Hillary and Obama blah blah blah....blah and Hillary and Obama

[kentuck]

Do you get the feeling that the mainstream media is attempting to name the nominee for the Democratic Party? Or do you believe what they say about Hillary and Obama? That they are the two favorites to win the nomination of the Democratic Party? Or is it that they know Hillary has a lot of money and will spend it with them? And Obama is a popular person that can get the ratings for them? What do they really know that you do not know since there has not been one primary yet? And no one knows who the people will choose as their candidate? This is nothing more than a blatant attempt by the corporate media to propagandize the voters?

[generaldemocrat]

1. Hillary probably cut a deal with Rupert Murdoch. n/t

[neoblues]

2. By Jove, Watson! Methinks You're Onto Something There...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. I Think It Makes Pretty Damn Good Logical Sense That Those Would Be The Two Getting The Most Talk.

Who wouldn't?

Since right now they are the two most likely to be competing for it, it makes perfectly logical sense that they would be the two most talked about in that context. No, that's not propaganda or some media conspiracy to choose our candidate. It's just simply plain common sense.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

7. I disagree.

Common sense? No, the media is framing this as a two horse race with 2 years until election. It is understandable that the majority of the press is directed at Clinton, but why is Obama the chosen one to oppose her?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. Because Right Now He's The Second Biggest Star. Like I Said, Common Sense.

The media is going to talk about who the biggest are at any given point in time. Right now that's Hillary and Obama, period.

If in the coming months or next year someone else steps up and becomes a top two star, they'll be talking about them as well.

As it stands right now, the two mentioned in the OP are simply the common sense logical ones to be talking about. It's called reality.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

11. Glad you can define reality for me...

:eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. It's Not Me Defining The Reality. It Is Reality Defining Reality. It Is Me Merely Stating It, And

you avoiding it.

:hi:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

14. Your smarmy attitude that what you profess is

the absolute truth is tiresome. Go away.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Like I Said: Common Sense. Sorry You Get So Offended At Opinions That Don't Align With Your Own.

But since you seem to want to refuse the reality, let me ask you: WHO is bigger than those two in the presidential arena as far as Dems are concerned right now? Tell me. Who.

If you want to deny that reality, then you have to provide at least ANY substance to refute it. Do you have any? Can you state who you think is a bigger star than either of those two? Who?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

17. You didn't voice an opinon you fool

You stated that "reality defines reality" and as such, you have perfect knowledge of what this reality is. I can debate an opinion, I cannot debate against a "God" complex. :smoke:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. I'm Not The Fool Here, Since I'm The One With The Firm Logical Grasp. You, However, Have Provided

nothing but denial, with no substance to support such denial. That may be far more considered foolish than one who states the obvious.

This is quite simply common sense. You don't think it is? Well, you could either play the role of a fool by saying so without any supporting reasons why (I've given reasons for my position, have you?), or you could put your money where your mouth is, prove you aren't a knee-jerk fool, and provide explanation for why you hold the position you have. In order to hold onto your position and overcome a status of foolish reasoning, you would have to provide an alternative to Hillary and Obama that would rank amongst democrats nationwide as more of a star than either. You would have to justify that the person you mention is of greater status and popularity than the other two. Only being able to do that would give your argument any credibility, because if you can't think of one, then it WOULD in fact be common sense and accurate that Hillary and Obama are the two biggest stars and therefore logically the ones getting the most comments.

So can you provide meat to your opinion? Or is it in fact a foolish one without any reasoning?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

20. I stated that it is not limited to a two horse race.

The top three contenders are Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Period. Now if you are interested in refuting that -- feel free to expound.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. They're Choosing To Talk About The Top Two. Makes Sense. And If Edwards Also Overtakes Obama From

a popularity standpoint, then it would be logical that they'd start talking about him more as well. But I don't really think there's any major analysts in the Dem party who truly think that Edwards has any real chance of overtaking them, especially given that he already was on the ticket last time and lost.

Maybe that will change, but I don't see it happening. In the meantime, however, it is common sense to deduce that the media would be talking about the top two in competition. Doesn't matter who they are, but it would make sense they'd be the most frequently mentioned. In this case, it's Hillary and Obama. If something changes, so too will who they talk about. For example, if Gore announced he was running all of a sudden, I bet you'd here the overwhelming majority of discussions start being about Gore vs Hillary rather than Obama. That's just the way it works.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

24. To whit...

"But I don't really think there's any major analysts in the Dem party who truly think that Edwards has any real chance of overtaking them, especially given that he already was on the ticket last time and lost."

This is exactly the point. You (or the analysts) already believe that Edwards doesn't have "any real chance". My fear here is that if an informed citizen as yourself has accepted this "reality", the MSM is only serving to enforce this perception and is therefore deciding the race before they have left the starter's gate.

My position is that I "believe" this to be a premature acceptance of who the viable candidates truly are.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. I See You Have A Hard Time Simply Accepting What Is.

For example, Edwards is only polling at 10-11% amongst Democrats. Blaming the media for that would be completely ignorant, since everyone already knows who Edwards is and he's already had a thorough campaign in which he presented himself to the American people. Since he's already that well known and still only polling about 10% right now, don't blame the media for him not being considered in the top two.

Sometimes, things are just reality. Sometimes, reality gives us details we may not be fond of. Sometimes, the reality or outcome of a situation is not what we would've liked. How do we deal with that? Simple. Get over it.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

28. Your authoritative tone

is really patronizing... "(Blaming the media for that would be completely ignorant)". I didn't blame the media for the polling numbers. I expressed my view. You counter again with your expressed view as reality again.

Rather contradictory to your bio comments "It's all about integrity, respect, honesty, decency, open mindedness, fairness, and genuine desire to wish good upon all." Not much open-mindedness in your "realities". So -- since you cannot help but subjugate others to your absolute views -- I will no longer attempt to share my views with you. I'm over you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. Try Not To Be So Sensitive About It.

A thicker skin would be useful.

For the record, if someone blamed the media for that, they would in fact be ignorant, would they not? If so, then there is nothing patronizing about it. Just merely factual as always.

Furthermore, I've done nothing more than defend my initial post's premise, and defend it well I have. I did so in a civil manner and with sound logic. The fact is, you seem to be upset because you wanted to overcome my premise and try and prove it to not be so, but I was able to defend it enough with substantial logic that you couldn't.

Just because you lost one itty bitty debate doesn't mean you have to swear away from debating next time. Like I said, thicker skin. Maybe next time your logic will be the ultimate victor in the debate. We each have our days.

Goodnight.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The media has endowed them with celebrity status.

Celebrities sell lots of toothpaste and beer.

[Subdivisions]

5. Hell, I've seen Wolf Blitzer blatantly trying to influence policy

all the way from Iraq to N. Korea, and public opinion from Wilson to Foley.

[hippiechick]

6. Yepper ... and they've anointed McCain on the other side ...

.... repeat the same lie long enough, and people will just assume its the truth.

I don't remember anyone in the media asking ME who I perfer to run for President ... yet they're already acting like it's down to the last few primaries.


:puke:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

8. Where can I nominate for a DUZY? (sp?) That is the best OP title of the day/week.

:rofl: :rofl: MKJ

[Blue_In_AK]

32. Talk to JeffR. n/t

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

42. Thanks. n/t

MKJ

[B Calm]

10. The 2008 election is a long way from now & I'm sick of all this. We

have a lot of work to do and who's running in 2008 is the last of my concerns!

[spanone]

29. I agree. Other than 24 soldiers killed in Iraq, it's a slow news weekend.

:sarcasm:

[mwb970]

34. At least they are talking about Democrats.

Imagine what we would be saying if it were McCain and Romney, McCain and Romney, blah blah blah....

[Junkdrawer]

12. The Corporate Media plan for 2008...

[Junkdrawer]

40. A little taste of September 2008 (Assuming Hillary wins the nomination)....

Now, I have contributed to a handful of political campaigns, and I gave to Hillary's campaign in 2000. I also make it no secret that I think that a Hillary nomination for President in 2008 would be a disaster. Of all the things in Hillary's past, this seems the hardest to explain away:

In January 1996, a long sought-after copy of billing records from the Rose Law Finn were identified and turned over to prosecutors by Carolyn Huber, a White House assistant to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ms. Huber, herself a former Rose Law Firm employee, recognized the records and realized that they had been among papers that she had removed six months earlier from the First Lady's book room on the third floor of the White House.

The mysterious appearance of the billing records, which had been the specific subject of various investigative subpoenas for two years, sparked intense interest about how they surfaced and where they had been. Shortly after the discovery of the records, Hillary Clinton made history -- she became the only First Lady ever called to testify before a Grand Jury inquiry.



What They Reveal

Ms. Clinton and her attorney have stated publicly that the billing records confirm that, as an attorney at the Rose Firm in the mid-80's, she was not significantly involved in the representation of Jim McDougal's savings and loan, Madison Guaranty.

According to the Rose records, Hillary Clinton billed Madison for 60 hours of work over a 15 month period. Ms. Clinton's attorney argues that this represents a de minimus amount of work and includes billings for work performed by Rose Finn lawyers working for Hillary Clinton at the time.

But Whitewater investigators believe that the billing records show significant representation. They argue that the records prove that Ms. Clinton was not only directly involved in the representation of Madison, but more specifically, in providing legal work on the fraudulent Castle Grande land deal.

....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/docs/recs.html

Now, as I said, I gave Hillary money after I learned of this and, frankly, I could give a shit about Whitewater. But I guarantee you the Corporate Media will run this shit NON-STOP. And where I think it backfired on Bill, it will be used to "explain" Hillary's "sudden fall in the polls."

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

44. This post is so incredibly full of BS that it's almost mind numbing.

Woo Hoo you are my first ignore with new features!!!! MKJ

[kentuck]

16. It's also a not-so-subtle way to divide the Party....

Name favorites, choose sides, fight over who's the best, and by the time someone else is nominated, the Party is divided into about 4 or 5 camps, is the reality.

[Evoman]

19. This isn't going to make me popular, but.....

Senators = almost never win

Woman = has never won, too many sexists.

Black man = has never won, to many racists.

If you want a candidate that probably won't win = Woman Senator, Black Senator.

The media is not on your side.


Just to prevent people calling me name....I think that both of these candidates are good people, and...hell, maybe they even have a chance. But if the republicans run either a black man or a woman, I would be suprised.

[HughMoran]

21. Nope - face the fact that they are a good judge of popularity

Like it or not, the other candidates have MUCH bigger flaws than Hillary & Obama. The media is not so biased as we are and can easily see why Hillary and Obama poll higher than the rest. Oh, and the polls really do speak for the masses - like it or not.

You act as if polls and common sense cannot influence the media - yet the polls are just a scientific sample of our opinions and I tend to easily see why people feel this way about these two. It's not propaganda when these two ARE INDEED the favorites to win. You and I may not like it, but it is indeed true.

[kentuck]

23. Try these new CrackerJacks !

They have more caramel.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

25. .

:rofl: :popcorn:

[HughMoran]

30. So only the media influences people?

Then tell me how Obama became so popular so fast?

I say it was his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

Got a smart ass snide remark for that?



How about the fact that Hillary was the First Lady for 8 years - think the media made that up too?

Another snide remark I'm sure...

[kentuck]

33. You're just begging for a "block", aren't you?

:) Well, you're not getting it...

[HughMoran]

35. lol - so disagreeing here will now bring out the "I'll block you" threat??

Very mature of you - no, extremely mature.

Sorry DU - you've blown it.

[kentuck]

36. Insert "snide" remark below :

....*....er....

[HughMoran]

37. lol

Too late

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

38. I can't believe you chose HughMoran as a screen name. n/t

MKJ

[HughMoran]

47. This is HUGH!!!!

:rofl:

[madrchsod]

26. e-x-a-c-t-l-y.....

falling for bullshit stories from right wing hack writers. i`ll wait till next year to get excited about who`s on first especially when the stories are right wing diversion from the war,health care,and jobs.

[johnfunk]

31. But... but... but... what about Obama and Hillary?

Just askin'

[hedgehog]

39. Right or wrong, they're the flavor of the week.

The media won't be able to keep them in the spot light unless they provide some news as the race goes on. I wouldn't put too much importance in poll results right now since I suspect that they are measuring name recognition more than anything else.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

41. What We Know Is 'Hillary Wants to Be President' By What Means:

I think that the Hillary, Hillary, Hillary in 2008 is actually being floated and kept alive by the Republicans and their MSM. She is their dream candidate, and, I think, unelectable. Senator Clinton rode the Iraq war hysteria past its expiration date and will now have a tricky time retreating from what virtually all progressives three years ago saw as a long-term, politically foolish position. What further confirmation that the Republicans are Hillary's chief supporters for president than having Fox News' Rupert Murdock give a fund raiser for Senator Clinton? Aren't the reasons for this obvious?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

43. That picture says it all, doesn't it?

MKJ

edited to add, and Murdoch's support, as well. MKJ

[porphyrian]

45. It's called "framing," and they've been doing it for years now.

The fact that we're talking about the election rather than the accomplishments of our new Congress and the results of the various investigations speaks to their success, if minor and fleeting.

[WI_DEM]

48. they are excited about the possibility of a historic first: woman or African-American.

[tjwash]

49. I get the feeling that they proactively bashing the candidates...

...that they are most afraid of. In this case it is them. Don't forget that the corporate media's job is to keep the status quo. The status quo in our case would be McCain or Guliani; or as I refer to them...the "empty suits du-jour."