What is happening to Clinton in the media should be DISTURBING to any democrat

[Herman Munster]

They are building Obama up to an almost impossible level and will burst the balloon soon enough, probably right after he wins the nomination if Hillary can't stop him. And the blowback won't be pretty at all when the media aims their circular firing squad at him.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. This always happens. Welcome to the primary season.

[polichick]

2. Yes, but it was just as disturbing those months when they dubbed Hillary...

...INEVITABLE.

[book_worm]

3. They did the same with Howard Dean four years ago, but worse

with that "Dean Scream" nonsense.

[Samantha]

19. and with Gore four years before

It's a disturbing pattern, and that's an understatement.

[mitchum]

4. Was that a Freudian slip in that you didn't say "any OTHER democrat"?

[Jai4WKC08]

83. Why?

It SHOULD matter to ANY Democrat. No matter whom we support.

Of course, the Hillary-haters have drunk the GOP koolade about the Clintons for so long, they don't even recognize more of the same.

[mitchum]

84. I have drank no gop cool aid about the DLClintons...

I have no use for them because I'm a progressive

[Jai4WKC08]

86. Well, I'm just a liberal

And I think things were pretty good (and getting better) while they were in the White House.

That was back before we gave into GOP propaganda and started calling ourselves progressives,

[coalition_unwilling]

89. Hillary claims she was "misled" about Iraq. Were you "misled"?

[mitchum]

91. Do you really think that kind of schoolyard bullshit is going to work on me?

Despising the corporatist DLClintons = Succumbing to gop propaganda
Give me a fucking break
Apparently, you are the one who has succumbed to propaganda. Of the third way variety.

[Jai4WKC08]

93. Democrats attacking other Democrats

Is doing the GOP's work for them.

Of course, a lot of "progressives" aren't really Democrats.

I'm not a 3rd way type and I don't support the war. But that's really not at issue, is it? I don't hate DLC Democrats either. I remember that the Republicans are the real enemy.

Altho people on the left who want to destroy the Democratic party are a close second.

[Capn Sunshine]

92. I couldn't agree more about that Mitch

but that was also 8 years ago.

Things have moved in a different direction since then; you can't bring back the 90's.
What you can bring back is that feeling of hope and optimism.
The enthusiasm of the youth lining up behind someone who makes them feel like voting again

The triumph of hope over fear.

[rwheeler31]

5. your right

[saracat]

6. The blackout concerning Edwards by the media should be disturbing to any Democrat.

I don't like the hype and overt sexism displayed by the media concerning Hillary and have spoken out against it.However the boycott of Edwards is even more disturbing.They want him not to exist in the minds of the voters!

[Lucinda]

16. Yep. You'd never know he was still in contention or was climbing national polls

[ronnykmarshall]

45. It's nuts!

Edwards seems to be making strides, but all we hear is Obama, Obama, Obama and Hillary's toast!

I'm a Hillary voter and I'm going to vote for her .... but I'd like see Edwards more in the media.

[AshevilleGuy]

25. Exactly.

They want us to nominate the one who is easiest for the republiks to beat in November.

And we appear to be doing just that. Here we go again.

[rodeodance]

26. i know---and agree with you. but I feel so helpless.

[ronnykmarshall]

37. Very true.

Edwards should be getting just as much press as well.

And thanks for the advice on my ballot boo-boo.

[rodeodance]

7. Topic subject MSNBC - Fair & Balanced - All Day Long From Scarborough To Matthews.....

Forum Name General Discussion: Politics
Topic subject MSNBC - Fair & Balanced - All Day Long From Scarborough To Matthews.....
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3984749#3984749
3984749, MSNBC - Fair & Balanced - All Day Long From Scarborough To Matthews.....
Posted by global1 on Mon Jan-07-08 08:14 PM

to Olbermann they have been trashing HRC - now Dan Abrams has come to her rescue and is saying the media is piling on HRC. Go figure.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. When I kept telling people that Hillary Clinton would be crucified....

... not one of the Clinton fans believed me. Now it's happened.

[rodeodance]

17. oh, I believed you---but very very painful to watch

[Diamonique]

28. You're so right...

... and when she's gone, they'll turn on Obama.

The only question is will they turn on him before the convention or afterwards.

[CTyankee]

66. Oh, afterwards. It'll start but not crescendo until the GE campaign

There's gonna be blood in the streets on this one, believe me, if not literally.

I'm not sure he and his campaign folks are up to this...

[quinnox]

9. CNN all day today - All Obama in glowing terms

CNN was promoting the hell out of Obama today, basically saying he has it wrapped up.

When the media goes against Obama if he wins the nomination, it will be a massacre. Obama will be dead in the water in the general election.

[rodeodance]

20. umm. you may be right. He will need lots of superglue

[quinnox]

23. I don't want to see it

but I'm afraid Obama will be torn to shreds when the media turns on him. It will look like the SwiftBoaters vs John Kerry times 2.

[here_is_to_hope]

51. Have to differ...

What could Obama have in the closet or elsewhere that will get him smeared in the media or press?

I would think anything that would turn GE voters against him would have come out by now. :shrug:

[Wednesdays]

74. There doesn't have to be anything in his closet

All he has to do is breathe wrong, and the M$M will be all over it 24/7 as though it were the worst scandal in history.

That, or they'll just make shit up. Ever hear of "Swiftboating?"

[CTyankee]

81. The swift boat thing was not an "in the closet" thing, you'll recall.

All you need is a group of people who will lie, lots of money to spread the lie, and a media covering the story as "news" which further spreads the lie. Swiftboating was done on John Kerry's strong point (he thought): his war record. The RW Smear Machine takes on a candidate's strength and twists it.

So with that background think of what Obama's major strength is and then think of ways it can be twisted and lied about. That's what will happen, IMO......

[ButterflyBlood]

60. So let's nominate Hillary who'll never get any fire from the media. Riiiiiiiight.

n/t

[AX10]

24. If McCain is the GOP nominee...

Obama will be dead in the water for certain.

Romney or the Huckster, I'm not so sure about.
Either way, the build up is disgusting. We all know that he is going to be destroyed by the MSM.

[quinnox]

27. I agree

I couldn't believe how fawning CNN was acting towards Obama. Its like they are licking their chops waiting for him to win and then they pounce.

[AX10]

44. The pundits/right wingers are setting him up for the fall.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

30. Yes he will, but Edwards would not. Edwards will take anyone to task.

He's smarter and more left-wing than the other candidates. And he's tough and NOT afraid of anyone, and I trust the man will fight tooth and nail to the end.

[quinnox]

36. As much as I dislike Edwards

I have to agree with you.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

46. Thanks much. Edwards is a tough guy. nt

[AX10]

47. Edwards would destroy any of the GOP candidates.

[AshevilleGuy]

52. But that doesn't seem to matter

when these primary voters are interviewed. WHY??????????

And please do not anyone say that any of our guys can beat any of theirs. That is not true, nor has it ever been so.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

68. Edwards would suck out their marrow and throw away the bones and cartilage. LOL! :-)

I LOVE EDWARDS!!!

[Anouka]

48. If McCain, Hillary still wouldn't win.

This false concern for Obama because of what the Republicans might do to him/will do to him, is transparent and counterproductive.

Too many people despise Hillary on the GOP voter side. All the talk of her being vetted by GOP leadership doesn't mean anything when the voters themselves hate her and want nothing to do with her.

I don't know if even Edwards would be able to take out McCain.

All you need to know about the GOP is how they've treated Iowa, and treated the pre-anointed versus the true winners.

I'd rather see Romney as president than McCain. McCain .. something is wrong with him. I can't quite put my finger on it, but that smirk he had on Saturday night really, really bugged me. He's an Insider, and not the good kind. McCain is bad news. I wonder what promises are being made and exchanged within the GOP?

[Nederland]

88. Nonsense

If it's Obama vs. McCain people say it's a match between "that young virile looking guy" and "that guy that looks older than Grandpa". Obama will blow McCain out of the water.

[AshevilleGuy]

31. They have been doing this for the past year.

It has been more intense since Iowa, but all year it's been Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama Obama...
Especially Matthews and Wolfbarfer. And it will continue until the day after he is officially nominated in July. Then they will take him apart.

Remember Dukakis in 1988?

[quinnox]

34. I wish it wasn't so but I can't disagree

The media is setting Obama up big time.

[AshevilleGuy]

38. Most of his young supporters can't remember

the slaughter of McGovern and Mondale and Dukakis, they are too young, so they think it can't happen again. It can and it will be worse.

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. Do YOU remember them?

One thing they all had in common - they were as exciting as a bowl of day old noodles. When Dukakis spoke I thought he was going to put HIMSELF to sleep.

They were good, strong liberals, all. All of them more progressive than anyone running today (except DK). But seriously...

Obama, however, can really turn on an audience. I haven't seen anyone like that since the Kennedys. He'll be much harder to undermine than any of them, should he get the nomination.

Not my first choice, but someone I could easily support.

[AshevilleGuy]

75. I can remember Eisenhower.

And Truman, just a little.

George McGovern's convention speech was electrifying. The media, mostly liberal in 1972, went on about it for days. The convention audience was fully turned on. It was my first chance to vote and I was excited: we were going to rid the country of Nixon and the war. Then we lost 48 states. The smear machine was just in its infancy back then, but it was already lethal.

Dukakis must have known about the machine, but he was not natured to fight it - I hear that Obama dislikes fights as well. With Obama the smear machine (now on steroids!) has an endless source of ammunition. His "yes" on drivers licences for undocumented immigrants is enough to do him in, but there is so much more that they can use on him. Think what they can do with his name alone, with voters who can't name their own Senators or governor, and who won't even know who the candidates are until after the World Series.

I have endured seven elections when we Dems nominated someone who could not win. Enough.

[CTyankee]

82. I talked with my spouse about the campaign last night.

His sentiments are similar to yours. He's undecided but only between Hillary and Edwards (I am an Edwards supporter and have been for several months). He said it was because he had seen this kind of euphoria over a candidate before and saw how it turned out. He was really sad about it...

[rodeodance]

10. it is a sad thing to watch.

[Cameron27]

21. It's more frightening to me,

and that has nothing to do with Obama. It's just that the manipulation is so blatant and so effective, that all this build up can be just as easily reversed in the general. And I think it will be reversed.

[DURHAM D]

42. It is down right scary.

Corporate media has a script and they are following it carefully and completely. Tonight KO finally got on board.

I have been watching the media for 50+ years. I have been disturbed on many occasions but I have never seen this universal one voice complicity in promotion of a candidate. As a group they are completely comfortable in showing this agenda and make no attempt to hide their involvement.

Today when Hillary was upset about what she sees going on I wonder if part of her pain may be about the press. I don't mean how they are treating her but how they are all in lockstep.

What is the plan? Knowing that it is being manipulated from the right it can't possibly be good for the country.

On edit - I have decided that the answer lies in watching the media coverage of the Repubs. I have not been paying much attention to that side but I feel that I should. The Repub contestant the media wants will be revealed soon. I am guessing Obama vs. Mitt.

[Cameron27]

55. What's the plan?

That's the million dollar question. I don't know what the motive is, but the media's never been kind to Democrats or put the welfare of this country's citizens at the top of their wish list.

[AshevilleGuy]

76. The plan?

Well, the corporate media want a Dem candidate who is most likely to lose in November, so, they push that candidate right now with everything they have. It's that simple, and it has happened more than once before.

[RaleighNCDUer]

65. Maybe she's having regrets about accepting the support of

Rupert Murdoch - he OWNS a large percentage of the media in question.

[Lucinda]

11. Its not just Hillary. You'd never know Edwards was still in contention or that

the others were still in the race if you just watched the news.

[KennedyGuy]

12. preaching to the choir here...

[rodeodance]

13. a REC to you. This is an important topic.

[Thrill]

14. YAWN.......Your bullshit is getting old

Same BS, just a different day. Hilary is imploding and its no ones fault but her own

[DemCam]

56. Really?

[BeyondGeography]

15. Lest we forget, they gave her every chance in the world to seal the deal

and she never did.

[Lucinda]

18. Your post is not even remotely accurate.

[ihavenobias]

22. I saw the thread title

and I was expecting a solid argument based on how the media focuses on bs issues related to gender, body language and other such nonsense (in which case I would have agreed completely).

Unfortunately that solid argument isn't what I found here.

[rodeodance]

29. go for it.

[Bonobo]

32. This is true. Build up/Tear down is the life blood of the mass media.

[sandnsea]

33. It was Hillary's "humanizing moment" all damn day

Now that it didn't work, they're pretending she was attacked and it isn't even true. Unbelievable.

[Cameron27]

43. Who are you talking about? Dan Abrams was the ONLY

television pundit who sided with her. Every single other program, including KO, cited her coming political obituary. Forgive us Clinton supporters for thinking she was sincere, you know, like the way you think Kerry's crying was sincere.

[sandnsea]

63. I woke up to people praising her

That's what happened. Nobody said a word against her except Tucker and Olbermann. This is crazy.

My point in the Kerry post was that he didn't even cry, and was beat to hell for it anyway. That's what happens when men cry. It's NOT what happened to Hillary.

[Cameron27]

67. It's exactly what's happening to Hillary,

a non-incident of non-crying, was blown up as if she'd ripped off her clothes and ran naked down Main Street. It was discussed ad nauseum on every single damned news program all day long.

[sandnsea]

70. She was being praised as being human

David Schuster even used the "contrast" talking point when discussing how the Clinton campaign was going to go after Obama. It was full on praise for Hillary all day long. It didn't turn into poor Hillary being attacked until her campaign released new talking points this evening. THEY are the ones who wanted it shown all day. They got what they want, and now they want to pretend they're being picked on. This is nuts.

[Beausoir]

71. Oooh! I bet that ruined your day! Heh. Made you want to crawl back under the covers for awhile.

Hide out until it was all over.

There..there.

[Cameron27]

35. I forgot to reccommend

thanks Herman, this is a great topic for discussion.

[rufus dog]

39. so we should support Hillary?

Not going to happen, lame x 2.

[elleng]

40. They do this stuff FOREVER.

They gave us bush after ignoring wes clark, harassing Howard Dean, playing anti-Kerry stuff over and over and over.

AND they ignored the flagrantly illegal occurrences in the election.

They've ignored other than their so-called 'top tier' to create a scene they want down the road.

[ronnykmarshall]

41. Oh Hermy baby ...

Lily would be so proud!

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rodeodance]

53. that was nasty.

[rufus dog]

57. Damn it it was meant to be nasty!

Lame ass OP over and over again and Hillary supporters jump on the pity train. It is pathetic.

[Cha]

50. Would you care if the

media was somehow building clinton up?

I've railed against corporatemediawhores for years on DU and they're not gonna change unless they're rendered impotent by self-implosion.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

54. By no means a Hillary supporter (Edwards)

but this whole thing is pretty disturbing. It's what the media is good at and if Obama has any sense he will see the cloud coming.

[DemCam]

59. think that what was wrong with him at the debate...

he saw a great big cloud coming

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. And it wasn't disturbing when they were calling Hillary the 'inevitable'

nominee? For the past two fucking years?

[Cameron27]

69. Yes, I thought it was damned disturbing

when they called Clinton inevitable, and I'm supporting her. It only hurt her because it offended the voters, which was probably why pundits, like Matthews, were pushing it so hard.

[JDPriestly]

61. Even Randi Rhodes was doing this today.

I think Edwards will be a compromise candidate. There are problems with Obama's candidacy that have not been acknowledged yet.

[jackson_dem]

64. They are doing to her what they did to Dean

The built Dean up is inevitable while simultaneously constantly attacking him to weaken him. After Iowa they finished Dean off, like they are trying to do with Hillary. Obama is this year's Kerry. The difference is whereas Kerry was built up only after Iowa the media has done this with Obama throughout the campaign. The plan is to Swiftboat him when it matters like they did with Kerry.

[gdaerin]

72. No, I don't agree

I don't agree at all, I've been following the media coverage, and only recently, as Obama himself has caused the swell of support, they've covered that swell, what would you have them do?

In fact, I'd say the coverage was a little too slim for him, not too long ago, especially considering how well he must have been doing in December in Iowa.

Also a major slander was made against him in the mainstream media, the one about him being a muslim. A similar slander was made against Hillary concerning a supposed sexual relationship with an aid, but that was only online.

Look, Iowa was an upset. Although I wasn't surprised, other people were, very much so, so that's why it is been treated as news, because it's new, get it?

[OHdem10]

73. No one doubts Obama can win the Primary, but a lot

journalists and American People do not believe he can
win the general election. Some journalists pumping him
know in the deepest recesses of their minds---the primary
is not final. Republicans who crossover in the primary
go Republican in the General. Indpendents who lean Republican
have second thoughts when it is the final decision.
This happens all the time.

Here is where I fault the Media. A study came out last weekend
showed that the Big Three Networks, CNN , MSNBC and Fox had given
HRC 60% Negative Coverage while giving giving Obama Positive
Coverage. This is very unfair.

In fairness, Hilary should have learned from GWB. Bush has
disdain for the Media but when he campaigns he includes the
Media on Trips and is very accesible. In other words he
schmoozes them. It has been reported that there was little
or accessability. When he governs it is my impression the
Bush Administration is very closed and not easily acceessible.

I just like to see some degree of fairness. HRC gettin overwhelmingly negative coverage and Edward be almost totally
ignored is not fair. It is not good for Democracy.

[ProSense]

77. "What is happening to Clinton in the media should be DISTURBING to any democrat"

Would Hillary understand?

[killbotfactory]

78. In case you haven't noticed, it's because Obama is winning

and winning big, against the formidable Clinton "machine". That's why the media is impressed.

[gdaerin]

79. What? I think I saw way too much of her tonight!

It depressed me, I actually felt like I had taken some kind of depression pill. But, I went and watched some Obama video's on youtube and now I feel much better!

I'm not making this up, I can't explain it, I'm addicted to him!

[AtomicKitten]

80. If droves of people coming out for Obama is considered "blowback"

I vote yes on it.

[surfermaw]

85. Again Wolf Blitzer and his gang, did in Howard Dean and Gore

I was watching Dean, he was trying to get the troops up, much in the fashion that a coach would do a team, CNN Fiction, made up the dumb junk and the nation believed, wasn't it Blitzer that was interviewing Gore when he sliped on the Internet remark....could it be we may just as well watch Fox Fiction.

[SteppingRazor]

87. I've read this theory several times on DU now, and I gotta say, I don't see it.

I mean, yeah, it's a possible hypothesis as to how the media will portray Obama, but there's several problems with the idea.

First, by saying "if Hillary can't stop him," you're suggesting that the media won't be kneecapping her if she wins the election, only Obama. If we accept this theory that the media are entirely some sort of Pravda-like pro-GOP propaganda arm, then surely it doesn't matter who we nominate. The media will try to destroy any of them.

Second, if anything, it's Hillary the media are intent on destroying. The Clinton obituary has already been typed up in newsrooms throughout the country. They can't wait to wax philosophical about the rise and fall of the Clinton dynasty -- not because they're rightwingers, but because it's a great story. And in that sense, they're actually less likely to tear down Obama for the same reason -- his success is a better story than that of McCain, or anyone else in the race for that matter.

Third, is something I've alluded to in the first two statements, and that's the a priori assumption that everyone in the media dances to the same song. Of course, this is demonstrably untrue. One need only watch a couple talking heads on the same channel, even back to back (Matthews and Olbermann spring immediately to mind), to realize that not everyone marches to the same drummer. And that's in the slick overly produced world of cable news. It's even more true in print journalism, where several WaPo articles in the same issue can be seen as pro- or anti-the candidate of your choosing.

Fourth, I agree with you that what's happening to Hillary is pretty sad. But it's a chicken-and-the-egg concept. Does the story get reported by the media, or does the media create the story? One of the biggest problems with objective journalism is that, by the very act of observing something, you possibly change the outcome. In a field of journalism as rampant with speculation and prognostication as political journalism, this is especially true. So the question is, is the Clinton campaign currently on the wane because of media representation, or is the media reporting on the waning of the Clinton campaign? Or both?

[DeepModem Mom]

90. K&R