Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Any Du'ers tired of the Clinton/Obama media BLITZ

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:15 AM
Original message
Any Du'ers tired of the Clinton/Obama media BLITZ
I know i am JESUS CHRIST!!!! enough already.the08 election is more than a year and a half away and these pundits are covering 08 as if it's this year. by the time people vote on there favorite most will be tired and exhausted of both Hillary and Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yes. I like all the potential candidates and wish attention were spread around. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Agreed. It's great that those 2 are getting air time, but
it could be distributed among several others, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. I was tired of it a long time ago. The media is forcing those two
down our throats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. acmaum i agree 100% with you the media is trying to make us Progressives vote...
for either of those two and leaving out all other candidates which in my opinion is DISRESPECTFUL of the other people running
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. And disrespctful of the democratic processes of the Republic.
Oh, wait -- of, course, what am I thinking? It's the corporate media, serving the agenda of its masters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. one should ponder WHY are these two candidates being shoved down
our throats by the lapdog media.

although I think both are certainly qualified, if you agree with their politics, but the need for the republicans, the media, and the DLC to keep pushing these two is interesting.

Imagine you are a backwash (probably racist and misogynist) republican. who are the two candidates you're least likely to support? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. period.

If the touted candidate were Wesley Clark, just as an example, the republican/media propaganda conglomerate would have to work harder to get their base to hate him.

With Hillary, its a given that republicans (for whatever reason) hate Hillary and Barack with the intensity of a thousand burning suns. If the republicans can get us to choose either or both of them, their work is done (in their view).

I would rather the primary process proceed as normal, and allow the citizenry to determine who the "front runners" are. I am not comfortable with the complicit media, the neocons or the DLC telling me who I should consider the front runner is at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #10
34. I agree completely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
capi888 Donating Member (819 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
40. agree totally...
I guess they think the American People are all stupid, and if they crown...Hillary and Obama, we will automatically vote for their pick...so the Pugs will win.
I personally don't want to hear for the next 2 years the recap of the Clinton escapade episode OR how Obama is inexperienced...I really like them both...and I want to HEAR, what ALL would do to get us on the right track, not garbage and video's degrading ANY candidate. The Repugs, prolly have their attack all lined up for : Hillary and Obama..I hate the MSM for being paid off by the Cabal in the WH...to effect the elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
42. One thing's certain
if Wes Clark announces, he'll get exactly 5 minutes of coverage on the corporate news machine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #42
56. Stop your exaggerations!
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 02:05 PM by Auntie Bush
He'll probably realistically will get at least 2 minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. My thoughts exactly ...
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 09:40 AM by primative1
It sure seems like the media is intent on choosing who we get to pick from. Makes you think the corprocrats might just be a tad afraid of the rest of the pack.
Here's hoping someone emerges and that the media doesnt destroy them the same way they destroyed Dean in 04.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INdemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
5. Its all just media wishful thinking
But it is having an effect..I know die hard Democrats that have bought into the Obama thing..What are they saying.."Well Obama is probably gonna win because thats what they're(the media)saying"...... thats just the way people think.
I guess we can just save the money and skip the primaries in 2008 and just nominate Obama at the convention and be done with it...And think of all the millions the other candidates will save..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
7. Conservative Democrats will always be media darlings
as long as the media stay corporatized and nearly monopolized. Don't EVER expect them to give Kucinich a break. Hell, don't bother expecting a positive story on Edwards, either.

The reporting is dismal, what I've seen of it when I've tuned in expecting the local weather forecast. It's tabloid "will he or won't he? Does she or doesn't she?" garbage with absolutely no focus on just why any of them is running and what might change under even the most conservative Democratic administration.

The glimpses I've gotten have convinced me to keep the set resolutely OFF during the nightly propaganda hours. They really have gotten awful, just pro war propaganda and treating politics like celebrity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Well, since both of them are among the top progressive Democrats in the Senate
I guess you'll have to come up with another excuse as to why they're media darlings, Warpy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. there' nothing PROGRESSIVE about Hillary she goes which way the wind blows
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. her objection to the Iraq war was it was run incompetently, not that it was
a war crime to be there in the first place.

I do not consider anyone who does not avocate withdrawal from Iraq as progressive.

I believe the problem is that DLC defines "progressive" in a more conservative way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. Nice spin, BigD. Hillary just happens to rank in the top 10% of Progressive Senators
so your statement that there's nothing progressive about her is simply blabbergiddlygop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. so why is she calling for afghan troop level increase and a "sustainable"
force in Iraq? Is that a progressive stand?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2692485&mesg_id=2692485

methinks you must have a different definition of "progressive" than I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Oh c'mon. Most of our "favorite" Dems are calling for redeployment to Afghanistan
not just Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Let's see ... she's opposed to the surge in Iraq
and proposes more troops in Afghanistan where there is a Taliban resurgence and a thriving opium crop.

I doubt seriously there is anything HRC could do that would not be mischaracterized and eviscerated here on DU. The inequity in the way she is treated is just appalling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #23
31. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the inequity in how she's treated
here. The people who scream the most about her are often the same ones who rant and rave about their own special interest or two, instead of being willing to compromise on ALL the issues, as most Democrats in mainstream America seem willing to do.

Hillary is doing just fine with her views on Iraq, yet people here are still going to take her to task no matter what she does because they have an ingrained disliking for her for being too "centrist" in their opinion.

Tomorrow Hillary could tell Bush to his face that his policies suck and that he ought to withdraw all the troops, and people here would say she did it for political purposes only.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. character assasination of other DUer's for no reason.
If a DUer criticizes a candidate, that's fine, but you seem intent on attacking other DUers.

at any rate, further down, you'll see I point out my understanding was based on a link that appears to have taken Ms. Clinton's comments out of context. As such, I will admit to being mistaken.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. Character assassination of candidates by using negative phrases out of context
is what we're talking about here.

As far as any character assassination of other DU'ers, it's not character assassination if it's true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. which "favorite" dems are calling for a sustainable retention of forces in
Iraq?

and why would that be a progressive stand?


nice sidestep of the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. At least put this "sustainable retention" thing in the full text in which it was said
Link please, so I can better understand where she's coming from with this "sustainable retention" thing you're talking about.

Also, show me any other Democratic candidate who's called for anything that's the opposite of what you're accusing Hillary of in Iraq. Immediate withdrawal of all the troops is the only thing that wouldn't call for any kind of temporary retention of troops in Iraq, and I haven't heard a peep from any of them (candidates) who've called for immediate withdrawal of ALL the troops. Most are talking a phased withdrawal, and just a few days ago, Hillary said Bush should start thinking about withdrawal as opposed to a surge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. I DID provide a link in the previous post, however, it appears the link
in that thread tooks some things she said out of context. My understanding was based on the original link, which if so, means I was mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. I'm glad you admitted your mistake here & in post #33, which clears Hillary
As so often happens around here (call it character assassination all you want), phrases are used out of context to take unfair shots at certain candidates.

At least you admitted your mistake. thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #36
50. your welcome. I guess I'll not get an apology for character assasination, tho
but whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. No problem & I'm sorry if you were offended
by my post. I didn't think it could be considered character assassination, but I'm not gonna argue about it for now. Don't have time...just enough time to say I apologize to you for any of my generalizations that might have offended you personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #19
37. Not according to my calculations
Harkin (Iowa) 82.75862069
Boxer (California) 82.75862069
Feingold (Wisconsin) 82.75862069
Kennedy (Massacheusetts) 77.5862069
Corzine (New Jersey) now Gov. 76.66666667
Lautenberg (New Jersey) 75.86206897
Durbin (Illinois) 75.86206897
Akaka (Hawaii) 75.86206897
Sarbanes (Maryland) 72.4137931
Kerry (Massacheusetts) DLC 70.68965517
Leahy (Vermont) 70.68965517
Levin (Michigan) 68.96551724
Mikulski (Maryland) 68.96551724
Reed (Rhode Island) 68.96551724
Biden (Deleware) 67.24137931
Dodd (Connecticut) 65.51724138
Wyden (Oregon) 65.51724138
Dayton (Minnesota) 65.51724138
Obama (Illinois) 63.79310345
Bayh (Indiana) DLC 60.34482759
Murray (Washington) 60.34482759
Schumer (New York) DLC 58.62068966
Inouye (Hawaii) DLC 56.89655172
Bingaman (New Mexico) 56.89655172
Dorgan (North Dakota) DLC 55.17241379
Reid (Nevada) 55.17241379
Byrd (West Virginia) 55.17241379
Clinton (New York) DLC 53.44827586
Menendez (New Jersey) DLC 50
Cantwell (Washington) DLC 48.27586207
Stabenow (Michigan) DLC 46.55172414
Kohl (Wisconsin) DLC 44.82758621
Feinstein (California) DLC 44.82758621
Leiberman (Connecticut) DLC 44.82758621
Rockefeller (West Virginia) 41.37931034
Conrad (North Dakota) DLC 41.37931034
Baucus (Montana) DLC 39.65517241
Carper (Deleware) DLC 34.48275862
Johnson (South Dakota) DLC 31.03448276
Lincoln (Arkansas) DLC 31.03448276
Salazar (Colorado) DLC 24.13793103
Pryor (Arkansas) DLC 22.4137931
Nelson (Florida) DLC 20.68965517
Landrieu (Louisianna) DLC 17.24137931
Nelson (Nebraska) DLC 3.448275862


The top 10% of progressive Senators are Harkin, Boxer, Kennedy, Feingold, and Lautenberg. Only 5 can make the top 10%.

Clinton is far from that number. In th last congress, her vote on big issues was not much higher than 50% progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. Your calculations are wrong. Clinton & Obama are way above your linkless data.
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 11:32 AM by mtnsnake
Both of them have progressive scores of 91%, and they rank higher than some of the ones on your list by a longshot. Clinton and Obama are ranked higher than Feingold and Kerry, among many others, so next time you make calculations, you need to sharpen that pencil of yours.

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. Progressive punch uses a different methodology
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 12:26 PM by Zodiak Ironfist
I only focus on bill passage and nominations, not amendments and non-binding resolutions. I post them here every three months for all to see and comment on my methodology. My pencil is sharp enough.

ADA and Progressive punch both produce wonky results that do not pass the "gut check". As an example, ADA rated Feinstein as more progressive than Boxer, and as you were kind enough to point out, Progressive punch says that Feingold is more conservative than Clinton. Neither of which are ostensibly true. After reveiwing their methods, I can see that counting issues more than once across multiple categories and counting non-risky votes introduced a sampling bias.

Tell you what...you rely one someone else to do your homework for you ,and I will continue to do the work myself with a methodology that I freely-publish and understand fully. Just understand that those organizations that you cite have wonky results that do not jibe with the politics we see cross this board every day. That is what prompted me to do the work in the first place...I wanted to see if I got the same results...I didn't.

If you really want to launch a criticism on my methods, you should read my journal so you are familiar with them rather than point out that I am wrong because my method garners different results than "progressive punch". Then you are in a better position than just arguing as an appeal to the authority of some website, which is a logical fallacy if done without specific evidence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. Zodiac...the key here is they are your calculations...
I like what you do, but this is your judgement about which issues are considered progressive...it would help if you could post your criteria (as you have done before I know), so people can see where you derive your ratings from.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. At some point, judgement comes in
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 12:30 PM by Zodiak Ironfist
Even for "official sites" that are scoring voting records. No one method is perfect, and a discrepancy between results actually is revealing (why do some Senators look progressive until you distill their votes on bill passages?).

As an example in my own work, I had to decide whether it was "progrssive" for a Senator to stand up for the voters in Ohio who were disenfranchised in 2004. It was the very first vote I counted.

In the end, I decided that those that did stand up for Ohio voting rights should get the credit, so I determined that a senator gets a 10 for voting to not certify the vote, a "5" for giving a speech in support of Ohio voters, and zero for sitting on their butts and doing nothing. That one vote hurt a LOT of senators (not Clinton or Obama, though, who gave a speech in support of Boxer's effort), but I counted it.

That was one of the votes that garnered special rules.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Zodiak%20Ironfist

Here are the 29 issues that I scored (and how I felt the issue should be voted on):
------------------------------------------
Condi confirm (nay)
Gonzales Confirm (nay)
class action law (nay)
bankruptcy bill (nay)
confirm negroponte (nay)
energy bill (nay)
CAFTA (nay)
CAFTA (2nd vote) (nay)
ohiovote (no to certification, 5 points for at least giving a speech)
firearm manufacturer immunity (nay)
confirmation of radical judges (gang of 14 = 5 pts, voting for one or more of these judges 0)
tax relief act of 2005 (tax cuts for rich) (nay)
deficit reconciliation act (spending cuts for poor) (nay)
Alito cloture (nay)
Alito nomination (nay)
Tax cut protection (favor the rich) (nay)
Extend Patriot Act (nay)
Raise limit on public debt (nay)
Flag burning Amendment (nay)
US-Oman FTA (nay)
Roberts Confirmation (nay)
Gates' confirmation (nay)
Atomic cooperation w/ India (nay)
Border Fence (nay)
Military Commissions act (nay)
Pension protection act (nay...not sure about this one, actually..Feingold and Boxer voted nay)
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (nay)
Child Insterstate Abortion Notification Act (nay)
Stem Cell Enhancement Act (yeah)

If you would like to read on my methods, just click on my journal...it is practically the only thing in my journal. I would love to post them here, but I do not wish for this thread to get hijacked by a discussion of my scoring rules. Sufficed to say, the assertion that Clinton is in the top 10% of our senators progressively does not jibe at all with my results. She is not a conservative, but she should not be painted as our most liberal, either.

She is almost dead-center in the party.

As an aside, I am excited about scoring a Democratic majority for once. I am hoping that the results for the 110th Congress are radically different than the 109th. The 109th was really depressing.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Thanks for posting this...
I appreciate the hard work and thought that goes into it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Thanks.
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 12:43 PM by Zodiak Ironfist
And I still say it was the greatest poltical educational experience I ever underwent. It only takes about 8 hours.

EVERYONE should be doing this according their their own personal barometer, in my opinion. It should not be done with an agenda, but it can be used to formulate an agenda and have evidence to back it.

The exercise lessened my admittedly knee-jerk negative reaction of Hillary (based on reading too many blogs) and endeared me to John Kerry (despite his DLC ties). It also introduced me to many progressive Senators who are not practically furniture in a television studio (Like Harkin). On the negative side, it let me know exactly how bad some of our Senators actually are (like the two Nelsons and Landrieu) when it comes to supporting progressive legislation.

In short, it helped me wade through a lot of BS and to ground myself politically. I know where I stand.

That's my pitch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
25. Progressive?
Hardly, both are liberals who will knuckle under to corporate pressure.

The way Obama especially is presenting himself is terribly disappointing.

These two are progressive like the present administration is conservative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
9. let's do the math
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 09:37 AM by AtomicKitten
HRC went to Iraq and Obama is getting ready to announce his candidacy for 2008.

Hmmmm. Sounds about right to me.

What's up with the sour grapes? I'm sure when the candidate you prefer does something newsworthy, the media will notice.
I promise not to complain when that happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
14. Whom Gods Destroy...
how did that go?.. they exhalt first?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
15. That's what happens when you're as likable & charismatic as Hillary & Obama are.
Hey, the media is the media, and they're not gonna waste as much time on someone who's as stale as an 8 week loaf of bread. That's why they'd rather give Hillary and Obama twice the coverage, especially Obama, because those two light up the TV screen and invigorate people twice as much or more...as opposed to some of the other candidates who put the TV viewers to sleep, zzzzzzz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INdemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
16. This media blitz is perhaps working
I have heard some Democrats remark to the effect that perhaps we should just forget the primaries and nominate Obama at the convention..The media might be pushing for Obama because they think that Repubs can defeat inexperienced candidate.Just think of all the millions the other candidates would save........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Think Of All The Votes It Would "Save" Too
Maybe we should dispense with voting altogether? Sheesh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nevergiveup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
18. Count me an exception.
I think it is cool when a Democrat gets a media blitz. Chimpy and Pickles and Condi have been the darlings of the media for so long I find it refreshing when someone like Obama gets some attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Connie_Corleone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
20. Well, the same thing happened with Dean in 2003.
So, I'm sure people here will be glad when the media turns on Clinton and Obama and character assassinates them. You won't have to worry about the media talking about them anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
26. Nope. It's good news for us. Only Republicans should be tired of it.
It creates the aura of inevitability about a Dem win. Even if the public gets tired of Clinton and Obama by 2008, they are given the "conventional wisdom" that the Republicans are through, and they are reminded that the Republicans only have left-over, lightweight candidates to offer. It's all good for the Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
27. No. I think neither has faced the cameras and serious questions ENOUGH at this point.
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 10:10 AM by blm
I would like to hear them really put through the paces and answering serious questions with detailed answers and for them to do so FREQUENTLY. If they can get through that with only a handful of verbal slip ups, then they'll be ready for what they will really be facing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
28. It's always like this...
The MSM and most political junkies like the horse race mentality for presidential races. Frontrunners come and go, usually with targets on their heads... the political highway is littered with the skeletons of frontrunners declared in the infancy of presidential elections.

President Wallace?
President Dewey?
President Muskie?
President McCarthy?
President McCain?
President Hart?
President Cuomo?
President Gephardt?
President Kemp?
President Lieberman?












Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
29. I am not, love to follow the debates.....nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. I just wish more were allowed to participate in it!
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 11:11 AM by FrenchieCat
I do believe that Clinton, Obama as well as Edwards have been put out there as our frontrunners....while others are ignored. Guess it will take Iowa to speak for us, which I also have a problem with because it is only one state.

Which the fairness doctrine would come back from the grave and provide guidance of equal news coverage for those candidates once they announce or something!

I also notice that the media doesn't really dwell so much on the other side; the Repugs. Sure that might be a lack of excitability, but more than likely, pundits respect the Republican establishment enough to allow it to make up its own mind in due time....which I wish we were also allowed.

Plus the debate we are hearing about doesn't seem to be so much on the issues as much as the foregone conclusion as to who will be in the horserace. Hope we hear much more on the issues soon, cause many don't know where any of these candidates really stand in any detail, nor do they know what positions they have taken on various issues any further than yesterday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
41. Not at all...
I love Politics...not too soon to get into 2008...

Hillary and Obama are the top dogs right now...I don't mind they are all over the news at all...

The more they are on the bettter for Democrats...comparing our candidates to the dolt in office only enhances our chances next year!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
44. Yes. I long for the days of the constant bashing of Democrats
Its a real drag have two shinining stars of your party be the focus of media adolation while the opposition party struggles to get ink with an old war hero and "america's mayor" both former media darlings themselves.

I miss it when the introduction of Howard Dean to most of America being his infamous "scream"

How dare they do puff pieces extolling the greatness of two Democrats!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Byron Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
45. I'm sick of it
Both are bags of hot air, blowing with the wind as some other posters say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
47. It feels like 2003 all over again:
United States: US Elections 2004: Conservative Democrat Lieberman Leads in
National Polls

Gallup Organization Poll, 26 June 2003: Lieberman front-runner with 20%, Gephardt
(15%), Kerry 13%, Sharpton and Edwards (7%), and Dean 6%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
53. I don't want either of them as our candidate...
...and I too am tired of the media hype. Hopefully, they'll both burn out before it really matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
54. I'm tired of being in constant campaign mode....
For Christ's sake, we used to get almost a year off before we started the next election cycle. Gawd, we at least waited until Labor Day.

This is getting in-fucking-sane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
57. You rather hear more about McCain and RudyG?
Turn off your tv.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
58. Hillary's back from Iraq. A majority of bloggers are interested in what she has to say.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Feb 12th 2025, 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC