To all you DU'ers who always said that the media would do its best to pick our candidates for us

[mtnsnake]

Were you ever right!

DU'ers have been saying for over two years how the media is going to choose who the candidates will be from either party, and I was always a little skeptical about that. Well, I gotta give it to you, you were all spot on.

Before Obama came along, Hillary was the only Democrat that the media felt could sell a story, for obvious reasons. However, with the rise of the media's own new sensation, Barack Obama, it is clear that the media does not need the Clintons anymore to sell their stories. Every channel you go to, every major newspaper you look at, they take anything Clinton and turn it into a negative. Their thirst for Obama could not be more obvious. Afterall, they helped to create him. The media has taken Hillary and Bill, crumpled them up, and thrown them like garbage into the trash. With Obama to carry the media on his back for them, the Clintons are simply expendable now.

John Edwards? Who's he? The media couldn't care less about someone who's already been there. He's old news to them. It doesn't matter if his qualifications are as good as the others or not. All they liked about him was the price he paid for a haircut one day. That won't sell newspapers forever.

Same for Joe Biden, perhaps the most qualified candidate on either side. Like Edwards, Biden is old news to them, too, and therefore he's of no interest. The media barely gave him a second thought. Shameful, if you ask me.

My own personal favorite, Dennis Kucinich? Am I nuts? Why should I expect the media to give him one minute of their attention? He's too small, he's not dynamic, so let's get rid of this guy in a hurry. You can only get so much out of a flying saucer story, so there's sense wasting any time on this non-entity.

On the Republican side of things, the media is having a bit more trouble. They would love it if Rudy Gullinia was the nominee, and they thought they had it in the bag. He's arrogant, two-faced, nasty, and he knows how to smirk with the best of them. He would be perfect! An Obama/Gullini match-up would be a match made in heaven for the media. It would pit the clean-cut vision of hope against the bad-ass mayor of 911. Only trouble is, the media was thrown for a loop a short while back, when all the dark suspicions about Rudy's past turned into a reality. They didn't foresee the huge negative impact that would have on the sinister mayor's chances.

If they can't have Rudy on the Republican side of things, the next best bet for the media would be Romney or Huckabee. Either one of them would be way more colorful and interesting than old dried-up John McCain. However, the media totally underestimated the resiliency of McCain. If anyone remembers, they practically considered him a non-factor six months ago. I think the real battle for McCain will be his battle to overcome the media's thirst for Gullini or Romney to get the nod. John McCain scares the daylights out of me, but I have to give the guy credit, he's holding his own in a race where the media clearly is going to do their very best to get Rudy back up in the polls, or if not Rudy, then Romney as their choice.

So, just by virtue of the power that the media has, I wouldn't count that scumbag, Gullaini out of the race just yet. I think the media is going to do everything in it's power to resurrect this asshole from the dead, just so they can get that dream match-up they've all been counting on.

What a circus, albeit an interesting one, but it is a circus.

[skipos]

1. Oh yes, the Media has been soooooo kind to Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfc8cn8Yqxk&eurl=http://foxattacks.com/blog/24004-bill-o-reilly-attacks-obama-staffer?play=1
:eyes:

Look, Obama is spanking my candidate in the primaries too.
Lets try not to be babies about it.

[Cameron27]

2. The media has been far kinder to Obama

than anyone else in this race. MSNBC has virtually endorsed him from the beginning.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. In my view, that means Obama did a better job of working THEM

Why are we so passive? Might it not be that positive media attention comes to those who work for it, and figure out how to game the hostile media?

[skipos]

9. Uh no.

MSNBC was wondering "Who will the GOP run against Hillary" for months. In fact, Chris Matthews would ask that question almost verbatim all the time. I have never seen the media just assume a candidate, Hillary, would win the primaries before they even started.

Again, Obama is not my guy, the sour grapes around here is just embarassing.

[Dawgs]

18. Why are we upset that the media is supporting a good Democrat?

And, it's the voters that picked Obama, not the media.

Sorry skipos, posted in wrong place.

[mtnsnake]

25. Obama is not your guy?? Just yesterday you said, "I like Edwards and Obama equally". Your own words

I like Edwards and Obama equally and can see Edwards distant 3rd place showing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3986332#3986756

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mtnsnake]

29. like taking candy

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mtnsnake]

5. They better be kind to him. They practically created him, & at the expense of all the other ones. nt

[skipos]

7. Sour grapes post #421477 of 12034897453 this election season. nt

[mtnsnake]

12. No sour grapes. I'm content if Obama wins. Just stating reality for you, wah wah.

Try doing a post sometime without being such a whiner, will ya.

[skipos]

13. HA! From the biggest anti-Obama whiner on DU.

If any of our candidates win, you won't hear any bitching from me. My candidate is already out.
How many anti-Obama threads have you started?

Obama is thumping our candidates, but being babies about it isn't going to help anything.

[mtnsnake]

19. That post alone tells everyone how much you don't know. Nice try

wah-wah. You just can't stand hearing the truth. You never could.

Here have one of these to wipe away those tears:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mtnsnake]

22. I see you're still smarting from the pasting you received the other day. lol

[skipos]

24. Tears about what? That I have 54298 of your anti-Obama posts to look forward to for

the rest of this primary season? Yes, I think you are sad, but it doesn't really upset me. I will be perfectly happy with any of our nominees, so no tears from me.
You are free to cry all you want about Obama, and I am sure you will.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Or, he created them creating him

[flyarm]

46. you bet they did..why has no one looked into where he got his 100 million before Iowa?

why has no one questioned anything about this guy?

never mind..he is the media darling..so that the repugs can kill him off easily!

he sure won't win in my red state..unless it is already a done deal.

fly

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Hope, present, despair

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. This is a very passive attitude and analysis

Instead of imagining us as always manipulated by the media, perhaps we should start to consider a hostile media as an obstacle toward election. If we reframe the media this way, then the trick is figuring out a way to win despite the hostile media - indeed, if we act as realists rather than idealists, we would see that learning to manipulate the media itself is a key skill our candidates need, and the one's who do it best should be rewarded rather than whined about.

[mtnsnake]

27. So now that its not Hillary, this media thing is all our imagination. Some of you really crack me up

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. Huh?

I'd love to respond. But please make sense first.

[asdjrocky]

10. Day before the primary in New Hampshire-

I tried all day to find a story on TV, somewhere, anywhere, c-span, cnn, msnbc and all of the networks about John Edwards, who by the way, finished second in the Iowa primary.

There's nothing we can do about it I guess. I've tried. I even watched msnbc, they cut to a reporter following the Edwards campaign, and as soon as he said he was covering Edwards, the anchor began to ask him about Clinton and Obama. It's really depressing to someone who has worked so hard.

[Dawgs]

21. Really, he was getting interviewed on MSNBC when I turned on my TV this morning.

[asdjrocky]

35. I find that hard to even respond to-

Are you saying he's getting a fair shake from the media here?

[mtnsnake]

31. "It's really depressing to someone who has worked so hard"

I know you've been out there working your ass off, and I realize now just how frustrating it must be for the Edwards and Biden supporters not to get their due reward. You can work until your knuckles are down to the bone and the media is going to cover the ones that they feel is the biggest story. A candidate's qualification have nothing to do with it if the media considers them old news.

[asdjrocky]

33. Too true-

And if the majority of America continues to get their news from these sources, we are all fucked.

[mtnsnake]

38. Yes we are fucked, & I'll be the first Clinton defender to admit the media helped make her, too

but I wasn't going to flaunt that fact while it was going on, of course. Nobody does when it's their candidate who is reaping the benefits of the media.

In Obama's case, it goes even further than it did for either of the Clintons. As much as I think Obama is an inspirational candidate, the media pretty much created his entire rise to stardom right from when they christened him to be the "rising star of the Democratic Party" four years ago.

I just can't imagine how hard it must be to be in your shoes as an Edwards supporter or the Biden supporters shoes.

[ShortnFiery]

11. "The Media" is morally bankrupt. They'll whore for whomever their CEOs order them to shill for.

Our media is highly consolidated and only a few POWER PLAYERS call the shots. If it's any consolation, "the suits" within the corporate media are pissing all over themselves trying to figure out how the power will be allotted should those DAMN CHATTERING CLASSES (us average American voters) do not elect who they tell us to.

The corporate media only serves those in power OR those whom they wish to be in power.

Let the chips fall where they may ... it's a crap shoot? ;)

[ProSense]

14. Remember when Hillary was the inevitable "Goddess of Peace"? n/t

[mtnsnake]

16. Absolutely, & then the media created Obama, so to them, she's expendable now.

She'll still do her best to fight back into the race after NH, despite having to go up against two formidable opponents, Obama AND the media.

[ProSense]

34. "She'll still do her best to fight back...despite having to go up against two formidable opponents"

Is that what Obama (and Edwards) did when Hillary was the darling, ahead in every poll?

[mtnsnake]

36. I've basicly been agreeing w/you. BTW, dont you have some of your own threads to kick? (snicker)

[ProSense]

40. Yeah, thanks for the reminder.

Some people hate cold hard facts.

[SOS]

42. HRC was reported as inevitable for all of 2007

The media created Obama since last Thursday?

[mtnsnake]

49. Hillary has been reported inevitable by DU, not by the media since 2007

and Obama was not created by the media since last Thursday. They created his imgage prior to the Democratic Convention in 2004 when they christened him as the rising star of the Democratic Party. Since then, they've done nothing but hype him for more than 3 full years.

[AndyA]

15. The media will be perfectly happy with either Hillary or Barack.

Which is just one of the reasons why I'm for Edwards. I want CHANGE. Not a lot of empty rhetoric, but real change.

The corporate owned media isn't exactly fair these days, in fact most of what they serve up is heavily censored propaganda. And they aren't even mentioning Edwards. By default, that makes him the very best Dem candidate because the corporate world is worried about him.

Why so worried about Edwards but not Clinton or Obama? Follow the money, folks. If the media is that worried about someone, so worried that they squash any coverage of them, they're the ones we really need in office.

[Dawgs]

23. And, what makes you think Edwards will bring about "real" change.

Based on his experiences he's done nothing but follow Bush or the Democrats.

Sorry if I'm not falling for the 'it's the media's fault Edwards isn't doing better' talking point.

[AndyA]

28. Edwards is a big enough man to admit his mistakes, and he's trying to do something

to correct them.

He isn't taking the big bucks from lobbyists, which would give him more money to spend.

He donated 100% of his book advance to charity: Habitat for Humanity and to a fund that pays college tuition for underprivileged kids.

Edwards is the only candidate in a position to bring about real change, because he's the only candidate who isn't indebted to the very entities that DON'T WANT CHANGE. Big business has been raking in record profits during the Bush years, and they don't want that to change, which is why they are donating heavily to certain candidates.

Follow the money. The money trail tells the tale.

[mtnsnake]

50. Follow the money is right

The media realizes oh so quickly just how much bread that a newcomer like Obama can put on their tables, just as long as they keep him elevated to rock star status. Have you noticed how often the media uses the term "rock star" with Obama? They call him that all the time, even though he hasn't achieved anything close to it yet. I guess if you call him that enough, and give him all the positive coverage, he automatically becomes it.

[riqster]

41. I support Kucinich, and he's even more marginalized than Edwards

BTW, all of my friends from the UK are appalled at our propagandized 'news'. First thing they notice when they come over.

[mtnsnake]

45. Your post hits home for me for a couple of reasons.

Kucinich has long been my favorite, even though I always stick up for the Clintons. It's so friggin frustrating to know that the best candidate of all, the one who represents Democratic values more than anyone, Dennis Kucinich, won't get the chance he deserves because the corporate media finds him so unattractive.

The other reason is your mention of your friends from the UK and what they say about our media. You don't even have to go that far. I do business with lots of Canadians and I have close friends from Canada who just can't believe how our media gets away with the irresponsible disregard for what's going on in Iraq and for not going after Bush. They just cannot believe it. It's a mystery to them.

[mtnsnake]

44. There is a lot of truth to what you're saying. nt

[redqueen]

17. Advertising works. (nt)

[NI4NI]

37. It's wrong when any candidate

gets excluded from a debate (as DK was), or is basically ignored by the media, (as I think Joe Biden (my choice)and Chris Dodd were). I never expected major 24/7 press coverage on either of them, but only a resemblance of relative balance. For the BO, JE, and HRC supporters there was hardly a problem with that, understandably so because they were your candidates, and front runners.
I hope we all live long enough to get involved in many more presidential campaigns, in the future; No doubt that the MSM will still be involved, and still pushing and publicizing their favorite candidate, while throwing the other candidates overboard; And there in lies the problem, because one of those future candidates not in the top tier, may possibly be yours.

[femrap]

39. I don't believe it is the MSM that is selecting the

candidates....they are just the PUPPETS of The Corporates/Mega-wealthy/Super-elites/Rothschild-types.

It is pretty amazing that roughly 80% of all media is controlled by five rich, ugly, white guys. Remember what Sumner Redstone said?

I just scanned the Greatest Page of DU and it is just full of hateful spew. The Corporates are very good at that particular tactic of 'divide and conquer.'

The Corporates need their Wars...hell, we're gonna end up with McCain....he'd be happy to do their dirty work.

I bet the Corporates are laughing their asses off...having pitted a black against a woman. It is pure folly to them.

[mtnsnake]

43. Yes, they media sure are the puppets of the coporates. Good post. nt

[Renew Deal]

47. If anyone has a right to complain about the media, it's Ron Paul

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/08/fox-news-edits-ron-paul-out-of-ap-story/

[mtnsnake]

48. On the Republican side of things, he sure does.