What do all the high profile and highly critical MSM pieces on Clinton mean?

[cali]

For one thing, if she's the corpoworld candidate, why is the corporate media focusing such an intense and negative light on her?

Is it simply that the media is continuing the narrative they perfected during Bill Clinton's presidency? Is it that she's catching it for keeping the media at arm's length? Is it the (un)likability factor? Or that there's just so much about her spilling out from so many sources? All of the above? Something else?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The media like a horse race. Hillary, as the presumed front-runner,

needed to be taken down a peg to keep the race close and therefore more interesting. Whoever becomes the front-runner next will get the same treatment. Just watch.

[ccpup]

5. it's already started with Obama

in the NY Times and will, if Edwards does better than expected, begin with him too. But if someone's going down, then someone else will be pegged -- storyline-wise -- as the Comeback Kid. And those who listlessly wander the aisles of Wal-Mart will swallow it whole without thinking.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Yep. Remember what they did to Howard Dean?

[Frances]

8. Agree 100%

I haven't forgotten how the media peddled the Kerry is a fake hero stories.

I haven't forgotten how the media peddled Gore is a liar (invented the internet) stories.

I also haven't forgotten the TWO front page articles on Edwards' haircut in the Washington Post within a couple of months of each other.

Nor have I forgotten the front page story on rumors that Obama is a Muslim in the Washington Post. That story did not state that the rumors are false.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. Tradition.

The MSM hates the Clintons. Always have. Always will.

[cali]

4. But doesn't that bode ill for us if she's the candidate?

The media will focus negatively on Clinton, giving, in essence, the repuke nominee a free ride.

[ccpup]

11. it will be no different with

a different Dem Nominee and a Repuglican Nominee. To believe that only Hillary will get this kind of treatment if she were the nominee is unbelievably naive and I, for one, don't believe you actually, you know, believe that.

Hillary's a Known Public Figure with her garbage a mile high, another mile deep and already out there in public view. And, in the interest of selling a story, more "been there, done that: boring" than salacious and exciting.

Obama and Edwards are relatively knew and there's a whole field of dirt to dig in and bring stuff to light. And, because they're not as well-known and the American Public isn't as familiar with whatever "dirt" they have as they are with what's been attributed to Hillary for years and years and years (it seems), it'll get a lot more attention and, therefore, be perhaps more damaging.

It's a bit like the difference between hearing a story at the water cooler you've already heard in the Lobby and in the elevator and at your desk by someone who's a known gossip and has the same old tired information and a potentially juicy, salacious story someone's telling you for the first time about the New Guy that no one has heard yet. Which would prick up your ears more?

Disgusting analogy, I know, but we are talking about the American Idol/Access Hollywood/People Magazine reading American People.

[Bitwit1234]

3. The want Obama he can be beat.

[mtnsnake]

7. It means that all the anti-Hillary DU crusaders were wrong about her being the MSM's choice

but what else is new?

[ClassWarrior]

9. No one believes she's the Corporate Media's "choice"...

...just their Dem nominee. She'd have to have an (R) behind her name to be the Corporate Media's "choice."

NGU.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. The media don't have a "favorite" candidate, or one they want to be defeated.

What they do have is a huge sense of their own importance and of their "insight." They want to be seen as the guys who really know what's going on and who really *know* what's what in the political world. And they like to stir the pot, to keep themselves important. They don't, as a group, either hate or favor Hillary or Obama or anybody else, though some individuals may have some evident leanings. What they seem to do more than anything is set somebody up, hail them as the front-runner, and then pull the rug out from under them. It's more fun that way, don't you see? But it doesn't matter who that is. They get to decide who's up and who's down. It's just a big game.

[Armstead]

16. You got it!

I'd add that even though they all have a sense of self-importance, they also are herd animals.

It's a strange paradox, but if they want to "stand out" they will find something counterintuitive to say, because they want to be the first to say it. But often, they go along with the standard narrative.

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. The media is a propaganda machine for the right-wing. We only

need to look at the last eight years to see that based on the stories they aired and the ones they hid.

The republicans are afraid of Clinton. They do not want her to be the next democratic candidate. And they are covering all of their bases.

Did you see the opposite pieces in NYT and Newsweek? One claiming she had her hands in everything--the bitch, and the other, that she had nothing but tea parties--the bitch.

[Beacool]

13. The media has had a love-hate relationship with the Clintons

since 1992. Hillary clearly doesn't trust the media, the few times that she opened up to them in the early years she got badly burned. She learned her lesson and considers them a necessary evil.

On the other hand, the media needs Hillary because of her mega celebrity status. Anything on Hillary sells like hot cakes. Whether as First lady, senator or now presidential candidate, the media knows that they have a winner when they air or print something on her. Therefore, they love to knock her down a few notches to pay her back for her disdain, but they won't destroy one their biggest political money makers.

[vi5]

14. It's quite simple, really....

If you're a Hillary supporter it means that the media is scared of her and that she's doing well enough to get them to attack her like this.

If you're not a Hillary supporter it means that everyone hates her and she's unelectable.

Does that answer your question?

[cali]

15. no it doesn't.

Way too simple. I think it's a complex stew of some of the things that I mentioned in my OP.

[sam sarrha]

17. noth'n new they've always been ReThug Whores

[Perry Logan]

18. The Right are just going to start DYING when Hillary takes office. That's so very sad.

[PresidentObama]

19. CNN seems to love her.

At least more than Obama, who they get mixed up with Osama.

And Edwards, who they barely ever cover unless they get something to attack him with.

[cali]

20. Edwards on the cover of Newsweek, and glowing articles about

him over the last couple of weeks is hardly ignoring him. Up until, the last couple of weeks, they did pass him over, but lately he's gotten a lot of good press on the national level. I don't watch tv so I can't really comment on that.

[PresidentObama]

21. Newsweek isn't CNN. I said CNN. Read, it helps.

And the media has ignored him up until now.

Unless of course you want to mention when they mentioned his haircuts. And his big house.

[cali]

22. why are so many Edwards supporters so defensive and overly se

sensitive? Let's hope he can handle things better than some of you.

[PresidentObama]

23. Why do so many stereotype supporters?

Hillary supporters are liars. Obama supporters are naive. Edwards supporters are sensitive.

I merely posted that I was talking about CNN. You brought up Newsweek.

Newsweek is not CNN.

CNN seems to have orgasms over Hillary every debate that occurs.

[cali]

24. Just an observation. And I didn't say all.

And as I already said, unlike you, I don't watch tv. Too many DUers like to bitch about the MSM, and they're still addicted to it.