way to reorder reality to agree with what they uncritically believe.

It happens to Democrats, too.

by Koan 2008-04-02 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Lou Dobbs and Howie Kurtz, both right wing tools.

Need more be said?

by jwolf 2008-04-02 12:59PM | 0 recs
Need more be said?

"..words cannot possibly describe the absolute clarity and relevance of this wonderful American's voice..." - fleaflick

Nope, but I am getting kinda scared of the flea'ster.

by JoeCoaster 2008-04-02 01:05PM | 0 recs
Excellent diary Flea

Thanks for your hard work.

by NewHampster 2008-04-02 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent diary Flea

Thanks. Great to be appreciated among the swarm here. You know i love your work.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Here's a clip that should shake people up about bias. It's "liberal" Randi Rhodes calling Hillary a f*&^ing wh*&^. Not safe for work or kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfdhWi5MI Lo

by Pacific John 2008-04-02 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

That really is disturbing John. I watched it yesterday. Nice solid upright Obama supporter she.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Couldn't stand Randi Rhodes a year ago, long before this primary was even going very much.

Can't stand her now, even though she supports Obama.

She's always been a shouter who picks a position and sticks with it to the exception of any form of decorum or politeness.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-02 01:48PM | 0 recs
The name-calling has to stop,

Because we aren't winning hearts and minds to the party with that crap. Rhodes should be ashamed. She's talking about a United States Senator.

by AnyDem2008 2008-04-02 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The name-calling has to stop,

She is talking about another human being.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The name-calling has to stop,

Eh. If it was Ann Coulter she was saying it about half the people who are angry would be cheering her on (not saying it about you, but a bunch would be).

On the other hand, I agree completely with the original comment. She's saying this about a Senator, a major Democratic figure, someone with a strong track record in liberal causes. As an Obama supporter I assure you it upsets me too.

The language is worse, but I feel much the same outrage over this that I did over Ferraro's comments. Both are ostensibly liberals, Democrats, on our side, and here they are denigrating and marginalizing important Democratic politicians, two people one of whom will most likely be President of the United States, deserving of respect as Senators and as Americans.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-02 01:53PM | 0 recs
That actually doesn't prove anything

unless you assume they both have the same amount of negative stories that could be reported. Silly.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-02 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Did anyone doubt that there's an anti-Clinton bias in the media?

Huffington Post can always be counted on to have an anti-Clinton, pro-Obama headline.

Realclearpolitics usually has about 3 or 4 anti-Hillary articles a day.

by liberalj 2008-04-02 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Realclearpolitics also runs 3-4 anti-Obama articles most days. That's not much of a source. And Huffington Post is very much not expected to be an unbiased source.

I agree that right now the media is more leaning towards Obama -- and I know that upsets a lot of Clinton supporters. But it's refreshing to us over here, after a month where the coverage was essentially uniformly anti-Obama.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-02 01:56PM | 0 recs
Proven!

the biggest secret everyone knew?  Why do they think so many of us contemplate sitting out the election if Hillary loses do to hate inspired by Obama and reported by his minions, who love to hate her even more than they love to love the man sent to save us from a girl president.  I have to say, i'm not sure. Howard tells me i'll voe for the razor edge winner who needs super's to get to the magic number.  I wrote Howard months ago and said if the DNC did not come out against the media bias that is fueling hate and making it harder for working women in male dominated fields to feel comfortable at work, i'd stop giving. I did, and if he and the party don't come out against sexism and lying ads, they won't even get my vote. go figure?  

by anna shane 2008-04-02 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Proven!

The DNC can't come out against media bias, because the R's will turn it on us. You are right, she has not received equal time or fair treatment from many quarters in the media, but Obama also has not at times. This is a fairly sexist society, but please don;t judge the male Obama supporters by some of the idiots on the blogs. They are a small part of his support, unfortunate as they are. I will vote for your candidate if she wins. I would hope you could vote for mine if he wins. Women's issues don't get better under McCain either way.

by AnyDem2008 2008-04-02 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Proven!

Right On Anna!

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Welcome back. Great diary.

by LadyEagle 2008-04-02 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Thanks!

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 01:49PM | 0 recs
The Hillary supporters' Hot/Not Media List!!!

The Hillary supporters' Hot/Not Media List!!!

Not:
Keith Olbermann
Rachel Maddow
Frank Rich
Randi Rhodes
Josh Marshall
Eugene Robinson

Hot:
Joe Scarborough
Victor Davis Hansen
Michael Smerconish
Patrick Buchanan
Sean Hannity
Mark Steyn

and now...
Lou Dobbs

Welcome aboard, Lou!

by Rumproast 2008-04-02 01:35PM | 0 recs
Huzzah?!

"It seems clear that this pro-Obama media bias (Obamedia) is an intentional strategy concocted by the Obama campaign and the Obama media supporters."

Huzzah?! Can someone help me out with this sentence?

Shouldn't a campaign want to have an intentional strategy to "concoct" a pro-[insert candidate here] media bias? Someone may want to clue Penn in about this...

by Rumproast 2008-04-02 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Huzzah?!

The diarist appears to view favorable media coverage as a moral and political negative for the candidate who benefits. It's not made clear why.

by Addison 2008-04-02 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Huzzah?!

Damn a psychic. I will try to convince myself you are right.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Huzzah?!

I guess you don't know what you meant by that sentence.

by Rumproast 2008-04-02 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Huzzah?!

See, you're the actual diarist in question and even you have no idea what you were talking about. How were the rest of us to figure out why favorable media coverage is bad? It's not wonder people turned to psychics with an analysis as opaque as this one.

by Addison 2008-04-02 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Huzzah?!

Yeah, I haven't a clue. In Obamaland that is.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

OK, I see where you're confused.

An "unbiased media" isn't one that presents 50% positive and 50% negative information. An unbiased media is one that presents the relevant facts supporting both sides of the issue. If one side is objectively weaker and has fewer facts at their disposal, then that needs to be reflected in the coverage.

In this case...if Sen. Clinton screws up 30% more than Sen. Obama, then she deserves to receive 30% less positive coverage!

I'm going to submit that this is what happened here. Look at the recent mini-scandals: Sen. Obama  gave a wonderful speech about the Wright situation that put the whole thing in perspective, and came out of it looking even better. Sen. Clinton wasn't able to salvage the Tulsa situation and actually wound up digging herself in deeper by not anticipating that the videos would show up on Youtube.

Also, Lou Dobbs is the MSM equivalent of a troll.
Please don't feed the troll.

by mazement 2008-04-02 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

I dont know what the metrics were but it doesn't strike me as impossible for a bias to exist,since I don't know how you could be objective in picking what to cover "what is a lie as opposed to a gaffe'. Thank you Mazement for a explaining 'fair and balanced' doesn't mean having both a geologist and a minister who believes the earth is 5,000 years old in a discussion on the age and origin of the earth. All ideas are not equal,this is the dangerous influence of The Fox Network.

I would rec this diary but guess I am being punished for something because I cant...

by Ida B 2008-04-02 02:44PM | 0 recs
Punished?

How so?

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Punished?

I cant rec or rate anymore

by Ida B 2008-04-02 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Punished?

That is just weird. I would write to the Admins about that.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

If Hillary gets the nomination she will wipe the floor with McCain in any debate.  Hands down, she will win the WH.  With Obama, not so sure.  The GOP is revved up and ready to go with the Rev. Wright tapes and Michele's not so patriotic comments and they will run McCain like another John Wayne against him.  The race card will be there as well in some subtle form.  With Hillary, they have already had a field day with her in the past so she is accustomed to the slings and arrows.  I think she can win in the end but, and I don't really have any animus against Obama, I think he is going to be pretty fair game.  

by Pat J 2008-04-02 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

If Kerry gets the nomination he will wipe the floor with Bush in any debate.  Hands down, he will win the WH.  ... [snip]... debate performance != WH success

The GOP is revved up and ready to go with Tuzla tapes and Bill's not so patriotic comments and they will run McCain like another John Wayne against her.  The sex card will be there as well in some subtle form.  ... [snip] ... every candidate has strengths and weaknesses.  No matter who runs, the opposition will fight hard.  You need to appreciate this.

by zadura 2008-04-02 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Kerry? Are you having a flashback?

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Well, if the media is provably biased against Hillary we'd certainly be fools to nominate her! Thanks for another argument for Obama!

by Addison 2008-04-02 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Oh, and you think the media love affair with Obama will continue in the general election?

Really?

by MediaFreeze 2008-04-02 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Better it stop than have never existed. Better that than the Hillary hate continue. Clinton supporters often argue against Obama as if their candidate candidate didn't exist (see your comment, for example). But it's a relative game, and relative to Hillary, Obama wins on this metric. By a lot.

by Addison 2008-04-02 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

The premise of a bias in favor of Obama or against Hillary is based on a MAJOR assumption: that there is equal positive and negative news about each to report.

I would imagine that the vast majority of stories about Dubya are negative.  Is that a bias against him?  Or is it that he's done a lot of negative things?  

Now, in a campaign, rather than focusing on actions, we're focusing on every little claim made by the candidates.  Senator Clinton has made some large claims.  She's claimed to be the most experienced candidate, which is certainly a tall tale when Biden, Dodd, and Richardson were in the race.  So that theme gets played out.  People ask...is she REALLY?  And then, when specific evidence is asked for, she delays...for months.  So, rather than ending the theme, one way or the other, it drags on and on.  Obama, on the other hand, addressed the biggest negative story of his campaign in relatively short order.      

by freedom78 2008-04-02 02:38PM | 0 recs
Spin... laughable spin..

how do you say it with a straight face.. seriously..

by architek 2008-04-02 09:47PM | 0 recs
Who says they care about fairness?

People in the media are there to get profits for the corporations that employ them. If knocking one candidate and praising the other makes for better ratings, then that's what's going to happen.

The trick is to avoid giving the machine any fuel. Unfortunately, both campaigns have messed this part up, but it's just easier to pick on the candidate with the most history to pick apart. I guess that would be Hillary (and Bill of course), though Obama has had his moments recently too.

Most of the time the gotchas seem to involve he-said/she-said. If either candidate wants to eliminate the hit pieces then they have to get their surrogates in line and on message. The candidates also need to watch their mouths too, but that's always the case in politics.

by professor 2008-04-02 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

I'd suggest that she gets less favourable coverage because of her negative nature.  

by jv 2008-04-02 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

It's funny how losers always see bias behind every word spoken or unspoken.

by Kobi 2008-04-02 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

You people are so smug.  I suspect the smirks will be wiped off yor faces eventually, and sooner rather than later.  If the media can do this to Hillary, they can do it to Obama, his wife or prominent democrats that you deem worthy of your support.  This is not just about Hillary, it is about the success of our party. But some democrats won't figure it out until it's too late.  I know this, the media may like Obama a little more than they like Hillary but they LUUUV McSame.  When they decide to do a number on Obama, I suspect his own granny won't know what to think about him.  

by half nelson 2008-04-02 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

This comment is a good example of the bizzare narrative that Hillary, the "inevitable nominee" (I said so myself) who had command of a vast network of big donors, media operatives, political debts and connections, and 100% name recognition, has been conspired against and brought down by the media -- even as the media which once really did conspire against her, personified by Richard Scaife, now tries to help her.

Thanks for the latest larf.

by Kobi 2008-04-02 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

The bias is real and documented.  Check out mediamatters.com or the dailyhowler.com.  Mediamatters has video as well as transcripts.  My favorite quote?  Tucker Carlson- "When Hillary is on TV, I involuntarily cross my legs."  

She has been smeared in the media since her days as first lady and it has worsened since the primary has started in earnest.  

As I said, it may be to the advantage of your candidate, but you can hardly tell the MSM-"Hey, you can't dso that to this candidate but go ahead and do it to that one."  

Maybe you think your candidate is so superior, the press won't be a problem.  Well, the press was a problem in 2000 and 2004, so I wouldn't be so confident.  They painted Gore as a stiff, a beta male and a serial exaggerator.  The press enthusiastically did the heavy lifting for the swift boat veterans, running their cheap little 20 second commercial over and over again, so they got hundreds of hours of exposure out of a fairly small investment.  You'll see.    

by half nelson 2008-04-02 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Tucker C. gets paid to say stuff like that about every Democrat.

Poor Hillary. All that money. All those operatives in the press like Carville, Begala, and Blumenthal. All those vassal politicians lining up behind her before a vote was cast. And she can't buy the narrative she wants or bully the rest of the superdels into submission.

As for Obama, the press tried to lynch him with Rev. Wright. But he disregarded his advisors and wrote and delivered a speech which shamed even the corrupt corporate media. Unlike Hillary and her people, he didn't complain about bad press, he confronted and beat it.

by Kobi 2008-04-02 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

PS....But don't worry, Hillary! Richard Mellon Scaife and his media machine are riding to your rescue!

(We won't ask which piece of your soul you had to sell for that kind of support.)

by Kobi 2008-04-02 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Is it my imagination, or do Obama supporters beat her up for doing exactly what he is pledging to do?  When he does it, he's rising above politics.  When she does it, she's a calculating witch.  

And if I supported a candidate who is on record as saying the GOP is "the party of ideas," I wouldn't be too quick to accuse others of selling their souls.  

by half nelson 2008-04-02 09:23PM | 0 recs
They hate her because she has more compassion than

most phony politicians and phony 'news media' and she makes them painfully aware of that fact.

They used to be better at it than they are now too, now the veneer has been stripped off and those who are getting this education will never be trusting of media again, its a one way trip for them.

This makes the stakes very high for the right because they see a door closing, perhaps for a decade or two..a whole genaration will need to forget.. So they are sparing no expense, throwing away all scruples, because they see their absolute rule threatened on many levels.

by architek 2008-04-02 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

You confuse reaching out to Republicans of good conscience, as Obama does, with kissing the very asses who dragged this country through an 8 year witch hunt, as Hillary is doing.

When Hillary talks about bringing people together she means, "Rupert Murdock, meet Richard Scaife!"

I didn't like Obama's comment about Reagan and the GOP, but Hillary's new ultra-right friends are SLIME.

by Kobi 2008-04-03 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re:There is zero difference.

Kissing up to and glorifying the Reagan years is appealing to Republicans of good conscience?   Please.  Call it what it is, pandering.  New politics my a$$.  

And let's not exaggerate.  Hillary had one brief meeting with Scaife, that doesn't make him her friend.  And despite the fact that he hates her guts, he came away from the meeting impressed by her.  That's pretty impressive, and typical of people who meet her in person.  She showed confidence and guts by going to that meeting.

Don't pretend that you care about Scaife's nasty activities back in the 90's, you don't.  It's just another pretext to bash her.  

by half nelson 2008-04-03 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re:There is zero difference.

"Don't pretend that you care about Scaife's nasty activities back in the 90's, you don't."

Hillary was obviously pretending she didn't care about them back then -- or she has decided she needs their support now and will sell herself to get it.

by Kobi 2008-04-03 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re:There is zero difference.

Hillary was obviously pretending she didn't care about them back then -- or she has decided she needs their support now and will sell herself to get it.

Wow, that's pretty desperate.  "Sell herself?"  by attending one brief meeting?   I call that a rather hysterical exaggeration, typical of certain Obama devotees.  But I'm glad you brought up "selling yourself," 'cause it reminds me of a story I read a while back, about Obama and an indicted business man named Rezko.  Seems Rezko purchased some property and sold it to Obama at  bargain basement prices.   If attending a meeting with one political adversary amounts to "selling yourself," what would you call Obama's questionable dealings?   I'm thinking of a very specific word, can you guess what it is?    

by half nelson 2008-04-03 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re:There is zero difference.

.

by Kobi 2008-04-03 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

How would you feel if Carlson made the same sort of statement about Michelle Obama?  Would you shrug it off?   Well, I'll make you a promise: if and when the press engages in sexist/misogynistic attacks against a democrat that you support, I will not shrug it off, I will protest it.  Guess I'm just a person who truly exemplifies progressive values; I walk the walk, so to speak.  It seems that some Obama supporters are willing to sacifice their progressive values to poltical expedience.  

And you are fooling yourself if you think the Wright problem has gone away.  The GOP will hammer on it, and the press will obligingly report it like it's real news, as soon as Obama is officially nominated.  

 

by half nelson 2008-04-02 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

How would you feel if Carlson made the same sort of statement about Michelle Obama?

He has. I don't get myself into a tizzy over every real or imagined slight.

Progressive values? Hillary has voted in support of the worst of Bush's agenda. How anyone who purports to be progressive can support her is illogical. That's talking but not walking.  

As for Wright, I'm sure Hillary and her fans like you will try to fan it as well as McSame and his slime pushers. But that doesn't mean it's having any effect. Unbiased people can see things for what they really are and know what really matters to them.

by Kobi 2008-04-03 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Hillary and Obama's senate voting records are the same.  So if she has "voted in support of the worst of Bush's agenda," he has as well.  And if you're referring to his much vaunted opposition to the war, admittedly he did not vote to authorize the war; he couldn't, since he was not yet in the Senate.  But has he ever declined to fund it?  Has he done anything politically risky to oppose it?  Remember when he said the war would be funded because no one "Wants To Play Chicken With Our Troops?"  This played right into the GOP narrative that democrats were hurting the troops by holding up funding, which was completely untrue.  There's nothing particularly courageous about his record on the war.  

by half nelson 2008-04-03 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

"Hillary and Obama's senate voting records are the same.  So if she has "voted in support of the worst of Bush's agenda," he has as well."

Hillary voted for:

2001 Bankruptcy Bill
NCLB
Patriot Act
Iraq Disaster
Kyl/Lieberman

Obama didn't.

Spin it how you choose.

by Kobi 2008-04-03 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Spin?

Hillary voted for:

2001 Bankruptcy Bill-- A lie or misconception on your part. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. She cast a vote for this at all.

NCLB
Patriot Act
Iraq Disaster--

OK, I'll play.  Hillary voted AGAINST Bush's tax cuts, Obama didn't.  See how silly you sound?  

Kyl/Lieberman  Obama now calls this "a vote for war;" well, he didn't show up to vote on it either way, period.  If he really considered it a vote for war, why didn't he have the courage to oppose it?  Talk about spin.  

by half nelson 2008-04-03 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Spin?

Sorry to say this, but you're ignorant and nutty.

This conversation is finished.

by Kobi 2008-04-03 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

They don't care about facts.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Here's some info about the "nonpartisan" Center for Media and Public Affairs:

Thus, out of the total of $2,960,916 in foundation grants, nearly all of it ($2,668,916) came from just four sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its foundation funding from those four donors. Here is a sample of other right-wing causes funded by these 3 donors, as listed by their respective SourceWatch articles:

   * John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century
    * Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation
    * Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute

~ Sourcewatch


Of course, this does not automatically make their research inaccurate, but I find it hootingly hilarious that this outfit, and the opinion of that giant of journalistic integrity, Lou Dobbs constitute "proof" of anything on a supposedly progressive website.

What's this world coming to?

by Ddeele 2008-04-02 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

May sound unscientific...but I think the media slant is an up and down thing. I can remember a few weeks when I could not believe how negatively the media was treating Obama...I think it is relative. If you are for a candidate - you tend to be hypersensitive to the media's treatment, no?

As far as 'taking HRC off her talking points on issues' - this is EXACTLY what Clinton did around Wisconsin with the debate thing - it wasnt issues - it was politics and spin

by Newcomer 2008-04-02 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

I got a theory.  Maybe the press likes Obama (and McCain) and doesn't like Clinton.  McCain has the press over for BBQs, Obama generally seems to get along with the press, maybe they like his fresh message, I dunno.

However, the Clinton's haven't had a great relationship with the press since Bill's days in the white house.  That might have something to do with it.

by chewie5656 2008-04-02 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Democrats should all be protesting this

It shouldn't matter who the press likes, they have an obligation to do their jobs properly.  As democrats, we should ALL be protesting this biased coverage, whether we like Hillary or not.  Unfortunately, some of the most vocal activists and pundits in our party have turned a blind eye to it because it isn't impacting their candidate.  That is unwise.  We can't tell the MSM-"Hey, you can't treat this candidate that way but go ahead and do it to that one."  Biased coverage of any democrat is a threat to our party, and should be addressed as such.  Today Hillary is the recipient, tomorrow it may be Obama, his wife or another democrat.  

by half nelson 2008-04-02 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Democrats should all be protesting this

Agreed.  It's unfortunate there are biases.

by chewie5656 2008-04-02 07:12PM | 0 recs
Show me where they have some kind of legal obligat

Show me where they have some kind of legal obligation. The Fairness Act is ancient history.

The conglomerates bought the airwaves (at fire sale prices) and conglomerted.. They laid off 'superfluous' news staff, bought sattelite receivers and cart machines, and TV and radio stations. Then, the ads bought the eyeballs.

They bought the REAL 'rights' from the government to sell slices of us to their advertisers. You know, where the MONEY comes from. That is their right.

They have a contractual DUTY to THEM, to keep people watching long enough to sit through the ADS.

Now what were you saying? Maybe we would like them to have some kind of obligation, but the truth is, we had a 'right' at one time, let the lawmakers eliminate it, and now we have no such 'rights'.

If we as voters, want to create such new rights, we need to elect officials who give a flying f*** about things like that or us, as they scramble for the now millions, perhaps maybe soon billions of dollars, if the exchange rate keeps going south, it will take to get elected..

For that much money, you better expect that they are going to expect to get some good bribes while they are in office, or something. Its like doctors and lawyers, they spend so much money to get that piece of paper, you don't think they are going to blow it by doing anything out of the ordinary, or take even five extra minutes with a client. Time is money, and we are trying to get a free lunch. Who the hell do we think we are?

by architek 2008-04-02 10:03PM | 0 recs
That said, Hillary is a unusually bright star..

Lets NOT blow it or her away by not appreciating that..

Or maybe thats the whole idea..

She is NOT Bill Clinton.. 'she's a completely different person'

Seriously.

by architek 2008-04-02 10:06PM | 0 recs
Strong diary, thanks n/t

by SluggoJD 2008-04-02 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Strong diary, thanks n/t

My pleasure!

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 08:40PM | 0 recs
You guys make me despair humanity sometimes

I got news for you: neither candidate is "talking issues", and that isn't really even their fault. The corporate media, with its obsession with narrative, is calling the shots and arguing with itself, and you guys are hilariously "taking sides" in that battle.

by chicagolife 2008-04-02 05:38PM | 0 recs
Yup.. lots of truth to that..

But you know, there is a huge difference, still..

Hillary = known progressive quantity, not perfect, but real and on our side.. also much better than the MSM, DailyKos's and Huffinston Posts of the murk admit.. they hate her because they envy her..and they are too lazy to ever do what she has done.. they want to coast..they think that their years slaving over a warm CPU entitle them..

Obama = much more phony than the self styled blog pundits and the corrupt MSM admit.. probably has ties to some right wing interest groups that couldnt care less about the diversionary issues.. but hone in o the money issues which is the real core of GOP politics..

Dont forget Plato's "republic" the real model for the Republican party, advocated wife swapping.. the social conservative stuff is just for show, this is all about money, and thats where Obama falls short.

by architek 2008-04-02 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup.. lots of truth to that..

I disagree with your characterization of Senator Obama. Both Clinton and Obama are compromised by their relationship with organized money, and Senator Clinton appeared on the cover of Fortune magazine, telegraping that she was "safe" for business (Obama countered by speaking at the inauguration of the Hamilton Project.

But to impugn Senator Obama by pointing out his relationship to potential right-wing groups (presumably you mean via contributions to his campaign) and then ignoring Senator Clinton's own relationships--which if not just equal, are more pronounced than Senator Obama's) is disingenuous.

Look: neither candidate is perfect. Both have been politician-y; both are clearly pandering to win votes. Anybody honest will admit that, as politicians competing in the most important and most valuable political contest on the planet, they are being disingenuous a lot, they are pandering on issues to win key constituencies, they are being slick politicians. I think they are both phony to a degree.

Who actually believes that either Clinton or Obama pray to God for guidance on government policy? I don't believe it for one second. Its a put on to seem "safe" to Christian voters. Who actually believes Senator Clinton actually cares about the Rev. Wright issue? Do you think she actually think it impacts how good a President he will be? Of course not!

Do you actually believe Senator Obama when he says he wants his campaign to create organizing fellows to build a movement? Don't you think that he, like every other President in modern history, will make the Party the political arm of the White House?

Do you think "grassroots" movements can be controlled by the White House? That's like saying that your boss can be your union steward; it's ridiculous on its face!

Building a political army to power a Party behind a Presidential agenda is not giving power to the people in any meaningful way; and these will not be "bottom-up" organizations in any real, meaningful way: it will teach people how to manage the mechanics of elections, but it will not ideologically radicalize them, or even allow them any control over policy at all. How can it!? It's the President's Party.

You know who else knows how the mechanics of elections extremely well, but has no ideological radicalization? Chicago's patronage machine.

Do you think you will be able to mobilize the typical American--working class, underinsured, and heavily in debt--behind habeas corpus and FISA? Really?

Isn't it obvious by now that people will only act around an ideology focused on their self-interest?

Our job, as the supposed "reality-based" community has always been to ignore the irrelevancies the media narratives generate and push our candidates to lead on issues. Of course, that takes work and we are all too willing to play pretend.

by chicagolife 2008-04-03 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Another gem from you, flea! Thank you. It is a relief when someone like Lou Dobbs finally points to the "elephant in the room" - seeing this for weeks and weeks has bordered on being intolerable! And it needed to be noted in the MSM! BO has more money and all that free advertising to boot! Shame on the 4th estate! More reason to support Hillary!!!

by susanclare 2008-04-02 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

Thanks Susan. It has become unbearable.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-02 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Media Bias Proven!

My question is that if the media are provided obama talking points that they repeat on a daily, hourly, minute by minute basis.

Is Clinton not providing talking points too?

Why do they pick up HIS talking points, but not HERS?

by nikkid 2008-04-02 08:03PM | 0 recs
BHO voter agrees with you
I'm an Obama supporter (already voted for him in the California primary) who agrees there is a strong anti-Hillary bias in much of the mainstream newsmedia that borders on misogyny. Sometimes I get the feeling that the "boys" are having the time of their lives playing news as sport with Obama as their star player, a fellow "guy" they're pitching from all his best angles (Tweety was positively glowing in his softball interview with Obama today) while they (especially people like Keith Olbermann whom I used to love dearly) pick out every little tiny mistake that Clinton makes, like that silly little mixup, "I'll never get up" instead of "I'll never give up." KO must've repeated that two or three times on his show, again and again making fun of her. In another show a couple of weeks back, KO featured Hillary coughing, again a bit of cruelty in my book. He seethes with self-righteous hatred of Hillary and it's almost impossible to watch his show anymore even though I'm voting for Obama -- in spite of KO. He could have his guests critique Hillary's policies and go after her hammer and tongs to tear her decisions apart -- there are many things not to agree with and many reasons not to vote for her -- but to harp on these little human errors is vicious.

I will likely continue in my support of Barack Obama. It's not his fault the media are letting their misogyny show and he's been pretty much of a gentleman towards Hillary. But I thoroughly agree with the premise of this diary. It has been said elsewhere that it's easier to be a misogynist than a racist, and I have to admit that the MSM seem to be proving this thesis and Barack is benefiting from it. Don't call me a "Ferraro" for saying that. I think most of us realize this is true.
________________________________________ ______
Get on board California's single payer bill, SB 840

by purr 2008-04-02 11:34PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads