by linfar, Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:50:07 AM EST
I did not think this day would EVER come.
CNN finally addresses the media bias in favor of Barack Obama and against Senator Hillary Clinton.
Saturday Night Live!! And Hillary comments at last night's debate on msnbc have spurred rival CNN to wade in and tell the unvarnished truth.
Check it out here:
Tags: Barack Obama., CNN, Hillary Clinton, Media Bias (all tags)
Luckily, the race is basically over, with Hillary dropping out next Thursday.
are using to take the next week off as they imagine the empty vessel of all their dreams and aspirations sailing to easy victory.
They shall regret their lethargy but once, and that will be continuously.
FUNNY FUNNY LINE! The more interesting aspect of all this is that FOXNews today, too, did a MUCH more lengthy piece on all of these tripwires to eloquence and hope. Not from the news readers, but from a guest. The hounds are on the hunt, and when they end up digging in the sands of Syria and in the bank accounts of British-Arab Billionaires who are less than six degrees of separation from the mirrored reflection of the pissed off Republicans and the angry left of our historically GRAND Democratic Party, the proverbial S*** will hit the fan. Suspend or win, Senator Clinton will be the 44th President of the United States, with real solutions and a real PLAN to take America forward.
As the reporters from the ghost of the once Grand Washington Post once said "Follow the money"
Oy
The more interesting aspect of all this is that FOXNews today, t
All the squawking and moaning about the Drudge Report, Hillary Clinton supporters are now pimping (used very advisedly) al-Foxeera.
Sweet Christ.
"Senator Clinton will be the 44th President of the United States, with real solutions and a real PLAN to take America forward."
Senator Clinton will remain just that, a Senator... if even that.
She didn't have any solutions to answer Obama's string of continuing wins and endorsements because she didn't plan past February 5th.
Her only plan was one of failure.
IF by some miracle she actually move America forward 1 step, you can bet she would simultaneously be taking us 2 steps back!
No, it's not a game. But there are rules. And according to those rules, Hillary Clinton needs to win TX and OH by margins greater than twenty per cent to catch up in the delegate count. These rules were written before she or Obama ever even thought about running for president.
... coming out that the Rezko trial, then Hillary should suspend her campaign after Super Tuesday. She will have roughly 1,229 pledged delegates at that point and will be eligible to be nominated if something truly heinous does indeed surface from the Rezko trial. 1,229 pledged delegates, plus all 796 superdelegates, will give her 2,025 total delegates and the nomination. I'm certain that in such an instance (presumptive nominee with Nixon-esque ethical problems), ALL 796 superdelegates will move to Hillary en masse.
But Rezko is not reason enough to continue the campaign, no matter what you hope.
There isn't any should to it. She has every right to stay in until someone gets the needed amount of delegates and that should be not including superdelagates. I also have the right, as well as many in many other states, to participate in a democracy and be able to be part of the freaking election. I will not be voting until April, and there are other states voting as late as June. Obama should have to keep working for every delegate he gets until he actually crosses the threshhold. If Obama has nothing to hide, then he should be able to be on view for as long as it takes him to win. Clinton dropping out will not unify the party. I can tell you that without hesitation.
If Huckabee has not dropped out of the race with a small number of delegates why should Hillary drop out? She could stay as long as she wishes!! The media creation called Obama would implode! REZKO would turn states witness and finger Bary and his wife.
Don't know if that is lucky or not. When I was in the hospital I talked to four people who said they were Democrats but would vote for McCain if Obama won.
Hillary opened offices in Wyoming today. Doesn't sound like someone who is giving up to me.
Obama has had an office in Philly for months and already has a ground game in Wyoming (the office was opened a while ago). It's too late for her to play catch-up at this stage.
whats funny is that all through 2007 the media was in love with Hillary... 2 months of "bad" press and Hillary is whining like a little baby about it, threatening network hosts and losing contest after contest.
Maybe had she run a better campaign and not had to loan herself $5 million dollars than this wouldn't be an issue...
Sour grapes for the clintons.
Russert, Williams and seven of the first nine demands (they weren't actually questions) more or less "Tell us what an asshole Hillary is!"
See:
It's so surreal to see the exact same attacks that the freepers unleashed upon all of the Dem candidates in the past elections now being spouted by supposed Democrats.
"2 months of bad press" try 16 years. Duh.
The woman is a fighter. She has been villified, attacked, trashed, ridiculed, consistenly for 16 years by the press and by the likes of you (whatever party you're actually from.) And she's still fighting, and there's not an ounce of whine in her. Men are just afraid of strong women, that's all. In 2008 the media, the ads, and the republicans and the obama-suppoters, have made it clear that the only value in a woman is when we give birth -- but ONLY if we return to a size 2 body within a few weeks.
The one thing that really makes me happy about all of this is that the woman-hating media and men have awoken the sleeping dragon.... the women's movement. You'll wish you didn't.
Men are just afraid of strong women, that's all.
----------------------------------------
-----------
If that's the only argument you have left then go ahead and use it.
If that's the only argument you have left then go ahead and use it.
It is, and they do. Oh god, do they.
The AUMF vote never happened, and anyone who says it did is just a big misogynist.
Re: FINALLY !!!! (2.00 / 2)
If that's the only argument you have left then go ahead and use it.
It is, and they do. Oh god, do they.
by BlueinColorado on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:10:56 PM EST
Well if the shoe fits, BlueinColorado.
It's been interesting to read the comments about the MSM treatment of the candidates here in linfar's diary. For a diary that was first called just a comment, it sure has alot of folks commenting.
I'll have to tell my mother and my two sisters, among the many other women I know who voted for Obama, that they're misogynists. Or self-haters. Or something. Cause god knows that pesky little Iraq War isn't reason enough.
Men are just afraid of strong women, that's all.
----------------------------------------
---------
If that's the only argument you have left then go ahead and use it.
by soros on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:09:30 PM EST
From the women I've talked to Soros and from the reaction of folks to Tina Fey's Weekend Update, the fear of a strong woman by men rings true.
It is a very compelling arguement.
By the way, Interesting nick.
I think there is something else going on here. Still sexism, but of a different type.
Two things, I think. The first: On the whole, guys are more adolescent in their preferences even into a rather advanced age (look how many middle aged guys still want to date women 10 or 20 years younger). They want a happening. They want a party. They want something that rocks! Obama's movement fits the bill far more than Clinton's candidacy. There's not much about her that attracts a lot of them and she's not exciting like his candidacy, so the hell with her. If she was younger and/or hotter, I bet a lot of guys would be singing a far different tune. I'm a guy but I'm middle aged. Even 5 or 10 years ago my sensibilities would have probably directed me to Obama. No more.
Secondly, I think many guys just must tune her out. Perhaps she reminds them too much of a school marm or a mother in law. I don't share this stylistic aversion (I always liked my mother in law and my older female colleagues) but I think some of that is what is going on here.
Okay interesting comment lombard.
Guess I look at this election differently.
Personally I'm looking for someone to manage the country not be a rock star. Don't get me wrong I like rockstars. I just think that to succeed at being a rockstar you don't always need the same skills as you do to run the country.
as for the schoolmarm/motherinlaw comment thank you for pointing out the sexism in this race. Guys teach and are in laws too, but I see none of that stereo type showing up in relation to Sen. Clinton.
Okay interesting comment lombard.
Guess I look at this election differently.
Personally I'm looking for someone to manage the country not be a rock star. Don't get me wrong I like rockstars. I just think that to succeed at being a rockstar you don't always need the same skills as you do to run the country.
as for the schoolmarm/motherinlaw comment thank you for pointing out the sexism in this race. Guys teach and are in laws too, but I see none of that stereo type showing up in relation to Sen. Clinton.
...She has been villified, attacked, trashed, ridiculed, consistenly for 16 years...
----
Just the person I want on the top of the ticket.
Thing is Bush Bites. If that speech in NH had the Obama folks riled they won't be able to take the heat in the General Election
Meanwhile the Clinton folks have had 7 years of during the Pres. Clinton years. And now the stuff like "they have a fake marriage" to deal with from within their own party. They've had a heck of a lot worse thrown at them and survived.
Both Sen Obama and Sen. Clinton will face alot of fire in the GE
It's just they haven't had folks walkaround on eggshell with Clinton like they have with Obama
Gives me an idea she can survive the fight when it gets General
That's the diff.
This is a comment not a diary.
Here are the guidelines for the MyDD community:* Post as many comments as you like, but only 1-2 diaries per day. No single or two-line diaries--if it's a comment, put it in a comment thread. Don't clutter the diaries with foolish commentary on MyDD itself.
To the contrary, I find the video amusing and not the least bit offensive to anyone, I can point to 5 diaries in which it could easily and rightfully be posted. It simply is NOT a diary, it is a comment.
Hang on Herding Cats. This is more than a simple comment. The diary also includes the video. That old saw, "Boy you said a mouthful."?
Good writer can say a mouthful with not too many words.
Looks like a diary to me.
Thank you, you can return to your position as Hall Monitor now. I think I heard the bell ring.
No problem, play amongst yourselves.
But as an aside, Try writing a positive diary or comment about your candidate every now and then. it would go a really long way to make you look more inclusive and progressive.
Negative diaries by the same people over and over do so much more damage to your candidate than they do good.
Just saying....
Great news. No, she isn't dropping out. In fact I think she takes this all the way to the convention even if she loses TX. We need a real democrat around to take the nomination when it becomes apparent that BO doesn't have a chance against the GOP with his checkered dealings and low-life politics.
"its going to PA!"
And I'm going to PA to help. I'm giving her my grocery money and expect to max out on contributing to her campaign. I've never done that in my entire life, but I feel it has never mattered more. Keep the faith!
Doubtful. If she loses both its over. If she loses TX and Ohio is close there is going to be a HUGE amount of party pressure for her to drop. There comes a point where you have to concede with dignity. If she can't win both TX and Ohio in PV and Delegate count, the pressure will be considerable and to continue will risk hurting her stature within the party. A few weeks ago, I would have said Huckabee was a near shoo-in for McCain's VP. His hanging on has probably killed that chance and made him nearly an Alan Keyes type joke.
That's exactly what the commentor is doing. Trying to get rid of a dairy they don't like.
Because of the great influence MYDD commenters have over the Democratic primary.
CNN is one of the guilty party. They have done nothing to level the play field for Democrat primary. The self-censorship is the name of the game for the media, block all Obama's weaknesses and Clinton's strengths from getting the air time.
Nothing like a CNN puff piece to really change the dynamic of the race. Yeah.
I wouldn't hang my hopes on this, were I you.
Chicago political scandals usually result in a string of indictments and trials. Sort of like dominoes. Fast Buck Eddy Vrdolyak was caught after a number of smaller fish went down. The question would be how close Obama is to Blogovich. Durbin is from downstate, so he is probably not in the mess.
Seriously, do you people not get how much you sound like 'wingers talking about Whitewater fifteen years ago?
Well, do you think the RWNM will just say "Whatever..." and move along? I think the lessons of the past 16 years haven't been learned by all Dems.
No. I think there's no there there, just like with Whitewater. And nobody outside the screaming meemies of the right gave a shit about Whitewater till Ken Starr started sniffing panties.
If you think that what al Foxeera and Cap'n Oxycontin are going to say should be disqualifying to a Democratic candidate, we're up shit creek.
For instance: Tax returns.
Or you could google, Bill Clinton Kazakhstan mines.
Since when do we give Sean Hannity and his .03% of electorate audience veto power over our nominees? or do his innuendo slinging for him.
You know, that's my point exactly. It didn't matter that there was nothing to any of the RWNM hit pieces on the Clintons. It seemed true. That was all it took.
BTW, I hear (not from you personally) a lot of the same old RWNM memes about Hillary. That stuff entered the public consciousness far beyond the Hannity knuckleheads. Some of your more extreme Obama compatriots routinely regurgitate them. Here we are 16 years later. It was hideously effective.
That's not to say that someone shouldn't run because the RWNM might say this or that. But Obama supporters need to see this coming and have answers (other than complaining about Hillary).
"Since when do we give Sean Hannity and his .03% of electorate audience veto power over our nominees?"
We already have. That happened in all the "electability" arguments. People very obediently used all the old RWNM talking points about Hillary to argue that she wasn't electable.
Ho Hum.
This is an inside the media story no one cares about but the hard core Clintonistas on this site.
I saw that last night, but then right after it CNN analysts' claws dug right back into Hillary.
Excellent. Thank you. I saw Cafferty has something on the website too that I commented on.
Yeah well ... too fucking late. Sorry to be so negitive but this on going slaughter of HRC has made me sick. CNN is only doing this because they THINK BO has it in the bag.
The GOPers all said the same thing about how McCain was treated so well by the press.
The edwards supporters have always felt aggrieved by the media.
Now, HRC..
Face it,gang; the frontrunner gets the pub.HRC got it from Feb- October, then the worm started to turn.
Rudy got it from Feb- October, then the worm started to turn.
Media is in the eyeball business.. whoever is getting the most eyeballs gets covered. Nothing personal, just business.
I would agree with you if B.O. was the front runner when this shameless fawning began. He was not. What we have is an advertiser driven ENTERTAINMENT media posing as journalism. If they can Hannah Montana a candidate, they will. Of all the important things they could discuss about B.O., they chose to run a headline story that B.O. wants Will Smith to play him in a film about his life. Yes.. he dodges out on his responsibilities to his sub-committee that deals with our situation in Afghanistan, for over a year, yet the biggest stories are... who the heck is gonna play him in a film. I won't EVEN go into the arrogance issue here.
Media is in the eyeball business.. whoever is getting the most eyeballs gets covered. Nothing personal, just business.
Really?
Cause from what I learned in school, the role of a journalist is to report the news not make it.
Remember just the facts.
The opinions are for the OP/Ed folks.
Reporters? Just the facts.
Like I was saying down stream to Leshac, there are alot of candidates who haven't gotten a fair shake by the media. Personally it's why I wrote about it in my blog and alot of posters here at MyDD have commented on it.
Ah i guess its nice to be so optimistic when your candidate is so down.
I knew what that was like Pre-Philly Debate.
It's a good start...hesitant but let's hope they're ramping up to electron microscope examination of the sleaze that the Obama campaign's become
wow, for a group of people who have been mocking and railing against a campaign being run on hope and supported by massive delusion across the country, y'all will just grasp on to any last shred of hope you can, won't you? have you not been watching what's happened? clinton has been outperformed and crushed for most of the primary season. look at the spreads obama has won by (and look at the mydd diary predictions before the voting). she won't win texas, and i'm willing to wager she won't win ohio. if she ekes out a win in ohio, she's still going to be way down in the delegate count. and the superdelegates....? how many has she picked up in february? how about obama? if she wins ohio (and i lose my wager), by the time we're done with PA, obama will have a large enough lead in delegates and superdelegates to make the seating of MI/FL delegates a non-issue. i'll be clear: i will vote for hillary or obama, whichever one wins. i don't have terrible things to say about her or worshipful things to say about him (my first priority is getting one of them to pick the next 2 supreme court justices). but look at reality. if you don't see that it will take a near-miracle for her to win the nomination, you're truly delusional and need to look outside of mydd for alternative perspectives.
sorry, i didn't know that the rules were i had to respond directly to the content of what you wrote. after watching the video, i then read through the 50-odd comments before mine and was just a little shocked, that's all. and i'm still a little shocked by the level of vitriol cast at both candidates from the other's supporters. the cnn report would've been interesting if it didn't sound like mark penn wrote it. did you notice how they ran through each successive attack her campaign has thrown at him? but again, i just didn't find it illuminating; the clinton campaign has been complaining about press coverage for a long time. which isn't to say they're wrong that she has a hard time with the press. it's just that i think the comments before mine were just like the comments after the "plagiarism" story broke.....somehow hoping and predicting that this, finally, would be where the tide turned. i'm surprised by this and by the nastiness of some people (on both sides). this inspired my thoughts....sorry :)
I didn't post the video or diary because I thought the tide had turned. I don't think anything short of firing the msm commentators wholesale could bring true fairness into the coverage. I posted it because it documents the unfairness that Hillary supporters have been complaining about. And because it astounds me the way Obama supporters won't admit it is the case. So there it is. In living color.
by linfar on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:21:54 PM EST
You know linfar,
I should think Sen. Obama's suporters would be very much for the fair and balanced coverage of all the candidates. One of his campaign messages is about a new day, hope and honesty in government. At least that's what I'm told.
I should believe it.
Thing is alot of the complaints about Sen. Clinton is about the fact that she takes up for herself at all. That's not being critical of the message. No. That's being critical of the messenger. Person has a right to defend themself. Especially if they think that their treatment was due to a biased opinion. I'm would hope that the supporters of Sen. Obama agree, Sen. Clinton has a right to defend herself against what she feels is biased treatment by the media. I'm sure all the candidates would want to defend themselves if they felt ill treated.
By the way linfar, if you have time, I would appreciate your comments over on my diary. For my last diary entry. If you have already commented on it thank you very much. If not I look forward to your comments.
To think, it only took 16 minutes for a comment to get to the top of the recommended diary list.
Who knew?
Just saying..
To think, it only took 16 minutes for a comment to get to the top of the recommended diary list.
Who knew?
Just saying..
Herding cats, what is the criteria for a diary being placed on the recommened diary list?
Just wondering
No criteria other than hoards of people finding it has merit.
Funny though that so many diaries here never make it to the recommended list, simply because so many partisans never even bother to read anything other than the diaries written by their cohort partisans. I find that to be a really bad sign for an informed, Democratic electorate.
Certainly not that it has happened on this diary, but a few people recommend diaries before they even read them.
Just saying...
Thank you herding cats.
agree or disagree
you are always welcome over at my diary.
I like your tag line by the way.
"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards"
That's the thing about presidential elections, they vary rarely give you the second chance to use all the hard lessons you learn in the first go around. Doesn't seem fair.
herding cats
as I asked of linsfar will do the same for you.
I would be interested in your opinion of what I wrote on my diary about this subject.
over on "12 dogs and a blog"
Linfar
Thank you for this diary.
Media bias is a critical issue in this campaigns as it has been in past campaigns.
Question, question, question.
all of the candidates.
not a bad thing
I'll refer you back to the hit and run comment you made to me over at my diary, and my response since you have yet to reply:
Re: I Agree...BUT... (none / 0)I haven't seen you on this site before. Where have you been hiding out? I have a theory and it goes like this: some Obama supporters got together and said, 'you know, those Hillary people over at my dd are carying the day while we have been busy at dkos. Time to go over there and knock a few heads.' You talk a good line, but your behavior on a diary you didn't like a little while ago was tawdry. First, you tried, it's not a 'real' diary. Then you tried 'the link dowsn't work.' Actions speak louder than words to quote a candidate for President who I respect and admire.
by linfar on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:18:39 PM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]
Despite ignoring my reply to your posting and then continuing to pursue me in your own diary, let me provide you with my comments, the ones you apparently do not want to deal with.
Re: I Agree...BUT... (none / 0)
I haven't seen you on this site before. Where have you been hiding out?Not very observant are you?
Here's my first diary, posted November 20th, 2days before my 65th birthday, but you would have known that if you actually paid attention instead of participating in "group think"
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/20/131 613/74#readmore
As for your diary, it is a comment, no matter how you want to spin it.
It really is too bad that so many people simply refuse to pay attention, but rather glomb together in a group "think mentality" that makes them all look a bit foolish.
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2012
by Its Like Herding Cats on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:31:22 PM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]
I now realize it's not that you are not very observant, it's just that your observations are selective.
I also realize that your understanding the difference between a comment and a diary will most likely never improve. This has nothing to do with the merit of your statement, just the fact that it is a comment and not a diary. I'll gladly debate the merits if you care to write a real diary about media bias, of which I have seen far more than you and undoubtedly could share some insights and discussion beyond.... "I never thought I'd see the day".
Perhaps I'm just from a different era, one where we paid attention and measured progress in months and years as opposed to minutes and seconds.
I don't have any desire to get into a pissing match with you, but when you claim you have never seen me before and claim me to be supporter of a particular candidate and part of a mob from DailyKos, you might want to stop and think.
You see, I do know you, I saw you the first day you arrived here on MyDD. I have read every word and diary you have written. I know you and all you are about. It behooves one to know with whom they speak.
Just saying...
Maybe this is a good time to talk about the Fairness doctrine? The one you wrote about on my blog.
Well don't think the Fairness Doctrine is on the horizon right now for any politician. I think we missed our opportunity several months back when Rush Limbaugh was all the talk of the Congress after he made one of his daily slanderous claims. He's had so many I forget which one caused the uproar, but that would have been the time to strike.
The Republicans clearly understood this, as before a single Democrat even alluded to the Fairness Doctrine, the Republicans came out swinging. They claimed the Democrats wanted to go back to the old days before Reagan. That is all they had to do, mention BR (Before Reagan) and all the wing nuts came out fighting. We, the Democrats lost our issue before we could even bring it up.
The Fairness Doctrine at this point is a dead horse and will stay so until we have a 60 vote majority in the Senate, a Democratically held Congress and White House. Then and only then can a ground swell of activists bring this back to the table. Always keep in mind the fact that a lot of Legislators got "rich" politically in terms of donors after voting for the telecommunications act of 1996. It will be hard to wrestle them away from that generous teat.
I thought about this along time.
If there is a need for the fairness doctrine, that would mean there was a wrong not addressed by the law.
You are asking me to just accept media bias as inevitable. To get used to it because there isn't any support to change said situation. You aren't saying that it doesn't exist OR that it doesn't have an effect on this election. You're just saying to get used to it. You how you get support for this wrong? Buy going to your fellow Democrats and asking them, regardless of which they support, to express there negative affect on the political process. As I should think that both Clinton and Obama should understand the negative effect that has had on both candidates and I have heard some argue that it is hurting the party. That Obama won't be immune to the media's attacks in the General Election.
Seems now the time for all of us to send an email against any bias in this election to the advertisers for the news. I guarantee they'll listen and so will the newsoutlets when the hear from the advertisers. That the real reason why the Religious Right was a force. The knew and still know the power of the email campaign to sponsors and they know it works. Just as powerful as having a president in the White House.
Obama outperforming her..by spending more money. Is that really what the country needs - another deep pocket candidate who can buy his way to the White House? If Obama didn't have unlimited funds, would he have gotten this far? I guess we will never know.
clinton had a massive fundraising advantage going into the primaries. she's losing because she's run a poor campaign. blame it on whoever you want, her, bill, penn, the press.... fact is, she had all the advantage in the world in october. she's lost it, and no amount of money would've changed that. money is obviously very important in politics; to think it's the only thing is just naive. as the front page post on obama's fundraising points out: "with Obama having cut Clinton's Pennsylvania lead from 16 points two weeks ago to 6 points today...without the help of advertisements, perhaps the movement in these March 4 states is less about the massive amounts of money the Obama campaign is investing than it is about a genuine shift within the electorate away from Clinton towards Obama..." and the evidence of his massive ground game in every state, one that is fueled by volunteers and not by money, further backs up the idea that he's simply running a better campaign and beating her because of it. if obama hadn't beaten her so convincingly in so many early states, he simply wouldn't have the money. so, another way to formulate your question: if he hadn't beaten her so strongly and unexpectedly early on, would he have gotten this far? certainly not.
Did anyone actually see the entire segment? I actually was watching when the played it.
After this pre-prepared bit, they asked a whole panel about what they thought of it, and every one thought it was just completely ridiculous. Every one said that if there was any "bias" she was the only one to blame for it.
This was basically every person that they spoke to... Cafferty, John King, and I think one other person.
The video only "documents" it if you play into the "bias" idea in the first place. The point of the video was to basically try to show HRC's side of the story, after which every person basically laughed at it (and if I recall correctly, the last person wasn't Brazile... sorry I can't recall).
The fact that there's "negative" attention on HRC and that Obama has been able to deflect criticism thus far isn't "proof" of anything. The fact that HRC has been sort of "around" in the media for 15+ years has probably more to do with the fact that she gets "covered" more.
In any case, HRC wagging her finger at the media probably doesn't really help combat the "bias" either... In a way, it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy now, because the media people don't appreciate someone complaining about their coverage of them, when they're just... covering them.
"In any case, HRC wagging her finger at the media probably doesn't really help combat the "bias" either... In a way, it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy now, because the media people don't appreciate someone complaining about their coverage of them, when they're just... covering them."
See this is the thing. What do you think she should have done if she felt there was media bias? Hasn't it been the argument that when she went to defend her self the media jumped on her? If that was the case then why keep silent? One of the things that I've found interesting is how if she defends herself just the act of doing so is suposed to be wrong. Not the content of her defense but simply the act of defending.
What would you do differently? If you were advising. And I'll cop to my bias here. I do think the media has given many of the candidates unfair treatment. And no I don't think it's just cover the face in the lead. That's why I talk about it in my diary leshrac55.
I'm not really sure what she should do, but I honestly feel like most of the negative media attention she's gotten is basically because she's:
a) Run a poor campaign and
b) Is one of the most well-known politicians in America, and therefore has had far more opportunity for "scrutiny" than others in the race.
If the media is "biased" against her, it certainly wasn't going to get any easier in a general election either. I thought this was supposed to be her strong suit, anyway, right? She's already been "tested" and "vetted"?
So I don't know exactly what she should've done, but whining about it probably doesn't help at all.
this may seem a little weird but hear goes
leshrac
thank you for you comment to my question. Alot of times I hear folks complain that there was a problem but when you ask what they would have done they don't always have or won't give an answer
Regardless of whether we agree, I appreciate your response.
Does that make sense?
Now to reply to your answer
Would you or anyone else be interested in formulating a hypothetical campaign from this point?
Also just a quick question. Have you ever heard of the "Fairness doctrine"?
It's just if she feels unfairly treated by the media and the DNC she should be heard. How does she do it and not look like she is whining?
LOL She should just quit is not an answer, for those reading this comment.
But how should she frame her complaint? She isn't the only one who has complained about treatment from the media. Howard Dean, John Edwards, and I think Carol Mosley Braun were either bashed or ignored by the press. What is their defense?
Also have you ever heard of something called the fairness doctrine?
Another way to look at it is that you can "document" anything you want in a video...
I suppose John Kerry really was a treasonous traitor as well... The Swift Boat Vets for Truth "documented" it!
You're right the media is totally in love with Obama. That is why after he has won 11 straight contests over her, most of which were blowouts, the media still calls Hillary serious competition. If ANY other candidate had losing streak like that the media would've forced them out of the race long ago.
This is a great find. It is a start. And only a start. But maybe folks will start paying attention to what has been happening.
On Hardball, Howard Fineman (Newsweek) said that Hillary as a (genuine) gripe on the issue of how she has been treated by the MSM.
Clinton undermines her renewed push to brand herself as a "fighter" by her reliance on complaints about fairness and bias in the media. It may be an effective short term strategy to whine about non-existant media bias, but in the long term, nobody takes you seriously.
Right, and Faux News is just countering the giant "liberal bias" in the media. Give me a break. Again Clinton underestimates Americans' intelligence.
It sure was scandalous when Obama insisted on paying a full $110k for the 1/6th of Rezko's property when it was appraised and offered for sale to him for only 40-something. The shame! Oh... wait... Maybe the reason this isn't playing in the media is because it's a baseless smear and no one really wants to hear it unless they're furious that Hillary drove the campaign bus off the road.
There can be no question that Hillary has been pillaried by the MSM. It has been going on since the 1992 presidential elections and has intensified over the past six weeks.
I believe that the night of the New Hampshire primary, supporters of Barack Obama joined this effort, and began a sytematic attack on Hillary and Bill Clinton, accusing them of being racist. From that moment on, the Clinton's could do nothing to counter this claim. From that moment on, all we heard from the MSM was how the Clinton's were using race to shore up white support and how everything they did was politically calculating. From that moment on, we heard the most foul and denigrating remarks and opinions of the Clinton's. I cannot tell you how many talking heads were paraded onto countless political "repots" on CNN and MSNBC that accused the Clinton's of being exceptional, brilliant and remarkable liers.
I don't think I need to comment on Barack Obama's treatment by the press. However, I am concerned that at some point Senator Obama will also become the recipient of the sort of press Hilary Clinton has had to endure for almost two decades.
Obviously, I am a Clinton supporter, but I can see without some sort of miracle over the next week, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.
And since I will vote for him in the GE, I hope he is ready for the no holds barred campaign ahead of him and I fervently hope that he is ready for the myriad of monumental problems facing our country over the next eight years.
A final note of warning. As enthusiastic as Obama supporters are at present, I wonder how people will feel about him when he is exposed as human, with all of the faults and foibles inherent in humanity. As they say, the higher you are, the harder you fall...
I listened to a few moments of Hannity today -- long enough to hear him say "we" were "successful" in the War on Clinton and his listeners shouldn't worry, they had plenty in the works to start in on Obama next week. He was pounding the middle name business and asking over and over how you can "attack" someone by using their middle name.
It has begun.
and last night? Obama's answer to the subcommittee question was so ill thought out and brittle -- well, in the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure put on your own oxygen maps Obamites before attempting to help others.
Live with Dan Abrams is also pointing out how the Center for Media and Public Affairs, Dec 16 - Jan 27 showed that Hillary had positive stories 51% of the time, while Barack had 84% positive news stories.
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
137 Comments