After watching the panelists on MTP, it's more obvious than ever that MSM is thirsting for Obama

to become the Democrats' candidate of choice. They're practically reaching right across their studio and into our living rooms telling us who we better nominate. I think that's nice of them to help us make up our minds like that.

For the entire show...

Hillary and Bill Clinton = Bad.
Barack Obama = Well, they didn't say. They just said Hillary/Bill = bad.

Hillary can't win a general election.
Barack Obama is popular with enough Republicans so he might be able to swing some red states.

Hillary's character is too questionable so she can't win with a character like that.
Barack's character, well, they didn't say. They just said Hillary's character is too questionable.

So, there you have it, DU. The MSM agrees with most of you that the candidate Democrats better nominate if they want to win is Obama because they sure imply all the time that Hillary can't win the general election.

I think it's nice of the MSM to let us know that Hillary should lose out to Obama because of how they're so concerned for the well being of us Democrats. Surely they want us to put up the candidate who can most easily beat the Republican candidate in the General Election.

Gee, I wonder if the MSM, which constitutes people earning salaries in the highest of tax brackets, could possibly be thirsting so bad for an Obama Democratic candidacy because of any other self-serving motives that they're not telling us about (*cough cough*).

does not help (Russert and Noonan).

going deep into her characteristic disingenuousness is so berry berry concerned with the dynasty factor. To Noonan, Bush-Clinton-Bush was quite fine as she plastered the airways, especially with tweety drooling all over her, with support for the baby bush. Her factoids, of course, received all smiles from the other participants.

Just about to start here and I was was wondering how they were going to demean her victory. I think they are a little nervous. Bill I think, is giving us a clue as to how he will deal with them, and I think it scares them. Perhaps the MSM doesn't want to be reminded how they brought us 9-11 by focusing excursively about a BJ. They dropped the ball on reporting about the things that really mattered. The MSM is on death watch, and I for one, would like to be there when they turn out the light once and for all.

saying about the voter supression in Nevada. Was there really a person following right after them? Was their no video tape? In a casino lobby? With all those secret service people around, can no one give a phyiscal description?

Jesus. His claim sounded like one of those bogus E-mails about all the murdered friends of the Clintons. These tactics are bothersome.

I'll vote for any democratic nominee, but the media won't make up my mind. My personal meetings with Clinton and Obama led to me to support Obama.

can i laugh now.

interesting

not tell the Truth about their candidate's implication in a sordid Chicago indictment by a known (Rezko) criminal's involvement.

Some one posted and interesting blurb. Rezko, aka "Rezmar" is building a Nuclear Plant in Iraq.. can someone explain to me how someone under US indictment, got this "energy" contract?

it seems they are plunking...going for what they think is a weaker candidate so their Pub candidate in Nov has better odds. Many peeps have alluded to this.

Then Republicans have the best of both worlds. They have a Democratic nominee who openly favors Ronald Reagan as his transformational model, related to puppetmaster, Dick Cheney and is as inexperienced and unqualified to run the country as a first year brain surgery student needing guidance for at least four years.

whoop-dee-do.. Did I mention Doris Kearns Goodwin is a pro at revisionist history?

Obama is the Republican Plan B..

style and speech. He wasn't as popular as the right wing media wants us to believe. I'll never forget his second term. Nancy standing behind him during his speeches coaching him. It was obvious he already had Alzheimer's. He has no excuse for his 1st term though.

and that is when "the dish ran away with the spoon.." As Nancy was guarding Ronnie from embarrassment, Bush, Cheney and Newt were having a field day using the power of his presidency to run rough shod over the world.

want to see him get the nomination. I think he is far more right leaning than he lets on. He changes his message according to who he is talking to. I don't trust him. Hillary and Edwards I do. Kucinich I did until the doggone Ron Paul for VP thing. The UFO thing could very well be true!

your last sentence made me laugh...

thanks! :hi:

support any of our candidates.

What is it about her?? MKJ

really pissing me off! They are spinning and twisting like a tornado. I am seriously wondering what their motivation is.:puke:

actually cheered when they mentioned Reagan's conservatism. I don't know what anyone could remember from the Reagan years that was good. What did the mortgage rates go up to 17 pct? Higher? It was a disaster for the middle class, and created our big homeless population. We had a shadow government, created chaos in the middle east, funded the deaths of hundreds of thousands in central America, and busted unions to just skim the list. I cannot believe any candidate we have should have any Reagan policies in mind. If they do they are not democrats much less progressives.

so something is askew in beltwayland.

garners cheers from a Democrat..

it wasnt pretty the last tme

Are you still crying about your vast right wing conspiracy? :cry:

I'll bet you were a Vichy, pro-impeachment Dem...

The same old players. The same shallow politics. The same sorry results.

~

the "vast right wing conspiracy" excuse every time she is held accountable for her nonsense. Those stale apologetics have grown old.

Facts There Is Nothing I Can Do To Disabuse You Of That Notion...

And they can stack the deck all they want for Obama rank and file Democrats are rejecting him and his candidacy ends on February Fifth...

Vichy democrat..I believe dear sir, you've struck an exposed nerve.

:rofl:

were you hiding under your bed during the Impeachment?

He was probably lobbying his Congressman or woman to vote for it...

I think we can infer that from the tenor of his comments...

:rofl:

Your level of clueless-ness this Sunday is surprising.

Bring Down Bill Clinton....


OK

Katrina vanden Heuvel is on This Week right now, slamming Bill for behaving like an over-exuberant, out-of-control Little League dad. Is she also part of this conspiracy?

No sale...

:hi:

Look at his remarks....

Nobody was slamming his candidate, Obama, in this thread... Clinton supporters were lamenting the bad press they receive and the relentless attack they have received from the right wing which has been well documented...What does he do? He lends credence to them...

It is what it is...

The subject of this thread is how the media are unfair to Hillary because they really want Obama to win.

If you want to buy into the idea that every time your candidate is challenged in the media, it's because of an innate personal dislike for her, secret support for another candidate, or membership in some media conspiracy...have at it.

Surely, that means today's MTP panel was unfairly stacked against Hillary and everything they said was merely driven by a pronounced partisan hatred and disgust for anything "Clintonian." Yeah. Right.

Every media study has demonstated that Hillary gets more negative coverage than her competitors...

She has received more negative coverage.

...and, in my opinion, she's deserved it, given the campaign she's run.

It's like...during Katrina, Chimpy was getting hammered in the press. Of course he did. He sucked.

My Latino brother and sisters are not buying that shit...

answering the same question once again...

when the Press turns on Obama and starts to dig into him. Now THAT'LL be fun to watch!

I doubt they will turn on him but it won't be enough when the right wing machine turns on him... If they can convince Americans that a man with a Bronze Star and a Silver Star and two Purple Stars shot himself on purpose and that his claim to fame was shooting a fourteen year old Vietnameze irregular in the back I shudder what they will do to Senator Obama...

the Nominee. His (sometimes) obnoxious supporters on DU have me uncharacteristically rubbing my hands with glee at the bloody feast to come.

~

could beat her, now that they want Obama it's because he's the best candidate .Jeez do people really have memories that short or one sided? BTW I still think Edward is the way to go, using the above scenario they say nothing about him, like they don't want people to know he's still around!

when she's running against John McCain. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Likability counts. And she's not likable to a large swathe of the country.

there's much to not like in Hillary. The medias' job will be that much easier.

"likeability" isn't credible political capital when millions are losing their jobs and homes.

if he wins the nomination....believe me.....he will not know what the hell hit him......his campaign complains now.......wait....just wait!

and say, Romney is the (R) nominee.. You just might see the media take a vacation..Why you say? Because the Repukes are holding both candidates in their camp.

The only hope we have in electing a democrat is "HILLARY". The more they dislike her, the happier it makes me. It reinforces my confidence knowing she is a Republicans worst nightmare and will bring about the change we need to bury the remaining Republicans once and for all.

the press has a history with her and visa versa- and it's NEVER been good. And Obama's handling all the incoming just fine, thank you very much. I have no reason to think he won't be prepared for whatever comes his way.

That's why he's "handling all the incoming just fine", and that's the only reason. Only time will tell if he can handle Right Wing attacks as handily as Hillary has over all the last 15 years. So far he hasn't been tested an iota.

If Obama is the nominee it means people have bought into his notion of stopping the attacks and addressing issues.

The more attacks that come, the worse it will be for the R's. People are sick of their attack politics. Especially independents

But she's liked by the other large swathe of the country. Her recent wins prove it. If she wins the nomination...I think that should prove it too. However, I must agree a lot of those will hold their nose while voting. But, it's the votes that count.

She's likable enough.

MSM is doing everything in its power to make sure another Republican gets elected next Fall.

It is so basic that even the corporate media presenters know it: the nation is starving for someone to bring a message of change and hope to us.

Obama represents that feeling. Clinton(s) is old; McCain is old.

Never forget, voting for president for most people is not about issues and experience or anything that a person can write down on a list and analyze -- it is a gut, emotional vote. Which is why Clinton(s) will lose if she is the nominee. The 'Arkansas Project' will be reopened with a ferocity like you have never seen. Clinton(s) supporters are living in a dream world if they think that just because all the old Clinton(s) scandal of the 1990s were fabricated that means no one cares. Ha!

Obama is not a perfect candidate ... but on the level of emotion, intention and inspirational qualities, he offers the Democrats the best potential for winning in November.

Nominate Clinton(s) and expect the election of the first third party president.

That's my prediction only, not necessarily my preference.

They are well aware we need a doer. The Clintons are doers and the more Hillary recites her vision backed with concrete proposals, the more Americans are aware of the difference between a popular "Used Car Salesman" and a "BRAND" you can count on to "DELIVER" Change!

They would rather keep the old politics.

Boomers were the impetus for taking a crack at the Republican wall fighting for desegregation and Civil Rights abuses. They fought the establishment. They weren't succesfull in bringing about change until Bill Clinton Won the White House.

Bill Clinton tried bi-partisanship, it doesn't work. I'm sure to this day, (for him) hindsight is 20/20 and he can easily see how they took advantage of his good nature ultimately using it against him. Within 2 yrs, when he realised what was happening, it was too late. A Republican Congress was in place and he was held hostage by a hyper-critical media..

I can tell you this... Boomers learn from their mistakes and are not wont to repeat them. This time around, the Clintons will level the playing field and restructure how we do business with Republicans and corporations. Bringing the republicans "to heel" will be the most gratifying experience one could hope for except for the normal byproducts therein..Peace and Prosperity once more in the America, we sorely miss.

Obama would bring about? Hope won't lower the cost of gasoline or turn back the onslaught of corporate oligarchy. He is just a slick used car salesman with an appealing slogan and nothing behind it, that's what us bloomers can see. I'm all for change, but I'd like to know what kind of change he is selling before I buy. He just looks like another smooth talking con man to me. Stalin and Mao were agents of change too. Not equating Obama to them, but not all change is for the better.

it will completely change our government and is something you wont see anything close to in a Clinton presidency. In fact you will see just the oposite.

You can view it here http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/

It has been praised by heavywieghts such as Lawrence Lessig http://lessig.org/blog/

If you want to change how our government works no one does it like Obama.

Also I like that she mentions strengthening unions. That is very big for me. I quote her website

# Harness the power of innovation to create high wage jobs of the 21st Century. Investments in alternative energy can create new jobs for the 21st century; expanded access to broadband will bring opportunities to underserved and disadvantaged communities; the manufacturing base can be re-energized through creative partnerships; and increased government support for research will stimulate the development of new technologies and life-saving medicines. Hillary will restore integrity to science policy, reversing Bush administration policies that are holding our nation back.
# Empower our workers and ensure that all Americans contribute their fair share. Hillary will ensure that unions, which have played an important role in forming and sustaining the middle class, are strong. She will also ensure that trade policies work for average Americans. Trade policy must raise our standard of living, and they must have strong protections for workers and the environment.

I quote his website. Obama supports using the successful organized labor model of providing workers with additional skills and opportunities, and looks forward to working with organized labor to build more opportunities for low-income workers to reach economic security.

People, can we please quit with this bullshit of "So-and-so is the media's candidate!!!1" or "The media is marginalizing so and so!"? All it is is people reading bias into the media regardless of whether there is any, to try and spin things for their particular candidate. No more, no less.

THERE IS NO MEDIA CONSPIRACY TO PICK OUR CANDIDATE. Accept that, and turn down the gain on the paranoia meter.

:thumbsup:

the OP is correct. There is a major part of the Wash/NY media establishment that loathes both Bill and Hillary CLinton. They will never forgive BC for screwing around while President. Ever.

When any mention of the Democratic race basically consisted of "Hillary frontrunner unbeatable. Hillary frontrunner unbeatable. Hillary frontrunner unbeatable."

It's popular here to bash the "media establishment," "mainstream media," etcetera, but that doesn't mean that most of the stuff that's said about them is true. Hell, they should love the Clintons--the Clintons are always controversial, and controversy gives them something to talk about.

so that might translate into a conspriacy..if you don't believe the m$$$m is trying to manipulate after the last 8 years then you haven't been paying attention. It's just when they're down on hillary it's bad when they're down on Obamba it's good.

not MSM.

Did you hear Michelle Norris say she heard Republican operatives in South Carolina saying how much they want Hillary to be the Dem nominee and not Obama.

They do want to run against Hillary.

They can choose to keep up the charade Obama is a democrat and continue to dupe the public at large, dump him if he is uncooperative or elect one of their designated own. I choose NOT to allow Republicans control over my fate by their manipulation of the system. I know who the Clintons are and they have proven over and over again, we get Peace and Prosperity under their leadership.

you're loving it. The m$$$$$$m does what its agenda requires at any given moment..orders from headquarters.

know wtf anyone is talking about.

Bill Bennett loved Obama's Reagan comments, he's becoming one of his strongest defenders on CNN. It's fascinating to watch Scarborough, Matthews, Russert, Peggy Noonan, Bill Bennett et all, crawl out from under their rocks to push Barack.

the Plan B Candidate..

I very rarely turn on the TV - but when I do - it's ALWAYS Obama friendly - or at least anti-Hillary.ALWAYS.

it is best to cross over and vote for the oppositions weaker candidate and in the general vote for the guy in your own party.

If your own party has many candidates...then one has to make a decision.

to oust the Dem candidate C. McKinney. It worked.

in a system toward that end....instead...we have an archaic system prone to manipulations

very small states to have the same representation as large states. (to some degree)

Then, the primaries should be held in all states on the same day like the general election using the majority popular votes to select the candidates.

And it goes without saying that the voting process should be "bullet proof" with regards to legitimacy. There are most definitely ways to do that. All that is needed is the will to do it.

Personally, I prefer Edwards, not because I trust him any more than I trust the others. But, because I prefer his agenda. Maybe he's a crook and maybe not. My sense is that prior to his VP run, he was just another bright young lawyer clawing his way to the top like so many do. But, from 2004 on, it appears that he has put his mind toward analyzing the nature of our political problems and has concluded the things that he talks about in his stump speeches.

Senator Clinton seems to be too poll driven.

I don't know much about Senator Obama. I'm concerned that he hasn't accomplished enough to be President and I'm very negative about his expressions of admiration related to Reagan and even Bush.

We may be in a sort of trap. Regardless of who the Democratic candidate turns out to be, we are at risk of anger and rejection from the followers of the other candidates. While that is always the case to some degree, this year has elements that could make that problem worse.

Come, we go :toast:

-St. Teresa of Avila

Thanks! :hi:

is pushing Obama and hates Hillary to the extreme, esp. Chris Matthews, who brought us Bush. Now that Obama appears to like Reagan, it makes me wonder. I will vote Democratic against any Republican though.

if Hillary Clinton is the corporate candidate, why is the corporate media so against her?

*sigh*