Media Choosing Candidates - Women Candidates Not Allowed at Convention?

Many times in recent history, male candidates with much smaller percentages of delegate support have been allowed to carry their nomination bids to their national conventions, without the hue and cry from the news media and party leaders. Why has that standard changed for a woman candidate in a race that is nearly tied?

Media Matters recently pointed out the double standard the news media is applying to Hillary Clinton's candidace in their unprecedented pressure to end her presidential bid.





If there's on lesson we Democrats should have learned by now, its that any time the news media tries to choose our candidate, we lose the GE.

Given this unprecedented campaign by the MSM to get Clinton out of the race, real Democrats have to ask themselves why the media is pushing so hard to choose our candidate and do we really want to repeat this mistake again?

and the effect it has had on the party as a whole.

We think its been just fine.

That has been proved as we have heard the sexist slurs against Hillary Clinton in describing her campaign.

:thumbsdown:

Why should she not be allowed to go to the convention? What are Obama and the news media afraid of?

1/2 minus 750,000 votes.

for both "her party" and "the American People."

Each day she persists in this insanity, she bucks up McCain and helps destroy Obama (and our party).

If HRC continues, she is an Anti-Democrat ... it's all about HER NOW. :grr:

Latest Gallup polls shows Clinton beats McCain. If that's called losing, I'll take some more.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/107176/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Yet-Pulling-Away.aspx

Dems are still polling ahead of the GOP and Hillary beats McCain better than Obama.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107176/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Yet-Pulling-Away.aspx

there's a lot of us who don't like either candidate. I'd bet neither one of them would come anywhere near 50% if "none of the above" had been an option on the ballots.

war and our borders, party strucuture and leaders, etc. They not only silenced many of us before Super Tuesday but plan on doing it before the convention.

2000 was a coup to destroy our vote. Now 2008 is to destroy our democracy (party members input and agenda) and borders (amnesty and trade policy) for the Americas Union. They want it all their way.

should be the subject of a race for President?

The real subject should be trying to fix the primary outcome before the delegates even get their say for Obama to silence them and take control of the convention for himself. He (and by not being outraged over it) should drop out since he encouraged this undemocratic action. We might have to demand impeachment of him while in office because he goes about our laws and party procedures for his own agenda.

What about their answering our questions? What about that promise in 2006 election? What about the other "woman" Pelosi siding with more war when we stated two years ago we wanted out"? What about bankrupting us Nancy!!

"Outside Speaker Pelosi's DC office on Thursday, we found a disconcerting site: the Congresswoman in bed with George Bush! It seems the two of them, behind closed doors, have been colluding to guarantee $162 billion more of our tax dollars for war!" Code Pink.

Has Nancy now declared herself Queen? She needs no Congressional vote for the purse? Seems everyone wants power for themselves in DC when it is "We the people" who have the final say. No behind closed doors Nancy. Resign if this is you way of representing us as leader of the House.

She's done a terrible job, helping corporations and hurting average Americans. Her insistence on his candidacy doesn't bode well for the middle class.

She is colluding with Bush to spend more for Iraq against our wishes.

You need to think hard about that.

That's you post not mine is what I was trying to tell you.

sexism in this country. of course the media gave O a free ride, but the real problem is just the sexism of the average voter. truth is, the media picked both Hill and obama to be 'the frontrunners,' but with sexism being more prevalent and deeply ingrained than racism in this country, hill was facing an uphill battle.

I don't think so.

Thanks for posting this. It need to be said.

...like Hillary will.

with both sides criticizing each other. There have been far more negative primary races in the past, Ted Kennedy v Jimmy Carter for example. Yet they were allowed to carry their candidacy to the Convention.

We got stuck with 28 years of BushClinton.

I really don't think the 1980 convention is a good example for the picture you were trying to paint.

Was that on purpose while they do things "undemocratically" behind our backs?

past. It is traditional for the nominee to be determined at the conventions. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. It is the king/queen makers at the convention to weigh which person has the beat chance of winning the general election for the sake of the party. If and when other parties such as Naders become powerful enough perhaps we will see a different outcome.

I admit that I was kind of stunned when Russert declared it over, and thought it might be a little premature, but I don't think gender has anything to do with it.

The examples you cited were all from at least 20 years ago. In recent elections, the contest has not gone on this long, and nobody expected it to go on this long this year. The media has gotten used to coronating a winner after the first few primaries, as they tried to do this year after Iowa.

I remain bitter to this day about the way they pushed Dean out of the race by caricaturing him, and he's a white male. Clinton has been given a lot more time to hang on than Dean was. And do you really doubt that if the situation had been reversed for the last few months and Clinton had lead in delegates and won 11 primaries in a row in February, Obama would have become anything more than a joke? The pundits themselves said they'd have given Obama the Huckabee treatment if the tables were reversed.

This primary race is as close to a tie as any we've seen in recent history.

To claim its over and push a candidate out before the Convention is highly questionable, especially when its the news media doing the pushing.

I just don't think Hillary being a woman has anything to do with it. If anything, she's been given more chances to bounce back than other candidates would have been given.

I agree with you that the media has way too much influence in the primaries, period. They decide who to cover and whom to consider a serious candidate and how to define the candidates. They cover stupid stuff like Obama's bowling score instead of providing any valuable information about the issues. They sensationalize and pump up one candidate one day and trash one candidate and then reverse course depending on how they feel like framing the race on any particular day. I have a lot of issues with the way the media covers elections and primaries in particular, but I don't think gender has anything to do with why they are writing Hillary off now.

He's no stronger a candidate in that respect than she is.

The only difference is the news media pressure to get her out instead of him.

when MSM was 24/7 saying that Hillary was the inevitable candidate. That went on until February I believe.

It's a for profit decision.

Its called a double standard, look it up in the dictionary.

Why is it ok for male candidates like Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson to take their campaigns to the Convention, but not Clinton? She has a far greater percentage of delegates and popular vote than either of them had.

Sorry, you don't get to make decisions for the rest of us.

the most important decision is already made..Obama will be the nominee..other than that..I am personally sick of looking at her. She can stay on tv, but it doesn't change the fact, I'm sick of looking at her, even when I change the channel to avoid her face and/or not hear her voice. Thank god for remotes, huh?

And thank god, Obama bested her, Billy and the DLC...Hallelujah..a new day is at hand!

running for American Idol. Please don't make yourself sick. Turn her off for your sake, honey.

I am glad I have fortitude.

I cannot stand to see Obama on TV...can't stand to hear his voice. Yeah, I get it!!!!

I'd vote democratic anyway, just by holding my nose and with nausea medicine on hand.

system. Nausea can be a sign of an unfirm body or mental weakness, not good for functioning properly as it can be detrimental to daily acts of living (ADL).

healthy future. Hallelujah! Amen! It's done.

They were vilified by both the media and their own parties for doing so. They were told repeatedly, don't do it, don't do it, it won't be good - and they did it anyway and it cost their party the GE.

Some of us were around back then and have actual memories of the events, you know?

about causation vs correlation.

These candidates were already facing long odds for other reasons not related to their primary opposition. Its unlikely any of them would have been able to win even with an uncontested convention.

Good example - Gary Hart. Were it not for his Moneky Business mess, he would have made a better candidate than Mondale to run against Bush I and could have possibly won.

They were ALL soundly berated by the voters, the party, and the press for taking it to the convention.

Your attempt to pin it on Ovaries vs. Testes is, therefore, basically stating that Clinton should have special consideration by virtue of being a woman - that she should get away clean with it, while all the guys caught hell for it.

and support of the voting public.

You want her to have special considerations. You want people to applaud her insistence to drag her hopeless fight to the convention, instead of treating her exactly like they treated all those men you listed. She'll go to the convention unless she gets a lick of sense and drops out before then, nobody will stop her, but people are pleading with her to stop the nonsense for the benefit of the party and the country at large.

but please stop embarrassing yourself, you are a sexist and a cry baby, I'm sure you can live with that but stop being an ignorant ass, Hart's monkey business was 1984, Mondale ran against Reagan not Bush 1, that was Dukakis, okay
and Hillary for months got a free pass because she was a former first lady and that novelty put her in front runner status, if Hillary was not a former first lady she we would be no where near the White House

and he accepted, but of course there had to be a vote and he lost that. It was a formality, done for ritual's sake.

except maybe themselves, if they are still living.

Is Obama's campaign and the corporate news media afraid to let the delegates at the Convention make a decision?

Reagan, as far as I know, is still dead and doesn't think anything (which wouldn't be much of a change from when he wasn't)

Not me. The convention is very important to our party members. Are you a Republican?

Next time I post a message on the Internet, I'll make sure to be literal, lest someone mistake me for a republican. :eyes:

hy·per·bo·le /haɪˈpɜrbəli/
–noun Rhetoric.
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole

nuff said

Ronald Reagan and Ted Kennedy, respectively, contributed to the defeat of the incumbent candidates (Ford and Carter) by taking things to the convention. I don't really recall Gary Hart or Jesse Jackson putting up convention floor fights, but again, remember that Mondale and Dukakis lost the general election as well.

Most "real" Democrats know that a convention floor battle would not bode well for our nominee in the general election. It has nothing to do with sexism, so stop playing that increasingly idiotic card. It has to do with the fact that our nominee needs to be strong, and needs the party to be unified, coming out of that convention. There is too much at stake than to entertain Clinton's losing campaign all the way to the convention. There is simply no point in it.

What's more important to you... electing a Democratic President, or entertaining what is turning into a Hillary Clinton vanity campaign?

There's no evidence in history that having a contested convention causes a party to lose the GE.

The point is the news media is putting the pressure on and choosing the Dem candidate. There is ample evidence to show that when they choose our candidate, we lose.

No, Ozark. We chose him. He got more votes, he got more pledged delegates, and very very soon, will have earned the support of enough superdelegates to make him our nominee.

I wanted John Edwards to be our nominee in 2004, but when John Kerry won (I couldn't stand him at the time, by the way), we united around him because our eyes were on the prize. We came up just barely short of beating a popular war time president, and look what those four years have wrought since. There has never been a more important time for Democrats to show unity, and if you can't stomach that, then I'll respectfully ask you to step aside. But no way are people like me going to let Clinton and her minions step in and destroy our Convention simply because she can't handle losing. She's acting like a damned petulant child at this point.

After the rest of the states have voted, I expect Senator Clinton to step aside and help unite this party. I don't actually believe she'll continue on this suicide mission. You're far more cynical about this than I am. And its time you turned your anger on Clinton's advisors for blowing this thing back in February, rather than turning on your fellow Democrats who chose a different candidate. THERE ARE NO CORONATIONS.

The point is, in every election, someone has to lose, and Senator Clinton has lost her battle for the Democratic nomination. This thing is over. You're disconnected from reality, and worse, you're thisclose to becoming a very sore loser.

It may be messy and not your way of dealing with the outcome but it is the process we want. I am a real Democrat and I want the convention debates and agenda set. No one person's political group within the party.

Ron Reagan takes it to the convention - Carter wins.
Ted Kennedy takes it to the convention - Reagan wins.
Gary Hart takes it to the convention - Reagan wins.
Jesse Jackson takes it to the convention - Bush wins.

Jerry Brown is the only one who didn't cause his party to crash and burn - and even then, Bill Clinton was still the only president to win an election with less than 50% of the popular vote - against the largest lame duck president since Taft.

There's a trend showing alright, and it's that dragging the fight all the way to the convention is an election-killer, because it stalls the party, while the other team is getting their message out, winning people, and raking in general election money.

In most of those races, the candidates still would have lost, even without a challenger at the convention.

Do you really think Ford, Carter, Mondale or Dukakis would have won if they had been unopposed at their Conventions?

Ford after Nixon & Watergate

Carter after Iran Hostage Crisis & Arms for Hostages

Mondale in the midst of Reagan worship

Dukakis with a poorly run campaign against an inclumbent VP

Its highly doubtful any of those candidates would have won, even with a worshipful, single candidate Convention.

It drains resources from the party coffers, both in terms of money, and in terms of action. While the Democratic candidates are sucking up all this time playing cops and robbers with each other ("Bang, you're dead!" "Am not!" "Are too!") McCain is getting a free ride from the media - make all the statements you want about who controls the media, fact is that even without that chip in the game, the Democratic race is far more... entertaining. While McCain is getting this free pass, he's making the fullest use of it. McCain is running a general election campaign, while we're still circling around the primaries. Do you understand the problems this causes for us, regardless of who our nominee is?

The poster provides pretty obvious evidence that convention battles bode horribly for nominees.

And you counter that with "In most of those races, the candidates still would have lost, even without a challenger at the convention."

Your idea of "evidence" is your own personal opinion, where actual "evidence" is tossed aside. The fuzzy math and science of Clinton supporters is maddening.

at the next two conventions.

And, yes, the early coronations of the last two election cycles have been ridiculous, and media driven, as is this one.

v

is that we did not raise above them as much as we should have as a public but it has been enough that a white woman and a black/white man are running to be the candidate of the Democratic party.
This party has finally lived up to its creed that anyone can run for office under their flag.

All of our children now have the dream as a reality after this race is long over, this is a big step for this nation, in fact, it is a huge, huge step and good for all of us who have join in it but to believe that race and gender are not a part of it even today is not realistic but the seed of hope has been planted that it is not that far in the future for generations beyond our own.

Hurray for this Nation, we are growing/changing sometimes inspect of ourselves.

a woman be at the convention but I do not like the negative ads/campaigning that Clinton as become a part of, for this fact alone she has created her own problems and given reason for not voting for her.

In other words, she has shot herself in her own foot by using the same playbook as Rove and his Republican party. It really is sad though, I would have thought better of her but for these type of reality checks on her campaign actions.

and is also still more popular.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107176/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Yet-Pulling-Away.aspx

In the opinion of the voting public, she is not losing. The only people who think she is are the news media (corporations) and the Obama campaign.

Came across it someplace on the internets...

What's been done to Hillary will be written about for years and years to come. All democrats should hang their head in shame for allowing one of ours to be so grossly mistreated. Supporting Obama is one thing, but going along with the massive negative media blitz and lies against the Clinton's is unforgivable.

Pelosi fund the war again. They also move forward with the Americas Union and loss of our democracy. What the blazes is wrong with you?

Under the administration it might not matter who the next President is anyway. They will be a figurehead of the World Government controlled from the WTO world elite.

If you dislike her so much, why do you want to elect her candidate president? So he can help her do more of the same?

Obama supporters need to put 2 + 2 together and ask themselves why they support a candidate who is being pushed on them by Nancy Pelosi, a leader they so strongly disagree with on nearly every important issue facing our country.

What makes you think, after all of Pelosi & Reid's maneuvering to make Obama the nominee, that he will experience an epiphany and oppose them if he gets to the WH?

That doesn't happen in DC and Obama doesn't have a record of standing up for what he believes in, unless its his own personal career at stake.

insult their opponents supporters consistently?

Did they compliment the opposing party's candidate at the expese of their opponent?

Did they insult activists from their own party?

Were they given as much coverage as her campaign received?

60% of voters think both candidates should continue to campaign

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm



Its been very civil compared to past primary campaigns. Again, its a trumped up news media/Obama campaign myth that Clinton has been mean to poor Obama.

Whatever... I don't care if she continues... it's up to her. I've said so repeatedly.

I just wish she and her husband would stop actively trying to alienate Obama's supporters.

opinion is from May 1-3, ending 3 days before the May 6th primaries. I submit to you that a poll taken after Clinton's disappointing finishes on Tuesday would engender a different result.

I suspect, however, that you already know this, and just use irrelevant and outdated polls to try to make your twisted, flawed point. Please get ready to get on with your life, for all our sakes.

Last year we had this thing wrapped up in what, January or February?

They are calling on her to quit because the math isn't there, the stakes are fairly high considering who is leaving office, and people are starting to itch at the chance to fight Mc.Cain.

get to vote in the primary. Apparently you already did. Seems it is you who want to change the "process". That you can't do unless you are a member of the delegations at the convention, etc. We do have a democratic process in our party.

talking point memo briefing.

you are living up to the naiveté the O groupies are so famous for.

68- Democrats lost
72- Democrats lost
80- Democrats lost

She is more than free to take it to the convention, but history holds that the Democratic Party will lose the GE as a result.

The case could also be made that candidates who attract primary opponents are already deemed weak and not likely to win the GE. Primary opposition and contested conventions are more likely the consequence of a weak candidate, not the cause.

How does a candidate become weak? When they are getting constant, bullshit attacks from their own party. Humphrey won 68 without winning a single primary. Kennedy had a bloodlust for office, and was determined to make it no matter what. The democratic party devoured itself and ran others against Carter. If you don't think Hillary going to convention is going to hurt the party, then you are just plain ignorant. ignored.

this post. Well...while your at it, also fill the void of present day knowledge as well.

Who wants to relive the disastrous 1980 convention. It gave us Reagan after all. The nominee standing on stage with a self-entitled asshole is something most of us do not want to relive. And neither does that self-entitled asshole, even he has the good sense to see what a horrible mistake it was. And the candidates didn't have to deal with such a widespread media that did nothing but talk about the process of politics. There was that, but not 24 hours a day. They would of called for Kennedy's head, and many did, then. So give it up. Do you want your candidate to look like an asshole? Kennedy could never run for president again. Not after that.

Make honest arguments and you'll get serious answers. Otherwise take your ball and go home.

Myth debunked.

Every candidate listed who had a contested convention had much more baggage to overcome and would have lost their races regardless.

Since I actually followed and voted in all those races, I do recall their context.

we got crickets....

Yes, they are choosing candidates, that part you got right.

But the reasons, you got it wrong

are you gonna end up broken down on a streetcorner somewhere, with a tattered hillary sign, screaming "sexism!!!" at everyone who passes by?

Last I looked w
there is still a campaign!

http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/elections/15640-alert-spread-word-o-bomba-dirty-tricks-tx-oh.html#post327297
Quote:
I’m receiving reports that contrary to Texas Democratic party caucus rules that preclude registration forms from being submitted before either 7:15 pm or the last vote

at a precinct has been cast, Obama volunteers are handing out the forms at precincts today and asking people to fill them in and then collecting them. For Obama to

submit the forms on the voters’ behalf without the voter physically being present at the caucus would violate the rules.

Spread the word at your favorite site!

Obama Campaign Operatives Caught Violating Texas Election Law 3/04/2008 2:00 EST In Texas, the reports get worse. Obama's team are evidently copying caucus

forms and having their supporters fill them out prior to the 7:15 p.m. deadline when the caucus is called to order. This means the voter wouldn't have to actually attend

the caucus, but instead would simply have the Obama team hand in the caucus forms for the voter, which is clearly against the rules, which are very clear:

Participants may NOT begin signing in until the precinct convention has been called to order. The call to order may not occur until 7:15 p.m. OR whenever the last

voter finishes voting at that polling location whichever is later. If, after the convention has been called to order and participants have signed in, any participant who

wishes to leave may do so, and their sign in WILL count toward the delegate allocation for each candidate. Sign-In ends when the last person present waiting to sign in

has done so. Yet another example of Barack Obama's "change" agenda, on the way to a different kind of politics. Chicago style, baby. The reports of what the Obama

campaign is doing in Ohio and Texas are astonishing. First of all, the Obama campaign is wrong on the facts and on the law; second, challenging voters is what

Republicans do to Democrats, especially to minority Democrats. This is the example Obama wants to set? This is the politics of hope and unity? What a

disappointing charade. The Obama campaign is desperate. Spread the word.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5894592&mesg_id=5894592

By the way, what part of math is so difficult to understand

Also, all these old campaigns were pre-internet; the electorate is far more involved and active than in any previous election. And finally, these two candidates have been in direct competition since day 1 of the primary, rather than mounting late challenges (Brown) or running on the sideline, ie winning far fewer delegates than the front-runner. Their presence at the convention amounted to a protest movement within their party rather than leaving the result in serious doubt for the entire primary season.

I do not agree with your thesis that the media picked the candidate. Favoritism certainly exists, but cuts in both directions. However, the difference between the two candidacies clearly has everything to do with the two campaigns' differences in ground game and fundraising.

In every race mentioned the ultimate candidate would likely have lost if unchallenged.

Contested primaries are the result of weak candidates, not the cause of them.

not the media...not the pollsters..not Obama..

It was BILL..her dear husband who has tormented her for at least 3 decades..

HE was probably the one who chose her campaign gurus..and his big mouth, along with some "help" from campaign pals, is responsible for her downfall..

Had she kept the focus on WOMEN being impowered and on FAMILY issues, she would have been a more effective candidate, but SHE chose to "run it like a man"...BE TOUGH..SAY BOLD THINGS...FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT..

She chose poorly..all through her life and that big ole pimple that is her life just came to a head and POPPED....

any candidate for President today. Today no anti-war candidate is running including his wife.

First of all... Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown didn't contest anything at the convention. Mondale, Dukakis, and Clinton were the presumptive nominees.

Reagan did take it all the way to the convention but that was 1976 and the primary system was very new, especially for the Republicans.

Modern conventions are meant to be staged events and have been since primaries became the primary method of picking delegates in 1972. They aren't the actual mechanism by which we pick our candidates anymore.

They're provided for a reason, to allow Democrats to choose their candidates and hear all voices. Its what makes us a great party.

That's why the system was changed in 1972.

And we learned from those experiences?

Or, its ONLY because she is a woman.

I would think that the people who believe this would be in the "not the sharpest knife in the drawer" category, but whatever gets them through the night...