POLLS: Much of the media are still in the tank for Obama and that is NOT right!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 22, 2008 - 7:07am.
Media
Hello Everyone:
More polls have come out which positively confirm that much of the media are still in the tank for Obama which is unfair, unprofessional, and is irresponsible behavior on their part in my very strong opinion:
1) The Project for Excellence in Journalism:
http://www.journalism.org/node/11881
PEJ Campaign Coverage Index: July 7 - 13, 2008
Gaffes Drove the Campaign Narrative Last Week
"One other trend to emerge last week was that Democrat Obama again received more coverage than Republican McCain. Obama was at least a significant presence in fully 77% of the campaign stories studied, compared with 48% for McCain. Obama has led in coverage in all five weeks since the race narrowed to two presumptive nominees. A week earlier, that gap narrowed to 11 points and offered the prospect that the coverage might equalize, but last week suggested that might not be the case. If this trend continues, it hints that the media narrative could make this race largely a referendum about Obama and whether the country is willing to make him the next President, with John McCain playing the role of the alternative..."
Here is the AP article which quoted this poll:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080720/ap_en_tv/ap_on_tv_obama_s_trip
Is media playing fair in campaign coverage?
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
Sun Jul 20, 1:06 PM ET
2) Rasmussen Reports:
Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win
Monday, July 21, 2008
"The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.
Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage..."
Toplines - Media and the Candidates - July 19, 2008
National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted July 19, 2008
By Rasmussen Reports
1* "When covering a political campaign, do most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage or do they try to help the candidate they want to win?
16% Offer unbiased coverage
71% Try to help the candidate they want to win
13% Not sure
2* Think for a moment about the three major presidential candidates this year. Which candidate received the best treatment from the media so far—Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain?
57% Barack Obama
11% Hillary Clinton
21% John McCain
10% Not sure
3* Looking ahead to the campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain, will most reporters try to help Barack Obama, offer unbiased coverage, or try to help John McCain?
49% Try to help Barack Obama
24% Offer unbiased coverage
14% Try to help John McCain
13% Not sure..."
I was glad to see Lou Dobbs quote from this poll on his show on Monday, July 21:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/ldt.01.html
LOU DOBBS TONIGHT
Senator Obama Tries to Look Presidential; Is McCain Being Rejected by the Media?; Has the FDA Found the Source of the Salmonella Outbreak?; San Francisco City Officials Protect a Suspected Illegal Alien Gang Member; Where is Help for the Homeowners?
Aired July 21, 2008 - 19:00 ET
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: "Voters have no doubt that the media is biased in favor of Senator Obama, however. A recent Rasmussen poll shows nearly 50 percent of voters say the media will try to help Obama win this election.
Only 14 percent say the media is trying to help McCain. The poll also found 57 percent of voters believe Obama has received the best treatment from the media so far, compared with 21 percent who believe the same of Senator McCain. Even during the primary campaign, going all the way back to January, 41 percent of voters said Obama was receiving the preferential treatment. Only two percent thought McCain was receiving preferential treatment...
Americans tonight say there's considerable media bias in favor of Senator Obama. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time obviously. A new Rasmussen poll finds Americans believe by a margin of more than three to one that journalists will try to help Barack Obama more than they will try to help John McCain..."
These new polls just confirm the pro-Obama media bias that previous polls have already shown:
http://people-press.org/report/427/many-say-coverage-is-biased-in-favor-of-obama
June 5, 2008
Many Say Coverage is Biased in Favor of Obama
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15660
May 29 Gallup Poll: Public Says Media Harder on Clinton Than Obama, McCain
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 2, 2008 - 4:34am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14665
MEDIA STUDY: Media Boost Obama, Bash “Billary” and "NBC Is Toughest on Hillary"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 9, 2008 - 1:01am.
Here are my four reasons why I definitely believe that so much of the media still being in the tank for Obama is NOT responsible behavior, is NOT a good thing, and is NOT right:
1) This is definitely very unprofessional behavior on the part of the media:
The media loses a lot of their credibility if their coverage is imbalanced and if they are perceived as rooting for a particular candidate. I agree with these comments from Howard Kurtz about this:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/20/rs.01.html
CNN RELIABLE SOURCES
Coverage of Obama's Trip Examined; Pundits Blame Barack for Mockery Gap
Aired July 20, 2008 - 10:00 ET
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: "But let me give you my two cents.
When you have one candidate whose trip is covered by the three anchors, and the other candidate, whose foreign travels are barely covered, when you have one candidate who gets twice as much airtime on the network evening newscasts since early June, since the Democratic contest was over -- that being Obama versus McCain -- when you have one candidate, Barack Obama, on the cover of "Rolling Stone" with his wife on "US Weekly," with his family on "Access Hollywood," and when you have one candidate, Barack Obama, getting more than twice as many covers, "TIME" and "Newsweek," then John McCain -- and just look at some. We pulled out some "Newsweek" covers here.
Look. Obama. Obama. Obama.
It's a small picture. Obama. Obama. At that point, there is clearly an imbalance. The sheer volume becomes an imbalance. And I think that we have inadvertently or otherwise put our thumb on the scale and there could be a big backlash against news organizations if this trend continues..."
2) Republicans and extreme right wing media watch dog groups are right and in my opinion they have a legitimate point to make when they complain about this blatant and unfair media bias in favor of Obama:
AP Headline: 'Is Media Playing Fair In Campaign Coverage?'
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
July 20, 2008 - 19:04 ET
Kurtz: Media Covering Obama As If He Were Already President
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
July 20, 2008 - 13:25 ET
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm
NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET
John McCain in my opinion as a serious Presidential candidate also has a right to complain about this blatant and unfair pro-Obama media bias:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/sitroom.03.html
THE SITUATION ROOM
'Butcher of Bosnia' Caught; McCain Vs. 'The New York Times'; Who Will Be John McCain's V.P. Nominee?;
Aired July 21, 2008 - 18:00 ET
GLORIA BORGER, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: "Wolf, you know, the McCain campaign is clearly upset. One top staffer said to me, McCain is getting covered like he's a speed bump on the road to history. You know, they think they're getting a raw deal here..."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/ec.01.html
CNN ELECTION CENTER
'New York Times' Rejects McCain Article; Obama's Mideast Tour
Aired July 21, 2008 - 20:00 ET
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: "Campbell, I think if you take a step back, you take a look at the McCain campaign, which has always had terrific relations with the press, and, now, suddenly, they think that, and they will tell you that Barack Obama is being treated like a rock star, and they are being treated unfairly.
I spoke with a senior adviser in the McCain campaign who said to me -- and I quote -- "The press is treating us like a speed bump on the road to history..."
3) This blatant and unfair media bias in favor of Obama definitely sets a very bad precedent for the future because while most Democrats favor Obama right now in this election, what will these same Democrats say about future elections if so much of the media decides to support the Republican candidate for many of the same reasons that they are supporting Obama now which are mainly due to his "rock star" and "media darling" status?
If it is not okay in the eyes of most Democrats for the media to favor some charismatic Republican Presidential candidate in the future, then why is it okay for them to do that with a charismatic Obama right now?
In my opinion, the precedent of so much of the media openly being biased toward Obama in this Presidential election will probably be very harmful when it comes to media coverage in future elections!
4) The most dangerous thing of all in my opinion is that this blatant and unfair media bias in favor of Obama indicates that the press are showing a very serious lack of accountability toward Obama which means that they will have absolutely no right to complain about him if he wins the election and if he turns out to be a disappointment!
Some in the media regretted their lack of asking the tough questions in the run-up to the Iraq war and they are making the exact same mistake with Obama when it comes to asking the tough questions about him right now in my opinion:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15694
The media did NOT do their jobs in the run-up to the Iraq war AND vetting Obama!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 5, 2008 - 2:12am.
The media giving Obama a near free ride is not helping anyone. Even Republican David Frum admitted back in 2000 that "the press favored Bush over Gore:"
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/lkl.01.html
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Obama in Iraq: Gone Too Far?; "New York Times" Refuses To Publish John McCain
Aired July 21, 2008 - 21:00 ET
DAVID FRUM, FELLOW, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: "Now, the networks always have favorites. And I will say, as somebody who was there in 2000, that in 2000, the press favored Bush over Gore. I'll admit that. But this time they are making up for it in spades..."
You would think that after nearly eight years of incompetency and a lack of accountability with Bush that the media would have learned their lesson to better scrutinize an untested and an unproven Obama who may succeed the incompetent Bush and inherit the huge mess that Bush will leave behind. Hopefully history will not repeat itself!
As a result of the polls and the facts in this post, I hope that many more people can better understand right now that it was mainly this blatant pro-Obama and anti-Hillary media bias which was mostly responsible for Hillary losing the Democratic primary to Obama as I have credibly documented:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15744
VIDEO: Dan Abrams asked about Hillary's primary loss "Is it the media’s fault?"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 9, 2008 - 5:58pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15744#comment-309677
There is NO question in my opinion of anti-Hillary media bias...
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 9, 2008 - 6:07pm.
In conclusion, I definitely agree with this blunt and bottom line assessment from Lou Dobbs and Howard Kurtz about this blatantly biased media coverage in favor of Obama that is going on right now:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/17/ldt.01.html
LOU DOBBS TONIGHT
Obama is Preparing for his Overseas Trip; McCain Criticizes Obama; McDonald's Franchise is Busted; Your Food Safety
Aired July 17, 2008 - 19:00 ET
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: "Well, the liberal media's love affair with Senator Obama has at least in the minds of many turned into an outright obsession...
DOBBS: Well you're the expert, you tell me. I have never in my career, Howard, seen networks, magazines, newspapers just throw aside any pretense of objectivity, they're in the tank as far as I'm concerned for Obama and they are trying to get deeper in that tank. What's your thought?
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, CNN'S RELIABLE SOURCES: Well I started fulminating (ph) about this two or three weeks ago when Senator McCain went to Mexico and Colombia and several organizations including CNN did not even send a correspondent...
DOBBS: Right.
KURTZ: ... let alone an anchor, because I knew that when the Obama overseas trip came up that everybody and his brother-in-law would be giving it this kind of coverage. I'm not saying it's all going to be favorable. But the sheer volume of it, and as you say, on magazines, in newspapers, at some point, the argument, the explanation, the rationale that well he's a newer story just doesn't hold water, we're supposed to be fair to both sides.
DOBBS: Yes, absolutely. At least, I'm an advocacy journalist, and proud of it. But the men and women of this craft who say they're -- especially the editors that you just mentioned, I mean I can't even imagine how they can sleep at night. And as I say, the CBS News executive who said that the reason they're all going is because he's never been before is just -- it's laughable at this point.
KURTZ: Well you know, Lou, some news executives and journalists tell me privately that one of the reasons that Obama is on all those magazine covers and entertainment shows and getting so much television news coverage is because he's good for ratings, he's good for circulation. The perception at least is that he's a bigger draw than McCain. Well that may be the case, but, again, we're not supposed to have our thumb on the scale.
DOBBS: Absolutely. Well, Howard, thank you very much -- Howard Kurtz, "Washington Post", host of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES". Thank you..."
The bottom line in my opinion is that ANY Presidential candidate regardless of their party affiliation should win or lose an election based on their merits, based on their credentials, and based on the issues. No serious Presidential candidate should ever lose an election mainly because the media was clearly biased in favor of the other candidate and because the media was giving their opponent more favorable press coverage!
This is NOT an anti-Obama post but it is rather an objective post which is designed to point out blatant media bias in an effort to help keep the media honest. I would be saying the exact same thing if it was McCain who the media was being biased in favor of and the people who know me know that I have been very critical of the extreme right wing media when I see them doing things wrong:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15949#comment-313273
Hypocrite Rush Limbaugh has been attacking Gen. Clark for years
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 1, 2008 - 1:50am.
Someone has to be counted on to be truly objective in their analysis of current events and to honestly call things right down the middle regardless of who it may be which is exactly what I am trying to do!
Mitch Dworkin
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16039
RESOURCES: Speeches, Articles, and Career Highlights to help define Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 7, 2008 - 2:51pm.
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/0807/21/ldt.01.html
LOU DOBBS TONIGHT
Senator Obama Tries to Look Presidential; Is McCain Being Rejected by the Media?; Has the FDA Found the Source of the Salmonella Outbreak?; San Francisco City Officials Protect a Suspected Illegal Alien Gang Member; Where is Help for the Homeowners?
Aired July 21, 2008 - 19:00 ET
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: "Well Senator McCain tonight is facing new difficulties presenting his point of view in the media, specifically the ultra liberal "New York Times". "The Times" editorial board has rejected an op-ed article written by Senator McCain about his policy on Iraq, all of this despite the fact that "The New York Times" published an op-ed on Iraq by Senator Obama a week ago.
Howard Kurtz, host of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES" has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, CNN RELIABLE SOURCES: The McCain campaign submitted an op-ed piece on Friday, hoping for the newspaper equivalent of equal time. McCain's article criticized Obama's for pushing the same old proposal for a 16-month withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Saying quote, "any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons."
"Times" opinion editor, David Shipley (ph), who as it happens worked in the Clinton White House, turned down the piece about two hours later saying it contained nothing new. Shipley (ph) wrote, "It would be a terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate in concrete terms how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory with troops' levels, timetables, and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.
It's fairly common for opinion editors to ask contributor for more details, but for "The Times" liberal opinion page to oppose a stringent list of conditions on the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, days after publishing a similar piece on the subject by the presumptive Democratic nominee is rather unusual.
A couple of campaign cycles ago, that would have been the end of it, but the McCain camp gave the rejected article and the e-mails to the "Drudge Report", which gave it a big a splash online. A McCain spokesman says his Iraq position, quote, "will not change based on politics or the demands of "The New York Times"."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KURTZ: And one irony of the Internet age, the rejected piece is already drawing for more attention from the controversy whipped up my Matt Drudge (ph) than if "The New York Times" had gone ahead and published it. Now "The Times" put out a statement this afternoon saying it is standard procedure on our op-ed page and that of other newspapers to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission. We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past. "The Times" noting that this published seven pieces by John McCain since 1996 and that the paper endorsed Senator McCain in the Republican presidential primaries. Lou?
DOBBS: Well surely not even the augustly liberal "New York Times" believes going back to 1996 is even remotely equal to the arrogant and just absolutely presumptuous statement of David Shipley (ph), the editor, to the McCain campaign. I mean that is about as arrogant as it gets.
KURTZ: Well you know it certainly wouldn't be unusual for an editor to say we like the piece, but we'd like a little bit more on this or that. But to give a laundry list of things that you have to include including the word timetables, which Senator McCain especially and particularly rejects with regard to Iraq...
DOBBS: Right.
KURTZ: ... days after publishing an Obama piece that wasn't all that detailed either certainly raises the question of imbalance.
DOBBS: Yes and I get to say this because I'm the advocacy journalist here, Howard. "The New York Times" is just play plain belly-up biased and that's straightforward. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Howard Kurtz, as always...
KURTZ: Thank you.
DOBBS: ... terrific reporting. Howard Kurtz the anchor of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES", "Washington Post" columnist.
Well we want to hear your opinion tonight. I shared mine and Howard Kurtz his. Our question is, do you believe the national media is biased in favor of Senator Barack Obama. Yes or no. Cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results here later.
Here is where you can vote in this poll all day today:
Do you believe the national media is biased in favor of Sen. Barack Obama?
Yes 74% 6152
No 26% 2190
Total Votes: 8342
This is not a scientific poll
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/22/ldt.01.html
LOU DOBBS TONIGHT
Obama Overrules the Military; McCain Targets Obama on Iraq; Battling Drug Cartel Violence; War on the Middle Class with a Reality Check in Washington
Aired July 22, 2008 - 19:00 ET
LOU DOBBS, HOST: "The liberal media tonight continuing its outright cheerleading for Senator Obama and his policy to quickly withdraw our troops from Iraq against the advice of our military commanders. The liberal media tonight is happily accepting the Obama campaign's efforts to stage manage events on this trip and to restrict interviews to only a few network anchors and correspondents.
Obama's media entourage is traveling on Obama's newly painted Boeing 757 -- there it is -- a campaign plane that is plastered with his campaign slogan and the slogan we -- "a change we can believe in." There's the logo and there's the slogan. There is that little aircraft.
Well cable news organizations this morning were covering Senator Obama's news coverage in Amman from beginning to end. No such stream for Senator McCain in Rochester, New Hampshire, however. Cable news networks all carried some of McCain's town hall meeting but no one carried all of it. None stayed to the end.
This network, CNN, joined the town hall meeting in progress and was the first network to break away four minutes later. FOX News followed CNN's lead and returned to scheduled programming shortly afterward. MSNBC stayed with McCain until the end of his opening remarks breaking away when the question and answer session began.
Senator McCain is refusing to be deterred by the media failure to cover his campaign, nearly as extensively as Senator Obama's. McCain today stepping up his criticism in fact of Obama's policy on Iraq, declaring Obama wants to reverse all of the gains we've made in Iraq over the past year...
DOBBS: That's because he has Jack Reed from Rhode Island and Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska carrying his bags around. I don't know what in the heck is going on.
JOHN GAMBLING, WOR IN NEW YORK: What's going on is of course Barack Obama is looking for as much press as he can possibly get and he's doing a very good job at it. I think John McCain and his folks have a real uphill battle here because I don't see that this focus by the liberal media is going to change. Right through November.
DOBBS: They got Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, they're in tow. You could not -- you could not script this kind of cult like response to a guy -- he's acting like he's already elected. The other day he said for the next eight to 10 years these are people I'll be talking with. I understood the eight. He threw an extra two in there. I can't figure out what that's about..."
last night in the transcript below!
I definitely agree with Jennifer Palmieri of the Center for American Progress when she said about this pro-Obama media bias: "And welcome to John Edwards and Hillary Clinton's nightmare. He's -- Obama is a great story. And I don't know that it's fair that he gets more coverage than McCain. But I understand, you know -- I understand why it's happening..."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/acd.01.html
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Iraqi Prime Minister Endorsing Obama Pullout Plan?; McCain Close to Picking Running Mate?
Aired July 21, 2008 - 22:00 ET
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: "Just ahead on 360, the McCain campaign crying foul, accusing "The New York Times" of blatant bias. The paper publishing Barack Obama's op-ed on Iraq. So why did they turn down John McCain's rebuttal days later? We'll give you the facts. You can make up your own mind...
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JASON SUDEIKIS, CAST MEMBER, NBC'S "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE": Senator Obama, a minute ago, Jorge Ramos, asked was there anything we can get you, and you said, quote, "No thank you, I'm fine." My question is, are you sure? Because it's -- you know, it's really no trouble.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: That "Saturday Night Live" skit, skewering the media's campaign coverage, aired back in February. But the debate over fairness continues.
Tonight, the McCain campaign and others are leveling new charges of media bias at "The New York Times." To those critics, the story is simple: the paper recently published an opinion piece that Barack Obama wrote about Iraq but days later refused to print John McCain's rebuttal.
Up close tonight, we asked the question, is it really that simple? As always, we'll leave it to you to decide. Here's the facts with 360's Randi Kaye.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A nearly 900-word op-ed by Senator John McCain, but "The New York Times" said no thanks, less than a week after it published an op-ed by Senator Barack Obama, titled "My Plan for Iraq."
Instead, the opinion page editor asked for another draft with more new information: "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece."
HOWARD KURTZ, "WASHINGTON POST": It asks for far more detail, and wanted McCain to address the use of timetables. John McCain opposes timetables for withdrawal in Iraq.
KAYE: "Washington Post" media reporter Howard Kurtz says "The Times" has an obligation to publish McCain's op-ed.
"The New York Times" explains it's standard procedure to go back and forth with an author. The paper points out it has published at least seven op-ed pieces by McCain in the last 12 years, adding, "We take his views seriously."
In McCain's op-ed, written in response to Obama's, he criticized the Democratic Senator for calling for an early withdrawal timeline.
JILL HAZELBAKER, MCCAIN CAMPAIGN: We wanted to give them Senator McCain's side. Unfortunately, "The New York Times" wasn't willing to accommodate that request.
KAYE (on camera): Politics is exactly what the McCain camp claims the "Times" is playing, accusing the paper of publishing the Obama op-ed and stiffing McCain and noting that the op-eds editor was once a senior speechwriter for a Democrat, Bill Clinton.
Critics say McCain's problems goes far beyond the "Times" op-ed, suggesting the media isn't giving him enough air time to compete fairly.
(voice-over) Consider this: network anchors and reporters are following Obama's every move in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the last four months, McCain has gone abroad to Europe, the Middle East, Canada, Colombia, and Mexico. No anchors tagged along. Some networks didn't even send reporters.
KURTZ: This has been a very cleverly stage-managed trip abroad, in which Obama is doling out interviews to not just the three network anchors but other television anchors and correspondents. And it is allowing him to dominate the dialogue, dominate the world stage at a time when John McCain is struggling to stay in the headlines.
KAYE: CNN sent correspondent Candy Crowley with Obama, and John King covered John McCain on his recent Mideast trip.
According to a group that follows this stuff, Obama gets more than twice as much coverage as McCain on the broadcast networks' weekday evening newscasts: 114 minutes compared to just 48. Same goes for the covers of "TIME" and "Newsweek." Journalistic fascination or media bias?
Randi Kaye, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: So is this a case of media bias against John McCain, or is "The Times" justified in asking him to rework his op-ed piece?
Joining me for a "Strategy Session" are Alex Castellanos, a Republican consultant and former advisor to the Romney presidential campaign; also Jennifer Palmieri of the Center for American Progress, an eight-year veteran of the Clinton White House.
Jennifer, what about this, is "The Times" biased against John McCain in this regard?
JENNIFER PALMIERI, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: I don't think so. I think that when I -- when I worked for President Clinton, "The New York Times" rejected many op-eds written by him as a sitting president of the United States. They don't just give up space to a candidate because their opponent has space.
You know, you can't just go -- you can't go to "The New York Times" editorial page and say, "I want to say what's wrong with the other guy." They want to leverage their space, which is very valuable, to force you to say something you haven't said before.
And I think that that turned down Obama -- they turned down McCain not because they like Obama but because McCain was -- all he was doing in his piece was criticizing Obama, and they wanted to put him on the spot to say more.
COOPER: Alex, what's your take on it? "The Times" goes on to say, look, they published him, you know, seven times over the course of -- you know, of his career, and they even endorsed him as the Republican candidate during the primaries. Is there bias?
ALEX CASTELLANOS, REPUBLICAN CONSULTANT: Well, evidently they've got a new favorite in this election, because I think Jennifer's right. They didn't want to force Senator McCain to say something he didn't want to say. They wanted to force him to say something he didn't believe.
They said that if he'd -- if he'd only had a timetable in his -- for withdrawal from Iraq in his piece that that's the kind of thing they were looking for. Well, Senator McCain doesn't believe we need an unconditional timetable.
COOPER: They wanted him to talk about timetables.
CASTELLANOS: They wanted him to talk about timetables. That's not part of his plan. What they said is they wanted to know the details of his plan for victory in Iraq and timetables. And that's not something he believes in. It's like saying, "Hey, Senator McCain, tell us about the details of your tax increase plan." He doesn't want to raise taxes.
COOPER: Jennifer, you know, there's no doubt, though, that Barack Obama is receiving far more media coverage...
PALMIERI: Right.
COOPER: ... than John McCain. John McCain has received adoring media coverage over a good part of his career in the past. But you know, I think if you look at the surveys, it was mentioned in the prior piece by Randi, you know, the broadcast networks, Obama gets twice the amount of coverage that John McCain has. Is that fair?
PALMIERI: Right. And welcome to John Edwards and Hillary Clinton's nightmare. He's -- Obama is a great story. And I don't know that it's fair that he gets more coverage than McCain. But I understand, you know -- I understand why it's happening.
COOPER: Do you think it's bias that these media companies, including us -- you know, are you saying that they support...
PALMIERI: No, I don't think that's it at all, no.
COOPER: ... Obama or is it just that he's an interesting story?
PALMIERI: I don't think that's it at all. I don't think that this is about supporting Obama or -- I believe that this is about who is a better story. And obviously, Barack Obama is a really great story.
And I think that the McCain campaign, you know, first of all, this is their base. Right, the press had been their base, turning on them. And that's hard for them.
But it was a very smart thing for them to release this "New York Times" e-mail. I think that the media love stories about themselves. I think that the media are likely to be -- what they're -- they're looking for a call from the rest as Hillary did when she was complaining about Obama's -- the press coverage that Obama got during her race.
And I think they're looking for the media maybe not to pay more attention to McCain, although they'd probably like that, but to have more scrutiny on Obama.
COOPER: Alex, do you think it's as simple as Barack Obama is an interesting story; he's newer on the scene; he's, you know, got this interesting background, and that's why he's getting so much more coverage? Or do you think the media is biased in favor of him?
CASTELLANOS: Let's give Obama credit. That's certainly part of it. But that's not all of it. There's an interesting dynamic developed here. One of the dangers for Obama is that he's perceived as the candidate of the elite in society. And even the media elite.
And I think that dynamic is growing. Now you're seeing -- you have Barack Obama getting coverage now abroad, as if he were the president of the United States. You have "The New York Times" shutting down John McCain here. There's a little guy versus the elite dynamic developing here that may be something that works in McCain's favor.
COOPER: But hasn't John McCain been part of the media and Washington elite for, you know, decades now?
CASTELLANOS: And isn't it interesting how the world turns? Because now the little guy who's not getting the coverage is McCain, and the new elite, the new favorite is Barack Obama.
COOPER: Alex Castellanos, Jennifer Palmieri, thanks.
PALMIERI: Thank you.
COOPER: The world does turn..."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/lkl.01.html
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Obama in Iraq: Gone Too Far?; "New York Times" Refuses To Publish John McCain
Aired July 21, 2008 - 21:00 ET
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT," ADVISED NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, CLINTON: "Absolutely. I do think the coverage has been unbalanced. "The Tyndall Report," which measures these things, he finds that the network news programs have devoted far more time to Obama than they have to McCain...
GERGEN: No. I think there are two things here. The news networks, and I think including CNN, are concerned about this lack of balance because they realize that they're devoting more time to Obama than to McCain. I think it's partly because Obama's a fresh voice and there is something exciting about him..."
for anyone who knows corporate press is not interested in advancing a progressive agenda in our government. They have been behind Obama since he entered the race all the while insisting Hillary was the establishment, corporate friendly candidate. Yet, the establishment Dems and corporate media dragged her through the gutter, while protecting and praising Obama throughout. Why the liberal blogs think corporate press is supporting the marketed "new changey" guy who will change the way business is done is still a mystery to me.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
with you about "red lights flashing" jen!
This similar scenario of the media favoring one candidate (Bush) over the other candidate (Gore) happened back in 2000 which even Republican David Frum admitted to:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/lkl.01.html
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Obama in Iraq: Gone Too Far?; "New York Times" Refuses To Publish John McCain
Aired July 21, 2008 - 21:00 ET
DAVID FRUM, FELLOW, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: "Now, the networks always have favorites. And I will say, as somebody who was there in 2000, that in 2000, the press favored Bush over Gore. I'll admit that. But this time they are making up for it in spades..."
"It should be red lights flashing" right now but unfortunately I do not see them flashing!
History in my opinion has to accurately record this blatant pro-Obama media bias which is mainly why I did this post because something like this should never be allowed to happen again in a future election regardless of who the candidate is as far as I am concerned!
It was the inexperienced Republican Bush who was the "rock star" and "media darling" candidate back in 2000 and look at the huge disaster that we got from him. I can only hope that history does not repeat itself in this election with Obama or in any future election with another inexperienced "rock star" and "media darling" candidate!
would be scrutizing Obama more instead of continuing to be in the tank for him:
1) Campaign finance:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Feingold_criticizes_Obama.html
June 19, 2008
Categories: Barack Obama
Feingold criticizes Obama
2) Being willing to debate McCain any time any place:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15840
Obama first challenged McCain to debate so Obama needs be willing to debate now!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 19, 2008 - 1:55am.
3) Gun control:
June 26th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Obama Flip-Flops on D.C. Gun Case, TODAY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE
Obama Supports DC Handgun Ban (1:32)
4) FISA:
http://pol.moveon.org/immunity/080621obama.html
"Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."4 We need him to honor that promise.
Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law..."
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16065
TRANSCRIPT: "Some liberals are not happy with Senator Obama" over his FISA vote!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 11, 2008 - 1:34pm.
5) The definite promises that Obama made back in 2004 and in 2006 to not run for President in 2008:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10648
TRANSCRIPT: Obama Promised one year ago Today NOT to run for President in 2008!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 22, 2007 - 2:23pm.
Where in the world is the accountability of Obama from the media?
I heard Harold Ford Jr on Morning Joe this am, vehemently defending Obama's flip-flops by pointing out McCain's. I feel much better now that I know Obama has to be duplicitous to keep pace with his opponent.
They only make the problem even worse in my opinion!
It would really be nice to actually be able to vote for a serious candidate who you like and who you truly think is qualified as opposed to the candidate with the least amount of flip-flops who you dislike the least!
It would also be nice if the media was doing a better job holding both of these candidates accountable for their flip-flops instead of trying to figure out which one of them is worse than the other. That is subjective reasoning which will differ from one media pundit to the next based on their own personal ideology and on their own opinions of the issues!
Harold Ford happened to get his very first invite to the Bilderberg Conference this summer!
Along with Obama surrogate, Claire McCaskill.
And Obama National Campaign co-chair, Tom Daschle.
And Obama's former Veep Vetter, Jim Johnson, who is one of the elite representatives of "Friends of Bilderberg" (organizing group).
And Obama potential Veep, Kathleen Sebelius.
And Obama FP Advisor, Dennis Ross.
The deck was clearly stacked at the Globalist convention. Seems that the B-Bergers, the powers that be, are liking this Change thing.
Theory B, baby! Almost ready to put money on it.... ;)
Richard Holbrooke, who is currently an--
Obama Advisor
He was there too....
Why-- it was like one big O! PJ Party this year! :)
I'm not sure why Bilderberg is such a hullabaloo. Probably 99.5% of the people have never heard of it and never will. It's clear (at least to me) that they tend to invite "players" each year, but the cast keeps changing. The fact that the cast keeps changing is probably a good thing.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
There are a handful of new invitees each year, but by and large, the main team is on board every year for decades and is extremely consistent.
Every single year, without fail, you have:
Henry Kissinger, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Robert Zoellick, James Wolfensohn, various media magnates: editor of le Figaro, Donald Graham - editor of the Washington Post, Paul Gigot - editor of Wall St Journal, the CEO of the Federal Reserve, the US Secretary of Treasury, David Rockefeller, the same bankers and oil magnates, the same Princes and Prime Ministers, the same Queens, a handful of Governors, the top CEOs-- the names on the short list of around 100 are carried over year after year. It is an extremely tightly knit group, if you're newly invited one year and not asked back the next year-- you won't be going again. Otherwise it's like a lifetime club membership.
No one is permitted to reveal what was discussed at the conference.
If a new CEO takes over any of the top 20 corporations, they then get invited to replace their former.
It is the most secretive organization with the most intensely concentrated circle of global power to gather annually in the world. The most fiercely guarded by throngs of secret service and intel teams from leading G-8 nations, armed to the teeth and surveying from air, street and water levels. Towns are emptied out the week of the event and entire hotels are restaffed top to bottom from Intel human resources. All of the upper level management of the top press organizations attend each year and all are sworn to silence about anything that is discussed each year.
And that is why 99.5% of the people never heard about it. There are lots of Americans who think Iraq attacked us on 9-11 too... What people in this country have not heard about in times of a press blackout is sadly not indicative of what's going on.
Officials who find themselves nominated and/or elected to high office always seem to mysteriously have been invited in the year of their nominations or elections, one after another....
Other than that-- yeah, no big hullabaloo.... :)
So would John Edwards, who allegedly gained foreign policy experience by attending Bilderberg in 2003 or 2004, be an exception to the political success of the attendees?
Didn't Wes go at least once?
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
And I don't understand your question about Edwards. He went a few weeks before he was nominated Vice President. Shortly thereafter ... John Kerry was elected President but there was Ohio ... and a really long story.
Too tired now, I had a long day and am hitting the sack now, but No... Wes has never gone and that is very rare considering his status attained in NATO.
Get your sleep, MS. I don't need to hear the Ohio story again. I just didn't think that Bilderberg did much for Edwards's standing.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
There's "Hillraiser" Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Lady Rothschild, who met her husband to be when Henry Kissinger introduced them at a Bilderberg conference
Ironically, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild recently commented that the reason she didn't like Sen. Obama was she felt he was "elitist". Which, coming from a Bilderberger who married into a title and one of Europe's leading banking and financial families, is a tad ironic indeed.
is hard to come by at B-berg.
They are so heavily male-oriented, traditionally there's only a very small number of females invitees. But that appears to be changing little by little.
This year ...(aside from McCaskill and Sebelius) they even had Condi come! Out of the 140 or so that attended this year, there were 10 women. Two of them were Queens, of Spain and Netherlands. How bout them odds? ;)
Wasn't Holbrooke a Clinton advisor originally...?
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
and so was and is Vernon Jordan who has been at every BBerg since I've been researching them.
Not sure if there was more of a point beyond the question, but as far as I know, there is no Clinton running for president right now, nor did any Clinton attend this year's conference or any of their key surrogates or advisors. Hillary and Bill both attended in the past, I've blogged that here many times. Bill's first trip -as is customary- was right before his nomination as the Dem candidate for the presidency.
Keep trying to stress - but not seemingly getting this across- that this is NOT a party or candidate specific issue.
It's a corporate global issue.
It's not a gathering of evil republicans -- even though they comprise the majority of attendees, both parties are represented. There are plenty who have never attended and likely won't. You wouldn't see Paul Wellstone at BBerg. Feingold, Franks, Sanders, Boxer, Wexler, Waxman, Wes Clark, etc etc. You won't ever see them there, I can comfortably predict.
You will however always see heads of media, heads of major corporations, heads of state and free trade friendlies. Reread the Shock Doctrine for better descriptions of who they are and what they are implementing into the world economic systems.
:)
which I definitely do NOT appreciate:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15872
The biased media that did a hit job on Hillary also did a hit job on Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 24, 2008 - 2:38am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15991
FOX NEWS VIDEO: John Kasich and Lanny Davis misrepresented & trashed Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 3, 2008 - 12:23am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16102
TRANSCRIPT: CNN reporter Jessica Yellin unfairly trashed Gen. Clark yesterday!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 17, 2008 - 4:45pm.
How can I criticize this RNC e mail when I completely agree with it? It is not a fun thing having to admit that the other side is right about this!
I have already posted many of these media quotes in this YouTube video over the last several months:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfogMFL7UJo
Obama Love (2:56)
Subj: The Media is in Love with Barack Obama
Date: 7/22/2008 11:52:43 AM Central Daylight Time
From: ecampaign@gop.com
To: Mitch Dworkin
Sent from the Internet (Details)
McCain Team -
http://www.johnmccain.com/video/love.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfogMFL7UJo
Obama Love (2:56)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC-yMUQ8KzI
Obama Love V2 (2:56)
http://www.johnmccain.com/video/love.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfogMFL7UJo
Obama Love (2:56)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC-yMUQ8KzI
Obama Love V2 (2:56)
It's pretty obvious that the media has a bizarre fascination with Barack Obama. Some may even say it's a love affair. We want you to be the judge. We've compiled two videos of the more outrageous moments of this not so secret love affair. Follow this link to watch the two videos and vote on which one you think is better. Your vote will determine which video we put on the air.
http://www.johnmccain.com/video/love.htm
The media is in love with Barack Obama. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny.
Regards,
The McCain Campaign
Republican National Committee | 310 First Street, SE | Washington, D.C. 20003 Paid for by the Republican National Committee. Copyright 2008 Republican National Committee
Paid for by John McCain 2008
p: 202.863.8500 | f: 202.863.8820 | e:
310 First Street, SE - Washington, D.C. 20003 - (202) 863-8500
www.gop.com
Authorized by John McCain 2008
This YouTube video is even more intense than the RNC video above in my opinion!
For the record, I do NOT endorse their message to vote for John McCain over this. I just think that this is credible information which people should be aware of and that should go on record as a comment on this post. Each person has to decide for themself about how they will vote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpIlxKPBm9w&NR=1
Hillary Clinton Supporters, don't vote for Barack Obama (10:48)
From: PoliticalssIdiot
Joined: 4 months ago
Videos: 45
Added: July 17, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpIlxKPBm9w&NR=1
Hillary Clinton Supporters, don't vote for Barack Obama (10:48)
I am voting for McCain this year, as a HUGE protest vote against O! I am so sick and tired of hearing something about him EVERY SINGLE TIME I turn on the tube and it is on one of the cable "news" networks. This RNC ad is SPOT ON!!!
I've been voting Dem since 1978 (my first time voting), with voting for John Anderson being the only exception until now. The DNC cheated O!'s way to being the PRESUMPTUOUS nominee, and now the media is doing their very best to ensure that he's selected as POTUS before there's even an election. Heck, save us all the time from going to the polls...just give it to him now, why don't you?
Yes, I'm angry, very, very angry. My vote will be against O! and his downticket minions here in IL. I may even vote straight Repub, much though I shudder at the thought of it.
Hi Marti:
Thank you for your comments. Believe me, I completely understand and appreciate how you feel!
Your vote is your own and I will definitely respect whatever decision that you come to but you may want to consider the fact that John McCain wrongly attacked Gen. Clark for political purposes before you vote for him:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16043
REFUTATION: Answers to what the McCain campaign & the RNC said about Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 8, 2008 - 2:58am.
My own plans to punish the media and Obama are to vote for a third party candidate in protest unless either Gen. Clark or Hillary are on the ticket. I explained my reasons for that in detail in this comment below:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16130#comment-316884
I could never reward John McCain with my vote after the way how he wrongly attacked Gen. Clark for political purposes but that is my opinion only!
Also, good Democratic down ballot candidates at the local level who you may like and who are not involved with the Obama campaign or with the DNC should not have to pay for their sins and for the sins of the media IN MY OPINION.
Again, I am very angry too, I completely understand how you feel, and I will always respect whatever decision that you come to as to who you will vote for. However what I do recommend at least thinking over and considering is how that McCain wrongly attacked Gen. Clark and if you really think that good Democratic down ballot candidates at the local level should have to pay for Obama's and for the media's sins which are probably not their fault if they are not involved with the Obama campaign or with the DNC.
Thank you again for your comments and for your support!
Mitch
...that's one thing.
But after the attacks, lies and smears that McCain and his campaign launched against Gen. Clark, I find it very strange that a Clarkie would vote for McCain.
Surely there's a third party or write-in choice that would be better than voting for a Clark-basher?
Gen. Clark would understand!!!!!
My vote is not an "I like McCain" vote, it is a "No O!" vote and it is the only way to make O! work doubly hard to make up for my vote. If I go third-party or write-in, that is only 1/2 as hard to make up for it.
He's already been thrown under the bus by O!'s campaign anyway.
Revenge vote? YOU BETCHA!!! After what O! did to HRC and to Gen. Clark? OH YEAH!
Especially Cook County, land of the highest sales tax in the land, brought to us courtesy of the frackin' entrenched hoodlum dems, you'd understand how Marti and I feel.
There is only one way to vote here - especially here, Cook County - WHERE OUR VOTE MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
McCain, and every local office Republican or third party I can glean off that ballot.
You look at Federal Govt, and see the GOP as the problem. Well, all politics being LOCAL and all, here in greater Chicagoland - It's the Democrats, stupid! Entrenched, with a history of corruption that goes back fifty years.
And the brightest of bright ideas? Taking the Illinois Combine to DC! Hooray!!
Gawd. What a fracked up country. A Confederacy of Dunces for sure. Ignatius J. Reilly would be vindicated.
Edited to add: And here's a Repub trying to get us some relief (along with a Dem I supported for the office currently being used by Todd Stroger Jr to employ friends and relatives, Forrest Claypool) and he's simply being called for politicizing the sales tax. Oh good grief, you gotta be kidding me. Gotta love the new meme for the Land of Entrenched Corrupt Dems - CROOK COUNTY. Heh.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/07/cook-county-boa.html
The COMBINE whirls on its merry way to DC with the Daley boys following merrily in its wake!
Chomp, chomp, chomp...will our dear Gov. be indicted along with "person of interest A" or whatever "O!s" name is in the witness list these days? Will Rezko sing before he's assigned to hard time in da big house?
Stay tuned to "As the Combine Whirls!"
Hi Marti:
I agree with you about "Country before party" and I also agree that you own your own vote. You are completely free to vote however you choose to!
I would vote for a third party candidate instead of McCain to punish the media and Obama because of how McCain wrongly attacked Gen. Clark for purely political purposes but however you choose to vote is totally up to you to decide for yourself!
Every person has to be free to vote their own consciences in my opinion!
Mitch
Please open up this Politico Home Page link and vote your conscience:
Leaning left?
Do you think there is a pro-Obama bias in the press?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11912.html
Yes 
52 %
No
48 %
Results are based off 2113 votes
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11912.html
Poll: Half of U.S. says press pro-Obama
By ALEXANDER BURNS | 7/21/08 1:08 PM EST
"Half of Americans think the press is trying to help Sen. Barack Obama win the presidential election, according to a new poll by Rasmussen Reports.
In an automated survey of 1000 likely voters, Rasmussen found that 49 percent of respondents believed reporters would favor Obama in their coverage this fall, compared with just 14 percent who expected them to boost Sen. John McCain. The number of Americans who see pro-Obama bias in the press has increased by five percent in the last month.
According to Rasmussen’s numbers, less than a quarter of voters – 24 percent – now trust the press to report on the election without bias..."
Do you believe the national media is biased in favor of Sen. Barack Obama?
Yes 74% 7063
No 26% 2507
Total Votes: 9570
http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Now that the primaries are over and Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, shouldn't all Democrats feel grateful for all the help the Party can get?
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Most of the corporate media I've seen have been pro-McCain personally. So you would think any possiblity of the Democratic nominee getting coverage would be a good thing
Isn't a little funny that the pundits talked all day about...McCain's not getting enough attention? Duh!
That said, not quite tongue in cheek, I do think that McCain is getting short shrift, but that's to be expected as the Wunderkind makes his first real foray outside of the country in some kind of semi-official way.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Maybe. But incredible that peeps discuss it w/o noting that's the case every time! AND that its (presumably) a benefit to the Dem!
Lets just keep, kicking ourselves, folks!
PS, O's on an interesting trip to interesting venues; mcC's in nh? been there, done that!
This election and the media bias is in many ways a mirror image of the 2000 and 2004 elections. The tactic used against H.C. and the blatant pro Obama bias is sickening.
After railing against this sort of thing for 8 years, I had expected better. I see fewer and fewer differences between Obama and McCain as time goes on. Obama campaign of change was IMO a sham. He is an inexperienced opportunistic and arrogant politiciam
I will not support this coupe of an election.
McCain is going to get my vote.
And change their votes to HILLARY! If she's not the nominee, at this point I'm voting for Nader. If I had to choose between BO and JM - it would be JM at this point. I'm not happy with BO or JM.
The media is destroying our chance to have a real candidate to save us from the hell we're going through.
But before you do, consider this, as one Clarkie to another....
Sen. McCain and the McCain campaign lied, attacked, and smeared Gen. Clark,
I find it very strange that a Clarkie would vote for McCain.
Surely there's a third party or write-in choice that would be better than voting for a Clark-basher?
Don't pull that crap on me. Unfortuantely, Wes Clark is not in this race.
This is about Barcak Obama his qualifications, and how he has run this campaign,
what's best for America?
Wes seems to think that in this election Obama would be best for the country.
If you think McCain would be better then sure, you should vote for him, if it's just an "I hate Obama" vote then it seems more like a revenge vote. One that doesn't exactly keep the best interests of the nation in mind.
After watching the circumvention (again) of the electoral process and the dirty tricks and media collusion used to force Obama down our throats, IMO, McCain.
If we had seen some back bone on Mukasey's nomination, or torture, FISA, wiretapping, telcom immunity, etc.. I would have some faith in one party control.
Though McCain was vilified for caving on torture, he was far more instrumental in putting the brakes on it then any other member of congress. That last bill that he voted yes on was an orchestrated gift to save Bush Co from legal jeopardy on the matter. Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Feinstein and the rest of the democratic hierarchy were all in on it.
The democrats are clearly going to gain substantial control of congress. I'll vote for grid-lock. I no more trust the dems with control of the executive and legislative branches then I do the republicans.
CM gave you a perfectly valid reason to vote for McCain (one I happen to disagree with, but valid nonetheless), given she assumes there will be a significant majority of Democrats in Congress. She also explained her rationale clearly.
Where on earth did you (and apparently Patrick, since he uprated your post) get a "revenge" motive out of her response?
Do either of you even bother to read what people write before you make up your minds about what they mean?
Honestly, I have to wonder whether you don't understand or just don't care what others think.
"After watching the circumvention (again) of the electoral process and the dirty tricks and media collusion used to force Obama down our throats, IMO, McCain."
that made me think that it will be a "get back at you suckers" vote.
That seemed to be top o'the list with everything else (some of which I could agree with) to follow up the rear.
Do some people, like the Obama haters for instance, even bother to care what the rest of us think?
Or what Wes thinks for that matter. When posts touting a vote for McCain get rated up I really have to wonder.
But, hey...to each their own.
Not that is any of my business, but I seem to remember you being fairly strong anti-Kerry back in 2004. That was a very close race. If I recall you didn't vote for him.
Kerry lost Ohio by about 135k votes, 2%.
Is not supporting Obama any different?
I didn't care for Kerry...I wanted Wes, but I voted for him, put a yard sign in my yard and did what I could at the time to get him elected.
I think you're thinking of TC (Totally Committed). She despised Kerry and said she wouldn't vote for him.
I'm not one to cut off my nose to spite my face so Kerry got my vote.
I have no passion for it either, but I'll do it just the same. McCain is just totally repulsive to me so I find I must once again vote for the lesser of two evils...though I do admit I don't find Obama evil. McCain on the other hand...
I don't see how you read "revenge" into that quote, even taking it out of context as you did. It's not "revenge" not to let bad behavior go without consequence.
But the point is, it was NOT the top item in a list of reasons. She followed it with: "If we had seen some back bone on Mukasey's nomination, or torture, FISA, wiretapping, telcom immunity, etc.. I would have some faith in one party control."
Maybe I'm the one reading what I believe into what CM wrote. She can say so if true. But it seemed pretty clear to me that her general gist was that Democrats can't be trusted not to abuse power any more than Republicans.
To see what lengths you'll go to just to get the last word.
Or maybe I'm trying to establish a pattern.
Either way, as long as I have something to say, I'll say it. Who are you to decide whether the horse is dead?
Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."
I won't get into the details here, but I attended my very last meeting as a member of the county party's executive committee. It was the usual farce and the very last straw for me. The Democratic party is just as rotten to the core as the GOP, and the only way anything is going to change is via torches and pitchforks, and I don't think I'm up for that. Somebody else will have to do it.
It should be obvious after the recent self-serving, ass-covering actions of the Democratic so-called leadership that this party only represents hope and change insofar as furthering the power needs of the grasping, greedy individuals involved.
I'll say again and again what others here have said before: the divide in this country is between the ruling class and the rest of us, and WE don't have representation.
Fuck it.
Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."
what it's like to live in Cook County Illinois! You're gonna LOVE it! Nothing bad every happens here, we all love love love each other, it's CHEAP, it's UTOPIA, and you're all gonna get a taste of it!
You're all gonna be So Happee!!
Heh. Acutally, I can't wait.
No. I said third-party. Obviously you feel too strongly about Sen. Obama to vote for him, which is why I didn't mention him.
But what I did point out is that Sen. McCain and his campaign attacked and slandered Gen. Clark. As such, I find it very curious that someone who claims to be a Clarkie would state they planned to vote for him, and ON Wes Clark's community blog as well.
And we are... in more ways than one...
Who would you be angrier at: The enemy soldier who was trying to kill you? Or the member of your own unit who pushed you into the line of fire and ran away?
More importantly, which one would you say showed a greater lack of integrity and courage?
Which is why I suspended donations to Sen. Obama's campaign
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16038
But, to use your analogy, I wouldn't immediately switch sides and ally myself with the enemy soldier that was trying to kill me either. I'd keep focused on the real enemy - and deal with the cowards later.
But if that same coward were given a battlefield commission and made your platoon leader, you might consider going AWOL. In fact, officers have been fragged for less.
Ok, so the analogy only goes so far. But I think it's fair to expect more from someone who's supposed to be on your side, especially if you believe your side stands for something more than the other.
but I have kind of learned over the last decade or so, anything Corporate Press is pushing is not anything that's going to benefit "we the peeps." Ya know? I mean, think about it. If they're supporting him, do you honestly think he's going to do anything that will jeopardize their stranglehold on power? The fact that he and so many of his advisers and potential running mates were invited to Bilderberg this year isn't coincidence. And no, I'm not voting for McCain.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
than what you are saying because it is mainly about personal principles from my perspective!
Some people vote more based on issues alone while others take their personal principles into consideration along with the issues. Neither approach is wrong in my opinion but they are two clearly different approaches toward voting which I explained in detail in this post:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16074
ANALYSIS: The reasons why many Hillary supporters are NOT supporting Obama now!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 13, 2008 - 3:29am.
Even if I was an Obama supporter, I would NEVER want that kind of help (biased media coverage in my candidate's favor) because I would want my candidate to win based on the issues and based on their own merits, NOT because they were given much better treatment by the press compared to their opponent. That is definitely the wrong way how to win an election in my very strong opinion!
Any candidate (especially a Presidential candidate) winning an election mainly because they got better media coverage than their opponent from an openly biased press is very wrong because of the following four reasons that I stated in this post:
1) This is definitely very unprofessional behavior on the part of the media.
The biased media should not be rewarded for that kind of behavior in my opinion!
2) Republicans and extreme right wing media watch dog groups are right and in my opinion they have a legitimate point to make when they complain about this blatant and unfair media bias in favor of Obama.
There is no way how to argue with that in my opinion just like how we as Hillary supporters had that legitimate point to make when we complained about this blatant and unfair media bias in favor of Obama during the Democratic primary!
3) This blatant and unfair media bias in favor of Obama definitely sets a very bad precedent for the future because while most Democrats favor Obama right now in this election, what will these same Democrats say about future elections if so much of the media decides to support the Republican candidate for many of the same reasons that they are supporting Obama now which are mainly due to his "rock star" and "media darling" status?
If we just let this go right now, then what about in the future if the candidate who is getting preferred treatment by the press is a candidate who we do not like? A very bad precedent will be set where people can look back to 2008 and say that Obama got away with it then so why not now?
4) The most dangerous thing of all in my opinion is that this blatant and unfair media bias in favor of Obama indicates that the press are showing a very serious lack of accountability toward Obama which means that they will have absolutely no right to complain about him if he wins the election and if he turns out to be a disappointment!
Any candidate who wins an election mainly because the press was biased in their favor means that they will be elected with a lack of accountability which can lead to very serious problems once they take office!
Some people may let this all go just because of the issues alone while others will not let it go out of their personal principles. Because of my personal principles, I plan to vote for a third party candidate unless either Gen. Clark or Hillary are on the ticket!
If Gen. Clark is on the ticket, then I will really be voting for "Clark for Vice President!"
If Hillary is on the ticket, then that will at least help to make up for all of the unfair media bias against her and I will sleep much better at night knowing that Hillary and her team (which includes Gen. Clark) will be there to keep an eye on Obama!
If either Gen. Clark or Hillary are not on the ticket, then my mind is made up that I will be voting for a third party candidate because IN MY OPINION a vote for Obama will be a vote to reward and to legitimize this kind of wrong behavior by the media!
I also have not seen anything in Obama that convinces me he is ready to be President. McCain may keep our troops in Iraq too long but if Obama pulls out our troops too quickly by sticking to his artificial timetable of 16 months regardless of what the generals tell him, then we could possibly be a lot worse off later on than we are right now!
I would never vote for McCain after he attacked Gen. Clark and when he is also wrong about foreign policy so my conscience dictates to me to vote for a third party candidate in protest if either Gen. Clark or Hillary are not on the ticket!
Since I live in Texas which is not considered to be a swing state, my vote probably will not matter very much as far as determining who wins the Presidential election but I will never let my vote go on record in the popular vote column to reward and legitimize biased media behavior which I strongly disagree with and which I think will set a very bad precedent for future elections!
Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Jack Cafferty, and other openly biased media pundits who are in the tank for Obama probably laugh at all of the complaint letters that they get from people like us here BUT they cannot control who I vote for and I will definitely not reward and legitimize their unprofessional behavior with my vote that will stay on record forever in the popular vote column!
My vote will go on record to a third party candidate to help make a statement before it goes to either McCain or to Obama for the reasons that I have stated unless Obama puts either Gen. Clark or Hillary on the ticket which would satisfy my conscience!
Of course I would vote for all of the Democratic down ballot candidates. I always vote and I would NEVER make the down ballot candidates pay for what I do not like about Obama and the media. I hope that anyone reading this who agrees with me will also get out and vote for their down ballot candidates!
The opinions and views expressed in this post and in this comment are soely my own and I definitely respect the right for each person to think this over and come to their own conclusion about it. I would NEVER criticize anyone who comes to a different conclusion than I do on who to vote for!
has always been in the tank for one candidate or the other and I sincerely doubt if the general public even realized it. See "Citizen Kane" for reference, acclaimed as perhaps the most influential movie of all time, it was damn near forced off the screen by the Hearst newspaper oligarchy. The main difference is that now the worship of O is more obvious and blatant than preceding years and due to US, THE NETROOTS, they can't get away with it going unnoticed. Isn't it strange that they consistently seem to support the candidate who supports the corporate line? I wonder why. Welcome to the United Corporations of America; we've been living there for quite some time. Get used to it.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
or the other..."
You are probably right about that but this time around with Obama it is just so blatantly obvious that it is absolutely disgusting in my opinion!
But I see none.
300 hundred national security/foreign policy advisers but no Wes Clark. Even people who supported the war are included in Obama's entorage.
No Wes is a loss to the nation.
I did enjoy Wescott's diary, however.
It would be a loss if Wes weren't out there Raleighite, but he clearly is, and he's stronger than ever.
Call me twisted, but those of us who would very much like to see Wes in a top level position in an Obama administration are working for, not against Barack Obama. (or against Wes either) And that would include a fairly sizable number of Clark supporters formerly for Hillary, btw.
...watch and listen
You will have ZERO influence on whether General Clark is a part of an Obama administration. If you think otherwise, you are only fooling yourself.
I would bet you money that he will not be EXCEPT that I also believe that we will never know because there will never be an Obama administration.
You mean the future presidential cabinet won't be determined upon what we write in this thread? Is that what you're implying?
I'm gonna need some time to digest this, jai.
A bitter pill indeed you present...
You mean the future presidential cabinet won't be determined upon what we write in this thread? Is that what you're implying?
I thought that that was the sole purpose of this blog I'm dashed...DASHED, I tell you.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
then they should of busted their butts working for Hillary. Wes will never be part of an O administration - hell I could see McCain asking him before O - Wes is way to smart and not "controllable" and it would be too diffiult for the Zen master to admit that he doesn't know squat about a lot of things. That's already apparent in his brief trip out of the country. Dumya in dem clothing.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
this morning. I wrote MSNBC to thank them for having him back and allowing him time to give detailed answers to important questions. Also suggested he be given his own program - an open forum type with Q/A that he loves to do at universities, etc. - covering foreign policy and world affairs. He is such a good teacher - I learn something every time he appears.
His own feedback style program! People would love that. I think Wes would too. Hope you get a response.
From all over the world. I've wanted him to have his own show for years.
Now for a name...ClarkWorld? The Wes Clark Show: A Time to Lead?
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Now, are you all writing MSNBC to suggest the new program, and perhaps a day/ time segment? I can think of plenty of time slots I'd like to see improved.
If they are (as reported) climbing in the ratings war and being so 'progressive', it would be a natural ratings builder. That is if the powers that be would dare to unleash his honesty on the viewing public.
I can't figure that one out.
All I can remember is around the time he signed his contract, his book came out and he was scheduled to appear on Olbermann and MTP. Then he endorsed Hillary and his appearances were cancelled....never to be heard again on those shows.
Tweety had him on briefly once talking about Iraq, I think, and then the only shows he appeared on were Scarborough, and Dan Abrams. Maybe twice with Tucker.
He was NOT just contracted to talk politics. I find this rather shoddy. I think that Jack Jacobson (I think that's his name) is the one who talks about the military stuff now.
Ironically,Wes had more appearances on fox News when he was contracted with them. :>(
Heh. I'm sounding whiney today...I'm probably one of the bitter ones. LOL Yeah. I am.
If you can locate the date, I'd much appreciate it. My assumption has been that Tweety won't have him on the show... I think he's afraid of him.
KO had him on a BUNCH until the endorsement. Then never again.
I'm glad Westcott posted it at Big Orange--and for once, not a single negative comment there. (Tho someone didn't get that the O people had thrown WKC under the bus, and that he is not a surrogate for O.)
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!
openly defend this pro-Obama media bias. Even Gloria Borger who in my opinion leans toward Obama in her comments strongly disagreed with Jack Cafferty's absurd comments:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/sitroom.03.html
THE SITUATION ROOM
'Butcher of Bosnia' Caught; McCain Vs. 'The New York Times'; Who Will Be John McCain's V.P. Nominee?;
Aired July 21, 2008 - 18:00 ET
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "Jack, you know, the whole notion of this double standard, that supposedly the mainstream media loves Barack Obama and treats John McCain with disdain, it's got a whole lot of resonance out there. And it's ironic because for so many years, John McCain was actually the darling of the mainstream media.
JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Well, a lot more is known about John McCain than is known about Barack Obama, including the fact that, in many people's minds, he is not dissimilar in many of his views from the administration that's been running the country for the last eight years.
Obama is new and is different and not as much is known about him.
And, quite frankly, he's a better story, you know?
We sell -- we're in the business of selling newspapers. And you put the guy on the cover that sells the most newspapers. And Barack Obama, at 46, the first African-American ever to head a major ticket and doing what he did to the Clinton political machine in the primaries is a giant story.
GLORIA BORGER, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. And...
CAFFERTY: John McCain is not a giant story.
BORGER: Well, he's a...
TARA WALL, FORMER SPOKESPERSON, DHS GULF COAST REBUILDING EFFORTS, FORMER RNC PRESS SECRETARY FOR OUTREACH: And...
BORGER: But he's a presidential contender. Come on... CAFFERTY: So what?
BORGER: He's a giant story...
CAFFERTY: So was John Kerry and so were a lot of other people.
BORGER: He...
CAFFERTY: He does not have the glitz and the attraction as a subject for journalists that Barack Obama does.
BORGER: But you know...
WALL: (INAUDIBLE) that he does...
CAFFERTY: He's a 71-year-old, four term Senator.
WALL: He does have the character -- he, absolutely, Barack Obama has the charisma that carries the cameras. Absolutely. But I think at the end of the day -- and he learned during, particularly, that ABC debate, that he's got to go just beyond this glamorous appeal and this star studdedness. He's got to start answering these hard questions, which I think are legitimate questions the media needs to begin to raise.
BORGER: You know...
WALL: They have started to do that in some degree, but have to continue to hit hard, or just as hard, on some of these concrete issues and get him nailed down from foreign policy...
BORGER: Right.
WALL: ...to education to immigration. They've got to nail in and hone in on these issues. And I think that's why he's avoiding these debates, as well, with John McCain...
BORGER: Well...
WALL: ...at these...
BORGER: Can I get...
WALL: ...at these town halls, because that's going to be essential.
BORGER: Can I just say that this charisma thing, which no doubt that Obama has, could actually start to backfire against him at a certain point?
And maybe this is the tipping point we're seeing right now. I don't know. But the American public wants to hear...
WALL: Absolutely.
BORGER: ...from both of these candidates because they actually have a decision to make. And so whether or not we believe that -- that Barack Obama has more charisma or he sells more magazines or he gets more eyeballs, you know, I understand that. That's fine. But, you know, there is a presidential campaign going on here.
BLITZER: All right...
WALL: And hopefully that will become more apparent once we get closer to the nominations and the debates start and the town halls and the real hard campaigning really starts (INAUDIBLE).
BORGER: And I agree with you. I think Obama should be doing the town halls, as well, by the way.
WALL: Absolutely.
CAFFERTY: Why should he?
That gives -- that gives McCain a free ticket.
Why should he -- why should he do McCain the favor of going around to a bunch town hall meetings...
WALL: Because the American people need to hear...
CAFFERTY: ...with John McCain?
WALL: Both sides of the (INAUDIBLE).
BORGER: But maybe it wouldn't be such (INAUDIBLE).
CAFFERTY: They can hear both sides. I'm suggesting they don't have to do it together...
BORGER: But maybe it wouldn't be (INAUDIBLE)...
CAFFERTY: And a town hall venue is the kind of thing that is more favorable to John McCain...
BORGER: Why?
He cannot...
WALL: Well...
CAFFERTY: Because he -- have you seen him try to stand behind a podium and give a speech?
BORGER: Right.
WALL: It is...
CAFFERTY: Because he can't do that, that's why.
BORGER: But you know what?
Obama is not bad at town halls, either. So...
CAFFERTY: But why should he do...
BORGER: So what's the problem?
CAFFERTY: Why should he do that for McCain?
WALL: The town halls, arguably, yes. Town halls are, arguably, John McCain's strength.
BLITZER: All right...
WALL: He does much better in these town halls than Barack Obama. Barack Obama is probably practicing, as he needs to, before he starts doing some of these town halls.
BORGER: I say let's hear from both of these candidates.
CAFFERTY: Oh, that's...
BORGER: That's what the American public loved during the primaries.
WALL: I agree.
CAFFERTY: Oh, that's all we hear every day, Gloria, is from both of them.
WALL: Together.
CAFFERTY: That's all we hear.
WALL: No. Outside of the sound bites.
BORGER: Kind of like...
WALL: Real people need to hear from them in front of them.
BLITZER: Stand by, guys.
WALL: Not the sound bites.
BORGER: Kind of like you and me, Jack.
BLITZER: Stand by.
All right.
BORGER: They need to hear from us.
BLITZER: We get the point. The three of you don't agree. That's good.
All right. Stand by..."