Is it a coincidence that Obama and Huckabee are surging at the same time?

[Progress And Change]

How many negative stories have you seen in the press on Obama and Huckabee this year? Huck is now getting some scrutiny, but only after he was vaulted to 39% in Iowa with no money. Aside from their willigness to use bigotry toward GLBT to win votes the biggest similarity between the two seems to be the media's love affair with them.

[Lerkfish]

1. wha....?

this is a very clumsy smear.

maybe try better next time.

[TeamJordan23]

2. Another baseless smear by a Hillbot. Big surprise. nm

[cuke]

3. Where is the smear

I see nothing but facts

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. I think it is all about the media...unfortunately that is still the main source of information

And the media is propaganda. What they show / the way they show it / what they emphasis and de-emphasis / what they don't show / all contributes to our perceptions.

The right does not want Clinton as the nominee--and therefore their propaganda machine is all-negative-all the time.

It still works, just like it did in 2000 and 2004. A shame, really. I thought we were learning.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. And where is this anti-Hillary media you speak of?

I don't see the media questioning Hillary's positions, her votes, or her consultants nearly as much as is done here on a daily basis. If another candidate brings something up critical of Hillary, they report THAT, just as they should, but I haven't seen them take it any farther.

You will only see the media cut loose on Hillary AFTER she gets the nomination, if she should do so. And then it will make Kerry's swiftboating look tame.

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. You apparently have not been paying attention.

Yes it is there. And in full force.

After the nomination: it will not matter who the democratic chioce is: every democrat will be swiftboated. Clinton will not be immune. But, Clinton's skeletons have been vetted--old news. Any other nominee will be torn to shreds.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Well, looking at the top several google hits:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5362216.html

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071208/NEWS/71208001/0/RSS22

http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=BAEA1494-CEBF-3B85-B70B427F575ACF6B

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/clinton_muted_urgent_appeal_ba.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/hillaryclinton/story/0,,2224266,00.html

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpGL9E2m6_HYjih2YOUZtb-teuQgD8TDFCK00

That's some real nasty hit pieces there.

Who isn't paying attention?

[Stop Cornyn]

5. It's not a coincidence; it's due to the fact that the Iowa caucus is coming up in a few weeks and

the campaigns have made every effort to surge right about now.

[Progress And Change]

6. I am talking about the media's support for Obama and Huckabee

Any candidate would be surging if they had the media behind them like Obama and Huckabee have had so far.

[ChiciB1]

7. I Don't Find It So... Like A Guy Said On C-Span This AM... The MEDIA

does less news and more fan-fare these days! It's what makes people "tune in" and they ALL jump on the train at the same time!

Obama isn't drawing this huge crowd by himself, Oprah is the one many want to see and how much it will get voters to the GE is still up in the air. As it has been said many many many times before... the FAT LADY... you know!

[TwilightGardener]

9. True for Fuck-a-bee. Not for Obama. He's earned his press attention

against some very tough competetition with a lot of retail campaigning and a lot of excitement over his candidacy. Fuck-a-bee is the "none of the above" candidate that the media latched onto for an exciting "dark horse" story.

[Progress And Change]

Huckabee got attention with strong debate performances

Notice how Biden's similarly strong debate performances earned him nothing from the media, though? Obama got a lot of attention as soon as he released his 2006 book. That had nothing to do with campaigning and Obama himself claims he was not a candidate then. ;)

[Progress And Change]

10. Huckabee got attention with strong debate performances

Notice how Biden's similarly strong debate performances earned him nothing from the media, though? Obama got a lot of attention as soon as he released his 2006 book. That had nothing to do with campaigning and Obama himself claims he was not a candidate then. ;)

[cloudythescribbler]

11. Logic of "Progress and Change" is backward

This person obviously has a strong partisan (Hillbot?) stance against either or both Obama and Huckabee. There is little reason to believe in some generalized inclination of the mass media to promote their candidacy, and a lack of apparent motive.

Why wouldn't media have gotten together to promote Kerry over Bush (unless of course they were doing the job of helping Bush win, more plausible). But there is a plausible reason (bending to power) there; here such a reason is lacking -- neither Obama nor Huckabee seem to have some powerful (invisible?) power network behind them. So such a network is shown in the media.

As for media, I think the answer on one level is very simple: these are two very likeable, mediagenic candidates. They look good on stage, and maintain poise in the debates (even when, as was said about the Las Vegas Dem debate, the performance is rated lower). JFK was also mediagenic -- and in retrospect and much analysis -- this is clear; actually, I don't think either Obama or Huckabee have quite such explosive charisma. But in hindsight it might seem different.

This seems to me simply a subjective impression that one's own favorite deserves better coverage, and that there is no reason behind that other snot gaining in the polls. There is a total lack of citing concrete examples of supposed media bias -- the latter is merely assumed.

When I have drawn conclusions about media agendae, as I have, it is always with reference to a detailed argued case, not, as here, by pure presumption.

[Renew Deal]

14. Apparently you joined DU to post garbage.

One post after another. :hi: