From as early as the primary season in 08, the US media has had the knives out for Barack Obama-Why?

[Politics_Guy25]

President Obama has been under a merciless relentless assault since February 16, 2008 and it is time to call the media out on their blatant disrespectful and hateful treatment of the President of the United States who was DULY elected.
It's almost as if as soon as he began to clinch the democratic nomination, alarm bells went off in media-land and they began a relentless attack on the head of state of this country the likes of which has never before been seen. A laundry list of their atrocities follows.It began the Sunday before the Wisconsin primary. Since then, it has been non-stop. Let's review:
1. plagiarism gate story-Remember that one-Barack Obama falsely accused of using Duval Patrick's lines. That would be what Feb 16th, 2008.
2. Then the day of the primary, the media was in obsession mode over Michelle's comments about how proud she was to be an American. Massive coverage.
3. In the run up to the OH/TX primaries, massive coverage of the Obama campaign's statements on NAFTA and Tony Rezco, who has faded into obscurity and had nothing to do with the Obama family illegally. Austin Goolsbee is now a senior administration official.
4. Then, there was the Reverend Wright Scandal. I have NEVER SEEN the media try to tear down a candidate so viciously. The coverage of the Wright story was ridiculous and they covered it more extensively than they covered 9/11 for heaven's sake - at least longer.
5. Then there was the "bitter" controversy just before the PA primary. President Obama tried to explain why so many Americans are right-wing. Remember that?
6. Then there was the ABC/Hannity Clinton/Obama debate where George Stephanopolous and "Charlie" Gibson got booed off the stage for their obvious takedown attempt of President Obama.
7. Then there was Wright Part Deux.
8. Then there was the fax paus about Senator Obama not accepting federal matching funds in June of 2008.
9. Then there was the twisting of the Berlin rally in July of 2008 to somehow make the huge crowds that Obama was getting good news for John Mccain. "How unamerican" they chanted.
10. Then there was the propping John Mccain up all July/August 2008.
11. Sarah Palin in September 2008. OMG, the media drooled ALL over her. They and I don't mean to be crude had daily orgasms about her. "She's a true American", she "connects so well", she's "wildly popular." Only her total inability to even answer simple questions stopped the media from drooling all over her.
12. Things got somewhat better after the 9/15 crash but by October of 2008, the media was all Ayers all the time and doing constant stories about Sarah Palin calling Senator Obama a terrorist and asking if he really was.
13. Then, there was the Joe the Plumber last ditch media attempt to save John Mccain in late October of 2008 after the 3rd debate. This very nearly worked. Remember the Obama infomerical the Wednesday before the election? That infomerical was the equivalent of a convention speech bounce and President Obama surged in the polls mightily after that. Without that infomercial, could the media take-down have worked? DailyKos/R2000 had it just at a 3 point race before that infomerical aired.
14.In December of 2008, the media spazzed over the Blago affair and said that the trial would destroy the Obama presidency. The Blago trial was a bore. He ended up with a hung jury and most likely didn't even do anything wrong let alone did President Obama do anything remotely illegal.
15. After the inaguration, there was the typical proccess of nominees withdrawing-something that Bush had with Kerik in 2004-etc-due to tax issues like Daschle. The media freaked and said it showed the administration was incompetent. Where was the vetting etc? They even had massive breaking news about the chief financial officer, a low-level administration official, quitting due to a tax issue. Another major take-down attempt.
16. Then, the effort to destroy health care reform began with the media saying "Obamacare" involved death panels, etc in May-Sept 2009.
17. The media manufactured the creation of the tea party all through 2009 desperately looking for a way to save their republican buddies. "Why not rebrand them" is I'm sure what was said in ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN news division headquarters.
18. In December 2001, Richard Reid boarded a flight in Paris and nearly blew up the plane with his shoe. The media ignored it and didn't dare question King George W. Bush. In December 2009, the media spazzed over the "underwear' bomber and said that the President wasn't keeping America safe and how dare he vacation!! The coverage was rude and vitriolic in the extreme.
19. The false story in August of 2010 that Michelle said that she hated being first lady.
20. The false story in September of 2010 that said Michelle/Barack were going to split up.

That's 20 instances-I could quote MANY many more- of the media having it out for Senator/President-Elect/President Obama. The treatment that he has experienced in the media is the worst that any democratic national officeholder has ever received. Even the treatment of William Jefferson Clinton wasn't nearly this bad at all. His 2nd term was largely a swoonfest with the exception of Monica.

WHY is the media so terrified of President Barack Obama?? Obviously, they view him as an exisential threat to their masters. What I would like to know is what they consider the threat to be?

I would even say that John Kerry got better treatment in the 2004 campaign by the msm than President Obama is getting now. They have totally gone off the deep end and it is terrifying to realize just how much they have turned into a mouthpiece of the reich-wing.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. because the media are overwhelmingly liberal, pro-Marxist, and anti-values.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. US Media mainly right wing owned. it's all about the $$$. n/t

[elleng]

3. Lots of 'sexy' issues w Obama, as Senator, nominee, and Prez.

Sex sells.

[dsc]

4. Oh please

He got vastly fairer coverage than Hillary did in the primaries and frankly got decent coverage in the general. yes, he has gotten crappy coverage as President.

[babylonsister]

5. He did? Reverend Wright, for starters? Are you kidding? nt

[dsc]

8. rev Wright would have been an issue for any candidate

the man said incendiary things from a pulpit of a church that Obama went to for over a decade. The fact is Hillary was literally said to be pimping out her daughter, called a ball busting emaculator of men, and had a anchor call for her to be taken to a woodshed and beaten up, and that was on liberal MSNBC. It took all of that before any of them were forced to apologize. Obama got, far and away, the fairest coverage of any Democratic nominee that I can recall (I recall back to Mondale).

[golfguru]

12. I agree with your post /nt

[babylonsister]

13. Do you want to issue opposing thoughts, like Bill Clinton

disparaging Obama (to the point where he disgusted Ted Kennedy), or Hillary putting out a commercial about Obama not being capable of answering a 3am call? btw, I saw that today, some rethug clown is using it.

It was a prolonged, nasty, interesting primary between two qualified people who now work together. I think that's remarkable, and I'm really happy about that.

[dsc]

14. I didn't say candidates didn't attack him

though funny you didn't mention Jesse Jackson Junior's conduct or for that matter Clayborne's. But the press was clearly pro Obama in the primaries and at worst neutral in the general which is vastly better than any Dem I can recall got.

[babylonsister]

16. What about their conduct, and are you into fighting the primaries

yet again. I can do that if you want; I think Obama won fair and square, and don't think there's an ounce of dirt there. I read the rethugs had boxes full of crap to pull out for Hillary, true or not, so maybe she was spared in the long run when you consider what Obama has been through in only two years.

[dsc]

17. I am only commenting on the press

It is absurd to say the press was out to get Obama in 2008. Sorry but that is just plain, flat out, wrong. He had the best press of any Democrat since 1976 (and I am not old enough to know if Carter got better press than Obama or not). In 92, Clinton got some decent coverage but mostly not so great. The rest of the races I am old enough to remember were very pro GOP in coverage. In comparision, Obama got at worst neutral coverage in 08. He has had a rough time in office, but during the campaign he got vastly better coverage than any Democrat I can recall. It isn't even a contest.

[Politics_Guy25]

20. I don't want to turn this into a primary rehash-new question

Why does Sarah Palin's every breathless move get covered while Edwards, Lieberman and Gore's didn't when they were serious presidential candidates?

[karynnj]

43. Add in John Kerry in 2005 and 2006

His 5 Faneuil Hall speeches were exceptional and would have formed a brilliant frame for a second run.

At the Obama convention, Kerry used the theme of dissent/patriotism from his April speech, given on the 35th anniversary of his Senate testimony. The NYT spoke of the speech with it's strong and credible framing of McCain and then taking back patriotism as not belonging to one party as the best non-acceptance speech at any Democratic convention in decades.

Yet, all of these speeches - met with endless standing ovations - got much coverage - other than on CSPAN.

Maybe Kerry should have just written words on his hands - like Palin.

[karynnj]

42. I think you need to compare the coverage to what the candidates did

In that case, I think that between Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton - the one with the most press support was Bill Clinton. In the primaries, the Flowers and the draft controversies would have killed any other candidate. Remember that it was not just that he had had an affair with Flowers, but how he handled it in the campaign. He initially denied it. Faced with tapes, he claime they were distorted and attacked the woman's character. He then, with HRC, allued to causing pain in his marriage. Forget the infidelity - and concentrate on the lack of honesty. With the draft story, he changed his story at least 3 times - and again there were some lies.

The media treated him better than they treated any of his competitors for the nomination. Then in the general election, they helped build up the momentum, speaking of his rallies getting better and more enthusiastic. (Compare this with the way they did NOT do this for BIGGER crowds in 2004.)

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[frazzled]

19. Incendiary things were said at Sarah Palin's church, and we even had video of it

But the mainstream media said nothing. Remember the time a speaker at her church (with her there) said that terrorism in Israel was God’s judgment against the Jews for failing to accept Christ as the Messiah? The same Wasilla Bible Church holds "gay conversions".

So, no. Not all candidates are treated equally. And I'd have to say no to those saying Hillary Clinton was treated worse during the primaries. Chris Matthews and some boys made a sexist comment or two, but she wasn't ever dragged through a trial by fire like Obama. Anyone he'd ever come into contact with (Bill Ayers, for example) became fodder forweeks-long 24/7 thrill-seeking non-analysis of Obama's "allegiance" and "patriotism."

[dsc]

29. a sexist comment or two

Chris matthews is steeped in sexism. don't believe me go to www.dailyhowler.com and put in Chris Matthews in the search. And on edit I should have said any Democratic candidate.

[CBR]

33. Many a white candidate have been members of churches that

believe batshit crazy things and, yet, it seems only when the black guy did it was the world coming to an end.

[karynnj]

41. I agree that Wright would have been an issue for any candidate

(something that actually is unfair to Obama. No matter what an individual Catholic Priest would have said, no one would have asked why Kerry did not leave the church. No matter what a Methodist minister would have said, Clinton would not have been questioned. With Obama, the difference was that he was a convert to that specific church and it is not mainstream. The fact seems that he chose it because of what they do in the community and possibly because of its political ties.)

As to the "pimp" comment, it was uncalled for and strongly reacted to - and it was closer to the Brown's aide's injudicious "whore" comment. Hillary also, for a long period of time - as Senator and for at least all of 2007 while running for President got incredibly good coverage, She was inevitable. She is still getting nearly 100% positive coverage as SoS, even though there have been at least as many missteps and gaffes as anyone in the administration.

Not to mention - you said since at least Mondale. The fact is that Bill Clinton got exceptionally good coverage - and the media downplayed a huge amount of baggage.

[karynnj]

40. He actually suffered little damage from Reverand Wright

partially because it enabled him to give an excellent speech on race, which not only explained the "Wrights", but addressed a broader, unspoken issue.

I think that both Clinton and Obama got both very favored -- and very negative coverage. Between them, many in the media were passionately on one side or the other and it showed.

I think Obama got off lightly for the "guns and religion" comment. The problem I have with it is that it assumes that voting your economic interest is where people should be. As a Jew, I've long heard people speak with pride that Jews earn like Episcopalians, but vote like Porto Ricans. This is the reverse - and yes, their religion, customs, an life styles can, do and should influence their life styles. He was attacked on this, but cn you imagine how much Hell would have come down on John Kerry ha he said it?

I suspect that had I been a Clinton supporter, I would have frustrated that this did not stick - forgetting that in the 1992 primaries many things that should have stuck failed to stick to Bill Clinton.

[Politics_Guy25]

7. HRC was a media darling in 2006/2007/2008

The coverage of her was nowhere near as vitrolic as it was against Senator Obama as he neared clinching the democratic nomination. She was critcized yes but given tremendous respect - something that Senator Obama never received. Of course, I'm talking here in mainstream media land outside of FNC. Of course, FNC hates her. FNC hates all democrats.

[dsc]

10. oh please

we heard during this time she was supposedly venorated, that Clinton was having affairs again, that Clinton would be running the show, that she supposedly lied about Bosnia, she was called a pimp of her own daughter, sorry but get real.

[Whisp]

18. "that she supposedly lied about Bosnia"...

:rofl:

there is no where in my imagination where Obama would come up with something like Tuzla.

supposedly lied....


yah sure.

tee hee

but enough of this, i win!
you are dismissed now

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[karynnj]

44. Clinton DISTORTED her experience in Bosnia - she was not uner sniper fire

The fact that she said this 4 times before getting called on it shows the media was not going after her. The fact is that HAD HRC and Chelsea been under sniper fire, it wopuld have been PAGE ONE for days - with articles questioning why they were sent there.

As to Bill Clinton having affairs - other than the National Enquirer - the media said nothing. Game Change spoke of BC having an affair, but that was written after the fact.

As to the pimp comment - it was an inexcusable comment by one partisan media person - and equivalent to the Whitmn/whore comment.

[Whisp]

9. maybe because he made vastly less stupid big fucking mistakes like Hillary did?

[dsc]

15. right and just what mistakes did Kerry make? or Gore?

or Mondale? or Dukakis? Funny how only Democrats tended to make those mistakes. The fact is Obama is the only Democratic candidate, at least since Carter in 76 to get a decent fair shake out of the press, and it surely helped him.

[DURHAM D]

25. true that

[karynnj]

46. I'll agree if you add in Bill Clinton

The media obsessed on GHWB vomiting at a dinner in Asia and on his cluelessness in a supermarket. Bill Clinton had a ton of baggage and it surfaced - the press was actually helpful to him in minimizing it's importance. Large parts of the media were infatuate with him in 1992, only to turn on him later in some cases.

[DURHAM D]

22. Plus 1000. nt

[Cosmocat]

32. Let's be honest ...

He most certainly received favored treatment when Hill was the prohobitive favorite ...

Once it was clear he had her beat, they turned on him in a heartbeat, and after almost two decades of painting Hillary as the spawn of satan, she suddenly was their hearthrob ...

Once it was clear he had it won, they spent literally months babbling about Reverand Wright, a month or so babbling about how he did not wear at flag pin on his lapel, a month plus with the completely nonsensical "celebrity" BS ...

They had him losing because he had problems with Hill voters, he had problems with PA voters, but ended up winning by 10+ points ...

[Politics_Guy25]

45. That's true and does support the argument that they hate us all

Good points.

[babylonsister]

6. Because the media goes with 'the story' and this story is, he's "BLACK"

so scary, not to be trusted, all kinds of 'where did he "really" come from, etc.

Stoopid people drive the media; if they squawk loud enough, they get attention, regardless of the intent.

[DJ13]

11. Because Obama doesnt completely bow to the corporate elites

They only get 80% of everything they want from the Dems, but the GOP promises 100%, so guess who they would rather see running things.

[EFerrari]

21. It's not about Obama but about the right wing media.

And you must have watched some "swoon fest" that I didn't see. I remember Clinton's second term was when we stopped watching Fox because they were so horrible to him.

[pansypoo53219]

26. because the media didn't make him like they did georgee.

and he make them look STOOPID. geogree made the gnews look smart. oh, and obama makes them WERK. no werk w/ georgee.

[Whisp]

27. because he is not a corporate shill

contrary to what some _________________ that call him that here.

Obama's grandfather fought in ww2, Bush's grandfather traded with the Nazi's in ww2.
Obama has no beholden on the scale that the Chimperor and company had so therefore Obama is a much more dangerous man to the power elite. They don't have much on him. no skeletons so they have to fabricate them.

[CakeGrrl]

28. The media outlets are OWNED BY CORPORATIONS

That is the underlying fact behind every biased thing they do.

Corporations have always benefited from Republican "protect the tax breaks" policies.

Example: NBC owns GE. GE companies make money when subcontractors need to produce war machinery. Re-watch "JFK" and the speech by Donald Sutherland's character. What's true then is true now.

Not to mention that the big-name journalists at the higher levels are just more piggies feeding at the tax break trough. They have financial skin in the game to protect their $$$. Re-watch "Bulworth".

Combine that with his personal popularity and campaign success and his skin color? They're terrified of that combination.

[Jennicut]

30. First of all, the media has never been kind to any Dem. They treated Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry,

Hillary and Obama all rather poorly throughout the years. The second thing is Obama actually became President. Another Dem in office! And a black man at that! How dare he. Pretty much sums it up for me. I don't remember there ever being any swoonfests with Clinton, and by his second term it was Monica 24/7 and the media moved onto Gore.

[Autumn]

31. Because he has this great big

D on his back. Stands for Democrat. And the MSM was pretty vile to John Kerry in 2004. Stop and think about it, the MSM is always that way with Democrats. This is nothing new.

[Cosmocat]

34. Yep ...

it gets ramped up a bit because of race, but it would be this bad regardless ...

They made an intelligent, decent man in Gore a geek and favored the guy you would have a beer with ... They killed Howard Dean politically over the "scream" ... They took a man who served with honor in Vietnam and painted him as a weak coward and painted the twit who used his family influence to avoid real service as tough and resolute ...

They spent almost 2 decades painting Hillary as the spawn of the devil, and did give BO favored status based on the "chaos" factor up to the point where it was clear he would win the nomination ... Hillary then was their darling, and BO had to spend months answering about Reverand Wright, not wearing a flag pin on his lapel, about being a celebrity ...

the big bad "liberal" media at work ...

[Autumn]

35. That's a fact.

I am amazed when people are so surprised and offended at how the media treats Democrats especially the President, like it's all new. I don't know, maybe it's their first politically aware Presidency. I was aware of it going on before Carter.

[Politics_Guy25]

37. Well, I do remember in 2004

Chris Matthews especially defended John Kerry over the swiftboating and the media ABSOLUTELY DESTROYED George W. Bush when he forgot to show up in the 1st debate. Remember that 1st debate, the media hammered Bush relentlessly for being an idiot and Kerry surged into the lead. I do agree that the media treated Gore in 2000 just as badly as they treated Obama in 2008. The media gave President Clinton very favorable coverage in his 1996 re-election campaign until the campaign finance allegations but yeah that's true they were harsh on Clinton right from October 1996-January 2001 but before that they treated him pretty good during the re-elect.

See check out this LKL transcript from the third Bush/Kerry debate. See how favorable it was:
KING: Thank you, Vanessa.

We've received initial polling results. We'll get the comments of Richard Wolffe in the spin room and Bill Schneider in Washington. But here they are. This poll does not reflect the views, of course, of all Americans. Reminder that the -- after the debates, the views can change in 48 to 72 hours. We asked tonight, "Who did the better job in this debate?" Kerry 52 percent, Bush 39 percent. In the first debate, it was Kerry 53, Bush 37. In the second debate, it was Kerry 47, Bush 45. And tonight, the third debate, 52-39. The sampling error plus or minus 5 points.

Richard Wolffe, Washington correspondent for "Newsweek," what's your reaction?

RICHARD WOLFFE, "NEWSWEEK": Well, it doesn't surprise me. You know, John Kerry I thought took this one by points. The president really needed to get a big victory tonight, and he fell short of that. You know, he beat himself in the previous debates, but that really wasn't good enough. And John Kerry has looked more presidential and more personable as these debates have gone on.

KING: So you think -- you agree with the poll. You think Kerry won this tonight.

WOLFFE: Absolutely. And you know what? What's been interesting about these polls, as time has gone on, is that Kerry's wins have got bigger. What turned out in the second debate as a fairly narrow win in the instant polls grew over time as people looked at the clips, maybe watched it on the morning news or on the nightly news. So you know, you got to take all of these together. As you know, TV is about impressions. It's about impressions of people on that. I think the impression of John Kerry's improved.

KING: Yes. Bill Schneider in D.C., our CNN political analyst, what's your reaction?

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, this was a decisive win for John Kerry. It was just about as decisive as his win in the first debate, which everyone agreed was a blow-out. The first debate he won by 16 points. This debate Kerry won by 13 points, according to the views of the viewers polled immediately after the debate, so they had no chance, really, to be influenced by the spin.

What we found in the first debate, as Richard just said, was as the course of the next few days proceeded and people talked at their office over the water cooler, discussed what happened, read the newspaper accounts, by the end of the second day after the debate, Bush -- Kerry had won by 38 points. Well, in this debate, we may see that margin grow, with more and more people hearing or concluding that Kerry won.

[karynnj]

49. Cherry picking - that is how the coverage of the debates should have been

Kerry was FAR FAR better than Bush - but remember the NYT held back the story that Bush was wired in the first debate! This took incredible chutzpah on Bush's part - trying to cheat on an oral test in public view of millions.

But, you forget that while Matthews did a few times very strongly defend Kerry against the SBVT lies, the bulk of the media gave the SBFT liars endless free time - and treated their lies as equivalent to the NAVY record. (There was no Kerry "story" - it was the Navy's) This was done so often and so pervasively that even though the NAVY backed Kerry and Kerry proved they were lying, look at the comments on any Kerry article now - there are still people who believe the lies. It wasn't so much the ads themselves, but the media unwillingness on almost all shows to call them liars.

Note that the debate polls were BEFORE the spin. (You might want to remember that people watching the third gave it to Kerry by 13 points, yet the spin for the next several days was "Mary Cheney" - ignoring Kerry's excellent, tolerant and kind comments on the issue. (You might also consider this was the domestic debate - and covered this and the fact that both had two daughters, but not energy or environment - two issues that Kerry was exceptional on.)

[JVS]

36. "as early as the primary season in 08"

:popcorn:

[karynnj]

38. Kerry's treatment was FAR FAR worse in 2004 than Obama's now

As President, Obama can and does get coverage of what he does and says. As does the First Lady. That alone makes their situation far better than what Kerry experienced in 2004.

There was almost no coverage of the extent of the enthusiastic record breaking crowds that Kerry was pulling everywhere he went. The coverage was essentially their talking head speaking with less than a minute of Kerry speaking. In addition, there has been enough real coverage of Obama that people know what kind of a person he is - and most like him.

To get an idea of what the difference in having the platform of being President is consider Michelle Obama's reputation while running versus while First Lady. She has very high poll numbers now, but in spite of her eloquence and the 2 lovely kids, her image was not all that good during the election. (Even during the election, Teresa was treated worse - maybe because of xenophobia, but more likely because she was someone who - if shown fairly - would have really helped Kerry with centrist independents - and liberals. Teresa was well known to Republicans as the beautiful and brilliant wife of John Heinz. Unlike the caricature, she is soft spoken, charming and gracious - and you can dig out articles from the 1980s showing her that way.)

As to the primaries and general election in 2008, there were elements in the media that went after Obams, but there were also significant elements that loved him and were, if anything, strong supporters. He got far more media support than Kerry ever did - in either the primaries or general election. In the primaries, there were parts of the media that favored various candidates - there was more media infatuation with Edwards (and earlier Clark and Dean) than Kerry. So much so, that they colored what people saw.

[CakeGrrl]

39. Seriously? Who covered the Ohio rally LIVE yesterday?

Meanwhile, CNN was eagerly chasing Palin's skirt at that Teabagger rally with Michael Steele a few days ago.

If they gave Obama extensive coverage during the primaries, it was to gin up the tension between him and Hillary.

Now, they sit on their asses and wait to see what that execrable idiot Palin does.

[karynnj]

50. I was not home yesterday, so I take your wor that it wasn't covered

I do know that earlier rallies this year were covered.

[Aramchek]

47. that is what they are paid to do.

[Joanne98]

48. The media is responsible for this whole mess!

They let the conservatives tell LIES EVERYDAY and just SIT THERE LIKE POTTED PLANTS saying nothing.

We need to get even with the media if we lose this election!