Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Randy thinks the media is giving Hillary and Obama major coverage is...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:15 PM
Original message
Randy thinks the media is giving Hillary and Obama major coverage is...
Edited on Mon Dec-11-06 05:16 PM by bigdarryl
because Hillary is a woman and Obama is black. said other candidates who have said there in or thinking about it are not getting coverage.she may be on to something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think it's because they're the two that are most popular
the fact they are a woman and a Black man are added bonuses in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I agree ~


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. SO and I had that very conversation over breakfast
but we concluded that the media "Cyber Monday" media is just too damn ignant to dream up and stick to a long term disinformation strategy. They just repeat what they're told to say, and rarely think about it or question it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. fat finger dupe: deleted
Edited on Mon Dec-11-06 05:22 PM by sui generis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. i think it's cause they're corporate-friendly n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. That's a good reason too. And the truth.
Edited on Mon Dec-11-06 05:28 PM by The Count
Ed Koch who is a fascist bastard but well connected and astute politically predicted a ticket with the two of them ("Obama has enough connections to be on the ticket, but not quite enough for the top")I was nauseated (like I always am when he talks), but unfortunately, I feel it'll come to pass. I couldn't forget how little the 2004 primaries had with actual voting. I saw party machine works in my state as well at all levels, where great candidates were ignored by the media and then vy voters, I saw it in 2004, I am now believing what Koch says: it's the number of connections, not of votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. She is right that it's overblown and a distraction from the electoral victory
But then she is obliging them by talking about Obama non-stop.
I am tired of it/him already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Libby2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I'm thinking that is the whole point.
They want us to get sick of hearing about them, long before the election.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. But the sickness came from Randy - as I usually avoid the MSM!
And also, here - there's way too much 2008 talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BluegrassDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
7. Well the other candidates are boring and already known
The rest of them have already run before, so there's nothing new to cover. Obama and Hillary are exciting cause they're unknown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Yeah. Who is this Hillary woman, anyway? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. ...
:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
11. She has a point
I am not so certain that the media coverage is entirely unfair in some regards.

It is really a turning point in our history when these two candidates are taken this seriously even in a primary.

The other candidates were expected to join the race and they are (with the exception of Richardson who I am still not clear on) - ho hum- just more white men running for president.

In comparison to the potential historical shake up, if you were a reporter, what would you want to cover?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
12. A little more than that
Carol Mosley-Braun was black AND a woman, and didn't get this kind of coverage. Al Sharpton didn't get this kind of coverage, and when he did it wasn't positive. So no, it isn't just the minority status. It's that either of them actually has a chance to be the candidate - AND ones a woman and ones black.

Why Barack and not Carol - Barack does have something special and we all saw it at the 2004 convention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. corporate patronage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. I think the corporate media saw Carol Mosley-Braun as a threat,
and they don't see either Hillary or Barak that way, which bothers me about them both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Carol Mosely Braun had "issues"
Edited on Mon Dec-11-06 10:01 PM by Leilani
which is why she lost her Senate seat.

She was a vanity candidate, & I don't know anyone who thought she had a chance to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. Be that as it may, I still find the media's support of Hillary and
Barak disturbing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. You may. But that doesn't mean their coverage is driven by race and gender
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. No, it's driven by what is good for corporate/fascist BushAmerica.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
13. The only others are Dodd, Biden and Vilsack
these guys don't grab too many headlines any day of the week (and I like BIDEN!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wanet Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
14. I think it's because they are conservative Democrats
who the corporatists wouldn't mind too much if they did happen to be elected, but overall they are the least electable of those that might run, so the Powers That Be might just be able to eke out a Republican presidential victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
15. I think Hillary because she is the annointed one as far as punditry
is concerned. They are salivating over the ratings they would get with Hillary Clinton having the RW frothing at the mouth and they dearly want a race between her and McCain or Rudy.

Tweety is the worst for this IMHO.

Obama is getting the play partly because he is a black man, but also IMHO cause he is the biggest threat to Hillary.

Personally I wonder if Hillary can get the nomination, I don't see the grassroot support for her.

It will be interesting to see if the media can annoint their candidate or if the grassroot backlash will put up the Dem that Dem voters want.

I do think the media very much controls at least to some extent the race they want to have. I saw how they just destroyed Howard Dean in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
21. I am sure people are dying to hear the inspiring words of Biden, Vilsak, and Bayh
:boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-11-06 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
22. Does Randi know Hillary's not the first woman and Obama's not the first Black
to run for president?

Women have run before and Blacks have run before without getting this kind of coverage, so it's kind of hard to claim that their rock star coverage is based on their gender or race.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
25. No. It's because Hillary was First Lady & Obama is simply a sensation.
The other candidates she's talking about need to stop feeling sorry for themselves. If they were once in the WH, or if they were as intriguing and inspiring as Obama, then they'd get the coverage, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
26. i'd say its because neither are presidential material and the media knows it
they'll crush both of 'em like they did howard dean when the time is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 14th 2024, 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC