If Hillary had a chance of winning in '08, the media would be telling us..

[AP]

...she's no good and she betrays Democratic principles. Instead, the media is telling us that everybody wants her to be the nominee and she's great.

The last four years suggests that there are two ways the media treats Democratic politicians. Either they get "Daschled" or the get "Deaned" (and I mean Deaned, in the 2003, pre-Iowa sense). In the first case, the media tells us that, if you're a liberal, you should be totally suspicion of the candidate. We get told how they constantly betray Democratic principles. If you don't like war, they're hawks. Or, if you don't like corporations, their wifes' are lobbyists for corporations. Either way, the candidate loses.

The other thing the media does is they tell you everybody wants the candidate. They do everything right. They attack Republicans on what are presumed to be the only important issues (which are, conveniently, the issues Republicans want everyone to think about).

Right now I get the impression that Hillary is getting Deaned, not Daschled, even though she, like every Democrat, could easily be Daschled rather than Deaned (every candidate has a little bit of the Dean and little bit of the Daschle in them).

I think if Hillary were a real threat to Republicans, she'd be getting the Daschle right now (as she did when she was running for Senate) and not the Dean.

[bryant69]

1. This sort of assumes that their is a united front on this issue

And that they are all pretty well behing Republicans. I think that's simplistic.

Truthfully this can be explained by the Media's love of conflict. Right now the Democratic fighters have been thinned out a bit--they want to push someone to the front of the line so that Republicans get a real enemy.

Plus, Hillary is a really polarizing figure. She stirs up strong emotions in people. And those sorts of emotions play very well on TV.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[AP]

6. I haven't seen diversity of opinioin, angle or analysis in MSM since '94

They may love polarization, but polarization does not come in the form of taking two sides on a story. It comes from taking the opposite side of the story from the one that makes sense and the one that gives voters the information required for them to act in their best interests.

[sandnsea]

2. 2006

Part of the strategy is probably to Daschle her with "she really was a carpetbagger who used NY State to launch her Presidential aspirations" in 2006. So they Dean up the Presidency stuff now, only to turn around and Daschle her with it later.

[AP]

8. Dean would have been Daschled if he had been nominated.

[lancdem]

3. I think she COULD win in 2008

I'm not saying she will if she runs, but she could (as could other Dems). She'd certainly have a better campaign team than either Gore or Kerry, one that wouldn't be afraid to fight back. No Bob Shrum for her.

[Eloriel]

4. I think you're entirely right

The LAST thing either the Repugs or their supplicant media would do is build up or genuinely praise any of our candidates that are worth building up. I don't think Hillary stands a chance in hell of winning the election (voting machines aside). Promoting the inevitability of her candidacy does nothing for us but make it harder to get past her to some real candidates, and convince a lot of poor souls that she IS a viable candidate.

Edit: I've come to the recent conclusion that our first female President will be a Republican. :puke:

[AP]

7. The first female president will be a Republican, in the model of Thatcher.

That is so true.

[Dave Sund]

5. It's not a matter of media bias

Except for FOX, there's no inherit bias in any of the major networks. The problem is, as said above, the media's emphasis on conflict.

You guys have been missing the point, and fighting a losing battle, by suggesting that the media is a shill for the radical right. The real explanation is far more simple.

The media has become more concerned with spin than facts.

Those in the media today have taken sensationalistic "journalism" to a whole new level. They don't hold anyone accountable. They don't ask questions. They just stir up controversy, all the while letting the spin machine do its work. They're more concerned with "entertainment" than news.

We all praise The Daily Show for its sendup of media, but we seem to be missing the point. The media isn't a right-wing conspiracy, or anything of the sort. It's a vast wasteland of complete blowhards, people who don't report facts, but simply repeat spin. The Democrats aren't losing the media battle because the media is biased against them, but because they don't know how to play the media game.

The reason they're pushing Hillary so hard is because she stirs up controversy. That's the same reason they pushed Dean so hard. It's the same reason they devoted endless hours of airtime to Monica.

[AP]

9. See post 6.

If the MSM didn't have an agenda, there'd be way more diversity of opinion in the MSM.

There is no diversity.

Granted, they do it to make profits, but one party has alligned itself with helping the MSM profit much more than the other party, and it plays out so obviously at the level of the presidential campaigns.

I'll grant you that in state and local levels, and in some federal non-presidential races, the media will give a helpful Dem a break. But not at the presidential level.

[Sean Reynolds]

14. But I think you're missing the point of that person's post.

To me the media isn't about taking sides on the issue, it's about captivating its viewers. It isn't about truth telling, it's about getting the highest ratings. The fact is, typical Americans eat up sensationalistic media as opposed to the stories we get on our nightly news. This is WHY the tsunami story dominated the headlines for such a long time, the story brings viewers in. However a political dialogue between the Prince of Zaire and the King of Angola turns viewers off.

Look I understand a lot of people feel the media is biased toward one group than the other. However if you go ask a conservative you're going to hear the exact same thing, except about liberals. Really though the media's only biased resides within their ratings. They will latch on to anything that deals with ratings, whether it's about Kerry's Vietnam record, the whole missing weapons in Iraq (which dominated the news a week before the election) or bin Laden himself.

Sorry, but I think the biased news is just a scapegoat that helps Democrats ignore their failure. Republicans have control of the media because they go out there and stir the pot. The Democrats, if they want to win, have got to play dirty. They need to stir the pot and throw some shit because that'll get the media to report on the Republicans and their problems; a lot like they do with the Democrats.

It's about $$$ and that $$$ mostly comes from advertising and marketability. Lower viewers means less advertising and less market value. Why do you think stories like Michael Jackson's rape case and some girl being kidnapped in Toledo, Ohio get more news than a trade agreement reached between Mexico and Chile? Because no one wants to hear about some damn trade agreement, they want to hear about Michael Jackson and his perverted ways. They want to hear about the little girl that was abducted by some sick pedophile, clearly linked to Michael Jackson and his twisted mind!

Doesn't matter if that girl's family is a Democrat, or a Republican. It doesn't matter if the story titls in favor of one party than the other; IT BRINGS THE VIEWERS IN!

In the end, that is all that matters.

Not whether they have a political agenda.

[AP]

15. It's not about getting the highest ratings. It's about making the most...

...money and about controlling the zeitgeist.

If it were only about ratings, they dump all the news programs for Seinfeld and Friends reruns (and, if they did that, I bet you the public would vote more often in it's own best interests for good Democrats rather than in the interests of some huge corporation).

And I'm not scapegoating the media. The media can be as biased as it wants to be, and Democrats can still win. They couldn't get Bush democratically elected in 2000, despite one of the most blatantly (unifomrly) biased anti-Democrat media campaigns ever -- 2004 was way more sublte than 2000). However, 2004 could be more subtle, which is the reason they spent the next four years converting the Zeitgeist to one of fear, where the most important issue became who can fight terror better.

And despite the media trying to Dean and Daschle and Edwards certain candidates and control the Zeitgeist, it didn't really work. The media thought it got rid of Kerry in Fall '03, but he came back.

And Kerry still could have won in '04 if he had a different kind of campaign that didn't play into the all war all the time media script.

I'm not scapegoating at all. But it doesn't help anyone to pretend that this is just about ratings.

[Sean Reynolds]

16. lol

What do you think MAKES that money? It's the advertising dollars, my friend. If you don't have viewers you're not going to get shit from the advertisers and you're going to fail.

But I think you're going to believe what you want to believe. Sadly you're no different than the wacky right...:D

It's cool though, you can continue to blame everyone else except Kerry and the Democrats.

You guys are good at that.

[AP]

17. What makes the money? Monopoly, granted by FCC, killing competition

unless you can own it too, and getting Repbulicans elected to achieve that shit.

Seriously, if it were about ratings, MSNBC wouldn't have canceled Donahue and replaced him with the worst rated show on cable which is hosted by one of the most right wing hosts on TV.

And, lord, did you read my other posts? I do blame Kerry and the Democrats.

And who the hell are "you guys"? Democrats? Who the hell are you, Sean Reynolds?

[Sean Reynolds]

19. Right......

And Democrats don't own any corporations either. Do we forget Ted Turner, former owner of CNN, was a big backer of the Democrats? Sorry, but your point doesn't stick. Show me FACTS that the media favors Republicans over Democrats.

C'mon!

And yes "you guys" means Democrats. You guys always fold and blame other people for your mistakes. In 2000 you cried fraud, forgetting that you had a Vice President to a VERY popular president. Forgetting that you were running that VP against the son of a failed president.

In 2004 you cried fraud. Forgetting that you were running against a guy that had an approval rating in the upper 40s. There very well could have been fraud, however why wasn't there fraud during the 90s? What stopped Clinton from winning? I've asked you guys this question many times and no one has ever answered me.

Think about it, maybe if you guys would run a competent candidate fraud would never be an issue. There was no reason Kerry should have been close to Bush during that election, just like in 2000. Fraud becomes irrelevant if one candidate blows the other one out of the water (like in 1996). If there was fraud, it only happened because you people couldn't define the message to the point where more than 50% of the voters accepted it. A close election leaves the door open to fraud, and god knows this shouldn't have been that close of an election.

Also maybe you guys should address the south. Clinton won the election because he won the south. 2004 was a close election because Kerry couldn't even carry the south. Hell even Gore couldn't win his own state (winning Tennessee in 2000 would have made Florida irrelevant). Win Arkansas and Nevada or New Mexico (all three states went to Clinton) and you win the election. However the Democrats were fighting an uphill battle because Ohio is a very conservative state. When you put all your eggs into that basket, fraud does become an issue. However it was only an issue because the Democrats lost the south and many key west states.

I'm babbling here, but let me make one thing clear. I don't doubt fraud was an issue in 2000 or 2004. I don't doubt that there are some people in the media that are biased. However, fraud was only an issue because Democrats couldn't define themselves to the point where average voters in Iowa, New Mexico, Arkansas, Arizona, Nevada and other states Clinton won could vote for them. You fail to win those states, and you risk fraud.

Oh, and I'm Sean Reynolds.

:D

[AP]

20. You need to reread my posts.

Hey, by the way, does Ted own CNN now? Has CNN changed dramatically since he left?

Why are you picking on this thread to make those other points. Nothing I'm saying is incompatible with that other stuff you say. I'm making the exact same point you're making, except replace "fraud" in your post with "media bias." I've said above that media bias isn't the excuse for losing. Doesn't mean that there isn't any. You say the same thing about "fraud." Do you see me bitching at you for not having proof of fraud? Media bias and fraud and about ten other things are all at the same level of responsiblity (and provability). The same common sense and disparate evidence with which you support your theory of fraud I support my theory of media bias. Regardless, no where do I claim this is the reason Democrats lost, but you've clearly picked this thread as an opportunity to attack me personally so that you can make your point about the lameness of Democratic candidates and strategy. Read my other posts here at DU. I've said all the same shit. Nowhere do I just blame the voting machines, or the media, or fraud, or any one side issue.

Start from the top of this thread and read everything again. Read the last paragraph of post 12, especially. If you're still confused, do a search for AP and read my other posts. (Notice in this thread I'm not saying that the media treatment of Hillary will be determinative, and all my examples pretty much suggest that the media fails when they do this -- my only point being that the media doesn't really believe what they're saying and don't have Democrats' (or voters) best interests at heart, and that you can know them by their deeds).

After you're done doing that, you might want to find another thread in which to go off on your spiel.

[LibDemAlways]

10. All the pro-Hillary buzz in the media can only mean one thing...

They are building her up for the sole purpose of tearing her down. What they'd to a Hillary candidacy would make the Swift Boat liars look like nice guys.

By the way, I believe there is a third way that the media treats Dem politicians. Look what they did to Wes Clark. They ignored him. When they ignore you, you can be sure they really fear you. If you succeed in spite of being ignored, then prepare to be Deaned.

[AP]

12. Clark got Deaned up to the minute he entered the race. Then he got...

...Daschled for a couple weeks. After that, he sort of Edwardsed himself.

Clark did not get ignored in the weeks before he announced. In fact the two days around his anouncement, he pretty much was the only story on cable news. Then in the week after, he was the only story when they started interviewing his former colleagues who spewed the bullshit about how people under him didn't like him. However, Clark was climbing in the polls towards Dean throughout December, despite the early fall Daschling.

I think it's fair to say that being ignored is being Edwarsed (and I mean pre-Jan 26). Edwards was, in fact, ignored by the media up until one week after Iowa (when it was too late to make a difference). MediaTenor.org published reports on candidate coverage throughout '03, and they, very conveniently, broke the coverage down by type (personality, policy, horse-race, etc.). Dean got more coverage than anyone else -- in fact, he got more coverage than everyone else combined, and he got more coverage in every category.

Edwards was at the bottom of the list, and the only coverage he got was personality coverage -- and I mean, literally, he was at the bottom of the list, ranking in only a single category. The media rarely told you where he stood on the issues. Clark, in fact, was the other candidate near the bottom of the list, but only when you broke it down by categories. Cummulatively, Clark got better coverage than Kucinich, Edwards and Mosley-Braun, but it was primarily (IMO) because he talked about Iraq so much, and that was clearly the thing the media loved to report on. So Clak got personality and policy coverage (and probably horse-race coverage, since he did in fact climb the polls to challenge Dean, but I don't remember the precise categories).

Anyway, fact remains, Edwards was getting less absolute coverage than even Braun and Kucinich. Furthermore, at DU we timed the amount of talk/face time they got in the debates. The first few debates didn't require equal time for candidates. In those debates, there were two tiers of candidates: Dean and everyone who attacked him in the days leading up to the debate got between 10 and 15 minutes of talking/face time, and then Braun, Kucinich and Edwards got in the 5 minute range. Gephardt, Clark, Kerry and Lieberman, along with Dean, were regularly in the 10+ minute range. It's kind of crazy for Edwards to get so little time, especially since he ultimately did so well in Iowa -- he was obviously talking about things people wanted to hear about, but they weren't going to hear about it from CNN, FOX, NBC, or CBS, so long as their moderators had any control over the forum.

Now, one thing that is clear to me: Kerry won the nomination by winning Iowa. All the talk among Democrats after IA was, "I want to nominate the guy who can beat Bush and because Kerry won in IA, he can beat Bush." So, no matter what happened after Iowa, the media and the other campaigns had no control over it. Dean was not going to come back from such a huge disappointment. Clark Edwardsed himself in many respects by not competing in Iowa. And Edwards continued on his surprise upward arc, but the media sold it (and Democrats accepted him) as Edwards running for VP. Nobody else really had a chance before or after Iowa, so I really don't think formulating arguments about media control of the nominating process, or the media screwing over candidates after Iowa really have any relevance at all. If you want to know what the media thought about the Democrats, everything that happened prior to January 19, 2004 is very revealing.

[elperromagico]

11. My question remain: What states does she pick up

that Gore or Kerry didn't?

And don't say Bill can win them for her. I doubt he can. Bill Clinton is a different political animal from Hillary Clinton.

Put Hillary up against a Southern candidate - and why wouldn't the GOP nominate a Southerner again? - and she loses the whole South.

Then what does she have? Ohio? Nevada? Iowa? New Mexico? How does Hillary "play" in those states?

Republicans have had 12 years now to bash Hillary and build up a negative image of her. By '08 they'll have 16 years.

How the hell do you undo that kind of damage?

[blm]

13. True. Then poor Dean got Daschled by that same media.

They played up the scream to override the real story about how both Kerry and Edwards worked to connect with the people of Iowa. That allowed Dean's supporters to feel betrayed.

The GOP controlled media does whatever they can to work against Dems.

[Igotsunshine]

18. IHow can right-wingers not be scared about Hillary?

Common sense should tell them Hillary can beat anyone they put up.

[AP]

22. Dean had his stengths, but I really think Republicans would have preferred

him as the opposition rather than have to face Kerry, Edwards Clark or even Gep -- although they certainly had strategies ready for all four of those other candidates which would have given them various margins within which to play; I just think the margins were best with Dean (because they allowed Republicans to play on their two big issues, gay marriage and terror).

Same with Hillary. She definitely has her strengths, but compared to Edwards, Clark, Warner, Bayh, and probably two or three other candidates with a legitimate chance at the top spot, she'd be the preferred candidate.

The media obviously can't shoot for the moon; they're not going cash in all their legitimacy chits trying to get Krusty the Clown nominated. The best plan is to Dean Hillary, if you ask me. And that seems to be what's happening.

[ZootSuitGringo]

21. Has everyone written to their local papers

stating that Hillary is one of many, and that we request the right for Democratic activists to decide and not the pundit pap?

If you haven't, than you should.

If we don't do anything about this Hillary media runaway train, who will? Don't wait till the wreck to speak out.