Quantcast
 
 
 
Top Story
As His 200th Birthday Looms, Lincoln Industry Cranks
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
Tenn. GOP mocks Michelle Obama's 'proud' remark
 
 
expand
MEDIA

Push Us Around at Your Peril

By Deidre Depke | NEWSWEEK
Mar 17, 2008 Issue

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: Rogers_mb @ 04/02/2008 4:50:45 AM

    Comment: Funny, I just came upon this one... Does anyone remember that the Republican Party of Lincoln was the Party to end slavery? Doe anyone remeber their history and that the DEMOCRATS were against abolition? My point? Party means nothing and the Demoncrats are not the "cool" party. Either John McCain, OR Al Gore would have made a better president the last eight years, and if the Democrats had perhaps nominated John Edwards in 2004 instead of a Douche Bag ( or was he the giant turd...I forget ) they would have taken back the white house. I voted for Bush in 2004 sadly, but will vote for Barack Obama, I hope, because Hillary Clinton is not ENTITLED to the White House. The woman is blue blood in every cell of her body, she only cares about saying what people want to hear to get what she wants but her true self in a snide whiny liar ( I hears the bullets whizzing past me" umm or was that one orf my daydreams of granduer... ) The is a big business blue blood lawyer through and through. Elect her and she will intentionally scr*w the middle class. Bush just was incompetant and let it happen, she could care less about the middle class. Typical Democrat do goody for projects the middle class taxpayer shoulders while she congratulates herself for being a hero, and that dont save the poor. The poor need training and jobs, and we need better access to education for American Citizens of all races and fewer non citizens sitting in the classrooms of US Colleges. 50% of our students arent graduating from High School let alone college. This is a crisis. This needs to be fixed. MIddle income Americans need transition skills and technical and industrial jobs to maintain middle class status. No more rhetoric filled speeches. "I believe in change" ummmm "I'm a better leader at 3am" . We need more than HOT AIR soundbites, we need a plan to turn america around. Hillary wont do that. She is as much an old boy as Bush, just on the other side of the aisle. And do you think she and Putin will be fast friends? She push the military button, albeit in smaller doses, faster than any male, just to prove she can. One person does not run this country. It takes a machine. Obama is an intelligent man, and would be surrounded by intelligent people BUT he would bring younger ideas and politics to the white house. Wake up and stop bickering and think about what is best for america for the next 8 years. Hillary's high profile white house divorce when she catches bill doing another strumpet? I dont think so.

  • Posted By: harriet mandriani @ 03/14/2008 5:39:12 PM

    Comment: Dear Ms Depke. Thank you for your thoughtful argument. Refreshing.

  • Posted By: kansas girl @ 03/14/2008 1:09:31 PM

    Comment: This should not be a gender issue. Feminism has been successful in this country to the extent that she is being critisized for being part of the establishment not being female. You can't struggle to become an old boy and then cry foul when people realize your team is crooked.

    Do not discount young people's influence in politics. I saw a comment saying who wants 18 year olds to elect a president. These 18 year olds were all raised by boomer parents, do the boomers distrust their own parenting to the point they do not think their own children have minds? Please remember the Greatest Generation were all civicly active when they were young. We should be pleased to see a return to civic duty by youth. I am a member of Gen X and I distinctly recall this being a huge critizism of us as a demographic, our apathy towards government. I persuaded all the young people at my local coffee shop to register to vote, I am proud that all of them voted and I do not care who they voted for.

    This election is a struggle by moderates in both parties to take their country back and to stop being led by hateful partisans. I am an independant with liberal leanings and I am friends with Republicans, they are my neighbors and we do not fight. Of all things I have heard it expressed by my Republican friends that they would vote for Obama over McCain, as they feel Hilary would only be interested in serving the minority left wing. I agree. Majority rule is the plan, why then are the extremists on both sides of the aisle running our country?

    Whoever wins in the general election should be acceptable to both sides. No one should weep knowing the "other" side won.

  • Posted By: narls1948 @ 03/13/2008 3:33:54 PM

    Comment: So WHAT? It's just possible that the media are right about Hillary and the entire Clinton camp that includes Bill.
    The Clintons had 8 years to support traditional liberal / democratic ideals and the major thing they accomplished was usher in the job "sucking" phenomenon that Perot warned us about.
    I hope this evil media will push the Clintons completely out of the picture.

  • Posted By: ports @ 03/12/2008 2:56:39 AM

    Comment: After the last debate CNN had 4 people discussing the debate and 3 network people there also. All 7 were downgrading Hillary. To be fair, there should have been an equal number of people for each side discussing the debate and the network people should not have shown bias. Usually I am surprised that I cannot tell which side the network person is on because they go out of the way not to take sides. That is the way that it should be. CNN did not let the public decide the debate, they did the deciding. That is not right. I was disgusted with what I saw. When the media does not give equal time to the candidates, they are taking away their rights. That is not what this country is all about.

  • Posted By: brownize @ 03/12/2008 2:13:06 AM

    Comment: Support for Hillary is eroding, and I think more people are starting to realize that it would be a huge mistake to let the Clintons back in the W/H. There is too much covertness regarding the donors to their two charities, and the Clinton Library. Makes one wonder , since Bill has done some "dealing" with foreign nations on his trips abroad. I believe this really is sufficient reason to call that a conflict of interest. Hillary can???t escape this by claiming that Bill???s name is not on the ballot. Hillary names her W/H years as experience, uses the name to her advantage. It could also be a liability if she got the Dem nomination. Count on the GOP to proclaim conflict of interest, undue influence along with all the other Clinton documented wrongdoings . The GOP must have an enormous collection by now. More than sufficient evidence to keep the Clintons from taking one more stab at the W/H. That should deter the Clintons from seeking media attention. So far, the media has been hushed, but once the Clintons lose their hold over the media, it could be a Clinton catastrophe. May not be long before the media follows Hillary around and plies her with questions. I'm sure that there are many of us out here in the real UNBIASED world that would like to hear the media ask Hillary why she did not use her influence to get Bill to REALLY focus on capturing Osama bin Laden. He'd been running around since 1993,...ObL I mean...oh well, never mind..

    • Posted By: ports @ 03/12/2008 02:59:12

      Comment: Support for Hillary is not eroding. She will take Pennsylvania. She took Texas and Ohio. We knew she would not take the last two states but there is plenty of time yet and she will come back. Hillary Clinton is not a quitter and I am very proud to be one of her supporters. Hillary in 08'.

  • Posted By: pammeltz @ 03/11/2008 2:25:04 PM

    Comment: Hillary Clinton???s Foreign Policy Flip Flops and Faux Pas


    Hillary Clinton KISSING SOHA ARAFAT
    (Reference1 : http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hillarSy.htm


    Reference 2: November 3, 2000 Wall Street Journal: Hillary and Hamas The first lady has a long record of association with Islamic militants, by Steve Emerson

    http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=65000531*

    If the Media is being so hard on Hillary, why have solid investigative reports of her extensive past associations to Islamic groups???some tied to terrorist organizations---not been brought up to date again in the context of the campaign? *


    These legitimate (non dirty-tricks) questions are especially relevant as given Clinton???s claims about her judgment , foreign policy expertise and Commander-in-Chief qualifications..

    When Clinton met with Mrs. Arafat in her official capacity as First Lady, and that Israel was ( and is) a major ally of the United States. Yet Clinton not only did not walk out when Mrs. Arafat falsely asserted the Israelis were gassing Palestinians. Hillary embraced and warmly kissed Mrs. Arafat ( see photo) after the speech.

    Hillary tried to back off from her embrace of Mrs. Arafat ...when the incident surfaced later, as a threat to her much-needed Jewish support to win her Senate seat.

    Why did she later support the war against Iraq? Why, when it was clear that Iraq war was based on lies, did she support the subsequent resolution broadening Bush???s powers to act against Iran?

    She chastises Mr. Obama for his willingness to merely talk.. or listen.. to our enemies, while she has had close political relationships with some groups who have actually acted against the U.S. ,its citizens and our allies.


    What are her true views, now? Does Hillary just swing with the whatever political wind that bests supports her personal ambitions of the moment ?

    Voters deserve an airing of these issues ??? before the Democratic nominee is selected so we can make an informed judgment.

    Is the media being intimidated? Are they afraid to give the treat subject with the thoroughness and balance it deserves ?

    And, why are they soft-balling the Tax Return issue?
    Pamela Meltzer
    vanmeltz@att.net

  • Posted By: pammeltz @ 03/11/2008 2:00:26 PM

    Comment: If you think the press is being hard on Hillary read this. This is very relevant history that relates to questions of her judgment, character and ability to be Commander In Chief.

    Hillary Clinton???s Foreign Policy Flip Flops and Faux Pas

    http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hillarSy.htm




    Hillary Clinton KISSING SOHA ARAFAT
    (Reference: See Link above)



    Reference: See November 3, 2000 Wall Street Journal: Hillary and Hamas The first lady has a long record of association with Islamic militants, by Steve Emerson

    http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=65000531*

    If the Media is being so hard on Hillary, why has this controversial photo of her kissing Mrs. Arafat not resurfaced in the media? More importantly, why have solid investigative reports of her extensive past associations to Islamic groups???some tied to terrorist organizations---not been brought up to date again in the context of the campaign? *

    Why did she later change her views and support the war against Iraq? Why, when it was clear that Iraq was a foreign policy failure based on lies, did she also support the subsequent resolution broadening President Bush???s powers to act unilaterally against Iran?

    These are legitimate (non dirty-tricks) issues that are especially relevant in light of the Clinton camp's efforts to promote her judgment , foreign policy expertise and her qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief.

    Clinton met with Mrs. Arafat it was in her official capacity as First Lady, and that Israel was ( and is) a major ally of the United States. Mrs. Clinton apparently, not only did not walk out when Mrs. Arafat falsely asserted that the Israelis were regularly gassing Palestinians, but she embraced and warmly kissed Mrs. Arafat ( see photo) after the speech.

    Hillary tried to back off from her embrace of Mrs. Arafat ...when the incident surfaced as an embarrassment to the Administration, and later, when it became a threat to Clinton???s much-needed support from the Jewish community her Senate run .

    Mr. Obama has merely stated his willingness to talk.. or listen.. to some of our enemies. Clinton has had close political relationships with some groups who have actually acted against the U.S. ,its citizens and our allies.


    Have Hillary' views changed. Or, does Hillary Clinton just swing with the political wind that bests supports her personal ambitions at whatever point in history she finds herself ?

    The public deserves to have these issues brought up and discussed again??? before the Democratic nominee is selected so voters can make an informed judgment.

    This kind of vetting SHOULD be the task of responsible journalists. When it is left to the opposing campaign to raise such questions, it can too easily be dismissed as partisan dirty tricks.

    When will the media treating this subject with the thoroughness and balance it deserves ?
    And, stop soft balling the Tax returns question, too.

  • Posted By: breit1 @ 03/11/2008 10:36:28 AM

    Comment: To Obama, offering you the VP, spot she was generous, a genius, who is brilliant, she is a woman, who is trying to reverse the stigma of a male dominated society , they come, one in a billion, you refused claiming you are ahead, a little math so far you have at most a 20% of the national vote, come Nov. The most you might get is little more then 30 or even 40%, and you will be an also runner up.

    To Hilary, It happens once, in many centuries, the coincidence, of having a mate of the same caliber, the result, it might, also, produce the next generation, Chelsea, in 8 years, and she will finish liberating, all races. You can call this a dynasty of intelligence.

  • Posted By: breit1 @ 03/11/2008 10:34:53 AM

    Comment: To Obama, offering you the VP, spot she was generous, a genius, who is brilliant, she is a woman, who is trying to reverse the stigma of a male dominated society , they come, one in a billion, you refused claiming you are ahead, a little math so far you have at most a 20% of the national vote, come Nov. The most you might get is little more then 30 or even 40%, and you will be an also runner up.

    To Hilary, It happens once, in many centuries, the coincidence, of having a mate of the same caliber, the result, it might, also, produce the next generation, Chelsea, in 8 years, and she will finish liberating, all races. You can call this a dynasty of intelligence.

  • Posted By: Universal Suffrage @ 03/11/2008 1:34:21 AM

    Comment: And just to add the other penny of my 2 cents ...Mr Obama ...choose your VP quickly ......Al Gore if you can get him ...if not John Edwards...............I wish people would wake up and see this is such a huge opportunity for America to show the world ...the times they are a changing .......in 2001 when I was travelling around the world everywhere I went there was a groundswell of emotional support for America that was wasted by GB Jr....the decisions we make today will affect our children and grandchildren in a MONUMENTAL way.....

  • Posted By: Universal Suffrage @ 03/11/2008 12:58:33 AM

    Comment: If you want to see the type of people the clintons represent look at the list of people pardoned by billary - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton - look further at marc rich (wikipedia) and understand why we cannot tolerate another 8 years of these professional criminals who use their propoganda machines to convince us they care about us - its all about money and power - I will take the guy without this kind of "experience" any day !! And if it ain't him I'll vote for McCain as at least he walked the walk!!

  • Posted By: Universal Suffrage @ 03/11/2008 12:51:00 AM

    Comment: Anyone interested in the integrity of the Clinton;s should look up Marc Rich on wikipedia or some other site and see the type of people who are behind the clinton machine -most interesting are his ties to scooter libby - same ole same ole .....give me the guy without thiis type of "experience" any day!!

  • Posted By: mbailiff @ 03/10/2008 8:10:43 PM

    Comment: There was a time when serving in the military was the only requirement to be President of the US. Time's have changed, and though serving your country is honorable, it's not enough to answer the modern questions.

    Obama's experience in the state senate can't be overlooked, but that hardly counts as experience to run a country. Why? Because you don't deal with national security. And it especially doesn't count when you're the MOST LIBERAL member of the senate, TAXING everything. Let alone in Illinois. When was the last time Illinois politics was involved in shaping the way American is run? No diss to Illinois.

    In New York, Hillary maintained the bill that would keep $200+ millions in defense funds. Not only for defense, but she worked for the troops, allowing them $600,000 worth of debt forgiveness, to help wounded soldiers. Why do you think 30 Retired US Generals support her?

    Her life has been about getting things done. Obama touts the fact that he stood up to the organization by making a speech against the war, rightly so, and he's been milking this thing dry. He made this speech when he had nothing to lose, and held no reponsibilities. Hillary has a speech that tops this one. Which one? The one she made in China, standing up for womens' rights, which is human rights. This was a time when she had no political ambitions, just humane ones. Obama speeches have all been political, and he speaks of grass roots - when was the last time he did anything just because he felt it was the right thing to do?

    In Ireland, Hillary got the women's groups involved in the peace process. Every election you look at, Women are turning the tide. And to think there are places in the world that women still arent allowed to vote. She's stood up for women, and has fought and is still fighting a honorable fight, and that's what qualifies her to be President. I can Copy+Paste a lot more info, but I'll save it.

  • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 03/10/2008 6:02:53 PM

    Comment: The press, along with Gary Hart, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Jesse Jackson, and others are embracing their newest member to the CFR. With Obama now in line and in league with the Council on Foreign Relations, the media bigwigs now have the most viable candidate to make the New World Order a reality. We will be going from one puppet government to more of the same. Take from the Working Middle Class and give to the rich. As Gary Hart said on September 12, 2001, "Now is the time for America to join the New World Order."

  • Posted By: cookiegramma @ 03/10/2008 5:48:54 PM

    Comment: If the press is not biased against Hillary Clinton, why ahs there been absolutely no coverage about the Obama friend who is prepared to file suit in attempt to stop a revote in Florida and Michigan? This should be a big story since one of the party elders, Al Gore fought so very hard to keep votes in Florida from being disenfranchised in the 200 election.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 03/10/2008 4:50:32 PM

    Comment: Dear Debunked, thank you very much for your intelligent and reasonably stated questions. I'll answer the ones I know the answers to. Obama's 1,082 bills in the Senate have mostly not been passed, which is typical when the Senator is a junior member of the minority party. Clinton has introduced about the same number of bills as Obama, and very few of hers have been passed, again because she is a junior member of the minority party. I know that Clinton is a hard worker and I didn't imply otherwise, I was only trying to answer the people who say that Obama is inexperienced.

    If you want the details on the kind of change Obama wants to bring about, please visit his website and read his book The Audacity of Hope. This book also discusses his work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and his awareness of how the emerging global economy can work to our advantage instead of rob us of our wealth and power. There are lots of details available there. Unfortunately, good policies, especially new ones, don't conveniently shrink wrap down into effective sound bites. It is up to us as Americans to look deeper into the candidate's positions, all of the candidates, so we can make informed decisions.

    And if you want to know "the real man behind the rhetoric" you should read Obama's autobiography. Please also read Hillary's autobiography. Then ask yourself which one seems more honest and authentic.

    You asked me if I am part of the Obama "camp." I am an Obama supporter, but I'm not an Obama employee or volunteer. I am a middle-aged white female Republican MD, and a fairly conservative person. I have voted Republican all of my life except once, when I voted for Carter out of disgust at the mess Nixon had made. I voted for Geo. W. Bush in 2000, but again I became seriously disenchanted with the GOP because of they way they strong-armed the elections and used the Bush-appointed Supreme Court to "legally" divest Gore of his Presidency. That was not democracy in action, and the problem with "stealing" elections is that it opens the door for a political free for all in which the individual voter's ballots have no meaning and elections are only for show. That's called fascism/dictatorship/communism (take your pick). However, I was planning to vote Republican this year too, but I took the time to read all of the candidates' books and websites, and much to my surprise I found that Obama was the best candidate in either party, so now he has my support and my vote. But if in November the race is McCain vs. Clinton, I will be all for McCain, as will many independents and cross over voters who have rallied around Obama.

    I hope I answered your questions. Thanks for posing them politely.

    • Posted By: harriet mandriani @ 03/14/2008 17:13:19

      Comment: Why such energy? I have seen your posts elsewhere. Why not go to the Chicago Tribune website and read the story addressing his book and the veracity of his words. While you're there read about the Rezko trial and Rev Wright. Sen Obama's bills not passed about sex offenders and his backing down about nuclear plant spills. Thank you.

  • Posted By: JohnGaltlaketahoe @ 03/10/2008 4:16:37 PM

    Comment: The United States Congress and Senate are traitor to the Constitution of the United States.

    Bipartisan Senate and Congressional allegiance to obstruction of justice in the Executive Branch has destabilized society from New Orleans to Iraq and back again.

    While the US military is an occupying force in the Middle East, in support of an incredible Iraqi parliament, the current presidential candidates are not addressing the issues facing the American electorate challenge and mandate of 2006 to deescalate US military presence in Iraq. George W. Bush and his entire Cabinet of Advisors are wanted for treason.

    Your offices have been petitioned time and again to respond correctly to the abuse of power in the Executive Branch.

    Your offices are part and parcel to treason and insurrection waged against the American electorate. Failed US Foreign Policy is the result of illegal international aggression as disguised by this Bush Administration. The failure to serve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States is all too apparent in the United States Senate and Congress.

  • Posted By: tired and old @ 03/10/2008 4:07:41 PM

    Comment: Gary Hart states that Hillary Clinton is NOT doing things to help the democratic party, Hillary Clinton is for Hillary Clinton.Hillary is on a ego trip; becoming, president is everything to her----- damn the democratic party.

    Hillary Clinton is self-centered as was her husband.

    Hillary Clinton --- Lie Cheat, Steal; whatever, it taks to reach the prize.

    • Posted By: cookiegramma @ 03/10/2008 17:44:30

      Comment: Gary Hart must think people have very short memories. I was ready to vote for him in 1984 when he was a candidate for president in the primaries. He withdrew when the press caught him cheating on his wife. He has absolutely no room to throw stones at Hillary Clinton. His own history is far too sullied!

  • Posted By: fonsoc @ 03/10/2008 2:57:41 PM

    Comment: Hillary is a deceiver. Nothing said bad about her could really come down to her level. Even the most ardent opponents of her fall far short of speaking what she is really like. Some inside scoop on her would awaken Americans to the type of person she really is.

    Behind that smile she displays to her constituents and supporters is a treacherous, self- seeking, lying and deceiving, tempermental, foul-mouthed, and utterly dispicable person who would do anything to deceive her public to gain the ends she seeks. She isn't remotely concerned about anything or anyone that doesn't advance her own agenda, and has proven it time and time again. Any vote for her is a vote for the demise of this nation and its people.



    • Posted By: harriet mandriani @ 03/14/2008 17:31:01

      Comment: Please go to YouTube and see what Rev Wright thinks about Sen Clinton and WHITE America. I think you will find the ' a treacherous, self- seeking, lying and deceiving, tempermental, foul-mouthed, and utterly dispicable person who would do anything to deceive her public to gain. Then perhaps you will see what lies behind this not-so-honorable or well-intentioned man. And go to the TC website and read their mission statement - you might feel differently about who is the one with the "personal agenda". Though by the hate you spew at the Former First Lady you may already be a member.


    • Posted By: ports @ 03/12/2008 03:04:33

      Comment: Wow!!! Talk about mean spirited. You have it down to a science. And you talk about Hillary Clinton? If you are the kind of supporter Obama has, I feel sorry for him. The democratic party needs unity not people like you are spoilers. Obama and Hillary Clinton will come together when this is all over but you will still have issues. Hillary in 08'.

  • Posted By: Hopeisalive08 @ 03/10/2008 1:26:27 PM

    Comment: The fact that the press has never actuallly challenged Hillary Clinton's main premise of her campaign, that she has "35 years' experience" belies the conceit that she has been the brunt of some press conspiracy. The 4 days prior to Ohio/Texas the press incessantly replayed and analyzed that 3 am ad, never mentioning that as First Lady Mrs. Clinton never even had a Security Clearance so that it would have been illegal for her to have seen any actual national security or foreign policy estimates, reports or analyses. Her trips (meeting leaders' wives, having kids dance for her etc.) were short on substance and long on soft focus. And where was the press on this? Absent -- chasing another Clinton mudslinging charge. As Mrs. Clinton seeks to reprise the '90s hopefully someone can remember to look into ALL of the '90s and remind us all the reasons behind this middle-aged white woman's decision last year to support Sen. Obama and not continue a dynastic presidency that clothed itself in negativity, secrecy, insular loyalty and paranoia. That is one future I do not plan on going back to.

  • Posted By: Adam SC @ 03/10/2008 1:16:12 PM

    Comment: The press and Obama haven't even started "vetting" Hillary yet. John McCain and the Republicans will have no problem talking about Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, the Lincoln Bedroom, Bill's shady overseas business dealings that seem to be funding Hillary's campaign and his Library donors, Vince Foster, Hillary's secret appointments when she was first lady, the ridiculous notion of her foreign policy "experience" (tea with the first lady of Ireland is not foreign policy experience), and the list goes on and on and on.....

    Obama's campaign looks absolutely angelic compared to Hillary's. It won't matter if she wins the nomination, after the way she has attacked Obama and his supporters there is no way she will win the General Election in November.

    • Posted By: anappleadae @ 03/10/2008 17:43:17

      Comment: Obama is fresh meat. The hell with who ever becomes President. The shadow government will take care of our security no mater who warms the oval office chair.

      What is going to be entertaining is watching the ruthless Republicans disect and examine the Obama contents.

      Having Hillary win the nomination won't be nearly as entertaining because the Clinton skeletons have been disected, examined and re-examined until we all became thoroughly bored.

      Go Obama!!!! I can't wait!

  • Posted By: elmo11199 @ 03/10/2008 12:22:01 PM

    Comment: Obama has gotten a free ride from the media.Obama's thinking.How dare you people question me.I'm above all that.It's so one sided it stinks.No matter what negative stories you print about Hillary Clinton,you won't change anyones mind.We can see through your bias bull.GO HILLARY!

  • Posted By: elmo11199 @ 03/10/2008 12:05:06 PM

    Comment: Obama's thinking.How dare you question me?The press must be afraid of him,becxause hes has gotten a free ride,and still is.I hate to say it but I don't see that changing.Hillary is still my choice.

  • Posted By: donnajp2006 @ 03/10/2008 11:53:46 AM

    Comment: Doesn't it surprise you that Obama has only one contests were Independents and Republicans have voted in our Democrat primary and where onlly Democrats get to vote, Hillary has won?

  • Posted By: donnajp2006 @ 03/10/2008 11:51:23 AM

    Comment: I am a 60 year old white woman - we are angry - Obama has gotten a free ride and when the media ask him a tough question or 2 they are going after him - give me a break. We women are going to work our buns off to get Hillary the nomination. We will not listen to the media or the Obamaniacs - we will just continue giving to her campaign, calling all our friends in the states like Mississippi, Pennsylvani, North Carolina, Michigan, Florida, Kentucky, West Virginia and so forth. We have started our own grass roots. We expect no less from the media and we got no less. We have nothing against Obama except that his supporters are mean spirited and unkind to our candidate. We are mothers, sisters and wives and we will overcome this obstacle. A vote for HIllary is a vote for the best candidate and we intend to keep on and not give up.

    • Posted By: Time for Change @ 03/10/2008 14:16:24

      Comment: "We have nothinng against Obama except that his supporters are mean spirited and unkind to our candidate." I understand your concern about his supporters, but have you ever wondered why people don't like Clinton? Her attacks are really below the belt and most do not address the issues but his character directly. This reason is why most younger women supports Obama. We see Hillary as a mean-spirited person. She should focus more on promoting herself than to attack him personally and in the same breath say he can be her VP. WE see this statement as well as others she has made,as deceitful and senseless. Also, the same women who say voters should not blame Hillary for her husband's behavior are quick not to vote for Obama because of his supporters.

  • Posted By: soren lerby @ 03/10/2008 11:31:08 AM

    Comment: What is all this feminist orgy going on in Newsweek? Obama could never had such a lopsided coverage in favour of him even after 11 consecutive wins, but Hillary does, even with one not-exactly-landslide win in predominantly white, old, blue-color State and barely holding onto a popular vote win (and possibly losing out on a delegate count) in what was once her firewall State. It looks like all the old, white female writers in the Newsweek came out from hiding from the long and disappointing February and chanting feminists roar. February must have felt like forever for these ladies who were frustrated by black men utterly clobbering old white woman in Presidential nomination race (it didn't help that there was an additional day in the month). Gee, in old days, white women in the South could accuse innocent black men who they don't like of rape and have their white brothers beat them up. That was only 40 years ago. What a difference time makes, now all they could do was their feminist heroin and her campaign fumbling. ( I wonder how many of those very old white women who innocently say "I want to see a woman President in my lifetime", actually are guilty of accusation of false rape against black men in the 50's and 60's.)

    Why is this feminist media orgy, and no party for Obama? Let's see how many African-Americans are in Newsweek, as writers, staffers, etc. I don't see many (in fact none of the opinion writers are black). Now let's see how many women are there? Many. I don't know how many more junior writers and staffers are women, but I suspect a lot of them. Those old white women in the Newsweek, just like in Ohio or Texas or almost all the States who had primaries and caucuses, are just expressing their preferences. As old feminist guards, they practice what they preach. They are writers and staffers in the Newsweek, one of the preeminent weekly magazines, and it is read by millions of people, Their articles and coverage have influence on what people talk and how people think. They use there position to advance their agenda. If their heroin sister finally got a moment to shine a little, blow it out of proportion. If it is for a good cause, such old and tired media principle as a balanced and objective reporting could wait a while. Plus, March is a women's month, so what's wrong with it? Plus, this is not the first time Newsweek's women hijacked entire issue. It's funny how Hillary whine about media bias, when in most of the media, Newsweek and others, you will see so many old white women type, well-educated, pant-suit wearing, shoulder-pat feminists.

    • Posted By: ports @ 03/12/2008 03:11:30

      Comment: GOOD HEAVENS! I HAVE NEVER HEARD SUCH BLATANT HATRED OF WOMEN. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? DID YOUR WIFE OR GIRLFRIEND DO YOU WRONG? NO ONE COULD TAKE A BLOG LIKE YOURS SERIOUSLY WHEN YOU SHOW SUCH HATRED FOR THE OPPOSITE SEX. SEE A PSYCHIATRIST OR AT LEAST GO GET SOME SLEEP BUT THAT NONSENSE IS TOTALLY OUT OF LINE.

    • Posted By: partridge @ 03/10/2008 14:46:09

      Comment: Lets look at the numbers. All the Black people in the nation make up around 13% of the population. Also, 1 in 15 Black people(mostly male) are in jail and ineligible to vote. Take out the 10% of Black people who have their heads on straight, and you have a very small amount of people on your side who will be voting in the Fall. Then by contrast look at these "old, white women" who make up at least half of the baby boomer generation the largest generation of people ever created by the way and determine who has the most political power in the next election. You need to take your old sexist self back where you came from and that scam of a candidate Obama with you.

  • Posted By: marylynne @ 03/10/2008 8:52:07 AM

    Comment: So, it sounds like Obama's campaign appeals to our better angels and Hillary's campaign appeals to the bitter angels.

  • Posted By: lmcchesn @ 03/10/2008 6:20:57 AM

    Comment: WOW sherri watkins, what a cry baby we are. hussein isn't getting the white glove treatment and he's been thrown off track since many are realizing he's really just a preacher not a leader and everybody ahs their feathers ruffled here and you say its hillarys fault. wha wha wha!!!! you guys shoudl jsut put down your bat and go home if you dont want to play. Hillary ahs shown resilient strength and poise among all this media bias. her marriage has proven her strength, passion and dedication in the line of fire, while most women (like you) would have just given up. Fight the good fight, it;s almost worth it when you really love something/one. she has the resiliency to withstand the general election far greater than hussein, and you all know it. Hillary stay on your game, b/c like you said - we're just getting started!!!

  • Posted By: Sherri Watkins @ 03/10/2008 5:15:45 AM

    Comment: If the press is presenting Obama in a more positive light than the former first lady, maybe there is a reason. When I observe Hillary Clinton I have a hard time seeing anything positive in her; she is a liar, a crook (yes,I realize she was not convicted, but neither was OJ), and the fact that she "stood by" her pervert of a husband when he embarrassed America in the eyes of the entire world only
    shows just how badly she wants to be president. Had she divorced him, as any self respecting woman would do, she wouldn't have stood a chance of being elected. She has been able to prove any of the anti-Obama comments she's been spewing. Come on ladies of America, do you really want a woman in the White House that badly?

  • Posted By: Achilles22 @ 03/10/2008 4:38:36 AM

    Comment: Let's put it in perspective this way -

    I would be proud to show my 8 year old son the way Senator Obama has handled himself in this campaign.

    Here's my conversation with him describing Hillary's campaign:

    Son: Hey Dad - Why does Hillary keep saying she won Michigan and Florida? They said those don't count right?

    Dad: Yes - Well she knows she didn't win - but she has to say that -

    Son: Why? That seems like cheating if it wasn't supposed to count.

    Dad: I'll explain when you're older.

    Son: I heard that even though Barack will win more Delegates and more states that Hillary still thinks she should win.

    Dad: I heard that too son.

    Son: Isn't that cheating?

    Dad: I'll explain when you're older.

    I could go on - The moral of the story is leadership. I simply cannot look up to this woman, and would not encourage anyone I cared about to look up to her either. She is a poor sport, and a poor example of teamwork and sportsmanship. Experience means nothing without good character. And I would argue that Hillary has neither experience or good character based on the way she has run her campaign.

    Barack Obama for President

    • Posted By: harriet mandriani @ 03/14/2008 17:37:04

      Comment: Dear Sir. If you would like to truly inform your son, please go to YouTube and watch the hate-filled Anti-WHITE American rants by your honorable candidate's 20 year "spiritual leader". Read the mission of his church. Inform yourself on Black Separatism and decide for yourself. Listen to this "man of god" blame 911 on the murdered Americans. Listen to him scream the N word (the most offensive word to the black community
      ) and deicee for yorslef. thank you

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 03/10/2008 4:34:23 AM

    Comment: HillarY needs to win the popular vote in order to secure the nomition. SHE ALREADY HAS pENNSLVENIA IN THE BAG. THERE IS NO WAY SHE IS can WIN THE MAJORITY of STATES AND DELEGATES. SO SHE NEEDS to win tHE pOpULAR VOTE SO THE SUpER DELEGATES CAN GIVE HER THE NOMINATION.

    EVEN IF THEY RE DO FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN, she will still not catch OBAMA IN STATES AND DELEGATES.
    IN A DEMOCRACY the MAJORITY RULES.
    IF OBAMA WINS THE POPULAR VOTE, THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES AND maintains a twentY state surPlus in election PrimaY victories then the suPerdelegates cannot make a case for HIllarY .
    HILLARY CLINTON Needs TO FIND AWAY TO COMPETE IN THE CAUCAUSES AND in everY state. this was a crucial error in her camPaign and never mentioned among the "so called Pundits".

  • Posted By: Achilles22 @ 03/10/2008 4:18:38 AM

    Comment: To the Hillary fans complaining about the Obama fans -

    Your candidate has used scare tactics, and very negative campaigning to win in Texas (barely - and will lose the delegate battle there) and Ohio. Anyone with any common sense knows she was desperate - and the "kitchen sink" strategy was somewhat effective in the final run-up to March 4th. The problem is we are learning a lot about Hillary by the way she has chosen to campaign, and her tactics are truly ugly. Just think about the garbage spewing from her mouth these days "I bring a lifetime of experience, McCain brings a lifetime of experience, and Obama brings a speech"!!! Please know that us Obama supporters aren't mad at you - but we despise this kind of garbage that basically says if she doesn't win then NO Democrat is qualified!!! - Then she turns around trying to fool voters by offering him up as a great VP choice, which is wrong on so many levels - How big are her balls when she is solidly behind in the race talking about who should be her running mate?

    Sorry folks it's not you. It's your candidate. I hope the press calls her on this garbage - and I Hope Obama continues to stay above it. He doesn't need to get in the dirt with her - it's her only chance and she'll tear the party apart trying.

    • Posted By: ports @ 03/12/2008 03:14:16

      Comment: wE'VE HEARD WHAT YOUR EXCUSE IS FOR LOSING IN TEXAS AND OHIO SEVERAL TIMES. IT DOESN'T HOLD WATER. TALK ABOUT CRY BABIES!! HILLARY IN 08'

  • Posted By: Achilles22 @ 03/10/2008 4:16:42 AM

    Comment: To the Hillary fans complaining about the Obama fans -

    Your candidate has used scare tactics, and very negative campaigning to win in Texas (barely - and will lose the delegate battle there) and Ohio. Anyone with any common sense knows she was desperate - and the "kitchen sink" strategy was somewhat effective in the final run-up to March 4th. The problem is we are learning a lot about Hillary by the way she has chosen to campaign, and her tactics are truly ugly. Just think about the garbage spewing from her mouth these days "I bring a lifetime of experience, McCain brings a lifetime of experience, and Obama brings a speech"!!! Please know that us Obama supporters aren't mad at you - but we despise this kind of garbage that basically says if she doesn't win then NO Democrat is qualified!!! - Then she turns around trying to fool voters by offering him up as a great VP choice, which is wrong on so many levels - How big are her balls when she is solidly behind in the race talking about who should be her running mate?

    Sorry folks it's not you. It's your candidate. I hope the press calls her on this garbage - and I Hope Obama continues to stay above it. He doesn't need to get in the dirt with her - it's her only chance and she'll tear the party apart trying.

  • Posted By: Achilles22 @ 03/10/2008 3:59:30 AM

    Comment: When Hillary gets the lead in pledged delegates, I will agree she will not have stole the nomination - if it goes that way.

    The big states have spoken and have awarded Hillary with the extra delegates accordingly. She is still way behind.

    Hillary is trying to fool voters into thinking Obama would be a great VP - but NOT ready for President - Funny.

    She has held elected office for less time than Obama.

    First Lady does NOT count. I married a Doctor, now I can perform surgery - Ridiculous.

    We need to draw a new map where all 50 states count - The so called "significant states" will go Democrat anyhow.

    Let's be smart and elect a true leader - not someone who will stoop to anything to get elected.

    Until then, we can sit back and watch her single handedly give an opening to McCain.

  • Posted By: hope-3 @ 03/10/2008 3:22:39 AM

    Comment: What many people fail to realize is that gender/race politic's will not allow either candidate to get to the white house.

  • Posted By: Enraptured @ 03/10/2008 1:10:43 AM

    Comment: Now isn't this funny. Whenever Obama wins, he "earned" it. When Hillary wins, she "stole" it. Wearing thin folks, wearing verrrry thin. See you in PA, where I will be voting. I already have my God and he's not the lightweight Obama. I'll be voting for a woman with strength and knowledge. Someone who can think on her feet instead of stumbling impromptu. Somebody who actually has something to say other than a chant. Furthermore, men have screwed up America from the white house for far too long.

  • Posted By: grammagram @ 03/10/2008 12:22:54 AM

    Comment: With the 'elders' of the democratic party fighting so hard against change to their comfortable status quo, I will not be surprised if Hill/Bill steal their way to the ticket. If so, my vote will clearly go to McCain! It's one thing if they run their campaign on honesty and trustworthyness, but CLEARLY a different thing if they get to the White House with dirty tactics! The democratic party will be clearly shamed, not like when they were previously occupants of the White House!

  • Posted By: applecarter @ 03/09/2008 11:23:51 PM

    Comment: I am an Obama supporter. I also happen to be a middle-aged white women from New York, Senator Clinton's home state. Prior to the Iowa caucus, I would have been the first to agree that the press was harder on Hillary than they were on Senator Obama (or any of the other candidates, for that matter) and I was plenty angry about it. It didn't mean I felt she'd make the best president, but I did not like seeing her being treated so unfairly. The way she has conducted her campaign and the shameless tactics she has employed in order to win at all costs in the days since then has me believing that the press may at times treat her unfairly (although not nearly to the extent that she would have us believe) not because she' a woman, but because she's someone that they genuinely do not like or trust.

  • Posted By: Cantabrigian @ 03/09/2008 11:04:43 PM

    Comment: Mr. Obama has a very warped vision of what is going on in Washington, and our elected officials ought to be disgusted with his message that paints them all with the same brush of incompetence. His continuous chant for the past twelve months is that he is going to change Washington with his personal charisma and his message of hope. Are we to believe that Obama's oratorical message is going to carry the day? There is surprisingly little other evidence of his abilities to support his message of change. On the other hand he likes to blame both sides for our sorry political state, which begs the question, are we to believe that the elected members of Congress and the Senate, cannot and will not work together, until they drink Obama's kool-aid.

  • Posted By: sonnyboy @ 03/09/2008 10:27:06 PM

    Comment: Sadly, you as have many women, turned this whole election into a gender issue. This is why men (and younger women) neither like nor turst Senator Clinton. Senator Obama does not have the track record of Senator Clinton, but I am willing to take a chance with him on that basis alone. This election is not a gender issue; it's for our next president. I would suggest gender based articles be sent to the entertainment category. Thank you.

  • Posted By: "Martin Edwin "Mick" Andersen @ 03/09/2008 10:18:19 PM

    Comment: RETURN OF THE MONSTER MASHER? ...

    mash*er (mshr)
    n.
    1. A kitchen utensil for mashing vegetables or fruit.
    2. Slang A man who attempts to force his attentions on a woman

    Please see the article by Katha Pollitt on Bill Clinton's alleged involvement in the Juanita Broaddrick sexual assault scandal (http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt).

    Also, the original Washington Post story by mega-reporter Howard Kurtz on the same subject (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599 .htm).

    The Juanita Broaddrick interview in which she talks of her personal experiences with the Clintons can be seen at. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0)

    You can also get a paperback version of the book "No One Left To Lie to"--about
    the Clinton White House--by British-American writer and human rights activist Christopher Hitchens.

    See his chapter on "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?"

    Recently Hitchens reminded (http://www.slate.com/id/2182065) that the essay "has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton 'rapid response' team.

    "Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's 'issues.'"

  • Posted By: MsRichards @ 03/09/2008 10:12:45 PM

    Comment: Hillary will be the nominee. Reality and pragmatism will carry the day. IF he's lucky, N'Obama the neophyte will get to run with her and train under her. Get used to it folks, it will be Hillary Clinton, next President of the United States.

  • Posted By: "Martin Edwin "Mick" Andersen @ 03/09/2008 8:35:30 PM

    Comment: Memo to the Clintons:

    Hsu you!!!

    (As in Norman Hsu, the guy Bill Clinton referred to as "our friend Norman" and the fugitive fraudster arrested by the FBI.)

  • Posted By: Minapup @ 03/09/2008 8:14:18 PM

    Comment: If anyone still doubts a media bias against Hillary, or women in general, just watch "Real" Time With Bill Maher. How he gets away with this kind of sexism is beyond me. If you look at the issues, Clinton and Obama are so close as to be almost indistinguishable. Therefore, as a woman I will stay true to my gender and vote for Hillary!

  • Posted By: Bass Pro @ 03/09/2008 6:06:51 PM

    Comment: Wouldn't it be more honest to say..I'm a Senator Obama supporter or I'm a Senator McCain supporter before you bash hillary in this blog? Maybe admit to your bias instead of trying to appear to be an impartial commenter.

  • Posted By: MAZees @ 03/09/2008 5:29:22 PM

    Comment: I am a an "over 35 woman" and frankly, I just don't see it. Media bias against Hillary? Well, if pointing out that she lost 11 in a row before March 4 is bashing...then I suppose. Never mind that Obama would've been pressured to leave the race under those circumstances. I'm insulted, as a woman, that SNL is the new political litmus test for this campaign. And what about the media silence on her "experience" in the White House? Why should I believe, based on past experience with the Clintons, that there won't be more scandals, perjury, partisan fighting, lying to the American people on prime time television? And if there are, it will be a LONG time before another woman is elected president. I do not want to take that chance.

  • Posted By: timrogers @ 03/09/2008 5:21:01 PM

    Comment: If the press was so negative how did Hillary manage to lose contest after contest and become the front runner again after a few wins? The coverage I have seen is exclusivelyl positve about Hillary. She is the comeback kid. She can win by going negative on Obama. She is a fighter. She wins all the important states.She has the support of the super delegates. In fact, the media are so friendly toward her right now; Obama should try to borrow her victim disguise and score some victim sound bites of his own. If she wins the nomination without actually winning the votes ( a likely possibility now) you can be sure it will be broadcast as a great uphill battle against the hostile media. Hillary handles the media so well, even they will believe it.

  • Posted By: Blue Heron @ 03/09/2008 5:20:10 PM

    Comment: Deefromtexas: Words escape me. You are an elitist. I guess The Economist is correct in that the people supporting Obama are more the upper crust, wine drinkering intellicts and the people supporting Hillary are lower class, beer drinkering and uneducated. Having grown up poor and now very comfortable, but also having a college education, I should be torn on who to support, but I have no qualms about supporting Hillary. Don't judge people on where they come from or their education level. It doesn't mean we aren't capable of being ojective and choosing who we believe is the best candidate. If Obama becomes the nominee, he can't win without the very people you are chastising. One should be careful with their words.

  • Posted By: salant01 @ 03/09/2008 5:07:49 PM

    Comment: Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are two perfect example why Hillary Clinton does not deserve to be and will not be the next President of these United States of America the two women used the TV show as an avenue to express their anger and displeasure of the ongoing democratic campaign, this reflects very poor on the Sen. from New York; Fey & Poehler are not voices that rings as sound judgements, they're merely third rate comedians and that's putting it nicely, because for Fey to stoop as low as to announce on TV that *** is the new black, is the most racist remark I have ever heard in this campaign, the fact that Sen. Obama is black has nothing to do with his winning streak, or his overwhelming support by Americans who believe he can bring about real change; now , Fey wants everyone to feel sorry for Hillary Clinton and she believes the only way to get their support is to portraying Sen. Clinton as not only the ill treated female candidate but that she's not only a fighter, she's also a low down, raunchy, low class, uncultured fighter, as Fey and Poehler describes themselves.

    • Posted By: aimgurl @ 03/09/2008 20:15:01

      Comment: You're talking about a COMEDY show on television that is all satire. Are you that clueless? Well you must be if you thought "black" referred to skin color for heaven's sake. Yep, you're clueless all right....

    • Posted By: aimgurl @ 03/09/2008 20:12:12

      Comment: You're talking about a COMEDY show on television that is all about satire for heaven's sake. You took that seriously!!??!! As for "black" they're talking about as in the popular color of your clothing, not skin color. Get a clue!

  • Posted By: TellitLikeItIs21 @ 03/09/2008 5:00:27 PM

    Comment: While the perception is that the media is against Senator Clinton, the actual effect of this so called ???media bias??? is FOR her (i.e. to her advantage). NH, and now TX and OH proved that. So the question is - who is the media really rooting for? If it's so obvious that negative media coverage actually helps Hillary, why continue doing so unless you actually want her to win. I put it to you that the media is the ultimate embodiment of the Bill Bradley effect...publicly appear to endorse Senator Obama, but secretly wishing that he loses. It's plain and simple. Just look at the demographics of all media talking heads and pundits covering the presidential primaries. Enough said. My plea to the media???come out of the closet already!

  • Posted By: Deefromtexas @ 03/09/2008 4:48:43 PM

    Comment: Hillary Clinton Campaign Supporters
    Individuals with a high school education or less, with low income - They really believe Hillary can get them free healthcare! They don't realize the bill has to be approved! Such a bill would never be approved because it would cost billions of dollars. Dollars coming from people earning higher wages then her base support!
    Hispanics (some can speak English, most can't) Hillary Clinton has won in states with high Hispanic populations! I can only hope if she's elected, millions of illegal aliens will move to the states that voted for her! At the present time, Pennsylvania has a population of approximately 85% White, 10% Black, and 3 % Hispanic. If the good people of Pennsylvania want Hillary, then let them make homes for the second fastest growing populaton (which is Hispanic)! Bill Clinton allowed over 2 million illegal aliens to become U.S. citizens over night! Hillary Clinton voted Yes on the Menedez Amendemnt SA 1194, Manager's Amendment S 4188, killing the construction of much needed fences to protect this country from illegal aliens. Voted Yes on the Guest Worker Amnesty bill, and so many more bills giving favor to illegal aliens!

    Women - Most believe in "I AM WOMAN" power! Most are just like Hillary! All talk, but little substance!

    If low income, uneducated, Hispanics and women think she's such a fighter, then why is it necessary for Bill to campaign for her in order for her to secure votes for a spouse he spent 35 years training, educating, and providing her opportunities to acquire experience traveling 80 countries on taxpayers hard earned money! She has to have a man to help her to the Whitehouse! He did it in New York, and now he's trying to get her into the Oval Office!

    • Posted By: donnajp2006 @ 03/10/2008 11:56:35

      Comment: You are ignorant.

  • Posted By: windsormartin @ 03/09/2008 4:24:12 PM

    Comment: so sad for you fe427so.
    What an exciting time for woman!

  • Posted By: windsormartin @ 03/09/2008 4:22:43 PM

    Comment: dear fe427so,
    how sad for you.
    Senator Clinton has had to out work, out perform, and out campaign to get where she is, and she still has negative media blasts as proven by an unbiased source. Your biased is obvious. If you weren't so angry, you might see things differently.

  • Posted By: Javril @ 03/09/2008 4:21:25 PM

    Comment: It is interesting that the article, while admitting to media bias and negative coverage of Senator Clinton , never produces the mea culpa which should accompany such an admission. Instead Ms. Depke recommends the media tread more carefully in covering Clinton unless it indeed wants her elected. How ironic that Ms. Depke never suggests the media cover all candidates with equal scrutiny, as journalistic intergrit would deman.thouthough

  • Posted By: Nuqueen1 @ 03/09/2008 4:01:48 PM

    Comment: I liked this so much, I thought I'd bump it back up to the top:
    "Posted By: fe427so @ 03/09/2008 3:32:27 PM
    Comment: Sen. Clinton cries foul over very conduct that she uses to hammer Sen. Obama with every word that comes out of her mouth. Just admit it, we all know that she wants to be John McCain's VP. My advice is for her to just pucker harder when kissing his back side. I'm 52, white and get taxed at the highest possible rates and I've been a lifelong Democrat and have never missed voting, not once. I voted for Bill Clinton both times. Hell I even drank the Kool Aid thinking that Mondale would beat Reagan in 84. You don't get to be much bluer then me. I love my party and what it stands for, but Sen Clinton you don't stand with us. You only stand for yourself, above, not with the Democrat Party. Sen. Clinton your despicable behavior reached critical mass with me with your "as far as I know" comment on whether Sen. Obama is a Christian. Nixon would have been very proud of you. Ken Starr, no experience just a speech, NAFTA lies, 3 am phone call (why did it take you 6 rings to answer, and what's with the glasses?).....etc, etc. If Sen. Clinton is the nominee of the Democrat party I will for first time in my not vote for president. Wait, wait, breaking news, this just in........there may some room for Sen. Obama at the back of the bus. Sen. Clinton, that's very Christian of you, as far as I know."
    Amen, couldn't improve on it.


  • Posted By: Buzz Man @ 03/09/2008 3:55:40 PM

    Comment: I'd say that the main reason the media portrays Obama as more positive than Hillary is because of his own effort to present himself as a more, transformational politician, while Hillary is already known to the media since the 1990's as a polarizing figure who will depend on negative attacks (see the NAFTAgate flap) to scare up women votes.
    Clinton's speeches, in comparison to Obama, are filled with negative attacks and even borrowed lines from Obama. Tired of this old school politics, the media wanted to remind voters of Clinton's past connections to Bill's scandals and her self-centeredness in winning political offices. She is merely plaing the gender card -- just as Hitler played the "pure race" card -- to whip up votes from women and other gullible voters. For this reason, the media tends to portray Hillary the way she portrays herself.

  • Posted By: Leebo @ 03/09/2008 3:55:07 PM

    Comment: It's easier for Obama to get more "positive" press because...wait for it...there's more positive to report!! How's that for bias?

    Here's one 45 yo white woman who is sick to death of the Clintons - especially Hillary. This isn't a sorority we're dealing with - this election is for the leader of the free world. Women - wake up! Hillary is in this for herself and to continue to Bush/Clinton legacy. Why else would she fawn all over McCain? Disgusting.

  • Posted By: Buzz Man @ 03/09/2008 3:53:05 PM

    Comment: I'd say that the main reason the media portrays Obama as more positive than Hillary is because of his own effort to present himself as a more, transformational politician, while Hillary is already known to the media since the 1990's as a polarizing figure who will depend on negative attacks (see the NAFTAgate flap) to scare up women votes.
    Clinton's speeches, in comparison to Obama, are filled with negative attacks and even borrowed lines from Obama. Tired of this old school politics, the media wanted to remind voters of Clinton's past connections to Bill's scandals and her self-centeredness in winning political offices. She is merely plaing the gender card -- just as Hitler played the "pure race" card -- to whip up votes from women and other gullible voters. For this reason, the media tends to portray Hillary the way she portrays herself.

  • Posted By: Buzz Man @ 03/09/2008 3:52:06 PM

    Comment: I'd say that the main reason the media portrays Obama as more positive than Hillary is because of his own effort to present himself as a more, transformational politician, while Hillary is already known to the media since the 1990's as a polarizing figure who will depend on negative attacks (see the NAFTAgate flap) to scare up women votes.
    Clinton's speeches, in comparison to Obama, are filled with negative attacks and even borrowed lines from Obama. Tired of this old school politics, the media wanted to remind voters of Clinton's past connections to Bill's scandals and her self-centeredness in winning political offices. She is merely plaing the gender card -- just as Hitler played the "pure race" card -- to whip up votes from women and other gullible voters. For this reason, the media tends to portray Hillary the way she portrays herself.

  • Posted By: Buzz Man @ 03/09/2008 3:49:28 PM

    Comment: I'd say that the main reason the media portrays Obama as more positive than Hillary is because of his own effort to present himself as a more, transformational politician, while Hillary is already known to the media since the 1990's as a polarizing figure who will depend on negative attacks (see the NAFTAgate flap) to scare up women votes.
    Clinton's speeches, in comparison to Obama, are filled with negative attacks and even borrowed lines from Obama. Tired of this old school politics, the media wanted to remind voters of Clinton's past connections to Bill's scandals and her self-centeredness in winning political offices. She is merely plaing the gender card -- just as Hitler played the "pure race" card -- to whip up votes from women and other gullible voters. For this reason, the media tends to portray Hillary the way she portrays herself.

  • Posted By: kevinturner01 @ 03/09/2008 3:47:32 PM

    Comment: BNT thanks for the statistics. I found the same thing in my unscientific research. Yesterday while I was waiting for the Wyoming results CNN played the Clinton hate speech at least a dozen times within an hour.

  • Posted By: sesanders @ 03/09/2008 3:45:10 PM

    Comment: It is tiresome reading many of these posts. Hillary strikes me as a dedicated, intelligent, hard-working public servant. Partisan comments that she is crooked, etc. are not the least bit persuasive. Hillary is still standing after all the punches. She is a fighter, she is tough, and she is strong. She is my choice for president and I think she will win the nomination.

  • Posted By: clikdawg @ 03/09/2008 3:41:05 PM

    Comment: But I really like the "almost beatific" Obama Rolling Stone cover -- reminds me of those huge Chairman Mao posters where the old guy just looks so caring and saintly and savior-ly you could just give him a hug, half your bank account, and your children's future to boot.

    Also puts me in mind of a photo Newsweek ran some time ago of a kindly, concerned, and compassionate Hillary Clinton surrounded by an adoring crowd of little-bitty (but obviously trusting) boys and girls: A veritable "suffer the little children" moment so stilted and studied that an enormous belly-laugh seemed the only appropriate response.

    I call it a toss-up in the Battle of the Network Messiahs .... perhaps McCain could enter the competition by coming down off a mountain somewhere with a set of tablets in his hands ...

  • Posted By: bnt @ 03/09/2008 3:39:14 PM

    Comment: I guess we feel that she (Senator Clinton) and her staff have pretty well duped Media America - well of course that takes radical radio and Fox news into account that they know better. We did a little test of our own over the past weekend. Time factor included MSNBC and CNN. The average per every ten minutes per candidate for media coverage on those two stations were:

    Senator McCain = 2 minutes and 35 seconds

    Senator Obama = 2 minutes and 12 seconds

    Senator Clinton = 5 minutes and 13 seconds

    Now where do you suppose that takes Americans heading to the polls. Amazing how spin America can determine who heads the oval office.,

  • Posted By: Cecilpau @ 03/09/2008 3:37:35 PM

    Comment: What Anti-Hillary Media are we talking about?Saturday Night Live,Russ Limbaugh,Sean Hannity(Fox)Tucker(MSNBC). That is a big joke.The right wing pro republican media over the past 3 weeks have been doing some of the worst negatives I have seen on Obama to ensure Hillary winds TX abd Ohio and are continuing and intensifing their " Make sure Obama doen't win" attacks to ensure she wins PA.Hillary is now the darling of the right wing media she and Bill always blames for their problems. One wonders if this is not a racist attack on Obama?Hannity is at it every night (Farrakan, Obama's pastor,Rezko,the weatherman connection of 40 years ago when Obama was just 7 years old.Come on, give us a break with this anti-Hillary Media bias.Obama is the target for the worst type of false attacks and misinformation by the Media.
    cecil.

  • Posted By: Emile Mervin @ 03/09/2008 3:37:18 PM

    Comment: One truth about the US media is that it can make a person and it can break a person. If it is helping make Obama, the Obama has to be very careful how he treats with it, or else it can turn around and break him. Overall, it is also true that the media help voters make up their minds on every issue in public life. Also, because the media know everything that is wrong and everything that needs to be done, it should be an option for voters to write-in when voting for President of the United States.

    That said, Hillary has only herself to blame for where she is in the race for nomination. She arrogantly predicted last December that she'd wrap up the nomination by Super Tuesday, because she had name recognition, nationwide DNC establishment backing, $130 million in campaign funds and a 50-point lead. But Obama messed up her cornonation parade with his grass roots movement and then she retaliated by attacking the media for being biased against her and by throwing the kitchen sink at Obama.

    Now she and Bill are using the media to help sell a 'dream ticket' of Obama and Clinton. Wow!!!!!

  • Posted By: fe427so @ 03/09/2008 3:32:27 PM

    Comment: Sen. Clinton cries foul over very conduct that she uses to hammer Sen. Obama with every word that comes out of her mouth. Just admit it, we all know that she wants to be John McCain's VP. My advice is for her to just pucker harder when kissing his back side. I'm 52, white and get taxed at the highest possible rates and I've been a lifelong Democrat and have never missed voting, not once. I voted for Bill Clinton both times. Hell I even drank the Kool Aid thinking that Mondale would beat Reagan in 84. You don't get to be much bluer then me. I love my party and what it stands for, but Sen Clinton you don't stand with us. You only stand for yourself, above, not with the Democrat Party. Sen. Clinton your despicable behavior reached critical mass with me with your "as far as I know" comment on whether Sen. Obama is a Christian. Nixon would have been very proud of you. Ken Starr, no experience just a speech, NAFTA lies, 3 am phone call (why did it take you 6 rings to answer, and what's with the glasses?).....etc, etc. If Sen. Clinton is the nominee of the Democrat party I will for first time in my not vote for president. Wait, wait, breaking news, this just in........there may some room for Sen. Obama at the back of the bus. Sen. Clinton, that's very Christian of you, as far as I know.

  • Posted By: sesanders @ 03/09/2008 3:31:49 PM

    Comment: Sorry, Newsweek. Women would much rather have the media write fair and balanced commentaries about the candidates. As for watching Chris Matthews...not on your life. He has offended me too many times with his outlandish statements about various Democratic candidates and I simply don't watch him anymore. Period.

    • Posted By: bnt @ 03/09/2008 15:44:33

      Comment: We agree, there was a time in which we trusted Hardball to be fair and impartial. We've watched (now not so much anymore) that tune change. But do you suppose it is the deliverer of the message or the money that pays the delivery boy.

      • Posted By: Mary934 @ 03/12/2008 17:50:23

        Comment: You hit the nail on the head !! That is how it works, the Republicans have the newspeople in their hip pocket. It has always been that way and will likely never change. Have you seen the polls? Obama has the educated, young people and black, and Hillary has the uneducated, old people and white. :-) They never cease to amaze me. Do they really think that the voters pay heed to what they are saying? I sincerely hope not for it would be rather a shame for the next President to be elected by the 18 yr. olds. My vote will be for Hillary, I will not vote for Barack Hussein Obama. .

  • Posted By: Sloane @ 03/09/2008 3:30:22 PM

    Comment: Whatever. I'm a woman and I am not remotely for Hillary. I'm not choosing her because she's a woman. I think she is a candidate of poor judgement and prone to scandal. I'm just not buying what she's selling. She doesn't think us latte liberals matter anyway.

  • Posted By: kevinturner01 @ 03/09/2008 3:29:52 PM

    Comment: Hillary and Putin both want the press to be controlled by them... Neither want anything bad said about them.