Lou Dobbs, with whom I rarely agree, seems to have gotten it right. In strongly worded comments he recognizes and acknowledges the inherent unfairness in the national mass media treatment of Clinton when it comes to the delegate count and each respective candidate's ability to win the nomination.
He recognizes the media's overt fondness for saying that Hillary cannot win, while ignoring that Obama also cannot win enough delegates. He points out the media's "compulsion, this insistence" that Clinton cannot win when "neither can Senator Obama."
The media has allowed the Obama campaign to frame the issue, to write the script, and to prematurely write-off Clinton. But, maybe, just maybe, the media is finally realizing that it has been taken for a ride, and that it has been ridden by Obama like a wet horse. That the media has become Obama's mouthpiece on this issue of carrying the nomination. Well, maybe it's about to end and people will realize that the numbers are the numbers, and the rules are the rules.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Well it is high time that a major figure in the national media has stepped up and renounced the media's Obama bias! Clinton really is getting a tough shake from most news outlets. As I peruse the political news online it seems it is an endless cycle of "Should Clinton Drop Out?" headlines. It is not in democracy's interest to not let the system play itself out, and those that favor, in such a tight contest, to take the voice away from Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Michigan and Florida, and all the other upcoming primaries, is a person that is thinking only in the self-interest of their candidate.
Kudos to Dobbs for stepping up and saying something.
i agree. shame on the media. why aren't those obama puppets reporting the truth? why are they painting clinton as a beleaguered underdog? it's simply not true. it's a lie. anyone can see that she has the momentum. anyone can see that she has
a far greater chance of winning the nomination outright than does that one hit wonder barack obama. super delegate endorsements for her are pouring in. but they won't report that.
all she needs is to win by a tiny fraction in the remaining primaries and victory is hers. but they won't report that either.
why is the gallup poll reporting a 52%-42% preference for obama among democrats? it's biased news and it has to stop. it's just like those
lapdogs having the nerve to report that in a march 27th poll of democrats, that 59% of them think that obama has a better chance of beating mccain vs 30% for clinton.
i don't understand why i am seeing things like this day in and day out. why did i have to read that after clntons landslide victory in texas, that she actually came up on the short end. it was just that silly little caucus rule. it's not fair. she really won. that's all that needed to be said.
and all this media hubbub over her innocent embellishment of her excellent adventure to bosnia. it stinks man. when will they stop all of this negativity? i mean, she has already said that she and st. mccain are the only candidates to have passed the commander in chief threshold. there shouldn't be a need to report anything else. like facts. and numbers. and stupid polls.
i agree. we need more reliable reporters like lou dobbs. scumbags like keith olbermann should be run off the air if they can't start reporting the real truth. that the tide is turning in this race. that things look great for clinton.
i feel sorry for her. she has run a superb, flawless campaign. and the media is screwing it all up.
tsk tsk
Not really sure what media that you're referring to in this post.
What I read, and I read/watch every type of media, is that she has little or no chance to come out on top in either the pledged delegate or popular vote counts. I would appreciate links to other types of reporting in the MSM to support your claim of bias.
Now, these are facts, not biased opinions. If you can see a realistic scenario in which she can win either of these counts, lay it out here. I'd like to see it.
At any rate, you've been suckered by Dobbs (whom I might add is a very disturbed human being). Check this little clip from his show below of Lou going off on one of his classic, self-indulgent rants. His target is, and has been for awhile, Obama, because he dared to question Lou's plan to deport ALL illegal aliens.
So, I guess one would have to conclude that Lou is certainly not the disinterested, intrepid reporter that you would paint him to be here, but merely engaging in another biased diatribe. The same kind that Clinton has to endure on a daily basis regarding other matters. The same kind that Obama has endured for weeks with the insane reaction the Rev. Wright's comments.
Much more importantly, they're enduring everything that Saint McCain never has to endure. The Hagee debacle, much more relevant that the Wright issue, just fades quietly into the ether. He demonstrates his stunning ignorance of the Iraq situation 3 or 4 times with regard to the Iran's involvement, and the press gives him a pass. And, on and on and on ...
Here are the facts:
Sen. Clinton can't win the nomination without a result that would be contrary to the popular vote and pledged delegates results.
Now, it's OK to believe that it would be an acceptable result for the country and the party for Sen. Clinton to win by getting enough superdelegates to overcome that situation. The rules certainly allow for that.
However, it would be ridiculous (one might say biased) not to be able to comprehend that some might believe that it would be a very destructive situation to the party and to the country for a nomination to be decided in this fashion.
If the situation were reversed, I would be calling for Obama to back out now. Just as loudly.
Yes, there is bias in the media. And, yes, surely Clinton gets the worst of it. But, even you can't deny that this is damaging the party's chances in the general against St. McCain.
Sorry. Forgot the Dobbs video link. Here it is.
http://www.connietalk.com/lou_dobbs_vs_obama_031608.html
Here are a few more clips of highlighting media treatment of Obama. This time regarding the very serious problem of his bowling skills. Sickening. Obama bias indeed.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803310018
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803310007
One more question. Anyone want to weigh in on media bias as it relates to Sen. McCain?
The bottom line is that BOTH candidates CANNOT win the 2,024 pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination mathematically, and in such a tight race there is no reason why Clinton should be feeling pressure to drop out. Granted, she has a more difficult road to the nomination, and thus it is no surprise that she gets the brunt of the "drop out" debate. But what solidarity and Dobbs are questioning is the MSM's failure to consistently outline that Obama, too, cannot win outright. It is not just Clinton who "can't win."
I am not saying that the media is endorsing Clinton to drop out, but consistently having stories related to Clinton dropping out sets the agenda for discussion, and casts a negative light on Clinton. It is the media's subtle fondness of saying that she simply "cannot win" that constantly fills the airwaves, while they seem to ignore that Obama cannot win enough delegates either. This is, at least, the feeling I get from the media, but as most of you know, I am a bit biased as well being a Clinton supporter, which makes me a little more sensitive to the issue.
Regarding McCain, I'll make it short and sweet: the reason he is receiving this perceived "media bias" is because he is not locked in a bloody primary battle anymore, and therefore the story is not going to be about him. If he remained head-to-head in a tight race with a Romney or a Huckabee, his slip-ups on Iran and the Hagee issue would make press headlines. But the story of this pre-general election is Clinton vs. Obama. Rather than see it as a McCain bias, I see it as the media treating the Clinton-Obama race as the key election story right now. Which it is. So McCain topics get put on the back burner and slip into the ether, but only for the time being. He won't get a free ride come the run-up to November.
There's NO REASON that Sen. Clinton should be feeling pressure to drop out? WTF?
She's not going to win without an outcome in the superdelegate count that is contrary to the popular vote AND pledged delegate counts. Have you even taken one minute to consider the ramifications of that scenario? Really, have you?
Do you think the voters are just going to shrug their shoulders and accept that result? Honestly, do you really think that's going to happen? I can't believe that, if you really consider it, that you would believe it's going to go down that way.
It's going to rip the party apart, likely sealing the general for McCain.
Again, nothing wrong with wanting Sen. Clinton to stay and fight, if you believe that she is so far superior to Obama, that it would be worth the bloodbath. But don't tell me that she has NO REASON to feel any pressure.
She feels it and it's warranted.
Regarding McCain, I respectfully disagree. Perhaps because I'm "a bit" older and the memory of 2000 is still very fresh.
We thought W's idiotic, disingenuous, dissembling, ramblings would eventually be exposed by our press corps, didn't we?
What happened? And, what a tragic the cost to this nation.
Don't think it could happen again? Don't kid yourself.
I stand by my comment that Clinton should be feeling no pressure to drop out.
First, she is not mathematically eliminated, and were the Michigan and Florida delegations to be sat (in whichever fashion is decided upon), Obama's popular vote lead would be greatly reduced if not evaporate entirely. Yes, I realize that she has a mountain to climb (which I have posted on many times) and it seems unlikely when you calculate her chances, but it is not impossible. Why is she feeling pressure so soon to drop out when she could still conceivably win that popular vote (with MI and FL), and go to the convention with a formidable case for her to be the people's choice. I think the real pressure should be breathing down the DNC's neck to seat all the freakin' states' delegates, to enfranchise all 50 states' people, not just 48. The media should be pointing the finger at MI, FL and the DNC, not at Clinton.
Second, the race isn't done. Shouldn't we allow the system to play itself out? That is what Clinton is asking for. Sure, she could drop out and hand Obama the nod, as there is precedent for a candidate to win the party's nomination without the magic delegate number, but is that fair to the people of Pennsylvania, Indiana and the remaining states? NO.
Finally, to address your prophecy of a 'ripped-apart' Democratic party with Clinton as its nominee: what proof do you have that such a scenario will "hand the general" to McCain? Is there a precedent you can cite? Was the country so furious with the Republicans and Bush to not elect them in 2002 and 2004? Don't think so. If there are Democrats so prideful as to not vote for Clinton because of her 'superdelegate victory', then they either aren't true party Democrats, or they will seriously regret their non-vote when they see McCain being sworn in next January. McCain and the Dems differ on so many issues, and the general election season will be a totally different animal than now, and Democrats will rally around their candidate in November. Further, as mentioned above, I am not convinced that she will only win by superdelegates, I think she still has a chance to win the popular vote if they can resolve this Michigan and Florida mess. Which is a must for everyone's voice to be heard in such an important election year.
First, I support Clinton because I believe she is the better candidate. She is there on the home mortgage crisis and the current economic recession; she believes in true universal health care, and has consistently fought for it. I believe she should stay in this race because I believe she would be a better president. I want her to stay in this race because I believe she would be a better candidate in the fall. I have every right to hold these beliefs. And, what I write below is not meant to attack anyone but to look at what is happening to us during this nominating process.
Second, no, I do not believe that Clinton's nomination will cause a "bloodbath" or "rip the party apart." To imply that we Clinton supporters will be responsible for a "bloodbath" and for "ripping the party apart" only serves to alienate many of the party. We are as much a part of the Democratic Party as are Obama supporters. We also believe that the Democratic Party can lead us out of the current 8 years of darkness. We also believe in democratic principles. And no matter how many times someone tells me or my fellow Clinton supporters that we do not, it will not change, it will only alienate.
I do believe it is that type of hyperbole which turns off many Clinton supporters from hopping onto the Obama train. The position would be better taken if Obama were running away with this thing but he is not. After all, Obama and Clinton are very close in numbers. His lead in the so-called popular vote (whatever that means when there are some very real and consequential differences between caucus and popular vote primaries) is currently only by 1.4% to 1.8% (not counting MI). That cannot be described as a landslide or overwhelming support for either candidate. Let's just say the party is split about 50/50. So, any argument that he should automatically receive the superdelegates' votes just seems more like hyperbole.
That is not to say that an argument to the superdelegates that he won more votes so they should vote for him is not a good one to make. Of course it's a good argument and maybe the better argument.
What I am addressing is the argument that the party will experience a bloodbath or be ripped apart if the super delegates do not vote for Obama, or if we continue to support Clinton. Such arguments strongly imply that we Clinton supporters are somehow undemocratic or un-American, or self-serving and nothing more. Hardly the truth.
Third, under the rules, neither Clinton nor Obama will have sufficient delegates to win the nomination before the convention. The decision will be made by un-pledged delegates. That appears to be a fact. If that is the case, then the argument that one has more pledged delegates than the other and therefore must be nominated is a non-starter, especially when the two candidates are so close, about a 150 delegate difference.
Again, it is a good argument to make that superdelegates should vote for him because he is ahead. But to extend that to MUST vote for him or suffer the dire consequences of a threatened bloodbath seem out of place and counterproductive.
Also, my original post on this was not intended to say and did not say that we should not have our opinions about the race, about delegate counts, about how super delegates should vote. The post addressed the media and what I see as their bias.
Finally, as an alternate Clinton delegate to the Texas State Democratic Party Convention in June, I pledge to support whoever wins the nomination.
There you go again, repeating the media bias bromide. How quickly you forget. I didn't hear you whine when the media was treating Clinton as the presumptive nominee? Where were you when it took a You Tube video to get the media to question Clinton's lie about Bosnia? Where were you when the media you so preposterously label anti-Clinton/pro-Obama was all over him for getting campaign funds from the Chicago guy and failing to ask her about her hubby's infamous pardon of Marc Rich and what role she may have had in that favor for a fugivive whose wife gave the Clinton library fund $450,000? The same media that has failed to probe into her unbelievable insistence that she didn't know her brother was getting paid $400,000 to win other legal clemency for felons?
Hillary Clinton is a liar who the Americna people should not let pollute the White House. She should, for the good of the Democratic Party, quit the race. That's not anti-democratic. It's the right thing to do, if you care about the party and the country. Of course, we know she cares not one iota for either.
Here's a couple of links that support your claim of media bias in favor of Obama.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3316
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3196
Tom,
The hostility you feel for Clinton makes me assume you are one of the smart Democrats that will not exercise your right to vote should Clinton win the nomination. Or will you vote for McCain?
Clinton and Obama are so similar I find all the hatred so futile and, frankly, pompous. "My Democrat is better than yours." Boo hoo, quit all the negative comments and just talk facts. Do you have empirical evidence that Clinton "cares not one iota for either [the party or country.]"? I mean seriously, what are these absurdist statements? The negativity that has engulfed and shamed this political campaign for the Dems seems (at least to me) to be coming more from Obama supporters than Clinton supporters. The sheer hatred and contempt you feel for Clinton is uncalled for in an election you Democrats so desperately need. I am going to laugh my ass off when John McCain becomes our 44th president and all of you are just sitting there with nothing left but ignorant pride.
And I am still so lost as to why people like yourself think that she must exit the race to save the party from chaos? If a party is split practically 50/50 on who they want their candidate to be, what does that party gain from prematurely selecting their nominee? What does that party gain from not allowing a candidate who is a meager 1.8% behind in the popular vote see how the race plays itself out? Seriously, what evidence do you have that says by Clinton staying in the race this party will be torn apart? Is this just speculation? Or is it that Obama supporters like yourself will willingly throw the party into chaos by throwing the vote in November?
Again, I call for calm amongst the two camps. Let's see where we are after Pennsylvania. If Obama sneaks in and wins that primary, I believe we will be seeing a much different situation where Clinton will strongly consider quitting the race, if not definitively quit, and rallying behind Barack Obama.
Tom:
You've admitted that you are not a Democrat.
You've admitted that you will never vote for Hillary Clinton.
I don't understand why you think we should listen to you when you say she should step down for the good of OUR party.
If you are not a Democrat, and I believe you when you say you are not, why do you care so much who WE nominate? You will have your independent or third party to vote for in the fall.
I have heard you attack the media incessantly for many years now. But make any negative comment about the media and its coverage of Obama and you're there to protect the media. I wonder why?
Finally, please identify one "media bias bromide" whatever that is, in my post.
Post a Comment