Comedians and Voters: Don't Let The Press Bias Toward Hillary Throw You

A last word of caution to today's Democratic voters: Don't let the press and its longstanding bias in favor of Sen. Clinton affect your vote. Choose your candidate on the merits, not on the fact that the media heavyweights are "in the tank" for Hillary in a number of crucial ways.

Oh, sure, you've seen those Saturday Night Live routines that suggest the press is orgasmic over Barack Obama, and hostile to the noble and martyred Sen. Clinton. And with her Daily Show appearance, it's starting to look like Hillary's locked down the all-important comedian vote.

An anxious nation is waiting to hear who will get the coveted Shecky Greene endorsement.

Has it ever occurred to the Comedy Bloc that, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert, the facts have a pro-Obama bias?

The fact is that the bias isn't one-sided, in either direction. Chris Matthews' treatment of Hillary Clinton is reprehensible, and has been for years. And the questioning in those debates has seemed tougher on Clinton...lately.

But do you remember the early debates? The ones where Clinton was placed in the center, as if the other seven or eight candidates were her supporting cast? The ones where she was often given the first question and the last question -- and most of the ones in between? Where was the outrage then? Why weren't they putting up skits about that?

The treatment of the other candidates in those early debates was a reflection of a long-standing pro-Hillary bias among reporters covering the campaign. Reporters, who no doubt thought a Hillary candidacy would make great copy, faithfully pushed the themes the Clinton campaign wanted them to push. And they were dubious themes: That Hillary was the most "experienced" candidate, that she was the "front-runner" and almost "inevitable," that the accomplishments of Bill's Presidency were her accomplishments...

The press has spent the last year pushing so many pro-Hillary ideas that it's almost...well, comic.

That's not a reason to vote against her, of course, any more than his relatively soft treatment in the last couple of debates is a reason to vote against Obama. (Although Obama was certainly grilled about Louis Farrakhan, who he doesn't associate with, while Hillary was able to skate on her endorsement from Ann Coulter. And compare the coverage of Tony Rezko with the lack of interest the press has shown in that Dubai-related investment deal that stands to net Bill -- and therefore Hillary -- a cool $20 million.)

Don't vote for candidates based on their press coverage, pro or con. Vote for them based on whether they voted for the Iraq war "with conviction" (thanks for that, Jennifer Nix). Vote for them based on whether they're irresponsible in reacting to ethnic slurs about their opponents. Vote for them based on whether they provide talking points John McCain can use against their opponent. Or find some other reason to vote for the candidate of your choice. Just don't pick a candidate based on how the press behaves.

That would be a joke.

Comments

[danceswithyids]

Thank God you are here to warn us all!

[ltfcrazy]

Excellent points. Every. Single. One!

[Katie1263]

Hillary Clinton is the on that can get the United States back on track. LET HER DO THE JOB SHE WAS BORN TO DO. B.O. is not ready , and you know it! I am sure he will be one day, but today is not that day!! I was in Texas when the caucuses were going on, and it was a disaster.So you can bet I am not trusting how the numbers for delegates divie up from the caucuses because I saw it with my own eyes!!

[ltfcrazy]

Got pictures of your eyes seeing it? Anyone can say or write anything they want. Sometimes they can prove and substantiate it, sometimes they cannot. The whole point of this blogger's argument is to base your vote on the facts. If you saw that then you need to do what you think is best. The rest of us need to act on the truth as we know it. That truth we have seen with OUR own eyes. I have seen Barack talk about the Iraq invasion as "a dumb war" before it happened. I have seen him try to pass ethics reform. I have seen him speak and connect with millions of people. A person with the right intentions and a connection with millions (which will grow infintely should he be elected) Can change the world. How many lives do you think Bono has saved by opening his mouth and saying, This is wrong! Oh, but he has no "experience in government", maybe he should just shut up and play his silly little songs right? Those of you who cannot see that Obama's campaign is not about Obama, a human being, it's about a connection. The one we all share. We breathe the same air, we drink the same water and we walk on the same earth. We need to connect with each other or we will tear ourselves, and our world apart. I truly believe this and so do the millions who are behind this campaign. It is a war between ego and id. If the id does not win, the ego self destructs. That is why I can say I support Obama, and nothing can change my mind.

[PoloniusMonk]

RJ Eskow says, "Or find some other reason to vote for the candidate of your choice."

How about the candidate's voting record? Hillary is a fairly well-known quantity but Obama is a cipher to most people, apart from being a very charismatic orator. Do yourself a favor and read this well-written short piece of high quality non-mainstream journalism, an account of his political history, and, without the wiggle and jiggle, his votes for and against. Or, as they say in another context, Read 'em and weep.

You will find it depressing reading, and when you are finished you will understand why Ralph Nader is running again: because your choice, once again, is going to be between Bad and Worse as dictated by big money -- and that's not good enough in a country that tells itself it's a democracy and that its government is of the people, by the people and for the people.

"Count Me Out of the Obama Craze" by Matt Gonzalez
http://www.nokilling.org/mighty_sparrow/Count_Me_Out.htm

[yummymaplesyrup]

There is an old saying that goes something like, look at the way a man sees a treats his mother (mostly used to tell young women what they can look forward till if they marry/live with a particular man).

In reading many of the opinions of mainly white men’s opinion of a female candidate the impression is that 98% of males really hate females, and that include their mothers. I wonder if all these mothers are asking themselves "where did I go wrong in creating such a hateful person?"

From outside the U.S. it looks like so many men in America are no different in their hate towards females than the fundamentalist in Islamic countries. The tactic used is different but the message is the same.

[NPDee]

Hillary is not getting attacked because she's a woman, (but yes, her attacks take a certain form because she's a woman, it's the nature of human discourse, as do attacks against Barack, because he's Black) A lot of the atacks against Hillary have been for running an awful campaign that completely lost sight of the math it would take to win this race. "PLEASE READ THE ASSIGNMENT BEFORE TAKING THE TEST" And this is our Ms. Solutions, Ms. Nuts and Bolts?

And for Hillary to think that McCain won't use her fear mongering against her is beyond, me, and please, please, please don't cry sexism when he does, she has introduced a very, very nasty kind of smear campaign against Barack (who, for the record, I begrudingly support), she has belittled him, she has allowed utterly racist and xenophobic inferences to his religion, to hang in the air; and she has raised the spectre that the Republican nominee is better equipped to the office than he. Please, Hillary supporters, understand this for what this is, this is a scorched earth policy of doing anything to win. It's not progressive, it's not feminist, it's tacky, mean and unjust. Now, you may respect that because that's perceived as a man's game and she plays it so well, if that's the case than so be it. Just don't kid yourselves, she's a dangerous person.

And, lastly, don't forget a women in power does not necessarily mean we benefit from (what I trully believe) their intuitive gifts, their native intelligence and their innate sense of justice, Eva Peron, Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher were some of the most dictatorial and brutal leaders the world has known, and on a lesser note Nancy Pelosi has not exactly delivered on her promises to end the Iraq War. Women are people too.

[ltfcrazy]

It isn't hatred of women. It's resentment to a certain degree, but we love you believe it or not. We just resent your power. You can get us to do whatever you want by withholding or delivering. We have no way of overpowering you within the boundaries of the law. Our lizard brains can't take it! In Hillary's case she just picked the wrong man for an opponent. Without being nasty and illogical she cannot win the argument that she would be a better president, and that's it.

[beyondnothing]

Sen Clinton has directed internalized sexism at herself. Sexism is so pervasive in this country even women are sexist against other women and themselves. Why was it such an event that Sen Clinton got misty-eyed in NH? She's spent a political career masculinizing herself because she thinks that's the only way to be accepted in a male dominated world. Well, there is a way of being seen as a fully-fledged women in this society and break the stereotypes. It isn't easy, and some will never see the truth. Still, Sen Clinton could give herself a break, show who she really is (a person with a full range of emotions that is integrated). Instead, she's become male-identified, power-grabbing politician. Sen Obama portrays more positive feminine attributes than she.

So, think about that for a while. The world of sexism is for more complex than your "this" or "that" world you just illustrated.

[zjr909]

I never thought I'd see the day when I felt proud of all the stupid American voters who are swayed by such things as hairstyle in choosing a candidate. But that day is dawning as I read one after another intelligent post and intelligent comment by intelligent posters and intelligent commenters - the bulk of which convince me the Democratic party has almost no chance of winning the White House in 2008. It's like listening to a bunch of first graders hurling insults at one another: "My daddy's bigger than your daddy!" "You're an idiot!" "No I'm not!" "Yes you are!" - all served up in picture perfect syntax. How about looking at it this way: Obama's supporters are not mindless cultists; Clinton's supporters are not clueless automatons. They all want the same thing: to undo seven years of craziness. The primary job of the MSM is to get another Republican in the White House; and to that end they'll trash Hillary Clinton one day, Barack Obama the next. The blogs need to rise above that. Otherwise, I'll have to pin my hopes of a Democratic victory in November on the party's candidate having just the right hairstyle: not too long, not too short. Just perfect.

[Kane]

My favorite moment of media bias came in the New Hampshire debates. Remember that, New Hampshire has one of the largest independent voter populations, and that Barack Obama was focusing on this base as well as democrats and republicans.

First, the republican debate. Co-moderator Scott Spradling asks Mitt Romney the following:
"Governor Romney, I'm going to stay with you...I'd like, if you don't mind, to adjust the outcome for a minute and walk down this road with me. Let's say that Barack Obama is the nominee -- he won the Iowa caucus. We have a WMUR poll out just tonight that shows it's tied here in New Hampshire, 33 to 33 -- and I'd like to know from you, why, against you as the nominee down the line, why not vote for Barack Obama? And not just because he's a Democrat -- you're not allowed to say that. I'd like to hear some specifics on why not him."

Spradling goes on to ask the same question of why not Obama to Fred Thompson, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Ron Paul. This question becomes the only question where every candidate is allowed the opportunity to respond.

While Spradling invited the Republican candidates to openly criticize Obama, neither he nor debate moderator Charlie Gibson offer a similar opportunity to any of the Democratic candidates. Indeed, rather than ask such a question, during the Democratic debate later that evening, Spradling asked Obama to respond "to what the Republican candidates for president laid out in arguments for you not being elected president." Spradling added, "I revved up the Republican attack machine. Please respond."

Then the Democratic debate. Spradling asks Bill Richardson the following:
Governor Richardson, I'm curious. Do you think to be president of the United States, that prior executive experience is necessary? And is relative youth a detriment? Spradling goes on to ask Edwards and Clinton the same question. Then Spradling tosses this out to Clinton;
"Does it mean that you're further down the road than your opponents in this, or are you saying that you can do things that these folks can't do when it comes to being an agent of change?"

[ljsfolly]

Just reading the posts I can see why Hillary has gotten the amount of vvotes she did yesterday. Yes she manipulated everyone as I can see from the level of insane people denying they were manipulated. I am so damn angry I cannot watch the tv for the amount of FREE tv and Hillary love in this past week. She has lied/mista­ted/manipu­lated/redi­rected and literally laughed at all of those people who cried poor Hillary. I also doubt I will ever like Jon Stewert again. Don't give me the crap he is just a comedian as he played as big a part as the MSM and SNL in the love-in and poor Hillary for being mistreated! All of those rerunning of the 3 am ads FOR FREE on the cable news. The woe is me and poor me shit that she played people for fools over just as bad as the red eyes and the I can't get a break all the time she down right lied and the "I guess he's not muslim" She knows damn well he's not muslim. She has no more experience than a goose as far as foreign affairs and sure she will wake up Bill of she can find him to get his opinion after all folks you want a co president but you will get McCain instead. The republicans are praying you will elect Hillary so they can win. They have the attack all planned out. Stupid stupid people. I am not so much a Barack fan as I know what you are wanting when you want Hillary. You want Bush in a dress and failedeverything. She's not smarter than anyone just the same as Bush she has played you and you deserve her. I don't. I don't want 4 more years of bush and you will get it whether it's clinton or McCain. I will stay home as I will not vote for either. My vote already shows it doesn't count.

[shadow322]

You have written a biased article yourself. Hillary has been persecuted by the news media/major networks. When I started noticing this I watched for study results thinking that surely someone else must be noticing. This was noticied and the study results support my stance. I really do not know which of the Democratic candidates I will vote for but I do not appreciate the twisted slander Hillary has been getting. For one thing, it implies we are all stupid and can be manipulated. The latest poke at her was from Chris Mathews and the like pressing Clinton's supporters to swear they will support the "popular vote" and not rely on "super delagates" to get the nomination. Now, the day after Hillary has won Ohio and Texas, while Obama has the delagate lead, they are backpeddling their popular vote stance. This type of "reporting the news" has been going on throughout the entire primary election. Obama really has been getting a free pass while Hillary gets slandered. I publically dropped my support for her recently because of her attempted grab at the Florida results. This does not mean however that I will go along with what is turning out to be a smear campaign by the major networks. I never liked Tucker Carlson and know what to expect from him but Chris Mathews has fallen a few notches in my book lately due to his manipulating the facts to promote his own political agenda. Just give me the news "in an accurate form" and I will muddle through it while trying to make a logical "informed" decision - please!

[WaveFunction]

" The latest poke at her was from Chris Mathews and the like pressing Clinton's supporters to swear they will support the "popular vote" and not rely on "super delagates" to get the nomination" This is not a "poke." If more democrats DIDN'T VOTE for Hillary(or any other candidate, even if it happened to be Obama) for the nomination, she shouldn't get the nomination, right? How could this possibly be a 'poke' at Hillary?

I love it. Suddenly pressing the Democratic party not to overrule the popular vote shows a "bias" against Hillary - YES! A BIAS OF THE VOTERS FOR OBAMA! Last I heard that was called Democracy.

The press had her positioned as frontrunner up until Iowa. They were giving her a free ride. It was her race to lose. Nobody smeared her, including Obama. He won the Iowa caucuses fair and square. Presumably this anti-Hillary bias started right after that.

The Press just wants to keep the contest going because it increases their ratings/ci­rculation/­readership­.

This past week they've been giving her a free ride by hardly mentioning her, and by giving her all these comedy spots and coverage on television shows, while Obama has had to deal with Rezko's trial starting and the phony "doublespeak" NAFTA story that Hillary started to fan.

As for the question on 60 minutes, Hillary did a reprehensible thing by not answering unequivocally, "NO, He's not a Muslim, I have prayed with him in Church. The end."

Instead she kept adding qualifiers and Kroft let her get away with it. Those are some underhanded, Karl Rovian tactics indeed.

[WJones]

Thanx for this post. I was wondering why HRC was getting away with all this "blame the media" crap. When there were 11 or so candidates on stange and this same media that she claims is so "out to get her" gushed over her being the "inevitable candidate", we didn't get one complaint from her. And isn't it ironic that during this time, not one of the other candidates (Edwards, Biden, Obama, Dodd, Kusinich, ect.), none of them whined about media bias that was clearly there for Clinton.

[ME08]

What TV channel are YOU watching?

Obviously one being beamed from a Tin Foil Planet...

[LeoMarvin]

Listening to returns now. The media that allegedly hates Hillary is hyperventilating over her dramatic comeback. Who could have possibly imagined? Excuse me, but aren't these exactly the results predicted a few weeks ago? All that's changed since then is Barack closed the distance, and Hillary clawed it back with some fear-mongering tailor-made for McCain to cut and paste if Obama gets the nomination. Well, new flash: Negative Campaigning Works! Oh yeah, "Dog Bites Man" too....

[Bozwellian]

"THANK-YOU"...was WONDERIG if ANY others had noticed that too..that Hillary had had a LARGE percentage listed in her column especially for Ohio and Texas and even RI...That Obama who was DOWN some 20 P{OINTS managed to come up so far and actually maintain a DELEGATE TOTAL MORE THAN HILLARY, with Hillary NOT gaining delegates SHOULD SPEAK VOLUMES but is NOT and we are all beig bombarded how Hillary is BAaaaaaaaaack and on track and back to her "inevitible" position for gee, GGW, those Clintons are knwn for being such die hard fighters and blah, blah, blah...GBO, The Goperites are DELIGHTED, they are salivatating at the prosepect of being able to OPPOSE THE CLINTONS and EVEN if somehow the CLintons squeek in a return engagement, the follow up four years would be TORTUOUS for us ALL and bonus , once again for the GOP, as they "regrouped and refined themselves to retake in full force, THE CLINTONS as well as all Dems would get STUCK, SCAPEGOATED for all that went wrong form the Bush/Cheney reign but will blamed that due to Clinton mismanagement and dismantle attempts, well THAT the reason the Bush/Cheney agenda ended up going so terribly wrong and etc, etc, etc...Sorry, if the CLintons ARE the nominated CIC offering by the Dems, IF bother to cast another vote , would give it to Nader or Ron Paul !!! But chances are, will not even bother, and others of similar mindset for we see OUR votes being of little value, of being repeatedly ignored so no need to wste the gas/energy to even try and participate. THe experienced POLITICIANS have already determined /decided for us and OUR judgement is proven valueless !!!!

[darlingdem]

Hillary has TOTALLY manipulated the press and controlled the political dialogue for the past couple of weeks. Think about it: the plagiarism charges; turning the NAFTA tables on Senator Obama with his mailings and the meeting between his economic advisor and the Canadians; and the red phone/national security ad.

Ironically, in the same debate that Hillary had her "change you can Xerox" zinger, she concluded with her concilliatory "I'll be fine/I just hope the American people will be" comments...lifted directly from John Edwards in a recent debate. Some of her speeches and commercials also borrowed heavily from other politicians, including the "I see" ads. With regard to NAFTA: Hillary extolled its virtues repeatedly, including in her book. While she wants to take credit for the signature "achievements" of the Clinton Administra­tion...she ran from NAFTA when she needed votes in Ohio. By saying that Senator Obama had lied about her position in his "discredited" mailings, she was able to deflect attention from her support of this controversial issue. In reality, Newsday just clarified that it had never said that Hillary said that NAFTA was "a boon," not that Senator Obama had misrepresented Hillary's position. Also, even though Senator Obama and the Canadian officials said that his economic advisor did not make any assurances regarding the future of NAFTA, that did not stop the Hillary camp from leveling this 11th hour charge. As for the red phone ads and her supposed national security experience: what exactly was that ad based on? Hillary has never had a national security clearance and was not part of the decision making process in any national crisis during her husband's administration. And, as it's been pointed out repeatedly, Hillary couldn't even be bothered to read the National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize George Bush's preemptive war on Iraq. (Senator Obama had the foresight and political courage to speak out against the war when it was not a popular thing to do...and was right about what the consequences would be.) Hillary also cast a troubling vote regarding Iran. So, any Hillary advantage in foreigh policy and national security is "a fairly tale".

More importantly, the media has dropped the ball by not pressing Hillary to release her taxes and official documents regarding her activities while she was First Lady. These are LEGITIMATE CAMPAIGN ISSUES. The American people have a right to know where the Clintons' money comes from...especially since she loaned her campaign five million dollars. What is she hiding? If the answer is nothing, then she should remove all doubts and release her taxes IMMEDIATELY. When Tim Russert questioned her about this in the last debate, she waffled and said she was "too busy." When pressed further, she said she might do it before the Ohio and Texas primaries. Of course, she did not. (Did anyone really believe that she would?) Since Hillary insists on sharing credit with her husband on his administration's accomplishments, we deserve to know exactly what role she played in them. She claims Bush is holding up the release of the records documenting her activities as First Lady. However, the White House quickly said that this was not the case. Again, Hillary needs to release these documents so that she can be truly vetted NOW...before she could become the nominee. If there are any problems, it needs to come out sooner, rather than later...so that a Hillary candidacy doesn't implode over some new scandal in the general election. THIS IS CRITICAL. Our country, and the world for that matter, cannot afford a third Bush term...which is what a McCain presidency would be.

While I applaud Senator Obama for basing his campaign on the issues, I believe that Hillary's character IS an issue. Many books (including For Love Of Politics by Sally Bedell Smith) attribute many of the Clinton administration's scandals directly to Hillary, including Travelgate and Whitewater (which led to the appointment of a special prosecutor). Hillary also has the distinction of being the only First Lady to testify before a federal grand jury. She also mismanaged the health care initiative with her insistence on secrecy and her "my way or the highway" approach...and that was with a Democratic White House and Congress! (Do these traits remind you of anyone,,,George Bush, maybe?)

Which brings me to the way Hillary has run her campaign. In 2007, she arrogantly positioned herself as the incumbent and inevitable nominee. She surrounded herself with staffers who were chosen for their loyalty, rather than their qualifications. (Cronyism like this brings to mind "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie!"...and the disgraced Attorney General.) Hillary didn't need the press then and, thus, was not accessible. Hillary also managed to burn through the millions and millions of dollars in her campaign chest...and was even forced to loan her campaign five million dollars. (And she insists that she's more qualified to manage the economy. HA!) She expected to wrap up the nomination by February 5th...and was caught totally unprepared when it didn't turn out that way. (Meanwhile, Senator Obama outorganized, outhustled and outperformed her at every turn.) Then there's Bill. Hillary either condoned his inflammatory comments/actions along the campaign trail...or she can't control him...even though he was representing her on the stump. (The same could be said for several other Hillary surrogates.) Either way, it doesn't inspire confidence in Hillary or her potential presidency. Add to that her sarcastic, decidedly unpresidential behavior; her wildly uneven temperment (to put it kindly); and the ungracious way she treats voters and her opponent on election nights and well...you get the picture.

Nevertheless, Hillary's "kitchen sink" strategy was successful in this round of primaries. (Yes, even though she won three out of four states, Senator Obama could still maintain his delegate lead.) I believe it's imperative to for Senator Obama's campaign to now turn the tables on Hillary and PUT HER ON THE DEFENSIVE. Her tax records, her offical documents regarding her activities as First Lady, the myriad of scandals attributed to her while she was in the White House and the nasty way she has managed and mismanaged her campaign are all legitimate issues that should be part of this discussion as we choose the Democratic nominee. We all know that the Republicans won't hold back and, no doubt, have several closets full of skeletons/­opposition research on Hillary. Or should I say "Billary"...because they'll drag all of Bill's baggage (old and new) out into the open as well.

I believe that it's time for Senator Obaman to come out swinging, wrap up this nomination and focus on John McCain and the general election. Godspeed!

[jake1az]

Where do you Obama people come from...

[savertime]

Obama people come from the reality wing of the democratic party. The people who are not blinded by the snake oil salesmanship of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

[springsm]

Bias FOR Clinton. My gawd...I am not reading those papers..where are they. Every twitch of the HRC eyebrow has been analyzed with hostility. Maybe we should take you with a shot of salt. Obama, until very recently, has gotten a pass on practically everything. And the MSM wants Obama to be the candidate. They have manipulated the whole campaign with this in mind. What is the matter with you.

[Aladdinc]

Oh pleeze....another proof that Obama people are delusional.

[RuthHalligan]

Nicely done.