Media: Obama > Hillary ?

[Kmack]

1cmoJD55sNI

Hmm, he does have a point.

[Matt]

Definitely an interesting video and the guy raises some very VERY valid points. The media has had an Obama bias for the better part of two years.

[rdh007]

...or it could be, to paraphrase Herr Colbert, that reality has a well-known Obama bias.

[Matt]

Not really. In no way was Obama better for the job than Richardson, Biden, Kucinich, or arguably Edwards. The media sunk all of their campaigns. Plain and simple.

[turtlefocker]

Whatever. I still want Obama to win.

[The Chairman]

That video was indeed interesting. That being said, it's also scary that Hilary has a shot. I sadly can't vote (my 18th birthday is after Election Day), but I've been following this election fairly close, and I get such an unsettling vibe from Hilary, and she's also one of the blatantly insincere politicians I've ever seen. Obama may not have the experience, but he at least comes across as honest and genuine when I see him, not to mention that I've been to his websites, researched a good portion of his stances and agree with him on a lot.

[Venom'sDad]

Hmm, he does have a point.

He doesn't have a point. :rolleyes: hiilary supporters would say & feel that way, because this primary was suppose to be her "Coronation to the White House" and she is struuggling to win the primary.

Look, the fact is, the same can be said about her and we all know she has the Clinton Media Machine(CMM) on her side. Because a pundit make one or two not so flattering statement about her does not mean they are against her. Those same pundits we saw on that video(other than Dick Morris) has made more flattering statements about hillary than any candidate in the race, on both sides. The media has to show some of her negatives to appear unbias. This guy is obviously a hillary supporter and is believing the hype that Obama may win. Now that RudyG is out, hillary will be the next president of the United States.... God help us! That video is BS.

[Green Goblin 1964]

Whatever. I still want Obama to win.:up:

[AndrewGilkison]

Not really. In no way was Obama better for the job than Richardson, Biden, Kucinich, or arguably Edwards. The media sunk all of their campaigns. Plain and simple.

Those guys either didn't have enough money to compete with Clinton and Obama's money, or they didn't have the power to emotionally grab voters with their messages. I don't see how it's the Media's fault for the failure of those campaigns to get any real traction. The bottom line is that those guys just couldn't get any momentum behind them. If they could, the Media would've loved to talk about the "out of nowhere" surprise rise of their poll numbers.

[Matt]

Those guys either didn't have enough money to compete with Clinton and Obama's money, or they didn't have the power to emotionally grab voters with their messages. I don't see how it's the Media's fault for the failure of those campaigns to get any real traction. The bottom line is that those guys just couldn't get any momentum behind them. If they could, the Media would've loved to talk about the "out of nowhere" surprise rise of their poll numbers.

If you're truly saying that, you are as blind as a bat. The only two candidates who got real media coverage were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Maybe Edwards to a far lesser extent.

[AndrewGilkison]

If you're truly saying that, you are as blind as a bat. The only two candidates who got real media coverage were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Maybe Edwards to a far lesser extent.

Because those three just did a better job of getting more voters and more people to pay attention to them. They ran better campaigns, pure and simple. Of course the media was going to spend more time talking about the canadates more people actually cared about.

It was up to Richardson and Biden and Kucinich to get themselves ahead and move the race in their favor, and make themslves "the story", and they just couldn't do it. Period.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Silly...

[Lightning Strykez!]

This video amuses me.

So aaaaaaaalll these other professionals and insiders are wrong and this guy is right? :rolleyes: Since when are polls reliable anyway? If anything has been proven lately, it has to be how fickle people can be. Barak had New Hampshire in the bag until Hillary cried on national television and it caused an about-face in the so-called "polls". Big deal. JFK faced similar criticism before, as did many others.

The reporter is obviously a frustated Billary-lover--and that's okay. But he needs to own up to it. Barrack is eating into Hillary's numbers with a undeniable surge. THAT is documented.

[Poetic Chaos]

The Obama bias became extremely obvious to me during the California Democratic Debate. Wolf was undermining her arguments right after she'd speak.

[Kel]

Anyone that is looking at polls right now as the end all to the final count and people who think that a single event of crying and Oprah love is going to change hardcore Democratic voters.....are just kidding themselves. This election will go along the lines of most elections except with one group......and its not the college age group that everyone thinks is going to change the election. It is the 30 to 40 year old independent voters who actually know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to the economy because they are the major part of it. The black vote will stay the same, the hispanic vote will rise (a group that most seem to have forgotten), the new 18 year old vote will stay as low as always, despite MTV....at this moment, it is up in the air (especially in the Democratic Race).......the reason it is up in the air with the Republican party is because "for some reason" the right wing bible thumpers have stayed at home in the primaries.....but Super Tuesday could possibly bring them out, and they will either throw a vote away to Huckabee, or throw their vote away from McCain and throw it to Romney.......but in the end, I think the staunch Conservatives will realize that the only Republican candidate that has even a slight chance to win against a Democratic candidate is McCain and they will move in behind him, plant a smile on their face, and bite the bullet......

The Democratic party has 2 viable candidates that will do the job that the DNC thinks they should.....

The Republican party does not have even one........none of the candidates in the running have a "hardline" conservative voting record in the Senate or Governship........so the Republican party will simply have to bite the bullet and support McCain, because in the end he is going to be their candidate....

If the DNC wants a democrat in office for the next 16 years......they better bite the bullet as well and work for a Clinton/Obama ticket.....because that would guarantee it........


All of this is my opinion....and feel free to disagree.......its all good.:cwink:

[Matt]

Because those three just did a better job of getting more voters and more people to pay attention to them. They ran better campaigns, pure and simple. Of course the media was going to spend more time talking about the canadates more people actually cared about.

It was up to Richardson and Biden and Kucinich to get themselves ahead and move the race in their favor, and make themslves "the story", and they just couldn't do it. Period.

Please. They had the only media attention for the past year and a half. Well before any voters made up their minds. Hell, Richardson, Biden, and Kucinich all entered the race and were campaigning before Obama even entered the race and yet the "Will he/won't he enter the race" stories got more media coverage than Richardson, Biden, and Kucinich's whole campaigns put together.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Anyone that is looking at polls right now as the end all to the final count and people who think that a single event of crying and Oprah love is going to change hardcore Democratic voters.....are just kidding themselves. This election will go along the lines of most elections except with one group......and its not the college age group that everyone thinks is going to change the election. It is the 30 to 40 year old independent voters who actually know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to the economy because they are the major part of it. The black vote will stay the same, the hispanic vote will rise (a group that most seem to have forgotten), the new 18 year old vote will stay as low as always, despite MTV....at this moment, it is up in the air (especially in the Democratic Race).......the reason it is up in the air with the Republican party is because "for some reason" the right wing bible thumpers have stayed at home in the primaries.....but Super Tuesday could possibly bring them out, and they will either throw a vote away to Huckabee, or throw their vote away from McCain and throw it to Romney.......but in the end, I think the staunch Conservatives will realize that the only Republican candidate that has even a slight chance to win against a Democratic candidate is McCain and they will move in behind him, plant a smile on their face, and bite the bullet......

The Democratic party has 2 viable candidates that will do the job that the DNC thinks they should.....

The Republican party does not have even one........none of the candidates in the running have a "hardline" conservative voting record in the Senate or Governship........so the Republican party will simply have to bite the bullet and support McCain, because in the end he is going to be their candidate....

If the DNC wants a democrat in office for the next 16 years......they better bite the bullet as well and work for a Clinton/Obama ticket.....because that would guarantee it........


All of this is my opinion....and feel free to disagree.......its all good.:cwink:

She speaks!!!! (And I love it!) :hehe::up:

Although I do disagree that Hillary's crying bit did not impact voters--it did. That whole "appearance" was staged because her people were telling her that she needed to show more emotional and a warmer, gentler side of herself to the American Public. Soooooo they staged a little cafe meeting in a room full of women and she got misty-eyed--almost as if on cue.

Next thing you know the media and people are saying "OMG, I'm seeing the human side of her" and "I connected with her finally!" And the next day they voted differently. It's....well, politics. One might take a moment to reflect that it was WOMEN who carried her numbers in NH--more so than any other group. Yet interestingly enough it was that same group that completely deserted her in Iowa in favor of Obama.

Hmmmm...I wonder if Oprah's influence had anything on the latter outcome? ;)

[Venom'sDad]

Look, many of you have brought up some good points, whelther I agree or not, but imo, it undeniable. The media is subtly underminding Obama and really Romney's campaigns as well.... their experience, policies, record, and their particular make-up. They have done other candidates the same, before dropping out. hillary, all they do is focus on her negatives, given the appearence of being unbias; but everyone are already familiar with her negatives(that's not hurting her, people already accept that about her), while making outrageous claims like 35 years of experience.

What 35 years of experience. The media have yet to say what that experience is or consit of. She's been in bed with those very special interest for 35 years that she claims to be against, wheeling & dealing. 1st Lady experience... balderdash. Since 93, the media claims she was the smartest woman on the face of the earth and impeccable judgement.... where is it, I don't see it. I give her credit for drive and ambition, that's not a bad thing. However, most candidates running for President of the United States have drive and ambition.... there's nothing unique about that. She ran for Senate of NY, because it was laid for her there. She have played it safe or non-existant on tough issues, so her record can't be scrutinized.

Look at how the media portray her rallys, or lack there of. Obama has to lease out arenas and convention centers and stand on stage surrounded by tens of thousands adoring people. She has to rent out school gymnasiums and 350 seat auditoriums with three rows or 45 people behind her holding hillary signs, pretending to be engaged. Reports have said she bus in supporters to her rallys or lack there of. People in IA, NH, and SC have been reported as leaving her rallys to go attend Obama's.

Look, whelther you like what I'm saying or not, the fact is she was inevitable... this was to be her coronation and she is collasping. She is only benefitting from "Early Voters" People are fleeing her like the plaque. Like many pundits are force to admit, if there was more time she would lose. The primary was design to be front heavy, to lay an easier path to the nomination, before her negatives and favorability start to effect her chances to the nomination. Point blank... many of you can deny it all you want, but it's real.

If he is able to withstand the "Early Votes" and what votes she will get in heavy congressional districts, Obama will continue on to TX, OH, PA, and IN etc.

[The Senator]

The media has not been undermining Obama's campaign. Like I pointed out before, the so-called Clinton Media Machine is a crock of crap. The media has scrutinized Hillary throughout this campaign. If it isn't about her husband's lewd comments, it's about her crying. If it isn't about her vote for the war, it's about how she handled the Lewinski scandal. If it isn't about her gender, it's about her polarizing demeanor. Meanwhile, Barack Obama has been portrayed as "the American dream" and the new embodiment of hope. The pundits have flocked around him, from Chris Matthews to Wolf Blitzer to Joe Scarborough. They're in love with the man.

This was especially evident after the Iowa caucuses, when the media was so anxious to anoint a new frontrunner they immediately took Obama's win as a sign that he was inevitable. They spent five days ushering Hillary out of the race, saying her campaign was done and that Obama was going to win New Hampshire, and then the nomination. If you paid any attention to this race at all between Iowa and New Hampshire, you should have known this. How you can say this was in favor of Clinton is inconceivable to me, and further proves how disassociated from reality you've become.

She also isn't benefiting solely from "early voters." That's garbage. By saying that, you're assuming her die-hard supporters who can physically make it to the polls are going to pull the lever, press the button, check the box, etc. for Obama rather than her. If she wins tonight, it will have NOTHING to do with early voters, because those votes aren't counted until after the election in the first place.

As for the rallies, your assumptions, like always, epitomize the blindness exhibited by most Obama supporters. Hillary Clinton fills arenas, too. In fact, she has lines coming out of her rallies which mirror those of Obama. Obama was endorsed by Ted Kennedy at my campus. I saw those lines. Hillary spoke in DC a few months ago, and the lines were probably just as long. They both usher tens of thousands of people to their appearances. I've never seen an empty Clinton rally, and I don't think I'm going to for as long as this campaign lasts.

These points have nothing to do with whether I like what you're saying or not. They have to do with how misinformed you are, and how your uninformed views have eroded your credibility with every post you make.

[Ghostvirus]

I think the media has been equal with Hillary, & Obama. The just can't get over the fact that Obama is black, & Hillary is a woman.

[Venom'sDad]

Look, many of you have brought up some good points, whelther I agree or not, but imo, it undeniable. The media is subtly underminding Obama and really Romney's campaigns as well.... their experience, policies, record, and their particular make-up. They have done other candidates the same, before dropping out. hillary, all they do is focus on her negatives, given the appearence of being unbias; but everyone are already familiar with her negatives(that's not hurting her, people already accept that about her), while making outrageous claims like 35 years of experience.

What 35 years of experience. The media have yet to say what that experience is or consit of. She's been in bed with those very special interest for 35 years that she claims to be against, wheeling & dealing. 1st Lady experience... balderdash. Since 93, the media claims she was the smartest woman on the face of the earth and impeccable judgement.... where is it, I don't see it. I give her credit for drive and ambition, that's not a bad thing. However, most candidates running for President of the United States have drive and ambition.... there's nothing unique about that. She ran for Senate of NY, because it was laid for her there. She have played it safe or non-existant on tough issues, so her record can't be scrutinized.

Look at how the media portray her rallys, or lack there of. Obama has to lease out arenas and convention centers and stand on stage surrounded by tens of thousands adoring people. She has to rent out school gymnasiums and 350 seat auditoriums with three rows or 45 people behind her holding hillary signs, pretending to be engaged. Reports have said she bus in supporters to her rallys or lack there of. People in IA, NH, and SC have been reported as leaving her rallys to go attend Obama's.

Look, whelther you like what I'm saying or not, the fact is she was inevitable... this was to be her coronation and she is collasping. She is only benefitting from "Early Voters" People are fleeing her like the plaque. Like many pundits are force to admit, if there was more time she would lose. The primary was design to be front heavy, to lay an easier path to the nomination, before her negatives and favorability start to effect her chances to the nomination. Point blank... many of you can deny it all you want, but it's real.

If he is able to withstand the "Early Votes" and what votes she will get in heavy congressional districts, Obama will continue on to TX, OH, PA, and IN etc.

Just want to focus on the highlighted for a moment, because Robert Novak was on FoxNews and reluctantly amitted that, "It is true that high level Democrats and influential members of the Clinton campaign are the creators of front loading the primaries to benefit hillary".... for the reason highlighted above. Understand what Novak is saying, high level and influential members high-jack the primary election to benefit a particular candidate. Can anyone say "SPECIAL INTEREST". Novak went on to say, "The purpose was to get her nominated before her negatives set in and to also allow her to have 8 months of fund raising to combat the Republican Nominee." Unbelievable....

Pelosi daughter followed Novak and said she suspect that Obama will win California, but caution, she is hearing that they(pundits) should be aware of "Absentee Voting". My sentiments exactly... that will help push her ahead in my opinion, not just in California.

:dry:

[The Senator]

Just want to focus on the highlighted for a moment, because Robert Novak was on FoxNews and reluctantly amitted that, "It is true that high level Democrats and influential members of the Clinton campaign are the creators of front loading the primaries to benefit hillary".... for the reason highlighted above. Understand what Novak is saying, high level and influential members high-jack the primary election to benefit a particular candidate. Can anyone say "SPECIAL INTEREST". Novak went on to say, "The purpose was to get her nominated before her negatives set in and to also allow her to have 8 months of fund raising to combat the Republican Nominee." Unbelievable....

Pelosi daughter followed Novak and said she suspect that Obama will win California, but caution, she is hearing that they(pundits) should be aware of "Absentee Voting". My sentiments exactly... that will help push her ahead in my opinion, not just in California.

:dry:

Um, special interest groups aren't the only people who vote early. You're obviously forgetting the college kids, who usually make up the bulk of absentee/ early voters. Somehow, I don't see them corrupted by "special interests."

[StorminNorman]

This video amuses me.

So aaaaaaaalll these other professionals and insiders are wrong and this guy is right? :rolleyes: Since when are polls reliable anyway? If anything has been proven lately, it has to be how fickle people can be. Barak had New Hampshire in the bag until Hillary cried on national television and it caused an about-face in the so-called "polls". Big deal. JFK faced similar criticism before, as did many others.

The reporter is obviously a frustated Billary-lover--and that's okay. But he needs to own up to it. Barrack is eating into Hillary's numbers with a undeniable surge. THAT is documented.

Yes - all those professionals and insiders ARE wrong about this guy because they are NOT objective. People like Dick Morris and most of Fox News despise Hillary Clinton. The far left in the media are enamored by the idea of a young, charismatic, handsome incredibly liberal Presidential candidate. They AREN'T being objective.

And polls are almost always accurate. Even in New Hampshire they were accurate - simply the undecided went to Hillary Clinton.

Though it is good you mentioned JFK. Barrack is a lot like JFK - he is charismatic, young, sexy, etc. etc. He is, however, far less qualified than JFK who was a horrible President while in office.

[StorminNorman]

.......the reason it is up in the air with the Republican party is because "for some reason" the right wing bible thumpers have stayed at home in the primaries.....

This is incorrect. In fact it was the evangelicals that gave Huckabee Iowa which derailed Romney's campaign from the start. If Romney won Iowa - he would of taken New Hampshire and this is a one man race.

[StorminNorman]

Look, many of you have brought up some good points, whelther I agree or not, but imo, it undeniable. The media is subtly underminding Obama and really Romney's campaigns as well.... their experience, policies, record, and their particular make-up. They have done other candidates the same, before dropping out. hillary, all they do is focus on her negatives, given the appearence of being unbias; but everyone are already familiar with her negatives(that's not hurting her, people already accept that about her), while making outrageous claims like 35 years of experience.

The Media HAS influenced this election. You are, however, only half correct.

The Media has not undermined Obama's campaign - they have given it life! Obama, as a candidate, has little to run on! His experience is laughable. No one mentions the fact he attended 20% of the votes on Capital Hill as a Congressman. No one points to the fact he has spent almost his entire time in Washington running for President. He has no experience to back up his campaign and this is NOT addressed.

Instead the media points to how pretty a symbol he is. :whatever:

They have doomed Romney's campaign however. Ever since New Hampshire they have painted and painted and painted McCain as the front runner. They greatly ignored Michigan after Romney's victory. They payed far greater attention to South Carolina than Nevada, and almost all the media outlets described McCain as the front runner coming into Florida. This claim was laughable considering that Romney was leading MOST Florida polls before Florida, actually was leading in the GOP Nationally AND had more delegates.

People like to vote with a winner and a great portion of McCain's vote came from the fact he was painted as the given choice.

Of course the Media also, for the most part, ignored McCain flat out lies, such as: Romney supported a Time Table in Iraq, that he was the ONLY candidate that supported the surge when it began (Giuliani and Romney were both on record the day of the announcement that they supported) and he tried to deny a statement that he made about not being that knowledgeable about the economy.

So yes - the media did royally screw a candidate. In fact you could aruge they screwed two. It was not, however, Obama and Romney - but Romney and all of Obama's competition.

[Venom'sDad]

The Media HAS influenced this election. You are, however, only half correct.

The Media has not undermined Obama's campaign - they have given it life! Obama, as a candidate, has little to run on! His experience is laughable. No one mentions the fact he attended 20% of the votes on Capital Hill as a Congressman. No one points to the fact he has spent almost his entire time in Washington running for President. He has no experience to back up his campaign and this is NOT addressed.

Instead the media points to how pretty a symbol he is. :whatever:

They have doomed Romney's campaign however. Ever since New Hampshire they have painted and painted and painted McCain as the front runner. They greatly ignored Michigan after Romney's victory. They payed far greater attention to South Carolina than Nevada, and almost all the media outlets described McCain as the front runner coming into Florida. This claim was laughable considering that Romney was leading MOST Florida polls before Florida, actually was leading in the GOP Nationally AND had more delegates.

People like to vote with a winner and a great portion of McCain's vote came from the fact he was painted as the given choice.

Of course the Media also, for the most part, ignored McCain flat out lies, such as: Romney supported a Time Table in Iraq, that he was the ONLY candidate that supported the surge when it began (Giuliani and Romney were both on record the day of the announcement that they supported) and he tried to deny a statement that he made about not being that knowledgeable about the economy.

So yes - the media did royally screw a candidate. In fact you could aruge they screwed two. It was not, however, Obama and Romney - but Romney and all of Obama's competition.

I respectfully disagree with part of your assessment on Obama and agree totally with your assessment of Romney… no disagreement there.
As far as Obama is concern, yes there is no denying Obama are taking advantage of the spot light, that’s what he suppose to do in a campaign. However, I said subtle and when I say “Undermine” let me clarify my statement.

All the media is doing is propping him up as a candidate of change, hope, and all the one worded slogans. They are totally ignoring his experience, judgment(which can always be argued depending on one’s perspective), accomplishment in the state & federal Senate, Senate Committees he’s a member of, and many others like Graduate and degrees, a black cannot attracts whites, as you say, running for Prez his whole Senate career which is not true. He made a speech at the Convention… much like William Jefferson Clinton. He has constantly address legislation and bill he either authored or co-authored, and pass on the U.S. Senate floor. The media completely ignore that fact, they just say he’s fresh, good looking, and well-spoken. That is not all of his attributes… and the media subtly and purposely ignore all of his accomplishment and attributes, while praising superficial and obvious qualities he possess. Yes, the media is undermining him and his real qualities.

On the flipside of this, simultaneously uplift and falsely highlight qualities that hillary does not have. She’s stronger, more intelligent, better judgment, tougher but gentler, grasp the pulse of the American people, more experience, etc. I have yet to see the media present an accurate representation of this supposedly 35 years of experience. They make light of the 1st Lady experience thing, but implant serious consideration for it. Keep in mind she has been running for Prez since November 2000 when she won the NY Senate Seat… so lets be honest about that. Her record in the Senate has been safe… she has done nothing; yet, the media does not highlight that. Go figure. Not to mention the Clinton Media Machine(CMM) who have been saying since 2000 on a regular bases that she would be running in 2008. Everyone knew this day was coming for 8 years. BTW, it’s not the media undermining hillary, she and Bill has underestimated Obama’s effectiveness and American intelligence. She was by far, 30+ points, the frontrunner and inevitable Dems Nominee.

Look, I respect your opinion, I just disagree. There much more I can say about this, but I’m trying to keep it short.

[StorminNorman]

All the media is doing is propping him up as a candidate of change, hope, and all the one worded slogans. They are totally ignoring his experience, judgment(which can always be argued depending on one’s perspective), accomplishment in the state & federal Senate, Senate Committees he’s a member of, and many others like Graduate and degrees, a black cannot attracts whites, as you say, running for Prez his whole Senate career which is not true.

You see the media ignoring his experience as a negative for Obama. I see it as one of his greatest assets so far in this campaign. He has no executive experience. He has no record of great success managing anything.

And yes - he has spent much of his time in Washington running for President. He was sworn in 2005. The workings of his campaign started in 2006. He has a voting record of about 20%.

Of all the candidates - from Hillary to Edwards to Brownback to McCain to Thompson to Gravel, he has - by far - the least amount of experience to be President.

Again - this is not being exploited by the media. To HIS advantage.

He made a speech at the Convention… much like William Jefferson Clinton. He has constantly address legislation and bill he either authored or co-authored, and pass on the U.S. Senate floor. The media completely ignore that fact, they just say he’s fresh, good looking, and well-spoken. That is not all of his attributes… and the media subtly and purposely ignore all of his accomplishment and attributes, while praising superficial and obvious qualities he possess. Yes, the media is undermining him and his real qualities.

There is nothing special about those accomplishments though. Rudy wasn't given credit for speaking at the GOP convention. McCain doesn't get credit for every bill he authored on the floor. His resume is completely lack luster compared to everyone in the running.

He is not going to win on his past. He is going to win on his future. The media knows this. He knows this. He can't run on his record and expect to beat anyone.

On the flipside of this, simultaneously uplift and falsely highlight qualities that hillary does not have. She’s stronger, more intelligent, better judgment, tougher but gentler, grasp the pulse of the American people, more experience, etc. I have yet to see the media present an accurate representation of this supposedly 35 years of experience. They make light of the 1st Lady experience thing, but implant serious consideration for it. Keep in mind she has been running for Prez since November 2000 when she won the NY Senate Seat… so lets be honest about that. Her record in the Senate has been safe… she has done nothing; yet, the media does not highlight that. Go figure. Not to mention the Clinton Media Machine(CMM) who have been saying since 2000 on a regular bases that she would be running in 2008. Everyone knew this day was coming for 8 years. BTW, it’s not the media undermining hillary, she and Bill has underestimated Obama’s effectiveness and American intelligence. She was by far, 30+ points, the frontrunner and inevitable Dems Nominee.

I haven't seen anyone say she is smarter, has better judgment, tough, gentle OR has a grasp on the pulse of America. In fact I constantly hear her criticized for her lack of humanity and Bill's bravado.

She does have more experience than Obama. That is her record. She has more time in Washington than Obama - that is also, to some extent, what hurts her.

Her familiarity helped her months ago when it didn't matter - just like when Rudy was ahead by miles. But it also can destroy candidates - just like it is Hillary right now. And the Media is apart of that.

Look, I respect your opinion, I just disagree. There much more I can say about this, but I’m trying to keep it short.


I always have fun in a debate - especially a decent one :D

[dpm07]

I want to rock with Barack! :up:

[Super_Ludacris]

Not really. In no way was Obama better for the job than Richardson, Biden, Kucinich, or arguably Edwards. The media sunk all of their campaigns. Plain and simple.


But you havent included Hilary in that list.....

[Matt]

But you havent included Hilary in that list.....

Thats because in my opinion neither Hillary or Obama are qualified to be president. Hillary is only slightly more qualified than Obama but neither have any business being president.

[Super_Ludacris]

You think Kucinich is better?

[Matt]

Better? No. Especially since he sold out. More qualified? By light years.

[Sentinel X]

That video doesn't make much of a point at all :huh:
The media has actually favored Hilary more; please don't tell me everyone forgot just last month ago and in December Hilary was basically in the spotlight forever and she was the main democratic canidate in the eyes of the media. Now that the public has shown to have a considerable amount of interest in Obama the media starts to cover him more.

Hilary has not been ignored and those people in the video that he uses as "evidence" of this media injustice are Obama supporters...Hilary supporters have done the same so in all honesty I don't see the point hes trying to make


Btw, Bill and Hilary keep saying how little experience Obama has...but Im wondering, how much experience did Bill Clinton have when he was running for president? :whatever:

[bunk]

Obviously experience isn't everything and based on how this country has voted in the past I don't see that changing. It's the "intangibles" to borrow a football term. As stupid as it sounds, Hillary and Obama seem more presidential than the other Dem candidates, that's why they pulled ahead. Most Dems and Republicans want to win above anything else. Add in the historic weight of their candidacy and money they've generated, nobody should be surprised about this. The media aren't responsible for who appears qualified in an election in this day an age when it's so easy to learn about candidates. They do help distort the image of who's electable though.