Hello Everyone:

I have already credibly documented that there is outright bias toward Hillary Clinton by certain "pundits" in the mainstream media as well as a ridiculous amount of mainstream media attention being focused on "horse race politics" as opposed to the actual substance of the candidates:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14242

Joe Sestak did a great job of defending Hillary to a very biased Chris Matthews!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on December 28, 2007 - 5:40am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13942

Media Pundit Admits: "We talk about polls... We're creating the inevitability"

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 19, 2007 - 11:52pm.

These facts were very openly and blatantly admitted to by certain media pundits on CNN Reliable Sources this morning. Right below is the portion of that transcript with this key dialogue!

I was glad to see this in one sense because I know it is true while many media pundits do not admit to it but in another sense I was not glad to see it because it is so wrong and because it represents what true and responsible journalism SHOULD NOT be like in my opinion!

Here are some of the key quotes from the transcript below about this blatant media bias toward Hillary Clinton and the free media ride that Barack Obama is getting which in my opinion is NOT responsible and professional journalism that is SUPPOSED TO BE fair and objective:

1) Dana Milbank admitted "some of our reporting is self-fulfilling:"

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: "Is that a problem, sort of the repetitious nature of campaign trail reporting?

DANA MILBANK, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Yes. And some of our reporting is self-fulfilling.

Barack Obama was supposed to come out with a major new reintroduction of himself the very day this -- the Bhutto assassination broke. He got drowned out..."

2) Roger Simon of The Politico gave this very arrogant answer to the questions of "Well, who exactly anointed the press to be the arbiter of what's a win, what's a good win..." and "How did we get so much power in this process?"

KURTZ: "Well, who exactly anointed the press to be the arbiter of what's a win, what's a good win, what's a strong win, what's a respectable second place finish, and what's a surprising third place showing? How did we get so much power in this process?

ROGER SIMON, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO.COM: It's what we do. We got it by default. No one else is going to do it. We're going to let the candidates choose who's the winner? Hey, it's what we exist for..."

3) Dana Milbank said about Hillary Clinton "The press will savage her no matter what, pretty much:"

KURTZ: "And it is great, the retail campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. It is fun to cover and it is real, but it's -- when the votes are counted and we decide who did well -- for example, Hillary Clinton, let's say she doesn't win Iowa. Let's say she gets edged out by 1,000 votes.

Is the press going to savage her as a loser?

MILBANK: The press will savage her no matter what, pretty much..."

4) Dana Milbank also said about Hillary Clinton that the press "really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it out there:"

KURTZ: "If she (Hillary) wins?

MILBANK: Well, obviously if she wins by any great margin -- the press with Hillary Clinton, it's a poisonous relationship. And I visited the various campaigns out there. It's a mutual sort of disregard. And they really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it out there..."

5) Dana Milbank admitted that "Obama gets significantly better coverage than Hillary Clinton does, and given an equal performance he'll come out better for it" because journalists "dislike Hillary Clinton:"

KURTZ: "And to what extent do you think that is affecting the coverage of Senator Clinton?

MILBANK: I think it unquestionably is. And I think Obama gets significantly better coverage than Hillary Clinton does, and given an equal performance he'll come out better for it.

KURTZ: Is this because journalists like Obama better than Hillary or...

MILBANK: It's more that they dislike Hillary Clinton. There is a long history there, her antagonism towards the press. It's returned in spades. And it is a venomous relationship that I see out there.

KURTZ: Interesting..."

Here are my conclusions about this which I hope that ALL Democratic primary voters will very seriously think about BEFORE they vote:

1) This is good information to keep on file to bring up with the undecided voters who you talk with in the field as well as the soft supporters of other Democratic primary candidates.

These people need to very clearly understand that biased mainstream media coverage against Hillary Clinton and which tries to help promote Barack Obama THAT IS NOT BASED ON REAL ISSUES AND SUBSTANCE definitely has to be taken with a grain of salt in my opinion because it is NOT objective, it is NOT credible, and it is also NOT responsible reporting!

2) The tough questions have to be asked of Barack Obama RIGHT NOW BEFORE any primary votes are cast because Obama will no longer get this free ride in the media IF he is the nominee and WHEN he is negatively defined as a candidate by the 2008 GOP nominee, The GOP attack machine, Rush Limbaugh, extreme right wing Neocon talk radio, Drudge, FOX News, and the Neocon GOP media rapid response blogosphere:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14153

ANALYSIS: Barack Obama's three most vulnerable areas that need to be brought up!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on December 17, 2007 - 5:52am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14107

ANALYSIS: The tough BUT fair questions I have NOT heard Barack Obama answer yet!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on December 12, 2007 - 10:45am.

3) The other side may be wrong on most of the key issues BUT they are not stupid and there is very little if anything that they miss when it comes to media watch, rapid response, and being able to spin a story the way that they want people to see it:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13578

ANALYSIS: Why Rush Limbaugh is so powerful & what many media pundits do not get!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 10, 2007 - 1:47am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8841

ANALYSIS: A great Washington Post article about how the media affects Democrats!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 5, 2006 - 2:03pm.

Hillary Clinton has already taken all that the other side can dish out to negatively define her as a candidate over the last 16 years while Barack Obama has NOT been put through this process very much yet. This is exactly why right now that "Hillary's high negatives are an illusion compared to Obama or any other Democrat:"

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13992

Hillary's high negatives are an illusion compared to Obama or any other Democrat

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 28, 2007 - 4:49pm.

I hope that ALL Democratic primary voters will at least very seriously think over and consider this important information about what the media is doing BEFORE any primary votes are cast because once there is a presumed nominee, then it will be very difficult for Democrats to make any changes without an awful lot of embarrassment!

The future of the world for many years to come is literally riding on who wins the 2008 election so it is very important in my opinion that Democrats cut through all of this media spin and BS and get it right based on the merits of each candidate when they vote to choose their nominee!

Mitch Dworkin

http://www.securingamerica.com/

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!

--------------------

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/30/rs.01.html

CNN RELIABLE SOURCES

Bhutto Assassinated; Interview With David Yepsen

Aired December 30, 2007 - 10:00 ET

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: "Jessica Yellin, you mentioned a few moments ago that even on the day when Benazir Bhutto was murdered, the concerns among voters that you were watching and talking to were, you know, the more typical taxes -- the economy, healthcare and that sort of thing. Why does that -- is that not reflected in a lot of the coverage? Is it the fact that the press, you are out there every day with the candidates who are pretty much saying the same things, and we need a new narrative, a new story line, so a big event then gets perhaps distorted a little bit?

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's no secret that the media likes to cover conflict and what's new. I mean, we do it every day. And, yes, it's that we just want the latest story sometimes on the air. And it does, you know, sometimes when you are out in the field get frustrating that the whole picture of what you're covering isn't fully portrayed out there, but it's also the nature of the beast, and, you know, we're the new, the news.

So it's what gets -- it gets you on air, and it gets people paying attention. And some of the latest issues though are sort of, frankly, dull. We've heard it so many times before, it would get painful for all of us to keep hearing about their positions on healthcare. How many times can you keep reporting that?

KURTZ: Is that a problem, sort of the repetitious nature of campaign trail reporting?

DANA MILBANK, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Yes. And some of our reporting is self-fulfilling.

Barack Obama was supposed to come out with a major new reintroduction of himself the very day this -- the Bhutto assassination broke. He got drowned out. So, in that sense, it is self-fulfilling and it does make it relevant. It made Giuliani more relevant because we all started talking about him while he's sunning himself down there in Florida.

KURTZ: You were there as well.

MILBANK: I much prefer Florida, I must say.

KURTZ: All right.

Now, with four days to go before the Iowa caucuses, Roger Simon, how important is the media expectations game, by which I mean the following: a month ago, Mike Huckabee would have been hailed for a strong second place finish in Iowa because he had no money and was kind of seen as the longest of long shots. Now if he doesn't win, I bet you and your colleagues will say he failed.

ROGER SIMON, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO.COM: Well, the expectation game is the entire game. It's not just who wins now, but how much.

On the Democratic side, where it seems to be a three-way tie, if a candidate wins by one point, are we really going to call that candidate the winner? At dinner table conversations, whether it's over drinks or not, the talk now is that the winner has to win by four points or by six points, which is probably impossible.

What might happen here is just that we'll all go on to New Hampshire and play this game out once again.

KURTZ: Well, who exactly anointed the press to be the arbiter of what's a win, what's a good win, what's a strong win, what's a respectable second place finish, and what's a surprising third place showing? How did we get so much power in this process?

SIMON: It's what we do. We got it by default. No one else is going to do it. We're going to let the candidates choose who's the winner? Hey, it's what we exist for.

KURTZ: Jessica Yellin, if you and hundreds of your colleagues were not suffering through the cold temperatures in Iowa right now, would a small state caucus with a turn out of less than 10 percent, pretty weird rules about who can vote for the second place candidate at the neighbor's house, would it be such a political bombshell?

YELLIN: No. It's nuts. The amount of attention that Iowa gets is remarkable, because this state really is not representative demographically of America.

You know, two percent African-American, about three percent Hispanic. So the amount of attention we give it, especially considering how many people turn out to caucus, very few, is out of proportion.

But you know the beauty of Iowa is that you do get to see the candidates in these small settings where they're talking to rooms of just 30. And so sometimes you do get a real sense of who they are if you leave Des Moines.

One of the problems is sometimes people don't leave Des Moines. They sit here and report from here, and you've got to get out there and see what's going on. My producer likes to call it Beltway High School here in Des Moines, because you get that mentality if you stay in the city.

KURTZ: I had the impression it was a camp reunion when I was out there in Iowa. And it is great, the retail campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. It is fun to cover and it is real, but it's -- when the votes are counted and we decide who did well -- for example, Hillary Clinton, let's say she doesn't win Iowa. Let's say she gets edged out by 1,000 votes.

Is the press going to savage her as a loser?

MILBANK: The press will savage her no matter what, pretty much.

KURTZ: If she wins?

MILBANK: Well, obviously if she wins by any great margin -- the press with Hillary Clinton, it's a poisonous relationship. And I visited the various campaigns out there. It's a mutual sort of disregard. And they really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it out there. So...

KURTZ: And to what extent do you think that is affecting the coverage of Senator Clinton?

MILBANK: I think it unquestionably is. And I think Obama gets significantly better coverage than Hillary Clinton does, and given an equal performance he'll come out better for it.

KURTZ: Is this because journalists like Obama better than Hillary or...

MILBANK: It's more that they dislike Hillary Clinton. There is a long history there, her antagonism towards the press. It's returned in spades. And it is a venomous relationship that I see out there.

KURTZ: Interesting.

All right.

Jessica Yellin and Roger Simon out there in Iowa, thanks very much for joining us.

Dana Milbank, we'll see you a little later in the program..."