The media is doing to Hillary what they did to Gore, Dean, and Kerry

[Herman Munster]

The media wanted a horserace and they got their horserace. So jump for joy at Hillary losing her 20 or 30 point lead but don't for a second be ignorant to the fact that any lead Obama has whether in the primary or if he wins the nomination in the general election can evaporate just as easily. All it takes is for some network guru to think Obama is beating Romney or Huckabee or Giuliani by too much, then they'll find a way to take him down a few notches to keep the ratings and interest up.

Don't forget how Hillary's slide started. It started in Philly in the MSNBC media hit job debate with Russert as judge, jury, and executioner. Chris Matthews was practically wetting himself prior to the debate saying how Hillary will be brought down a few notches that night.

Then Hillary said everyone was attacking her. It's a tried and true passive-aggressive political technique to deflect the attack on the attackers, but the media wouldn't go along with it because they wanted to bring Hillary down. Yet when Hillary attacks Obama now, Obama uses the same passive-aggressive technique that Hillary used against him. Except the media is playing along with Obama because at this point it serves their interests - a tight race to drive up the ratings.

Just think about all the gaffes Obama made in the past and what a hostile media could have done with them.

the South Carolina gay bashing tour. Imagine it on every newspaper and every network news and pundit show for weeks on end.
Or his foreign policy blunder that caused riots in Pakistan.

Or his stumbling and bumbling immigration answer that was just as bad as Hillary's in the Vegas debate.

The point is no campaign is perfect. Every campaign has dozens of miscues and gaffes. It is the media that chooses which gaffes to highlight to fit their agenda. When Obama gets too big for his briches, don't think for a second they won't try and take him out like they are doing for Hillary just for "fun."

[joeybee12]

1. Very true...but now that they havea horserace...

...maybe the biased coverage will change...after all, any more and Obama and Edwards might go out in front...and then they'll have to take them both down like they've done with Hilary.

[MessiahRp]

2. Maybe but Hillary is a bad candidate

And its better for our party if Obama and Edwards get more of the spotlight. They represent less of the center-right policy she does.

It's this simple: She's the corporate candidate, corporations have helped ruin America the past 30 years. It's ironic that the corporate owned media would bring her down in anyway after jamming the "Inevitable Candidate" meme down our throat repeatedly the past 6 months.

Rp

[aquart]

7. Funny, I rather thought she's a spectacular candidate.

Being in the lead in all those polls and all.

[MessiahRp]

18. Easy to lead in polls when Media deems you "inevitable"

The problem is after awhile most Americans get tired of inevitability. Especially when the candidate presents themselves in an arrogant way that makes it seem as if the primaries are meaningless and they are already running in the general election.

Rp

[emilyg]

13. She's a great candidate.

[Selatius]

3. Who would Wall Street want to win? That's my question. n/t

[gateley]

14. I think you nailed it, Selatius. nt

[Bitwit1234]

4. They want Obama so the republicans can win.

there is no doubt that Obama is the only candidate that will bring it home for the republicans. We all know it.

[madrchsod]

11. we do ? why do you think he`ll bring it home

for the republicans? just how much difference in their ideas is there?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Herman Munster]

19. they like him because he's never been through the republican slime machine before

Duh.

Once the republicans and media spend 9 months attacking him every day, he'll be just as hated as Hillary, if not more.

[sandnsea]

5. The ones who are saying BOTH Obama and Clinton get dirty

are doing exactly what the Clinton campaign wants them to do. The Clintons thought everybody would help trash Obama or create a fight to offend Iowans, and that is what backfired. Pay Attention.

[blm]

6. Except Hillary's people all said SHE would handle the media spin against her better than

any other Democrat like Gore, Dean and Kerry.

In fact, Hillary wanted to make sure that every Democrat thought of her team as formidable fighters, when the truth is they were all Bush enablers undermining any Democrat who got in between them and the White House.

Ask Gore. Ask Dean. Ask Kerry.

Observations of historian Douglas Brinkley in April2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Bill's timely defense of Bush for summer/2004 book tour:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

The Carvilles on election night:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Hillary and the wielding of her own knife:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg



Ever hear of Karma?

[aquart]

8. I don't hear no fat lady singing.

But if you do, please tell me the song.

[blm]

17. Talk to the OP. I answered his point with MY thoughts on the subject.

.

[RufusTFirefly]

9. But four of her top 20 contributors are Big Media companies

National Amusements Inc. (no. 6)
Cablevision Systems (no. 11)
Time Warner (no. 13)
News Corp. (no. 20)

Source

[MessiahRp]

16. News Corp... That says it all...

:puke:

[HardWorkingDem]

10. Oh, come on, it was to be expected...

Let's all be honest here - up until that debate HRC was running a seemingly flawless campaign. And then she politically blew it by her answers to issues like drivers licenses and then kept on circling the drain.

Not only that, she has learned from Bill great - to try and mince words to have all the answers to every question. What I mean is, when she made her comments the following days about being piled on, I think she was going for both indicating that that is what naturally happens to front runners AND to slyly reference the piling on to being related to her being a woman. In other words, she was trying to play all cards while acting coy about the "woman" angle.

Frankly, I will vote for ANY Dem for president, but HRC really is testing me because she is selling herself as something that she claims she is not and that creature is of a pure, political animal.

[MasonJar]

12. I haven't chosen my candidate (except to be sure he/she is a dem) and yet

it discourages me to see this site constantly labeling Hillary Clinton as a DLCer. In fact Hillary is more moderate than Obama. She has always been an advocate for the poor, especially children, as is supported by her advocacy for them throughout her life and career. She was the first person I ever heard mention a separate Palestinian state. She was ground into the dirt by the GOPers for that one and for her attempt to find a universal health care program. Did we stand by her when the Pugs raged against her plan? No is the answer to that question. This site has bought into the years of despicable GOPer vitriol against Bill and Hillary. They have been maligned above all possible measure. It is beginning to make me sick, especially here at DU. Why these two truly fine and patriotic Americans have spent their time trying to do what is right for the country in general is beyond my comprehension. I would have thrown in the towel long ago and moved to Europe where I could be appreciated beyond measure. Not all of the country is as liberal as DU; whomever we choose to run must and should represent all the people. It is that lack of representation which has ruined our life these past 7+ years. I wish a similar fate on noone.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. What do you think the DLC is?

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

Not only is she DLC, she is one of 5 members of the DLC Leadership Team - she formulates policy for the DLC.

She touts her progressive credentials, but allies herself with the republican wing of the democratic party - so who is she lying to, them or us? It was the DLC that undermined Dean's campaign, and fought tooth and nail against his 50-state strategy in the last election. If she gets the nomination, she will run her campaign in the same way as the DLC advocated - abandon the red states, which will then lose Dems down ticket, and concentrate on 'important' states, as they always do - except that just tells the repukes where they have to concentrate their dirty tricks and vote fraud and SHE WILL LOSE.

"She was the first person I ever heard mention a separate Palestinian state. She was ground into the dirt by the GOPers for that one and for her attempt to find a universal health care program."

People have been working for a separate Palestinian state since 1948. She takes HUGE donations from AIPAC, which insists that any Palestinian state must be created on Israel's terms, or not at all. And she has never advocated universal health care - only universal health insurance. Even her first plan, back in 94, depended on private insurance and government approved HMOs.

[Selatius]

22. Her health care proposal failed because HMOs backstabbed her.

She was attacked both from the left and the right. She was attacked from the left because they argued that a single-payer system like the one France has is cheaper per capita in terms of total costs, simply because there is nobody tacking on a profit mark-up on health insurance unlike a private insurance company. Her plan was not single-payer. She was attacked from the right because even though her health care proposal didn't challenge the existence of HMOs, the HMOs figured that it would be better to try to sink the proposal anyway regardless of the concession of leaving private for-profit HMOs in place.

They shot her down, even though she gave them the concession. The people to the left in the argument would never have trusted the HMOs enough to even bother with such a concession in return for cooperation.

I would not have trusted the HMOs enough to make such a concession either. I understand them well enough to know that they are in it for profits, not for care.

[sandnsea]

21. I'll tell you why

Welfare reform? Has left single parents homeless and she won't tell the truth about it because it would expose the truth about that failed legislation. The college tax credit is a joke. The housing plan has put money into the pockets of developers and left more people homeless, see NOLA. They didn't do anything to build and repair schools, which was the most important thing we needed in the 90's. They paved the way for charters instead. They allowed the unfair drug laws and mandatory sentencing which has doubled our prison population. They traded away federal land to open ski resort developments that have left communities bankrupt. They didn't make sure any environmental, labor or human rights regulations were IN trade agreements. They opened the flood gates to China and refuse to open their mouths and admit that all that Chinese pollution is from OUR corporations. I could go on and on. We can do better than the Clintons and they are DLC.

[Peregrine Took]

23. The MSM made Howard Dean and then they destroyed him - with the aid of

the DLC and the DNC, of course who were terrified of him, too.

[Capn Sunshine]

24. So now it's the media's fault?

The competence of the campaign organization doesn't come into play here?

Because its the thing I've been railing about since she announced her team. Only this group of incompetent hubris laden arrogant SOBs could create a performance for Hillary like the one she got in Iowa. Sorry, guys, it's on YOU. I knew it , I called it.

I for one don't want to see a Democratic victory in '08 vanish before my eyes while another chance at victory is fumbled away by DLC talking points and micromanagement.


You know, they described Muskie's campaign as "Invincible" once too.