Senator Clinton has almost the entire MSM and the DC/NY establishment actively rooting against her

[ruggerson]

We'll see whether or not the American people can be swayed by the relentless propoganda and outright distortions coming non stop from the cable news and network news outlets.

This is not, in any way, a reflection on Senator Obama, he is just the beneficiary vehicle for the enormous anti-Clinton machine (a coalition of the hard right and the "liberal" media) to throw their support behind - it would have been the same with any legitimate candidate who gave Hillary a run for her money. (the hard left hates her too, but unfortunately no one takes them seriously, they are treated like a sideshow circus act by the MSM).

I, for one, don't trust the mainstream media. They were booster boys and girls for BOTH of George Bush's runs for the White House and effectively demonized Al Gore and John Kerry by endlessly repeating Republican talking points about their character.

They idolize John McCain and their infatuation with Barack Obama (driven mostly by their loathing of all things Clinton) may or may not come to a very abrupt end, should he be the nominee, once the general election campaign gets under way.

Watch the reporting. Very few report on the news, but instead talk about what they think (hope)is GOING to happen as a result of a news event.

Endless anti Clinton conjecture and endless anti Clinton spin.

The manipulation is both heavy handed and transparent.

Be very wary of what you wish for with the MSM; their agenda is certainly not in the best interests of the American people.

[Kittycat]

1. "he is just the beneficiary vehicle for the enormous anti-Clinton machine"

That's a completely unfair statement. He's earned their support and respect, because they believe in him - not her. There is a difference.

[Billy Burnett]

3. Agree. OP should have posted "he is ALSO the beneficiary of the enormous anti-Clinton..."

Aside from that, I agree with the poster.

[papau]

10. Perhaps Bill's correct - re Obama's establishment candidate - he is most conservative "small step"

[Kittycat]

12. You know so little about Obama.

He's more liberal than HRC. He's just willing to listen to others.

[papau]

20. At the start of the race he had the two bipartisan bills up on the website - a corporate tax cut for

15 million for a small "left" good thing to do, and a Nuke amendment to ask State to study what they were already charged to do - reduce Nukes around the world.

He - not I - said that people will be disappointed if they expect fast major change from him as he said "I am a small step guy" -

Please read the interview - you will actually like it as it is written up to be very pro-Obama. But "small step" is what he calls himself.

That interview re his saying "small steps" was early in the spring and I can't find the link at the moment.

But the New Yorker article (link below) does mention his small step approach

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_macfarquhar?printable=true

He tends to underplay his knowledge, acting less informed than he is. He rarely accuses, preferring to talk about problems in the passive voice, as things that are amiss with us rather than as wrongs that have been perpetrated by them. And the solutions he offers generally sound small and local rather than deep-reaching and systemic.

Despite the criticism he has received for being all inspiration and no policy, Obama has so far stuck to what appears to be an instinct that white papers belong on Web sites, not in speeches.

In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative. There are moments when he sounds almost Burkean. He distrusts abstractions, generalizations, extrapolations, projections. It’s not just that he thinks revolutions are unlikely: he values continuity and stability for their own sake, sometimes even more than he values change for the good. Take health care, for example. “If you’re starting from scratch,” he says, “then a single-payer system”—a government-managed system like Canada’s, which disconnects health insurance from employment—“would probably make sense. But we’ve got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that’s not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they’ve known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.”

[msmcghee]

2. Somebody gets it. Good.

[Metric System]

4. If only the MSM went after the Bush family with such glee...

then maybe I would be less distrustful of the media.

[Seen the light]

5. It's her own fault

Perhaps if she had ran a cleaner campaign and hadn't used President Clinton like she did, they would still be on her side.

[Billy Burnett]

9. I doubt it. The corporate media want a close presidential race (or to fabricate the illusion).

[msmcghee]

22. The corporate media want a Republican in the WH. Period.

They'll make billions on the campaigns no matter who runs. They will hype it as far as possible until it's WWF wrestling and roller derby all wrapped up with alligator guy.

The Dem candidate will be seen as a compulsive liar who is not comfortable in his or her own skin who needs help choosing their wardrobe every day. If it's Hillery she will be seen as shrill and emasculating of men and out to dismantle corporate America and give it to undeserving sick people who didn't take their flu shots. If it's Obama he will be seen as a shady person with no values, unable to say what he means. His connection to "Eastern religions" will be hinted at but never stated outright. Everyone will talk about the huge support he gets in the black community as a compliment - so white voters will then think about OJ when casting ballots.

For the long term high profitability that their large shareholders demand - the MSM need Republicans in the WH. The CEOs jobs and bonuses are riding on it.

The Republican candidate will be seen as noble, honorable, long suffering and deserving of high office. A wonderful role model for the kids.

There - now you don't have to follow the elections at all. ;)

[Rosemary2205]

31. I highly doubt it.

Hillary derangement syndrome is real. You can actually FEEL the hate coming off people who suffer from it. Just mention her name and they practically come unglued about the Clenis the power hungry bitch to got him in power. They hate her beyond all reason. They hate her for reasons they can't really explain - but Rushannity said hate her so they do.

IMHO the media concocted it, and keeps it going for ratings (aka money), and to keep people from noticing they are being fleeced by the wealthy elite in the world. If we spend all our time talkign about that power hungry bitch and whether Clenis will get it on with every skirt in the White House for another 8 years then we aren't spending our time fighting the rich people for decent wages and living conditions.

===disclaimer=== "power hungry bitch" is their view NOT mine.

[EFerrari]

6. ruggerson, I dislike the Clintons and cop to that.

But the strategy and tactics they are pursuing seem self destructive to me.

They have everything to gain from the high road and everything to lose from the low road.

I just don't understand what they're doing to themselves. The media is the media. But, they're putting weapons in the media's hands.

Maybe it won't matter in the long run. Maybe they see an outcome I can't see. But what they're doing right now obviously isn't working out very well.

[ruggerson]

14. Most of the strategies and tactics

are media manipulated or media distorted. I agree, sf, that Bill comes across as a bit of an overzealous partisan at times, but the press has an enormous double standard when it comes to his behaviour and those of his opponents/critics.

There was no press outrage when Michelle Obama said that black voters would "wake up" once Barack was deemed credible - no one accused her of being racist or race baiting, there was no endless loop of her remarks on cable news with Tim Russert et al shaking their heads in sad disapproval. Ditto with all the remarks Obama has made about race. It's only when the Clintons TANGENTIALLY talk about anything remotely race related (like MLK, which Obama himself actually brought into play) that the faux indignant crowd rears its ugly head.

And I'm not saying here that they should have gotten indignant about Mr or Mrs Obama's words either, I don't believe they should, I'm just pointing out the enormous double standard.

They want to destroy the Clintons and will use any means necessary, no matter how dishonest, to do so.

[EFerrari]

18. It's not an even playing field. And, that is our challenge, imho.

Lifting up black candidates is, in itself, a victory for this culture with its history of slavery, abuse and oppression. We're not past it. We're still dealing that. (Central High in Little Rock is re-segregating.) That's a legitimate goal.

Just as it's a legitimate goal to vote in a woman or just as it was a legitimate goal to get an out gay person voted in to our Board of Supervisors here where I live.

We, imho, need to be careful here. It's not the invoking of "race" or gender or orientation that is the problem. It's the *dishonest" invoking of those real situations in the lives of real people that is the problem.

We don't get anywhere buy not talking about those issues. We do go backward when we are silent, or worse, when we use them as political weapons. As far as I can tell.

That means, the white candidates in the primaries have to be sensitive to the "race" issue and the hope it extends to millions of disenfranchised voters just as the male candidates have to be sensitive to what having a woman be viable means to millions of formerly disenfranchised voters.

You'd think we could at least try to do that well.

[ruggerson]

24. Agreed, but reporters are supposed to report on the news

journalism is not about partisan boosterism, no matter how well intentioned.

The "analysts" on the cable news shows at least have something of an excuse, but the line between the two (reporters and analysts)is so fine now that it might as well not exist.

On any primary night, for example, MSNBC has Matthews, Scarborough and Olbermann, analysts all, mixed right in with Brokaw, Williams and Russert - supposed reporters. And they're ALL spinning like crazy in the exact same manner.

How in any way does that help democracy or serve our interests?

[EFerrari]

19. Dupe.

[Thrill]

7. Wah wah

If they're against her now. What makes you think she will be able to win against the Repukes in a GE?

[thunder rising]

8. a coalition of the hard right and the "liberal" media--I guess we can work together on some things

[BringBigDogBack]

15. haha

Yes, it appears so. I was wondering how many senior DC dems would not walk, but RUN away from Hillary if there appeared to be a viable alternative.

Refreshing, isn't it?

[jlake]

11. Thank you for this excellent post. K&R

[featherman]

13. Welcome to the MSM world in the GE if Clinton is the

nominee. After what we went through with this garbage in 2000 and 2004 is it any wonder that I am hoping against hope to AVOID a Clinton - McCain match up in 2008.

Fact: Clinton has few if any MSM TV or radio commentators or print reporters in her corner that will skew GE coverage in her favor. I can't think of a single one.

Fact #2: the MSM has a serious and nutty love for all things McCain and will puff up and flatter him and avoid any negative interpretation of even his most insane positions and statements all the way through November.

Is this the GE campaign we want to go through... again????

How'd the last two turn out?

[BringBigDogBack]

16. "welcome to the MSM world in the GE if Clinton is nom"

Yes. It will get worse. Much worse.

[jlake]

28. Yes, and they wouldn't be planning to pull the rug out from under Obama, would they?

[K Gardner]

17. Have you even stopped to ask yourself WHY ? They are reporting her tactics and it looks

to you like they are smearing her. Take the blinders off for a minute. The democratic establishment is turning away from her, the MSM is reporting what they hear, what the voters say.. and unlike the last time, no organized faux outrage over coverage will change it, no fake tears will change it. We can handle the truth. Can you?

[kelligesq]

21. suckers let MSM choose the candidates for them-disgusting

:puke:

[BeyondGeography]

23. This is absurd

even coming from you.

[BlueManDude]

25. Which is why she should not be the nominee.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

26. you're right of course

[Blue_State_Elitist]

27. As I have said on other posts.

The media benefits from a series of close races on February 5th.

[Catherine Vincent]

29. Of course you're right.

But most here don't care. They're too high on Obama juice.

[Tashca]

30. The last few days I have noticed this too

I have commented on the sudden turn against Clinton by nearly everyone in the MSM.
I have been thinking about that.
Also the absolute hatred being spewed form the right against her.....and no one else.
Why are they both so afraid of her????
Maybe I should be looking closer at her??

[MoonRiver]

32. MSM wants a Repub in the White House.

Be afraid, be very afraid about this vicious propaganda machine. :scared:

[robbedvoter]

33. But they really really like Obama - and we'll have ponies too! So far only Rush

hasn't been quoted here. But he sure was heard in Dorchester county in SC yesterday!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4214763

[VotesForWomen]

34. true; remember the impeachment feeding frenzy among the 'liberal' media? it was a disgrace,

and in the end it did backfire. only time will tell if it backfires here.