Why in the hell does MSNBC pundits keep saying Hillary won that debate

[bigdarryl]

i just heard sorry ass Tweety make a statement EVERYBODY though Hillary won the debate. who the fuck is everybody to these idiots. there asking questions to each other who they though was going to win the rethug debate. from what i see there setting this up to say McCain will win the debate. these motherfuckers are showing there bias to who they want the candidates to be and there trying like heck to sway the public that who ever they support is the choice everybody should pick.

[jefferson_dem]

1. Pay Tweety no mind. Sometimes he just makes shit up for the sake of it...

By the way, he's factually WRONG on this one.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=ba1ebc70-a734-4185-8532-2e4a9ba45d96&q=39848

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Wow, that's a great poll!

Obama overall.

And who knew Kucinch's appeal to Hispanics?

[MethuenProgressive]

4. That's a poll of 403 South Carolina-ites. Was there a national poll taken?

1) It wasn't a debate. 2) It's a bit early to worry so much about what one guy on the 4th ranked cable news network says about anything.

[w4rma]

2. Why did they say that Lieberman won the early 2004 debates? Same reason. (nt)

[ORDagnabbit]

5. because corporations run the country.....

[lamp_shade]

6. Because she did !!!

[SaveElmer]

7. Why the hell does BigDarryl keep saying Hillary Clinton lost the debate?

Because you have an opinion right?

Only at DU do people think Hillary Clinton gets positive media coverage!

:rofl:

[katmondoo]

8. I was not a Hillary supporter and I thought she won

[illinoisprogressive]

17. she did. check the voting. I say we write as ask why they are lying.

[rinsd]

30. How are they lying? You may want to read a bit more into that poll

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3246812&mesg_id=3246954

[dogman]

9. How can it be said anybody won?

The network won because people watched their show. There was no debate and just like the primaries four years ago, there was no fairness applied in the quality of the questions or the time allotted each candidate.

[donco6]

10. I'm surprised they're not claiming Bush won.

I'm still shocked over all of those pronouncements.

[AtomicKitten]

11. I don't think there was a clear winner.

Some did well, others not as well, but nobody tanked.

[rinsd]

13. I would agree though I thought Richardson did his campaign no favors (nt)

[AtomicKitten]

41. It seems that is the consensus opinion of Richardson's performance.

I think he did okay. I also thought Edwards looked exhausted (he probably was), Obama looked nervous (he probably was), Hillary was confident and prepared (as expected), Biden delivered the one-liner of the evening (proving less is more), Dodd was there, and Gravel was kind enough to afford Kucinich gravitas comparatively.

In the final analysis, although the debate was not spectacular by any means, the Democratic field kicks ass.

[sallyseven]

12. Because she did.

Many people to their chagrin think so too.

[Ethelk2044]

33. She did not win

They asked her easy questions if any. I did not like them not giving her hard questions. They should have then we would have seen if she had any substance at all. No she did not win. However, hopefully next debate they will ask the tough questions.

[snappyturtle]

14. I heard him say it. I had the same response as you. nt

[David Dunham]

15. I think Hillary did win. Obama clearly flubbed it.

[illinoisprogressive]

18. only the pundits think that. The people voted for Obama

[mtnsnake]

21. I saw the results of the poll afterwards. It was nothing more than popularity contest

People in the poll simply voted along the same lines as what you see in the other primary polls.

[rinsd]

29. The people? You mean liberals? Because they thought Hillary won 36 to 32 over Obama

Or did you mean Democrats? Hillary again 37-36.

Or perhaps Democratic pirmary voters? Guess who 39-35.

The people have spoken ;-)

[nevergiveup]

28. No one

"clearly flubbed" this debate.

[illinoisprogressive]

16. I'd like to know that as well. the ignore the voting and just make stuff up

I say we write to them and ask how much the clinton's are paying them.
As of this week, I've stopped watching them because they lie and keep shoving Hillary down our throat

[elocs]

19. I am an undecided and I could really care less who was perceived as winning the "debate". n/t

[mtnsnake]

20. I'll tell ya who didnt win was my favorite guy, Obama. Kucinich kicked ass, though

I thought Hillary did okay, but she could've been way better, too. For the most part, she, Obama, and Edwards all gave rehearsed answers to questions that didn't even pertain to their answers.

Obama and Hillary disappointed me the most, even though I thought Hillary did alright. I guess I had much higher expectations for both of them. Some of Edwards answers were goofy, too, like when he was asked what people would be role models for him and he hesitated for what seemed like an hour and then answered that his Lord was one of his favorite role models. Good grief, John, you were supposed to use PEOPLE role models, not heavenly ones. Thank goodness nobody else felt compelled to prove how religious they were, even when not asked.

[youngdem]

22. Because it is the Corporate Media's job to deliver TWO corporate candidates...

for us to 'choose' from...

Any Repuke and a DLC Dem.

We're all set, it seems.

:puke:

[mtnsnake]

26. Funny how when the media is pushing Edwards, I don't hear you whining & making excuses

about the corporate media.

[youngdem]

32. First of all, you don't hear the media pimping Edwards.

They get him on bullshit like expensive haircuts and his big house that he is having built in anticipation of a presidency and all a presidential vacation house would demand.

Second, I don't support him.

So, I don't know who you are thinking of, but best of luck to you in finding him.

:hi:

[mtnsnake]

35. Oh!

:hi:

[illinoisprogressive]

23. But, MSNBC has been shoving Hillary at us relentlessly. people resent having that done

[mtnsnake]

27. Hillary makes her own luck. If the others cant compete similarly, then it's not her fault

Maybe some of them just aren't as good as her when it comes to knowing how to grab the spotlight. You gotta grab the spotlight, not sit there and hope it comes shining on you by accident.

[MGKrebs]

36. I know. All those name-change and campaign-in-crisis stories

are almost enough to make one regurgitate.

[Forkboy]

24. It's all subjective anyways.

People will tend to think their candidate won,and will look for opinions that agree with that view as if that's proof of anything more than someone agreeing with them.

[Dinger]

25. Stop! Resistance Is Futile

That is all.

[seasat]

31. IMHO, it's because she didn't make a mistake

She's the front runner and this early in the game all she has to do is maintain here lead. She gave competent answers and didn't commit gaffs. The goal of the other candidates was to draw differences significant enough to cut into her support. No one really accomplished that. I think the MSM made her winner because she accomplished her goal not because she gave an outstanding performance.

[unlawflcombatnt]

34. I'm wondering that myself

I didn't think Clinton was the slightest bit impressive. The affluent Corporate media elite, even the alleged "liberals," give extra consideration to fellow rich elite candidates like Clinton, and less to candidates like Kucinich, or even Edwards. Anyone who espouses anti-Corporate policies, wage inequality, or populist issues loses points from the commentators. They really hate to hear from anyone who might make them less rich (by increasing taxes), reducing their own investment returns (by reducing outsourcing) or who might not support the insane war on terror (since terrorism crimps their international travel plans).

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

[Tejanocrat]

37. I'm no HRC fan and I think she did no better than average but I understand what the MSM talkingheads

mean when they say that any debate where the front runner doesn't get her ass handed to her is a win for the front runner. In that sense, I think you could call HRC the winner.

But no one knew who the hell Gravel was before the debate so you could also say he was the winner.

Other than Gravel, I think Biden was the only one who moved up in the ranking as a result (seems like he leapfrogged Richardson to become the king of the second tier guys) so in that sense you could say Biden won.

As far as I can tell, the Obama reinforced his support from his fans, Edwards reinforced his support from his fans, and Kucinich reinforced his support from his fans, so in that sense you could say that they won.

[mtnsnake]

38. Why do people often preface a semi-supportive post about Hillary with "I'm no HRC fan..."?

"I'm not HRC fan, BUT..."

I've always been curious about that. Is it because they're worried that someone might mistake them for being a dreaded Hillary supporter if they don't preface their post that way first? Is it to make sure that everyone knows they don't like Hillary, even though they're about to say something halfway good about her? Is it a preventative measure to keep one from getting tarred and feathered, DU style, after saying something about her that's not too bad? Just wondering. :evilgrin:

[Tejanocrat]

39. I pointed out that I'm not an HRC fan because some posters relentlessly twist facts to support the

candidate they favor and, unfortunately more common here, twist the facts to slander a candidate they don't favor and I think those posters have no credibility whatsoever and I want to plainly distinguish my self from those frauds.

Since I was saying something positive about HRC, contrary to the OP and the general gist of the thread, and I wanted to show clearly that my motivation for that statement was not out of partisanship for HRC.

With regard to the "tar and feathering" here of those who distort the facts to inaccurately smear Democrats - I think DU would benefit from the ability to label some spamslander posters with a troll rating like you can at Daily Kos. Some of the shit you read here is nastier in its attack on Democratic candidates than what you see at freerepublic. That's part of the reason why I have less than 200 posts here and well over 2000 at Daily Kos - there is more of a community and a sense of shared purpose at Daily Kos and less tolerance for crappy inaccurate slurs against Democrats which you read constantly here.

[mtnsnake]

44. I'm glad I asked you because your reply is fantastic!

Well said, Tejanocrat!

:thumbsup:

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

40. It's their job. And in return, their bosses get her war chest come advertising season.

Wink-wink, Nod-nod.

Its a win-win situation you see.

[MiniMe]

42. She didn't lose either, so if she didn't lose, she won

Twisted logic. I guess if you don't hurt yourself in the campaign, you win.

[WA98296]

43. It's their job to convince the public. Hillary is the pick of the GOP and corporate America.