A Perennial Press Opera

the clintons are criminals , that is the reason they receive negative press!!

The press is more and more proving that what you hear or read in the news just isn't the reality of the situation no matter what the subject. The press spins everything to get a story whether is it responsible reporting or not really does not matter. What happened to the true reporters? Todays reporters just can't measure up and it is definately the case again with the Clinton's. Poor reporters could not handle Hillary in the white house. You all need to get into a new line of work!!

Watch the hilarious spoof Hillary DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGMgxFE6bms

You guys got to be kidding. I take Newsweek and have twice tried to cancell, but to no avail. If you follw the last six weeks and don't notice the bias, then you must be blind. The bias did not stop there, but went to NBC and MSNBC, all affilates of one company. MSNBC has had to apoligize twice to the Clinton women for horrible remarks. The media should be neutral and I don't blame the Clinton's for pointing out your shortcomings.

Rioting in the streets if we do not apply affirmative action to the Presidency? OMG!
The perfect storm continues to brew toward the total destruction of the Democratic Party
A divided and fractured party in a divided and fractured country.
Obama talks about post partisan politics, yet his candidacy has ignited the exact opposite.
I guess if I believed he actually could change politics, unite the country and heal the world...

But I am a realist who prefers to believe the candidate who talks of change I can believe in! Opps that is Obama's line! Line of BS that is. lol

The press certainly does have a negative bias slant against Hillary Clinton. The general public has no time to read an article or research an issue thoroughly. Instead they rely on a few snipets, a headline, an unflattering (or flattering) photograph and they think they see the whole picture. It's really a shame. Hillary Clinton is by FAR the most qualified, intelligent, compassionate candidate and she has been unfairly reemed and subtlely undminded by the press. We Americans deserve better from the media so that we vote without biased influences.

Why dosen't the press do what they are supposed to do ? Digging up dirt on political candidates should be left to the campaigns themselves. Why isn't the press trying to find out where all the wasteful spending is in the government? What happened to all of the money that was donated to the people of New Orleans? It is my understanding that there was enough money donated and sent there by the federal government to make every citizen of New Orleans a millionaire. Now something like that would be news worthy. I could care less what is going on with Paris Hilton or Paul Mc Arthy's divorces. It is really hard for me to watch the news anymore.

For many years now I have been concerned with the news media, especially television, not accepting the responsibility to be fair arbitrators of information. Ratings and entertainment are more important than educating the electorate.
I now feel manipulated so the press can have a horse race. Any objective analysis of political news coverage will show the so called "free press" is stumping for Obama. Pay particular attention to the graphics during election coverage emphasizing Obama wins. The legitimate issue of qualification and competence to be POTUS is being ignored and discouraged. Chris Matthews (Feb.9) had a guest, who happens to be black, say he questions Obama as a "viable and serious" candidate; they could not get his face off the screen fast enough, the same for the other guy who try to say it was silly to believe polls today can tell what will happen in November. My question is do you think this will continue through November? Will the news machine try to salvage credibility?

Interesting explanation for teh obvious dumping the media gave Hillary after Obama starting winning primaries. But of course it is not true that the media have dug into Obama's thin record. And now is the time it should happen, not after he is elected. Where, indeed, is politcy analysis of Obama's rhetoric? I don't see it on the TV news or in high profile MSNBC stories. Where the screaming headline: "Candidate is all talk" or "Where's the beef?". Where is the exposure of Obama's socialist ideology rather than his "rock star" personality?

Here is some tning which may explain Clinton leads in places like Texas evaporating. The women who were once loyal to her are succumbing to Obama fever.

I was once part of a group report in a social psychology class on experiments which showed discrimination can be based both on race and gender, but gender discrimination was much more acceptable. Not only acceptable to be displayed or voiced, but also acceptable as a personally held belief. There is much less internal discord and pressure to change if no word (like racism) is in our consciousness to accuse. Also, women displayed much more bias against other women than between any other group. Sexist is not a name women fear being called.
One interesting experiment studied helping behavior between pairs which were either male or female and assigned either leader or helper roles. The resulting four "types" were presented with a situation in which a pencil caddy was knocked over by another "type" and they had to choose to help or not. One of my female co-reporters put the results this way: "We suck up to the male bosses and like women in subservient roles."
The female leader was by far the least likely to be helped out during the contrived/planned event and least well thought of when their helper was interviewed. Again, this was the case regardless of helper gender. Females are the only ones which accept; make that "tolerate", discrimination even within their own group.
My conclusion is polling and anecdotal evidence will be skewed. Racism hides in the shadows while sexism will be overrepresented. Comments I have heard on blogs and personally indicate a concern our international standing will be affected by electing either a woman or black man as president. As expected, much less fervor and resistance against the sexist viewpoint

I encourage all to watch over and over the image of John McCain with George Bush, the first. The heat of anger so often generated in various blogs for or against Hillarry or Barrack needs to be tempered by thinking seriously about the mistake of refusing to vote for one or the other of the Democratic candidates. They are both good candidates. We cannot afford to shoot ourselves in the foot once again. We cannot afford giving the country another republican presidency or majority in the congress. The future of our country is a stake. Calm the emotions. These candidates are not to die for or to leave the party for. They are human. They will and have made mistakes and have poor judgement. I'd prefer the poor judgement of Barrack or Hillary over John McCain and four more years of catering to the right wing conservatives. VOTE DEMOCRAT AND VOTE OFTEN!

This is a great game of psychology.No wonder the media offers free media campaigning to Barack,.. Well, who doesnot. I am sure I'd be involved in a gossip about a new restaurant in the city and would definitely want to try it and discuss it more often out of curiosity.. This is Human tendency and Barrack would be history if someone new joins the game in four years and he'd probaly have similar issues that Hillary has at present..

We all know its not going to be easy to meet with all the public demands. Although both D. candidates promise a lot, its not going to be easy and somehow I am reminded of the saying "To win, you ought to lose something". The Americans are going to have a tough time with something else.. it could be as simple as High taxes. The Current gov.t has left behind a debt in billions of US $. Who'd pay this back and how? Especially after catering to the current demands of the people and with an ongoing war.

Barack speaks so well, I am often inclined towards him.. great vision, hope and optimism. Moreover he is frank many times. good weapon. I am sure if his plans do not succeed or if he has a difficult time in the Presidents chair.. he'd raise his hands in front of the American public and divert the issue using a speech about "Unity in hard times".. However this is not what we expect of the Candidate now.. We need someone who understands the game of politics, who is seasoned, knows where the pits are and this is one reason, why Hillary seems better. Obama nees to season a little more and I personally would not appreciate if he's trying to do that on the highest and the most important position at this time

I am still amazed by her standing and hope to see a Clinton win the nomination. If Barack does.. I am ure Mccain will be teh President

This is a great game of psychology.No wonder the media offers free media campaigning to Barack,.. Well, who doesnot. I am sure I'd be involved in a gossip about a new restaurant in the city and would definitely want to try it and discuss it more often out of curiosity.. This is Human tendency and Barrack would be history if someone new joins the game in four years and he'd probaly have similar issues that Hillary has at present..

We all know its not going to be easy to meet with all the public demands. Although both D. candidates promise a lot, its not going to be easy and somehow I am reminded of the saying "To win, you ought to lose something". The Americans are going to have a tough time with something else.. it could be as simple as High taxes. The Current gov.t has left behind a debt in billions of US $. Who'd pay this back and how? Especially after catering to the current demands of the people and with an ongoing war.

Barack speaks so well, I am often inclined towards him.. great vision, hope and optimism. Moreover he is frank many times. good weapon. I am sure if his plans do not succeed or if he has a difficult time in the Presidents chair.. he'd raise his hands in front of the American public and divert the issue using a speech about "Unity in hard times".. However this is not what we expect of the Candidate now.. We need someone who understands the game of politics, who is seasoned, knows where the pits are and this is one reason, why Hillary seems better. Obama nees to season a little more and I personally would not appreciate if he's trying to do that on the highest and the most important position at this time

I am still amazed by her standing and hope to see a Clinton-Obama ticket

Here's an interesting excerpt from the WSJ about this issue of whether or not Obama has any substance:

"The argument over style versus substance makes Sen. Clinton a little like the car dealer trying to persuade a buyer that the solid but somewhat staid sedan she offers is a better bet than the sexy but potentially unreliable sports car available down the street. More important, though, are the two serious issues that lie behind the tussle: whether Sen. Obama is offering only style, and whether that really matters.

If you're willing to look, there's a substantial amount of substance behind that Obama style. For starters, explore the Obama campaign Web site, and you'll find the standard array of campaign-issue papers on the economy, health care, Iraq and foreign policy. And now, the Obama campaign managers are responding to Sen. Clinton's criticism by highlighting and, well, beefing up those position papers.

The latest example came last week, when Sen. Obama gave a speech in Wisconsin on his economic positions, accompanied by a six-page, single-spaced summary. The Obama plan, much of which had been presented previously, includes a universal mortgage-interest credit, a $500 middle-class tax credit and $150 billion in spending over 10 years on alternative-energy research and development."

I've said before that this is a specious argument on the part of Hillary Clinton; the presence of "lofty rhetoric" does not equal the absence of substance, this is the logical fallacy that she's using. If she wants to show that Obama has no substance, she has to look at his position on the issues and show that they are insubstantial. She can't because she knows that they aren't because she's even borrowed some of his ideas on the issues.

I too am tired of the media and the way they cater to Obama - I have always voted as a democrat but if Obama wins I will vote Republican - I don't feel he has the experience to deal with other nations. He whines when Hillary questions him and tries to pin him down on specifics - how will he handle foreign affairs. This is not a movie where a man gets elected and goes in and changes everything in two hours. He has to know how to navigate the system that has been in place for years. Don't get me wrong its a nice concept but reality is one man cannot change everything and lets be real do you think the Republicans are going to be hypnotized by him. He is calling for change which could mean everyone up for re election should be out and new people should come in - that could mean a Senate and House full of Republicans. And the fight goes on and no one wins.

After Obama gets the nomination maybe New Yorkers will WAKE UP and elect a native New Yorker as their Senator and maybe... just maybe, and hopefully, the Clinton's will go AWAY for good.

The media has creamed themselves over Obama....and he has yet to be really tested on anything. I do not think he could hold up to the republican spin machine in a national election. We already know all the bad stuff about Clinton..I mean c'mon how many times are they gonna talk about Bill? But Obama ...from plagarism now, to rumors of gay sex and drugs on the internet....The republicans will have a field day.
The Obama supporters mean spiritedness towards Hillary has turned me off to him and I am sure others in the party as well. I would be hard pressed to vote for him in a national election.
NOBAMA!