Arianna Huffington wrote for her post on May 22 that the Super delegates should step in and end the democratic primary now. The beat goes on by journalists to end the Primary and declare Obama the nominee before the process is completed. Writers for the Huff Post have been bias in their reporting against Clinton for a long time and follows the script of people in the news media trying to manipulate our elections. They have sold their soul like they did during the run up to the war in Iraq. The country has got to the point where the news media has to be feared more that the politicians.
The election coverage is so out of touch with reality that the system gets more corrupt year after year and the news media is right at the center. The big three, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC are leading the corrupt parade with their corrupt reporting.
It is really cowardly when journalists try to manufacture news and stories. It shows their lack of character and ability to talk to the public and offer a real debate on the issues facing the country. The best thing that could happen for the country and the democratic process is for Senator Clinton to somehow emerge as the democratic nominee. That would really give the news media a fact check.
9 comments :
WE MUST UNITE!! Here's an excellent read on why Democrats have GOT to win in November, regardless of whether it's merely the executive branch or widening our majority in both houses of Congress or hopefully both. This is what happens when Democrats become too meek to speak against hate-filled legislation or worry too much about appeasing the conservative movement. Nothing gripes me more than hearing a Democrat describe themselves as "conservative" as if being a progressive is a BAD thing.
~~~~~~~~~~~
What's Wrong with Oklahoma?
By Richard L. Fricker
May 28, 2008
Democrats – divided into warring camps behind Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – might want to take a look at Oklahoma to see what the future could hold if their party fails to unite, letting right-wing evangelicals and neoconservatives have their way.
The Republican-dominated Oklahoma legislature is defining the frontier of xenophobic immigration laws, anti-Muslim bigotry, gay bashing and encouragement of gun-toting students – with Democratic legislators often too timid to resist.
Rep. Randy Terrill, Republican chairman of the Revenue and Taxation Committee, has emerged as a hero of the “protect our borders” crowd by authoring a law – known as HB1804 – that makes it a felony even to give an illegal immigrant a ride.
You also can’t provide education, healthcare and many other services to undocumented immigrants, including infants. And, police are required to check the immigration status of anyone “suspected” of being in this country illegally.
If you thought such a draconian measure might face stiff opposition – or at least a drawn-out political battle – you’d be wrong. The bill sailed through the Oklahoma House, 88-9, with 35 of the 44 Democrats joining the Republicans, and then passed the Senate on a 41-6 vote with two-thirds of the Democrats lining up with Republicans.
After the law’s passage, its extreme – one might say unchristian – features prompted virtual declarations of civil disobedience from the Southern Baptist Convention and the Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches, which announced they would not curtail aid to anyone.
Terrill then attacked Roman Catholic Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa as “misguided,” accusing Catholics of opposing the law out fear that it would curtail a growth in population and thus revenues for the church.
Terrill followed up his legislative victory by floating a “son of 1804,” a bill that would forbid the issuance of birth certificates to a child if one parent was an illegal alien. That bill also sought confiscation of property for anyone caught violating HB1804.
The property-confiscation idea, however, was deemed too radical by the Oklahoma business community, which saw it as a threat to corporate owners. So, the follow-up bill got sidetracked.
Undeterred, Terrill proposed another anti-immigrant bill to make English the official language of Oklahoma.
When that bill died on a procedural vote in the Senate, Terrill enlisted the Washington lobby group ProEnglish, whose specialty is robo-calling, to make constituency calls to state senators.
One senator took umbrage and forwarded his calls to Terrill’s office. Furious at this “cowardly act,” Terrill crossed the rotunda threatening to “whip his ass.”
Though Terrill’s pressure tactics failed to revive the bill, it is expected to become a hot-button election issue this fall.
Meanwhile, the Oklahoma business community, which mostly sat on the sidelines as HB1804 was passed, is now having second thoughts, worrying that the new law has cut into the labor force and thus corporate profits.
A significant number of Mexicans, both legal and illegal, have left the state to avoid harassment, while other laborers are living in fear.
The Gay Threat
As Terrill and his supporters mounted legal assaults against non-English-speaking immigrants, Republican colleague Rep. Sally Kern focused on what she viewed as an even graver danger – gays and lesbians. In April, she went before a local GOP meeting and labeled that threat worse than the one from al-Qaeda:
“Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell of this country. I honestly think it’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more than terrorism or Islam. … which I think is a big threat. Okay?
“’Cause what’s happening now is they are going after, in schools, two year olds … and this stuff is deadly, and it’s spreading, and it will destroy our young people and it will destroy this nation.”
When her comments showed up on YouTube, Kern claimed her comments had been taken out of context and expressed outrage that they would be posted on the Internet. However, she referenced the Bible and refused to apologize.
Despite complaints from around the country, Kern and Oklahoma’s Republican leaders held fast behind her anti-gay positions. Reports from inside the GOP caucus described Kern receiving a standing ovation from the party faithful a couple of days after her statements were made public.
Kern’s supporters also staged two rallies at the Capital Building, with one drawing nearly 2,000 people.
“I told the people when I was running for this office that I was a Christian candidate and that I believed we were in a cultural war for the very existence of our Judeo-Christian values,” Kern declared.
In a similar vein, Republican Rep. Rex Duncan concentrated on the threat from Islam, rebuffing a gesture of multicultural goodwill when American Muslims on the Ethnic American Advisory Council sent each legislator a copy of the Quran in honor of Oklahoma’s centennial celebration.
Duncan refused to accept his copy saying, “Most Oklahomans do not endorse the idea of killing innocent women and children in the name of ideology.” Seventeen other House Republicans joined Duncan in spurning copies of Islam’s holy book.
However, Duncan’s rationale – decrying Islam as a uniquely violent religion – flew in the face of historical and Biblical evidence that implicated Jewish and Christian communities in horrendous violence against the innocent as well.
For instance, the Old Testament’s Book of Numbers recounts Moses’s destruction of the Midians, including the slaughter of boys and the enslavement of girls. During the Crusades, Christian forces famously butchered the Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Indeed, the history of Christianity – a religion based on the peaceful teachings of Jesus – has been remarkable in its bloodletting against non-Christians, from the Inquisition and anti-Jewish pogroms in Europe to the genocide against the “heathen” natives living in the New World and the barbarities against African slaves brought to the New World.
Though several interfaith groups expressed dismay at Duncan’s denunciation of Islam, the Rev. Anthony Jordan, executive director of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, said he did not fault the legislators for their action repudiating the Quran.
The Oklahoma legislature also responded to concerns about mass shootings on campuses by deliberating on a proposal advocated by extreme elements of the gun lobby, to permit all university students to carry guns to classes so they could defend themselves in case a mad gunman went on a rampage.
However, the idea of turning colleges into a modern version of the Wild West died in a fit of sobriety.
Still, the question remains: Why have these sorts of comments and such legislation gained traction in Oklahoma and other parts of the United States?
Some political analysts suggest part of the reason is that Democrats so dread coming under attack from the evangelical Right that they stay silent or acquiesce to proposals that otherwise might be transformed into campaign attack ads against them.
Election 2008 could be a moment when this surge of theocracy tinged with white racialism might finally be turned back. But, then again, enough Democrats may find it more appealing to nurse their grievances from the bruising Obama-Clinton race than to find some common ground.
Richard L. Fricker is a Tulsa, Oklahoma-based freelance reporter/writer and two-time winner of the American Business Press Editors Award for Investigative Journalism. Fricker can be reached at rlfricker@hotmail.com .
John Lucia writes: "...The election coverage is so out of touch with reality that the system gets more corrupt year after year and the news media is right at the center. The big three, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC are leading the corrupt parade with their corrupt reporting."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PUH-LEEZE!!! This ranks right up there with Hillary Clinton's "vast right wing conspiracy". To hear the Clintons and their supporters tell it, everyone from day one has been out to get them. The same people who own and operate Fox News and the other MSM are the major contributors to Hillary Clinton's campaign. If not for them, her campaign would be more than $20 million in the red, MUCH more. Their news coverage and reporting are the only things that give the perception that there is actually any chance for Clinton to prevail against Obama's insurmountable lead.
If the news organizations were actually doing their jobs, they would show the math that everyone other than the hardcore Clinton supporters are seeing; the only way for her to win is for the Super Delegates to basically overturn the entire primary process. In other words, voters be damned, WE'LL decide who WE want as the nominee... but thanks for playing!!
BTW, I've read it on blogs and I've read it in many responses. It seems the vast right wing conspiracy has now been replaced by a vast left wing conspiracy. It's those damn "ultra liberals". Where do you think the Democratic party will be in November without those "ultra liberals", those "blacks", those "educated" voters and those "young" voters? I'm sure Hillary is proud that she can carry a state full of "working Americans, White Americans" but that small faction ain't gonna win it in November. Those same "working Americans, white Americans" typically pull the lever for the GOP in general elections.
Is anonymous reading the same post as I am? I never read anything about a right wing conspiracy in the Huff Post article. I can see where the Obama supporters really do not believe he has what it takes to be President since they play the Republican game of blame. This is one voter who hopes Sen. Clinton stays in the process untill it is officially ended. That will strenghten the Democratic Party. I'm not afraid of the people making the choice.
Argo said...
Is anonymous reading the same post as I am? I never read anything about a right wing conspiracy in the Huff Post article. I can see where the Obama supporters really do not believe he has what it takes to be President since they play the Republican game of blame. This is one voter who hopes Sen. Clinton stays in the process untill it is officially ended. That will strenghten the Democratic Party. I'm not afraid of the people making the choice.
~~~~~~~~~
Since you seem to have trouble with history, the "vast right wing conspiracy" remark was aimed at what Hillary claimed when all of the scandals of her husband's administration were investigated by the Republican majority in Congress, a majority that was gained while the Clintons were in office. It had nothing to do with the Huffington post.
As far as blame goes, you have some awfully strong blinders on. Hillary losing to Obama has been blamed on everything in this election from people voting against her because she's a women to a vast left wing conspiracy.
It has nothing to do with her gender or any conspiracy. It's just that Hillary has sold out to the same corporate interests that have a stranglehold on Washington. If she's the Democratic nominee(very unlikely), my refusal to vote for her has nothing to do with her battle with Obama but everything to do with her politics.
She's manipulative, a compulsive liar and beholden to all of the corporate interests that represent what's wrong with our government. It's a shame that Bill Clinton has tarnished what positive legacy he could have had by his vile and heavy-handed campaign tactics. It's especially difficult to see the Clintons siding with the very people who fought to bring them down (Richard Mellon Scaiffe/Faux News) and belittling organizations that were formed out of grassroots Democrats fighting to stop his impeachment (MoveOn.org).
Unfortunately, their embracing of the very NeoCon principles that ARE the Republican party mainstay are now being accepted by blind allegiance by many of their followers.
Anonymous's long winded sermon dated June 1 confirms what I see happening over and over again. He is a Necon republican disguised as a democrat using the same tactics of the Fox News journalists. They say a lot but have no creditability in what they say or preach. As for Bill Clinton he is the only democrat to beat the Republicans in the last 28 years. His accomplishments are still in tact and in the record books. That is something anonymous can not change.
Argo said...
Anonymous's long winded sermon dated June 1 confirms what I see happening over and over again. He is a Necon republican disguised as a democrat using the same tactics of the Fox News journalists. They say a lot but have no creditability in what they say or preach. As for Bill Clinton he is the only democrat to beat the Republicans in the last 28 years. His accomplishments are still in tact and in the record books. That is something anonymous can not change.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, we still have NAFTA. We still have "don't ask, don't tell." We still have domestic spying, though it's been expanded on by the Busheviks. BTW, I'm about as far away from a neocon as you can get. I'm one of those dreaded liberals, hated by conservatives of both parties. I'm one of those people who believe in the principles that this nation was founded on. I'm one of those people who believe in a woman's right to choose. I'm one of those people who believe it's not the government's business who we love and want to spend our lives with. I'm one of those who believe that helping the less fortunate in our society is what makes us ALL better people. Oh, I forgot to metion that we still have Clinton's welfare reform where we dumped millions of poor people out in the street. No, I'm not a neocon and that's the reason that I don't support Hillary Clinton or her policies of corporate interests first.
From thenation.com
Media Doesn't Love Obama After All
posted by Ari Melber on 05/31/2008 @ 4:37pm
Barack Obama has not received better media coverage than Hillary Clinton, according to a new study by the research team at Pew/Harvard, the gold standard in nonpartisan media analysis. After reviewing coverage from January to March, when the majority of states voted, researchers determined that Obama simply did not fare better than Clinton. In fact, reporters "began to turn against Obama [even] before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright," the study found. And Clinton's "Saturday Night Live" gambit – when she chided the moderators of a February debate, "maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow" – apparently worked:
Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical--and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself.
In March, The Times reported that Clinton Campaign "practically browbeat" reporters with the SNL skit as evidence that Obama was treated "more gently." The article cited data suggesting the tactic swiftly shifted the "tone" of campaign coverage against Obama. But it's not only reporters worrying that the press is too rough on Clinton.
More voters think the media has been "too hard" on Clinton than on Obama or McCain, according to a Gallup poll released last week:
It's also an article of faith among Clinton supporters -- 56 percent say the media has been too hard on her, while only 29 percent of Obama supporters carry that grievance for their candidate. How did so many voters and reporters end up thinking the Clinton coverage was harsher than it actually was, according to the cumulative data? Here are three related reasons:
1) Media-bashing works. The Clinton Campaign has loudly complained about the media, and it obviously worked.
2) The loser dynamic. Clinton has been steadily losing the race since Super Tuesday, so the loser dynamic has been percolating. Supporters of losing candidates often blame the media, and reporters start second guessing their work as the post-mortem assignments roll in. The Gallup poll, however, only compares public opinion of Clinton's coverage to the presumptive nominees; comparing winners and losers is like apples and oranges. Add in Huckabee or Edwards -- or Ron Paul! -- and complaints about the media would likely spike. Or if Obama were losing, his supporters would be doing more media griping.
3) Offensive Clinton-bashing. The overall data does not capture the intensity of individual incidents of nasty Clinton-bashing. So while the cumulative coverage of Obama and Clinton was clearly similar, a small number of offensive media incidents can still damage a candidate and outrage voters, whether they support her or not. When CNN host Glenn Beck labeled Clinton a "stereotypical b----," for example, or the Washington Post ran an entire article about the senator's "cleavage," (under the absurd headline "Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory"), many people saw her being mistreated and rightly denounced it. The empirical question, for voters and reporters, is how many outrageous incidents are required to conclude that the entire "media" was unfair to her.
If you combine this new data with the infamous incidents of Clinton-bashing, the conventional wisdom about campaign media coverage collapses. Obama did not receive special treatment; Clinton was not generally covered too harshly; but some high-impact, inappropriate media coverage did hurt Clinton and understandably outrage voters. In the end, the candidates still drew better media coverage than actual public policy, which drew only seven percent of all campaign stories.
Its time for me to join the conversation. A three month study by the media concerning fair coverage does not represent what has been going on because the campaign has been going on for over a year. I also want to comment on the words Liberal and Conservative because neither have a lock on the truth. If people are respected as Americans with a right to their own opinions a lot can be accomplished. The positions people are taking in this election year seem to be so extreme it is hard to see how the next President will be effective.
Интересная мысль, возьму на заметку.
Post a Comment