Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

EH89AA — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:03:52 GMT

I agree -- the media needs web hits, ratings, etc. and will continue to bend the story at a whim to get them. However, when these stakes are thrown in the ground as a "must win", why does the media always choose the ones that are set by Hillary? First Super Tuesday (which she was winning the major states by 20 points when she declared that to be the finish line), then Ohio & Texas (again, 20 point margins at the time), and now Pennsylvania (15 point margin, I think). Why don't you set it at Mississippi, and force her to make inroads in a 20 point margin? She is the one who is behind, and who needs to pick up delegates. But the media keeps setting it at pro-Hillary states. Interesting.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Maggie22 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:42:21 GMT

The media isn't choosing to focus on the uncertain contests. It's choosing to focus on the contests where Clinton should win. Pennsylvania is a chief case in point. It has an Ohio demographic and the added handicap for Obama of being a closed primary. He's going to have a hard time closing the margin to under double digits. The only difference between PA and MS is that Clinton has succeeded in convincing the media that the states that matter are the ones that she happens to have an advantage in. Obama inadvertently plays into this by pursuing his strategy which is to contest everywhere. So it looks like he expects to 'win' in PA. In fact, he's campaigning to prevent her from picking up the big chunk of delegates that comes with a blow-out.

Obama's strategy is a good one in that it respects all 50 states, and is clearly playing to the delegate count -- since the aim is to never let her have a blow-out. But PR-wise it has backfired on him in a bit. He contested OH and TX both of which had strong Clinton demographics. He succeeded in keeping them from being blow-outs. But the perception is that he "lost".

(To see this, check out the Obama campaign's spreadsheet on how the primary season would play out. They have OH and TX marked as LOSSES for them.)

Not sure why the media has picked up Clinton's narrative on this. It could be the drama of seeing whether the candidate who really has lost can avoid the knock-out blow. It could be that Obama's team hasn't found an effective way of defining the shape of the race for the media. Their emphasis on the delegate advantage storyline hasn't worked. I suppose it would be difficult to explain the 'beat the demographics' story line -- which is actually there for Obama. He's outperformed his own spreadsheet -- winning in Maine (Clinton demographic) and overperforming in Wisconsin and other places. But that storyline is probably too subtle for the media to flog.

The media is promulgating a bunch of other Clinton narratives that just don't withstand scrutiny. Why is there pressure on Obama to show that he can win her demographic and not pressure on Clinton to show that she can win his? Why do the big states matter more than what already registers in terms of the number of delegates assigned to them (e.g. IN + NC > PA but PA is the big deal)? Why should the popular vote matter when nobody has figured out how to fairly aggregate the results from the caucus states? Why do the choices of democrats in red states not matter as much as the choices of democrats in blue states (don't red state democrats get a say in the national ticket)? etc. etc.

Whether the press buys into the Clinton narrative because it keeps the story going in a livelier way than a more balanced narrative would or because Clinton's team has been more effective at selling their narrative to the media than has Obama's team, I don't know. The narrative as I see it is that there's a near 50-50 split in demographics. Obama is winning because he has (a) more effectively translated his demographic into delegates than has Clinton and (b) because he has occasionally made some inroads into her demographic. That's what he got for campaigning hard in all the contests that came up. She's failed to exploit her advantages effectively and she hasn't even tried to go after his demographic. Her only hope is to cherry pick ways of looking at the results in a way that favors her (red states don't count, southern states don't count, etc), and persuade superdelegates and the media that she's the stronger candidate.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

"Martin Edwin "Mick" Andersen — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 02:18:51 GMT

Hillary's one-way lovefest with John McCain puts her in the position of blackmailing the Democratic Party into either giving her the nomination or else she'll pull a Lieberman and try to throw the election to the Republicans.

No loyalty, no integrity, no class ...

Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you ...

The Clintons.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

aroc80 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 02:52:33 GMT

Did Clinton Darken Obama's Skin?

Look I could handle what ever billary does with her sleeze but to try and think she could deny democracy in these America is just straight racism. I this is a way to try and win anything we will show her soon.http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/did_clinton_darken_obamas_skin.html check this mess out of hillary sleeze. The lady with no integrity hillary clinton

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

"Martin Edwin "Mick" Andersen — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:13:29 GMT

The Clintons are an embarrassment.

Shouldn't Democrats have a presidential candidate they can be proud of ... like we were in the past, before Bill Clinton?

Integrity, honor and accountability should not be rare in politics; we need to strive to make them the minimum price of admission, if we are to move our country forward.

Integrity, honor and accountability are just what the Clintons have not provided, and will never provide.

Robert F. Kennedy said politics was an honorable adventure.

It can be again.

Obama/Webb '08, because tomorrow is here, ready or not ...

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

kravitz — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:23:16 GMT

C'mon People. Press releases can be printed on websites. Hillary only wins mostly existing reliable blue states, and Clinton's foreign policy experience includes this... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/112830/8819/425/470456 and this too... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/EmailBNStory/National/home And I know the networks and papers prefer reprinting press releases rather than tracking things down. However, I feel the US media owes it to the American people to aggressively report this fact: Prime Minister chief of staff Ian Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats. There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign. Robert Hurst, president of CTV News, declined to comment. The Prime Minister's communications director, Sandra Buckler, has said that Mr. Brodie "does not recall" discussing the issue. When, oh when will the US media get this story right. CLINTON's people told the Canadians Nafta was no big deal, not Obama's people. So now comes Pennsylvania. And it comes after Hillary had better release her returns. Way after Obama and McCain have released theirs. It also comes after the fact that Hillary won Ohio based on a lie.

Hillary Clinton's campaign was the one that told Canada that her position on Nafta was No Big Deal. The Canadian press is actively trying to get the word out that the earlier report was mistaken in saying the quote came from the Obama campaign. Yet for the most part, the US press is ignoring this part of the story. Does it consider it done? Has the US press given up trying to uncover the truth? Is it so much easier to point a camera at a train wreck than to find out the tracks were crossed? It feels like a resounding Yes to all three from here.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

marbay — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:53:16 GMT

go to peterpaul.com if you want a scoop on the real clinton

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

collegevoter — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:00:27 GMT

Of course they are. They bought into the forced notion that they were somehow being unfair and thus redoubled their forced vigor against Barack Obama. His treatment in the press will only grow worse and few, who were complaining when they thought it was unfair the other way around, will raise their voice. It's going to get very bad, unfortunately, for Barack Obama.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

marbay — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:26:19 GMT

Go to www.Hillcap.org 3rd one down on Clinton

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

USMC1980 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:43:55 GMT

"Presumed Obama-mania"...man this poor guy is as dellusional as the rest of Newsweek/NBC. Hillary Clitnon just won huge victories in TX and OH, and Newsweek STILL has the gaul to try and claim (via Obama "lover" Jon Alter), that Hillary didn't really win, becasue she is behind in deleagtes still. Funny, delegates were not a bif deal when Hillary was ahead, but now they are paramount, since Obama lost on Tuesday. The ONLY thing that happened last week, was that Obama FINALLY got a little scrutiny from the non Newsweek/NBC press. Let's just stop lying here. We all know that NBC and Nwesweek are "pro Obama". All the denials in the worl isn't going to convince anyone otherwise, because we aren't nearly as dumb and NBC/Newsweek seems to think we are. Hillary won because voters are tired of the "Media Arrogance" in this country. And Hillary will win PA and the nomination for the same reasons, (she also happens to be a better choice then obama). Hillary is winning, and no amunt of "Jon Alter "math", can stop her:)

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

lmcchesn — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:41:20 GMT

We are really getting into reality now. Hillary is unstoppable at this point. She has finally gotten back on track, and she is a Clinton, so she'll go all the way. She has taken so very many wacks from the media for months, yet her strength has pervailed whole barack has all teh heav hitters like kennedy and oprah behind him, she was alone and rose above. That is just a peek at her resilience. Are those not the characteristics we need in a President? Of course theya are. She will cleary have a much better chance at beating mccain than barack anyday, especially as we get closer. barack clearly cannot take the reality of conflict, media bias, poor baby, you rode the wave all these months, now you are gonna pout that you're not shinning and preaching. barack o back to church and let the real President HIllary Clinton do the job.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

MAZees — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:28:35 GMT

How exactly is it a "comeback" when you were up 20 points in the state of Texas, and 2 weeks later, you squeak out a popular vote win and lose the delegate count? Hillary is expected to win PA, just like OH, so how is it a big story if she does? You are right...the MSM needs drama - and you'll create it wherever you need to.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

MAZees — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:48:04 GMT

Furthermore, she touts her experience as First Lady in one of the most scandalous administrations in history. She is getting a free pass on Whitewater, travelgate, cattle futures - how 'bout those tax returns, Hill? The MSM is ignoring that the last time she didn't want to disclose her taxes, there was a dubious 10,000% capital gain on cattle futures. If her "experience" as first lady in the administration of an impeached, disbarred president is her prime qualification for office, then the MSM should review what that "experience" actually was.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Meridian — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:52:02 GMT

The truth is that the establishment is now working in tandem: Hillary and the MSM. The truth is that in response to Hillary's cries about media bias, the hammer swung to Obama. The MSM has lined up behind Hillary and is elevating all her negative messages. If she says "sink," the media says, "how low?" For example, a normally customary photo with Obama dressed in the clothing of a country he's visiting is interpreted by the media as "Obama is a Muslim" because Hillary wants it so. Hillary raises a question about NAFTA and Canada, and the truth gets buried in an article two screens long. The MSM has been unhelpful to voters. It panders controversy at the expense of fairness and truth. How do you people sleep at night?

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

vorlon — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:53:41 GMT

Once again, the press reveals itself as the corporate-driven entertainment-based drivel machine that it is. Enhancing conflict to increase the audience and make more advertising dollars is sordid, and may have something to do with the low regard Americans have for journalists.Time for "The Soup" to cover political "news" coverage.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Debunked — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:40:58 GMT

I can honestly understand how Obama feels that the Media has changed towards him. Previously he has only gotten favorable Media Coverage and no one really questioned or focused on his record, accomplishments, etc... the Media only focused on positive things in regards to Obama.

What I don't understand is how he didn't think the media would change on him or at least stop giving him a free pass. Did he not think that the Media would eventually start to question what he says and check into his background and political record? Come on--he can't be this naive. And honestly, I don't think the Media is treating him badly. He is still getting decent coverage especially if you want to compare it to the coverage Clinton was and still is getting. The more the Media gives the voter insight to who Obama really is, the more voters become weary of him. It is not that he is getting negative media coverage---he is FINALLY starting to get REAL media coverage. So now Obama I say to you----Welcome to the REAL WORLD!

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Mdazes — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:45:16 GMT

After Sen Clinton played the victim card, expressing how the news media was treating her unfairly, The media turned into a mob and literary speaking "lynched Obama." The media turned the Saturday Night Live skit into news, reported the NAFTA story one sided and tied Obama in with the Rezko trail that has nothing to do with Obama.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

cubster — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:56:17 GMT

I think that you have passed over an alternative explanation on the focus of coverage on Penn. Obama and Hilary have had a certain profile of states that they have been winning. Obama has been having trouble taking large diversified states that are the traditional base of the democratic profile. He has been picking up momentum with the number of wins in a row. A large number of those states were not states that are carried by the democrats in the general. That does not lessen the value of the win, it means that there is a question about his ability to carry the highly populated industrialized states. I believe if Obama would have one either Texas or Ohio, or even came close in Ohio, the race would have concluded. There was rumor that 50 super delegates were going to endorse him on Wed. They obviously decided to wait. Penn will not necessarily give Clinton the nomination, but will either show strength or weakness in the Obama camp. The super delegates are going to have to settle this, since the DNC was not smart enough to shorten the amount of delegates required to secure the nomination when they disqualified 366 delegates from Michigan and Florida. Bone head mistake. If Obama can erase the doubts of his ability to take a large traditionally democratic state like Penn he will sway the bulk of the super delegates. That is why Penn is so important. The Wyoming primary is as exciting as the Alaska primary. Obama won by 75%, unfortunately there was a total of around 400 hundred votes and a slim to none chance that we will be competitive in that state. That does not mean that winning Wyoming or Alaska are not important. These contests at this stage will not provide the kind of impressive win needed to make the case that Obama is the strongest candidate. His winning in Penn would. Even if he won 100% of Wyoming it would not make that big of an impression on his electability. It would merely add to his delegate count, which because of the DNC error of not subtracting the disallowed delegates from the total, will not allow him to hit the magic number for the nomination. Obama winning Penn also ruins the Clinton argument for her being made the nominee by the super delegates.

That is why Penn is the story. No offense to the Wyoming and Missouri primaries, but no matter what happens there they will not affect the outcome of the drive. If they would have happened before March 4th, they would have been useful on the momentum argument that they had won 14 states in a row. If they win them now because she won three primaries in a row, then the best that can be made of wyoming and missouri is two in a row.

The story is Penn and what the DNC does about Fla and MI.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

jjaffie — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:57:08 GMT

Clinton has so many loose ends & scandals that the media fails to make a big deal out of. Is it because they expect it from her & so it’s not as newsworthy? Clinton appears to think the rules do not apply to her, yet she holds her opponent to the highest standards & cries foul if she doesn’t get what she wants.

Clinton gets a lot of free passes. Guess that what happens when you have the personal FBI files of 800 or so key political figures: both friend & foe. (Filegate) That could be quite a bit of leverage which we all know Clinton will not hesitate to use, ethics be damned. I wonder how many files she has on super-delegates.

Clinton plays both sides of any game. (see cattle futures) For instance how can she be the fighter & the victim at the same time? Yesterday she challenged Obama to run a clean campaign after doing the tired old Clinton ‘kitchen sink’ routine leading up to TX & OH. She kept flinging mud until something stuck- the media gave her a free pass on all the untrue accusations that didn’t stick.

How much time does the media spend on the fact that Rezko also donated to Hillary’s campaign? Anyone remember another ‘land deal’ called Whitewater? Out of the core group Bill & Hillary were the only members of that land deal that did not go to jail. Bill issues a presidential pardon to a key witness who was jailed for refusing to testify against the Clintons.

The Canada memo story breaks & Hillary immediately issues a denial & points the finger at Obama. A week later it is learned that Clinton actually did send someone to Canada to ‘talk’ about NAFTA and the media spends 2 seconds on her bold face lie before moving on.

Obama has gotten breaks also, but then again he does not have a scandal plagued past like Clinton.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

dunnhaupt — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:38:04 GMT

CNN is certainly biased in favor of Hillary. Wolf Blitzer furiously attacked Senator Kerry for endorsing Obama, practically accusing him of being a traitor to the people of Massachusetts who had voted for Hillary. He always calls Obama the "Junior Senator", but never Hillary who is also a Junior Senator. His bias comes out loud and clear in ever sentence he utters.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

HelenWiells — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:41:59 GMT

Let's not forget the "lemming effect" when we talk about media coverage...reporters are so busy and always having to come up with ...something...for their editors that they occasionally (often) gather up other people's scraps from here and there and serve it up as "news". It's rare for a reporter to be given the luxury of time to really sit down and THINK. And, many editors are looking for "angles", not really news, so conflict is the the easy-peasy way to go!

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

lamm01 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:27:51 GMT

Poor, poor black guy..... He's actually being made to account for himself and all he can say is "they're picking on me". Get my grandmother to tell them to stop.... Call Hillary a monster... Walk away from the press when he actually gets asked to answer some "real" questions.

Let's face it... The press is responsible for the position this man is in today... You built him up to be an idolic god and now you're finding out he has clay feet. You now have no choice but to bring him down.

Now, the wheels are coming of the Obama Express and he runs at the first bump in the road. Tell me, is this really the man you want running this country when he's showing all signs of not being able to bear any type of pressure?

Wake up before it's too late. There is still time to take this guy out.... I know it won't be pretty, but it's the right thing to do.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Moving forward — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:00:14 GMT

Just the fact that you have to characterize him as just "poor black guy" erases your credibility. Tell me this, DO YOU KNOW WHAT BILL CLINTON HAS BEEN DOING THESE LAST 8 YEARS? Has been a good boy? This country cannot go through that Lewinsky CRAP again. If the Clinton campaign wants to take off the gloves, then LET'S DO IT!!! Poor poor pathetic wife, Hillary. What kind of JUDGMENT does she have???

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Saltydog_0 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:31:30 GMT

"This isn't right or wrong. It isn't about advertising dollars. It isn't even conscious. It just is."

What?!! Stumper, have you lost your mind?! You actually believe the media's need to inflate stories and increase drama is causeless? Don't be willfully ignorant just because you're a particapant in a system that has lost all sense of objectivity and service. It most definitely IS about advertising dollars. . .and you know it.

You're too young to remember what actual journalists look and sound like, but I'm sure you can find some tape on Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, or even Peter Jennings and Dan Rather. Back in the day, journalists actually, you know, REPORTED the news. Now they prefer to manufacture it. What changed? Cable TV. Instead of 3 news sources, we have dozens. Add in the internet and we have hundreds. People no longer tune in because they respect and trust the organization and spokesman bringing them the stories of the day. They tune in to hear what they want to hear and to be entertained. "Journalists" have become embarrassingly partisan and sensational in their efforts to win their share of viewers. And as we all know, viewers equals advertising. It's all about the money coming from sodas, detergents and weight loss programs.

Come on Stumper, don't insult our intelligence any more than necessary. We know what drives the machine. I understand why you wouldn't want to draw attention to your industry's corruption, but don't go so far as to lie about it.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

baybluv — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:33:03 GMT

Obama did not call Hillary a monster and should not be held accountable for another adult's opinion. I agree that the media is helping Billary by focusing on states that she can win. If Obama was a white male, the Democrates would have asked Billary to step down after the eleven wins. Billary just can't face the fact that a Black man is beating her and it has become personal. She's rather die than give in to a Black man.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Southern Bell — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:33:43 GMT

The media simply didn't delve into Obama's history, it's as if they really wanted him to be some kind of Jimmy Stewart, Mr-Smith-Goes-to-Washington character, instead of a politician gifted with oratorial skills and charisma. They were enormously invested in this image of Obama, almost as much as they are attacked to Maverick McCain.

So when little bits started surfacing about Obama, they didn't have a frame of reference on which to guage certain allegations and you could see journalists confused about what kind of tone to take. Some, like Jack Cafferty, refused to countenance any kind of further examination of Obama, others like David Gergen aknowledged mistakes made by the Obama campaign but still defended Obama.

In the long run Obama will benefit from having to fight this battle with HRC. If he is going to be our Democratic nominee he has to be willing to go into the ring and fight the Repug attack machine.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Lynn in NJ — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:52:03 GMT

I was very disappointed (but not surprised) by MSNBC's reporting this week since Tuesday. For example, yesterday morning when announcing that Obama has a 12 point lead against McCain in national polls, the graphic shown on the screen was of Hillary's 6 point edge. This is very misleading and gives everyone watching the sense that after three wins (following 11 losses) Hillary is somehow the big contender, again, and thus more electable. In actuality, she won only marginally in Texas and 10 points in Ohio is hardly a landslide. The change in coverage of Obama has come ever since Hillary complained that she was not receiving enough airtime. She had to create enouch drama to keep you folks interested. Too bad the media cannot aim to be higher beings and simply report on the real issues of the day, rather than the personalities of the two candidates. Rather than win the nomination, I wonder if we shouldn't grant Hillary an Emmy.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

jpbless — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:56:53 GMT

Let’s for once imagine that Hillary and Bill, obviously a joint ticket, are running against someone with the Clintons record (Whitewater; impeachment; intern gate - Lewinsky and the infamous sex in the oval office; impasse in congress that led to shutdowns; Lincoln bedroom pimping; pardon for mobsters and shady individuals; Arkansas law firm; Hillary’s tax papers etc) Bill and Hillary would have hounded that person to submission.

In any case I blame Obama who has so far sat idly while the Clintons threw all kinds of negative stuff at him and Obama not responding in kind. Agreed Obama wants to run a clean campaign however he needs to know this is American politics where fair play trophy is not awarded to the most civil contestant who lost the contest. He should either respond aggressively (after all it is becoming obvious the media and voters seem to reward Clintons negative campaign).

As for the media; seems you can herd them into your corner just by accusing them of being biased. Hillary staged a coup with Saturday Night Live and accused the media of bias. It worked; the media soon became an extension of Hillary’s campaign. Hillary has shown she is a dirty fighter; worse still she has shown she could be negative while at the same time con and make the media buy her victim argument. That’s a wonderful albeit dubious skill.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Rocky2001 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:46:51 GMT

Obama's politics of change?? Don't make me laugh. He is jumping in with both feet at the first sign of trouble. According to him, this exactly what he wants to change in American Politics, but there he is mixing it up with the best of them. Oh well I knew he was to good to be true, at least with Hillary you know what your getting. Obama is typical, just like most politicians. They are all talk. What is really funny is how every 4 years the counrty gets pumped up over some canidate promoting change and every time it's the same thing. Here's a little challenge for the Clinton and Obama supporters. Look back over the last 30 years and see how many campaigns promised change. I'm not calling you stupid,,,,Just niave!

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Cathryn — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:58:40 GMT

I would argue about the last [snip] in your article...The states that "don't matter" to her are any she doesn't win - PERIOD. Nice to know about a person who wants to be president, isn't it?

She did attempt to cut into Obama's demographics...remember Bill in Carolina? Good work!

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Cathryn — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:01:06 GMT

Mr. Romano, can you tell us what your response would've been had it been Barack Obama yelling at the media cameras, "Shame on you Hillary! Shame on you!"

I rest my case.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Rocky2001 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:04:37 GMT

Just to add one point....Historically less than 50% of these "new" voters ever vote in the General election. Could be trouble for the Obama worshippers.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

jaymzz66 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:10:12 GMT

There's nothing wrong with going after Obama's record but it's disappointing to see how Clinton's exaggerations of hers remain unchallenged by media. her foreign affairs experience is clearly a wishful thinking talk and so is her argument about her qualifications to be the better commander-in-chief, considering her vote for the war in iraq and obama's anti-war speech in 2002. she's a wannabe who'd like to make people believe words don't change a thing but fails to realize that behind words there's a mind that thinks and makes a judgment. anyone who ever read obama's speech, which btw should be engraved in stone, can clearly see his brightness and analytical knowledge of all the factors in play, his breakdown of internal propaganda as well as the impact of the war on the region and america is spotless. hillary rotten clinton, on the other hand, not only can't admit her judgment was wrong but has the nerve to present herself as more competent, comparing obama to bush. and somehow, media buy it. i used to like her and her husband, until the moment she realized her inevitability is not good enough. then she turned into an old grumpy hag with no positive message, fighting as ugly as it gets to steal the spotlight and discredit her rival's intelligence and achievements. i'd like to hope that the media will again find their balls and start challenging her the very same way they like to challenge mr. obama.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Emanuel — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:26:49 GMT

Remember that Bill Clinton ran on a Healthcare Reform Platform in 1992. Even with a Democratic-controlled Congress, he could not get his Healthcare plan passed. He was characterized as too politically divisive; even against his own party. This failure and his general ineptitude led to record low approval ratings for a mid-term President, and led to the Republican Congressional Revolution of 1994, giving rise to Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich as Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House respectively. Clinton won re-election in 1996 against Bob Dole, a has-been Republican windbag who was out of touch with the country.

Yes there was economic prosperity during the Clinton years. Most of the credit to Alan Greenspan (a Reagan appointee) and the fiscally conservative-controlled Congress. These wonder years also created the largest financial market bubbles in history, from which we still have not yet recovered (the NASDAQ was 5000 in 1999; it is at less than 2500 today). The budget surplus that they bragged about means that the government was TAXING the people more than it was PAYING for services to help the people. Meanwhile Social Security was left unfunded, and the American public school system slipped to last in the world among developed countries.

Osama Bin Laden rose to power during the Clinton Administration. Remember that the WTC was first bombed in 1993 by an unknown radical Islamic extremist group led by Ramzi Youzef, a terrorist who trained in Afghanistan. Bin Laden continued the attacks with the US Embassy bombing in Tanzania (1998) and also the USS Cole bombing off the coast of Yemen (Oct. 2000). The September 11 attacks were plotted, financed and coordinated by the Bin Laden 1998 Fatwa. These known terrorists were able to freely travel through American airports, learn our security systems and even attend flight training sessions for their future attack. What was Bill Clinton preoccupied with in 1998? He was defending himself for his sexual improprieties with a White House intern, perjuring himself and obstructing justice along the way. I will vote for ANY candidate before I vote for a Clinton again. Please think before you vote.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Rocky2001 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:32:59 GMT

Here's another little tid bit to chew on. If you notice the overwhelming sentiment for Mr Obama on all of these blogs. It's because Clinton's demographics are older americans and blue collar workers (Voters) who don't have the luxury, the capacity or the time to spend participating in these types of dicussions. I guess they are to busy working towards the american dream, rather than enlightening the blogesphere with their views. Glad I have the time!!

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

thet — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:12:45 GMT

One thing that I am deeply disappointed about Mrs. Clinton campaign is "cherry picking" the states instead treating all 50 alike and campaign alike. If you have watched her campaign closely it is all old school politics but NO change. I do not see a lot of difference between her and McCain expect party and her LAST name. Note here, per her campaign there is no gender consideration when it comes to top job. It is all about resume.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

enoughpoliticalcorrectness — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:24:01 GMT

Talk about the biggest load of crap. If anything, the media has been way too supportive of Obama and biased against Hillary. They had all but written her off giving basically every headline to Obama. When Hillary made a comeback earlier this week and finally gets some decent press all of a sudden it's poor Obama. Wake up people, he's selling a speech with absolutely NOTHING solid behind his statements.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

an obama girl — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:30:20 GMT

Is this nothing more than bigotry.

If the white women had won 11 states and the math showed that the blackman had no way to catch up this race would be over!

If Obama kept this going on and people would be saying that the blackman was just holding on and the democratic party was allowing him to do it in order not to lose the black votes!

Meanwhile the fact is the Democratic party is allowing it to go on because.......Obama's real fight for change is within the Democratic party. He must force change within the party BEFORE....he can change America!

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Rocky2001 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:46:45 GMT

Ah the race card!! It was only a matter of time. Thanks now I can leave this discussion, it friday and happy hour is calling.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

quixel4321 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:10:02 GMT

Obama doesnt have to sell himself to his demographics because a large portion of them are Blacks who are disproportionally voting for him.While whites are voting for him pretty much evenly as anyone should.This should be troubling tto anyone and shows to many a sort of bias or racism however you want to call it based on Color against Hillary.It is sad but very true and is pretty disgusting when you look at it with an open mind.What woyulod you say if the things were reversed?We already KNOW what the MEDIA would say as they already accused New Hampshire voters of RACISM when they didn't vote overwhelmingly for OBAMA.The MSM has been very biased and bigotted along with many voters against Hillary.Be it racism or sexism she has endured it all.I know many men wil not vote for her because she is a woman and most blacks(statistically 80-90+ %) will not vote for her because of color(either because of hers or they are favoring someone of their own color for whatever reason they may feel-Some may like him others are just being racist but the MEDIA wil not say this even though it is self evident and you can read any blog on AOL black voices and all over the internet and see the racism and bigotry against her(NOT even thinly veiled)..Whats worse The MEDIA and OBAMA's campaign and his supporters are treating Hillary like a Republcan which they all hate and dispise but somehow that is not called what it is also by the MEDIA-IT IS BIGOTRY AND RACISM JUST THE SAME. AMAZING this country we live in...I am saddened to have given money to the DNC and wish i could take all my previous DONATIONS back. This party is far worse and much more divise for the AMERICAN PEOPLE then what they claim to be and what they promised to be in Congress too. OBAMA is the candidate that has not worked TOGETHER with both parties on any issue,he is extremely partisan and that is when he even voted,which is not very often because he skipped any and all controversial issues which need the most attention!!! Clinton and McCan are the only 2 choices that have crossed party lines and worked to UNITE both parties by working for a COMMON Goal of a UNIFIED AMERICA..not one of old school CHICAGO STYLE POLITICS(as OBAMA claimed he was well versed in) Chicago style POLITICS are the worst,most corrupt in AMERICA.I wish more of the naive Younger voters knew more about history and were not enthralled by a "ROCK STAR".Empty words spewed by a liar Obama mean nothing compared to great words said by others KING and KENNEDY and i am most disgusted he USED and ABUSED their Memories to fool voters. I am extremely disgusted on my delegates from Florida being Abandoned by my party and wanted to be discarded by OBAMA and his cohorts.He is disenfranchising many many mnay voters that will REMEMBER that he considers US less then human and not worth having a VOTE- I thought the DNC claimed that all VOTES were precious when it is in their BEST INTEREST as in 2000,but now they have decided for me who i want and left me without a vote,you best believe I along with Thousands of others or maybe MILLIONS will throw our VOTES against their "CHOSEN ONE" and vote for the other side-McCain because at least he doesn't play devisive style of politics and will work for the best interest of the AMERICAN PEOPLE and cross party lines when it is the RIGHT THING TO DO. WHAt is OBAMA doing getting involved in African Politics already and chosing sides with a guy that wants to implement strict Islamic law to the people?Why would he want to stop helping the Colombian government stop the drug trade coming into our country?Chavez wants to help FARC take over COLOMBIA and is helping the guerillas take over the country-the guerillas that kidnap and kill many innocents daily.Why would OBAMA not want to keep supporting the COLOMBIAN government to fight against these terrorist scum.My mother is from Bogota and is much happier being here after all the terrible atrocities that the FARC commits on the people.My friends father went back to Colombia on vacation and they MURDERED him and 3 members of his family because they wouldn't pay protection money when they came to hold them up.FARC is evil and with OBAMA not wanting to support the Government against this organization by cutting funding when he becomes PRESIDENT-He has already established his stance against helping the Colombian government-This along with his buddy Chavez supporting the guerillas will destory COLOMBIA as it will also greatly increase the drug trade here in AMERICA. SOOOOO MANY SKELETONS.He needs to be stopped.Don't fall for the hype and the hollow promises that any SNAKE OIL SALESMAN can promise you. Shoot if you make me PRESIDENT I will promise to give everyone 100,000 dollars a year,a mule, and free college education,free medical care for life, and lower taxes to boot.HOW i am going to pay for all this??? Don't ask just have faith in me as i am a GOD among men just ask the MEDIA that supports me and faints at everything i say!!!VOTE FOR CHANGE VOTE for me PEDRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

timrogers — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:15:15 GMT

The Clinton campaign has controlled the media coverage of this process from the beginning and continue to do so. The idea that Obama has received favorable coverage is nonsense. He keeps winning while she keeps spinning and the press eats it up. She has successfully changed the coverage to emphasis on her big state victories and her momentum. In reality she won Ohio and Rhode island this week while they tied in Texas ( where he was behind by double digits only weeks ago) and he won Vermont. She has also changed the debate on Michigan and Florida. She has shifted the focus from the delegate count to who wins Pennsylvania. Obama will win the battle for delegates, but Hillary will win the war for the nomination in part because she manipulates the press so easily. I give her credit, she has even been able to convince the press that they have been too hard on her and too soft on Obama.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Jaspermoon — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:17:07 GMT

I think everyone is missing the point. Clinton is trying to pass Obama's Popular vote, so that along with the fact that she has won the bigger states needed in a general, and that she has had the momentum in the final month's of the race, she will also have the most votes!!! This will play right into Obama mantra "We should listen to the WILL of the people."

Isn't the will of the people the popular vote???? Not some preselected set of delegates or superdelegates?

The media is looking to the races that will matter in changing the momentum of the race, and they will also be looking at the popular vote advantage decreasing for Obama, because Larger states create larger margins in popular vote.

When all is said and done Clinton may not even need Florida and Texas to do this if she can keep his winning margins low and hers higher.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

anniehall — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:00:12 GMT

Sounds like quixel4321 has a dilemma. He seems to be quoting from Jon Stewart "Are you voting for Hilary because you're racist or Obama because you're sexist?" (as a joke to a guest). Man, you are hurting. Vote for McCain and get it over with. I don't hear ANYONE saying "Latinos are racists" because they are consistently voting for Hilary. Without their base - she would have lost Texas. And did you see the caucus footage? I saw a lot of white folks there and I WAS there - there were all white people at two locations, in hundreds with their children or husbands and wives - so don't be a Hilary-tactic-monger and belittle the voters here! What about other states with no black people...Obama is easily organizing them...is the answer. I think people who complain about racism in lieu of THESE facts are themselves prejudice, insecure and that's why they focus on race when others see that its not the case. I'm part spanish and swedish and though I look more white, I still know and honestly say my spanish speaking in the far south have parents that are uncomfortable with black people, and they openly say its why like Hilary. But that's honest. I won't go and say Hilary should denounce Latinos support for the innuendo that it could be true FOR SOME. As I said, if you are a loser, don't vote or pick another party other than democrat. Its the ONLY party with diversity in this election and yes, I'm young and in college and educated and european citizen, voting for OBAMA.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

anniehall — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:00:39 GMT

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

katmarie — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:08:32 GMT

It's kind of like the Britney Spears media mentality... more drama sales... build em up to tear 'em down! In the long run, I feel it's very destructive...

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

katmarie — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:10:34 GMT

maybe we should start calling the political media the pollirozzi!!

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

poet1951 — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:28:50 GMT

it is about time the press started reporting the truth and not just going along for the ride...this guy, B.HUssain Obama is not JFK or Bobby Kennedy...he's a slick talking dude who is attempting to ride into the white house on the back of his black constituants. he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, which was exposed with the NAFTA situation with Cananda...it's alot like Bill Clinton did with the gays, "We'll support open sexuality in the military" instead they got the "don't tell", tell them anything to get the vote...Obama is eating fried chicken and collard greens right now, when he's in the white house he'll be eating prime rib like all those who went before him and the ones that worked hardest to get him there will wonder where the guy they supported went...

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

marbay — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:51:18 GMT

Obama was 20 points behind two weeks before Texas. He almost tied it, He was never leading in Ohio. He concentrates on ALL states, not just big ones. His grassroots campaign raised over 55 million in february with more than 90% of it $100 OR LESS. iT IS OBVIOUS THAT HIS DIVERSE APPEAL IS EXTENDING ACROSS AMERICA. hE IS A UNIFIER, The media just spins off HRC latest attack and they are definetly calling the shots. Obama needs his mojo back, Hillary is a polorizing, lying bully who has to be in control. Obama could easily win the election if he chose to enter into her smear campaigns. And believe me , hillary has many, many skeletons. Go to wwwhillcap.org or peterpaul.com if you don,t believe me. And of course there was Whitewater, Travelgate,Arkansa Savings and loan scandal ,etc. The lists go on and on. WE NEED A NEW AMERICA. WENEED CHANGE WE NEED OBAMA. THE ENERGY AND KARMA OF THE CLINTONS WILL EVENTUALLY DESROY US ALL

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Maggie22 — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:03:32 GMT

Thanks for posting my comment! And yes, I'm a 'she'.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Maximess — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:24:09 GMT

Barack is the Jackie Robinson of "politics" as we have come to know it. There has never been a national political campaign like this. The Clinton "bunch" feels it is being attacked because Barack asked for her tax returns to be released. If thats an attack than my house can fly! He takes a political path that has never been traveled. Mrs. Clinton campaigned for George McGovern and was slaughtered by Richard M. Nixon. I think she learned more from Nixon than McGovern.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

strawberry — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:50:58 GMT

Hillary said in a Wyoming speach...."I spent some time in the oval office" therefore i have experience. Monica spent a lot MORe TIME in the oval office.....she also has experience.

Hillary would sell her soul to the devil for the nomination......we do not need a Billary in the white house for any period of time.....Obama need not accept anything but the NOMINATION.

We need CHANGE.....and OBAMA is CHANGE.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

strawberry — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:55:00 GMT

Hillary needs to Go back to NY...... Yankees might like her.... Americans do not need a Billary in the White house..... She said she spent some...some...time in the Oval Office with Bill; however, apparently Monica spent MORE TIME in the Oval office......maybe under the desk.......but; she was much closer to the Pres and Hillary..................Please....for the sake of america and the DEM party go home to NY and lick your wounds.....let Obama be the nominee, and lets get on with the job at hand........Hillary is running on the Past....Obama is running on the future and CHANGE.

Go Home Hillary.........

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

grammagram — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:03:09 GMT

I thought I heard it all from ignorant politicians, but the remarks for the Irepublican iowa Senator Steve King is the HEIGHT of ignorance! And to think he is representing the citizens of IOWA! He needs to retract his bold face lies. I have been a Republican since God was a little boy and for the first time I will be voting Democratic - OBAMA to be precise! OBAMA is NOT MUSLIM and actually if you watch the news, Hussain is a name of honor "From the Arabic personal name, Husayn, derived from the Arabic hasuna, meaning "to be good" or "to be handsome or beautiful"

You, Mr King I rate right up there with theClinton tactics!

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

She59 — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 23:19:36 GMT

Grammagram

I totally agree with your remarks in regards to Iowa Republican Steve King. I am one of his constituents and cannot believe that my neighbors vote for such a fear mongering human.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

timrogers — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 04:20:23 GMT

I watched 'Hardball" today and the host and guests were absolutely salivating at the prospect of seven weeks of negative campaigning going into Pennsylvania. Obama's Wyoming win was dismissed by them so fast you would think the Clinton campaign controlled the teleprompter. Mississippi caucus voting next Tuesday was mentioned then forgotten. The focus was on Pennsylvania; exactly where the Clinton campaign wants it to be. The discussion centered on how the red meat campaign of the Clintons' was going to work with both the Penn voters and the super delegates. Obama has to change his message and tactics to stay in the race, His strategy is not working, and is not enough to counter the Clinton momentum. Hillary has convinced the media that the more she loses small primaries , caucus states and pledged delegates; the stronger she gets. Hillary has succeded with the media far better than she has with the voters. By the way Hardballers, Hillary already has a running mate.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Politra — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:03:48 GMT

Hillary is very BAD in math:

She offered joint ticket ! Its a joke of the year !

For this everyone should hate her. For her self-contradiction, for her egoism and for her sense of (dis)proportion !

She is a very BAD American:

She views, Ohio=rest of USA

Media is also BAD in math:

On the 4 March, media coverage is not proportionate to the result !

Media should not view : Ohio=rest of USA , as Hillary views it.

Is it true that Hillary is the winner of Texas !!!!!!

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

STATGUY — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:38:24 GMT

VERY ASTUTE ANALYSIS FROM ALL. I'M A LATE CONVERT TO SEN OBAMA (HAVING FAVORED GOV. RICHARDSON.) FOR ALL THE POSITIVE REASONS. BUT IT IS ASTOUNDING TO ME NOW LOOKING SOMEWHAT FROM THE OUTSIDE AS TO THE LACK OF CLOSE SCRUTINY SEN. CLINTON HAS RECEIVED-ESPECIALLY REGARDING HER ACTUAL EXPERIENCE AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

YOUR COMMENTS WERE ESPECIALLY ENLIGHTENING AND TIMELY.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

sojourners2 — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:32:43 GMT

I agree with a lot of the other comments. Hillary is behind in the pledged delegates...a place she never expected to be. She is trying to control the way people view the election by minimizing the states where she expects to lose and highlighting the large states where she has an edge and expects to win. It doesn't matter that Obama has stopped her in those large states from having the blowout she always hopes for. He ran a smart campaign in that he considered every state important from the very beginning. She wrote off the small states as insignificant and only went after the states that matched her ego (large). Very bad decision for someone who wants to be the President of the United States and represent ALL the states. At the end of the primary season she will be behind and will have to try to convince the superdelegates that she is the better candidate. Hopefully in the weeks to come, the media will recover from their setback after her allegations of unfair treatment and start giving her the scrutiny that they have been giving Obama of late. She has been getting a pass on her claims of more experience and having passed the threshold for Commander in Chief. I don't see it. Hopefully the media will call her on that and demand to see the proof of those claims. If her White House is as unorganized as her camapign...heaven help us.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

shamim45 — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:30:35 GMT

FINALLY, someone sees this unbelievable situation for what it is. Hilary Clinton says the media is biased against her, and right on cue, the media reports on Obama become overwhelmingly negative. I've stopped watching SNL due to their unapologetic Obama bashing. The NYT is guilty as well: Huge headlines for Clinton wins, small or insignificant mentions for Obama, even after his trouncing of her in the 11 primaries preceding March 4th.

Every Hilary state is a bellweather, Obama states won't matter in the general. Mary Matalin, believe it or not, is the only one who has challenged this assertion. Do we really believe that a Republican will win New York? That a Republican will win Massachusetts? A Democrat will certainly win the blue states, but Obama has a better chance at getting the swing states as opposed to Hilary. Somehow this analysis has escaped most of the pundits and the frozen superdelegates.

Now, Hilary has the audacity to imply that she would take Obama as her number two??? What kind of alternative universe are we living in where the trailing candidate offers the candidate who had won more states, more votes and more delegates the vice presidency??? This is some of the most condescending politics I have ever seen. I am a dyed in the wool Democrat, but I absolutely will not vote for Hilary Clinton if she wins the nomination.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

musician51 — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:39:40 GMT

WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IS oBAMA COMING APART, BECAUSE HE HAS NO REAL EXPERIENCE AND IS NOT SAVY TO THE PROCESS. He put himself in the position he is in , not Hillary Clinton not the media. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were both told that Florida and Michigan were going to vote early, but it is the old hand, the wise hand that said, well, put my name on the ballot anyway just in case. Hillary Clinton covered her bases and Obama did not. A clear example of what is to come if he became President. Paying attention to detail is vital to the exsistence of the country and Obama clearly doesn't understand how the process works!

Obama was born in 1961, was 10 years old in 1971, was 20 years old in 1981. You do the math, what vast vat of experience will he be drawing from beside other people??

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

musician51 — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:44:21 GMT

Recently I read in the newspaper that Republican operatives were funneling campaign contributions into the Obama campaign through straw donors. I was wondering were all the millions of grass roots dollars were coming from? The Republican party understands that a fight with Hillary Clinton in the fall will result in a loss. They are trying to help Obama obtain the nomination, all to destroy him in the fall, and they will if he becomes the nominee.

re: Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama?

Integrity first and foremost — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:07:44 GMT

Can you please fix this page so that that ads aren't cutting off part of the comments. Thank you!!