Are we or are we not letting the right-wing media pick our candidate?

[eileen_d]

I've seen complete flip-flops all over DU on this issue.

If there is a right-wing smear against someone's preferred candidate, that person will immediately invoke the "Don't buy into the RW media hype!" clause.

If there is a right-wing smear against someone's non-preferred candidate, suddenly it is crucially important to factor the same "RW media hype" into all consideration of that candidate.

So what's going on?

[Guaranteed]

1. Seems to me that Kerry's being protected by the media

on this one.

[eileen_d]

3. LOL. n/t

[bryant69]

2. It's the Horse race aspect

While one believes in one's on campaign, other candidate's failings msut be intensely scrutinized because of their effect on the election. In that way we aren't a bunch of hypocrites for slamming into Kerry's supposed marital infidelity, but a bunch of shrewd political observers commenting on the effect of said infidelity.

It also relieves us of the necessity of talking about proof. Whether or not this allegation is proven at all; the candidate will still have to deal with it. That makes it fair game for us to talk, not about the right or wrong of Kerry's supposed crime (which he may not even have committed) but about how it will reflect in the campaign and in how our candidate would handle it better / avoid it altogether.

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

[Ninga]

5. If you take the time to go back and research

all of the independent anaylsis complied on candidates, you will find that

1. No candidate gets a "pass" from the media, even W is feeling
the heat these days.

2. However it is undeniable that some candiates are singled out and get an overwhelming amount of negative coverage.

3. Why? Because their preceived "stumbles or errors" are so far and above what others do?

4. The questions lies in who and why, not in the what.

[sadiesworld]

4. If the rumors are true

about both Kerry and Clark, I wouldn't be too quick to prejudge Clark's actions. If Kerry did have a potentially explosive issue that could destroy his candidacy, and Clark knew of it, his options were not good. Particularly if you believe that the press was unwilling to cover it until Clark was out. He may have made the statements as a last ditch effort to get it out there while he was still in, but it did not work. They were only going to run it if Clark was out (and there was no question they would run it). Clark would have been crucified if he had come out publicly. Should Clark have stayed in so the issue would be delayed until the GE? I don't see the "good answer.