MSM Conglomerates donate FREE Air Time to Clinton campaign

[bvar22]

The two Cable News outlets I monitor (CNN Lou Dobbs/Blitzer and MSNBC CountDown) repeatedly played Hillary's latest Campaign Commercials, full length, during their "News Reports". I don't watch any other CorporateMedia News (except The Daily Show), but I suspect that this was mirrored on ALL the other Cable & Commercial outlets (with the possible exception of Fox). This amounts to a gift to the Clinton campaign worth $Millions. Do you believe that equal time will be donated to Kucinich or Edwards.

This is no longer any doubt that the huge Global Conglomerates support Hillary for the Democratic Nomination. A Hillary nomination is WIN/WIN for these huge Corporations.

*If Republicans WIN in 2008, it will be business as usual for the MegaCorps.

*If Hillary WINS in 2008, it will be business as usual for the MegaCorps.

WIN/WIN for BIG MONEY

Admittedly, Hillary's latest ads are very, very good. Slick, professional productions that utilyze all the tools and techniques developed by Madison Avenue and Image Professionals to influence the American consumer without putting Hillary on the spot to actually STAND for any particular ISSUE.


disclaimer: I support Democrats who have pledged to advance issues that will help Americans who Work for a Living. As such, I have a natural bias against Hillary and other DLC/Corporate owned politicians.



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[DURHAM D]

1. The media is also spending considerable time talking about

Elizabeth Edward's recent interview in which she trashed Obama and Hillary. Is that also a conspiracy?

[bvar22]

2. Not the same.

Interviewing a candidate's wife is not the same as the free airing of campaign promotional material during a "News" show.

[ronnykmarshall]

4. Of course it's not the same.

:eyes:

[PurityOfEssence]

11. If it's being done in an unfavorable way, then YES.

What these other two posters are thinking escapes me completely, but if the theory (to which I subscribe, by the way) holds true that the corporate media wants Hillary as the nominee, then showing Elizabeth Edwards bad-mouthing Obama is a gift from above: it makes her look contentious and unpleasant, and they get to passive-aggressively play clips of her slagging the other chief rival.

Talk about a win-win situation: they get to tar the Edwards camp as uncivil and underhanded, and they get to repeat damaging assessments of Obama without having to come right out and be the ones who originated (or even agree with) such attacks. ("I can't believe anyone would call him a narcissistic, messianic dick who's devoid of principals and as crooked as a bag of snakes; he seems like a fine enough fellow to me...")

As if this isn't good enough and following the premise that the corporate media would prefer a Republican victory, by doing this they portray the Democrats as squabbling among their ranks. The implication is that Democrats are unworthy of our trust to have leadership positions because of their childishness, and that the only one of the big three who's tolerable is the guileless Hillary who's above the fray. In a broader sense, it shows that the ideals of the libruls are so hollow that even the reddest of the bolsheviks can't keep from being at each others throats.

So yes, it looks like a deliberate set of parallel attempts by the information force-feeders to convey these feelings.

Your use of the word "conspiracy" is a bit suspect, though; like Gore Vidal, I have a knee-jerk reaction to the use of this word when characterizing the opinions of others: to accuse someone else of proposing that there's a "conspiracy" out there is to portray the person speaking as some kind of wild-eyed fantasist, since we all know that no such things exist. When you hear A WHOLE BUNCH OF right-wing pundits use the EXACT PHRASE on TV on the same day for the first time, that's not evidence of behind-the-scenes tactical planning, and there are certainly nothing like "marching orders"; these people all just arrived at the same conclusion at the same time with the exact same cute phrasing because of independent discovery, and this is simply more proof that they're incredibly correct and astute to the point of perspicacity.

The big question in the face of so many upright, professional people saying exactly the same thing is how could anyone dare to think differently? It's proof that people who don't agree are deeply wrong to such a degree that they should be permanently drummed out of the public forum forthwith.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. But, but, but

She's our 'Goddess of Peace', our 'New FDR', she was sent from the Heavens.

Don't try to tell me she's in bed with the current crop of crooks.

I won't hear of it!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. It's so clear that Hillary is the candidate that the Republicans

WANT to run against.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. CSPAN played it on WJ this morning...

they also played one from Romney's campaign.

[alfredo]

7. I think many see her as a person that will bring stability. Business interests

can't do business in a chaotic world.

Expect a more conservative crowd to start speaking well of her. They know what they'd be getting with her. Maybe that is what the country desires. They may not like her, but she is the devil they know, and that "devil" isn't as scary as her enemies say she is.

I would rather see a more progressive candidate win in 2008, but a "D" after their name is a hell of a lot better than an "R."

[zulchzulu]

8. Let's see if they play other candidate's commercials in full for free...

Thanks for monitoring.

I am too.

I smell a rat.

This is as odd as Diebold. I've alerted someone at The Nation about this trend and hopefully we can see some serious investigation into what's going on behind the curtain.

I'm convinced that it will backfire...the truth always wins in the end. In most cases, anyway....

[MethuenProgressive]

9. Maybe your guy needs better commercials?

Whining that her's make the news and your guy's doesn't (only in your opinion, and not based on any factual data of any kind at all, that is)is pretty petty. I haven't seen a Hillary Clinton commercial in almost a week!! The MSM must hate her!! The MSM must love Obama and Edwards!! (disclaimer, I've been on vacation, not watching TV, so my data is as valid as the OP's data...)

[bvar22]

10. No, my data is 100% valid.

On August 14, 2007, the above MSM "News" outlets aired Hillary campaign commercials in full during their news segments. That is a fact, and is indesputable.

Your post contains NO data. So NO, your data is not as valid as mine.

[MethuenProgressive]

16. Thanks for proving my point!

Too bad it was over your head...

[William769]

12. This is strating to get comical. Thanks!

:rofl:

[bvar22]

13. Hilarious. Right.

*more WAR/ Indefinate Iraq Occupation

*more Tax Money diverted to Defense and MIC

*more "Free Trade"

*more JOBS outsourced

*more FOR PROFIT HealthCare

*more Privatization of the Public Commons

*increased concentration of POWER into fewer Corporate hands

*less regulation and oversight of MegaCorporations

Yeah. So comical I'm crying here.

[William769]

15. Yes it's fucking Hilarious!

:rofl:

[MaineDem]

14. I've seen other complete tv ads covered on the news

This isn't anything limited to the Clinton campaign.

[Karmadillo]

17. Damn! Add that to all the time they spent on her cleavage and it's so clear

the corporate media want her to win the Dem nomination. I mean, like, they didn't spend any time on Obama's cleavage. It's so unfair.