It's About The People, First And Foremost

POLITIDOSE's Beat The Press

I am pleased to introduce POLITIDOSE's new periodical version of  "Meet the Press".  From time to time, I will be taking a look at some of the stupidest, most outrageous, and most biased personalities in the media.  In today's edition, may I present to you, the sexist, the obviously biased, and the just plain crazy, Chris Matthews, who is now on my list as one of the biggest @$$es in the media.

Now, I don't necessarily agree that Matthews is the cause for the Clinton New Hampshire win; I think the hard work and dedication of Clinton and her supporters is what led to her win.  But, as Rachel Maddow told Matthews to his face, Chris Matthews has had and continues to have a flagrant biased towards Obama and strongly against Clinton: 

And, if Chris Matthew's biased towards Obama and against Clinton wasn't clear enough yet, look at this shortened video where Matthews compares Obama to Lawrence of Arabia.  This man is insane:

And what does Matthews do to guests he disagrees with? He yells at them:

And then, of course, is the near-orgasmic outburst from Matthews after Obama wins Iowa, saying that his win was "the deliverance" in the "biblical" sense of the word:

And here is Cenk Uygur, directly taking on Chris Matthew's apparent hate for Hillary Clinton, citing quotes from Matthews over the last 3 months:

And here is the final video where Hillary herself confronts Matthews and rightfully calls him "obsessed" with her. Matthews than proceeds to whine that, "I'm not obsessed". Yea, right Chris. O, and by the way, what the hell was Chris looking at around the :35 mark?

Hillary Answers YOUR Questions

Hillaryclinton.com has launched a great new feature, called "Ask Hillary", where anyone can submit questions to Hillary and Hillary will answer the best ones.  If you ask me, this is a great way to use technology.  The fact is that many Americans who will be voting in the upcoming primaries won't get a chance to attend a Clinton rally where Hillary answers audience questions for 2 hours straight.  This new feature, however, allows Sen. Clinton to answer questions from those voters and that is what Democracy is all about.  It's not about going on a press tour and appearing on every political show possible to answer the questions of the biased media.  It is about listening to the American people and their questions and ultimately answering to them.  It empowers ordinary people to know that they too have just as much, if not more, stake in this than anyone seen on T.V.  

So, without further ado, here is the first of many installments of "Ask Hillary":

A Reckless Foreign Policy

George Bush's attempt to play God in Iraq and the Middle East is a prime example of a leader trying to use its military power with impunity to enforce its own warped ideology on other countries.

 

We now learn, (what people with common sense found out long ago) through a report by the Associated Press, that the Arab nations worry about Iran's increasing influence around the Region particularly in Iraq and Lebanon.  Sunni countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states fear Iran will dominate Iraq in coming years because of its influence on Iraq's Shiite politicians. 

 

The war and occupation in Iraq, over WMD that did not exist, will be entering its fifth year in March.  Prior to this war, the Arab nations knew that Saddam and Iraq held Iran in check.  This war did not only destabilized Iraq, but also the entire Middle East region.  And as I mentioned before, when this war is done, because of Bush's reckless behavior, Iran and Iraq will be close allies.

 

None of this speaks well for America, our security or the security of the Middle East.  With the balance of power shifting, Israel with its WMD, Bush's incompetence and the problems in Pakistan, another country with WMD, the whole Muslim world could blow up any minute now.  Bush's bully-mentality towards other countries has caused a great backlash against the United States and has and continues to endanger our security.  

 

Democracy was not forced on the United States; our founding fathers were responsible for that.  Democracy can not be forced on other countries like Bush thinks he has a right to do.  The terrorists who were responsible for attacking the U.S. on 9-11 still flourish and their influence is growing.  The action of Mr. Bush to start a war and occupation in Iraq, instead of action against those who attacked us on 9-11, has set the Middle East on fire.  Democracy forced on others is simply not true Democracy.  

 

The shame of all this is that our men and women in uniform are still paying the ultimate price.  And we are still being told the surge is working, despite the fact that the reason given for the surge has never taken place.  2007 was the most deadly year in Iraq for our troops and for the Iraqi's.  In case any one has not noticed, 13 americans have already been killed in Iraq this month and from the same causes.  Our troops and our country were safer on the previous administration's watch.  That says it all. 

Congrats Hillary Clinton; My Message To The Media

Sen. Hillary Clinton, much to my and everyone in the world's surprise, pulled out a 3 point win in the New Hampshire primary when every poll proceeding Iowa had Clinton behind 8-15 points. Sen. Clinton deserves nothing but credit; she worked and her supporters worked their hearts out and in the end, that never-say-die attitude delivered Clinton a much needed win heading into the next stage of caucuses and primaries.  And I must say, Sen. Clinton's victory speech was so telling of exactly why she won, saying, "Over the last week, I listened to you and in the process I found my own voice."  Sen. Clinton did in fact find her own voice.  She found a way to connect with voters in the last day or two before the primary in a way that she was never able to do before.

And now, I want to address the media, particularly people like Chris Matthews.  Last Friday, after the Obama win in Iowa, the media became instantly obsessed with Barack Obama.  They flirted over him and played him up as if there was no tomorrow.  They instantly turned on Hillary and became unfairly harsh, bordering on cruel, to the Senator from New York.  There was no logical explanation for it, except of course, that Obama won Iowa and thats all the American people needed to know.  They didn't need to learn about Obama's record nor did the media think it was necessary for the American people to have any choice of their own in choosing the President.  Pundits were clear in what they wanted----a coronation for Obama.   

Last night, I was hopeful.  I though to myself, maybe this will be good enough to make the media realize that there is an actual Presidential election going on here.  I thought that maybe the media would see that the American people, not they alone, will choose our next President.  I was also hopeful for a less biased look at Sen.Clinton and at all the great qualities---experience, strength, leadership, perseverance---that she brings to the table.  Instead, what I awoke to was the media still giving an unfairly and unwarranted harsh look at the Clinton campaign in contrast to the soft, ultra-positive outlook they give to Obama.

What makes me even angrier is how the media is trying to spin this into an Obama win---somehow completely discrediting  Sen. Clinton's hard work that she put in to New Hampshire.  The most insulting explanation, came from people like Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, Eugene Robinson, Michael Eric Dyson, among others, who somehow attribute Clinton's win to racism.  They claim that white people, at fear of sounding racist, told pollsters that they support Obama, even though they supported Clinton.  This explanation is beyond ridiculous.  The fact is that most recent polls had Obama in the 35-37% range.  This is exactly where he scored on Tuesday.  The difference is, of course, Clinton's votes, which saw an obvious spike.  What explains this?  The fact that anywhere from 10-15% of people in the conducted polls where undecided and about the same amount said that they supported a candidate, but could change their mind within the last few hours.  So, memo to the media, give credit where it's due.  Sen. Clinton worked tirelessly, taking hours and hours of questions from voters and truly opening herself up to voters.  Racism was not at work here, like her or hate her, Hillary Clinton's victory must be attributed to the facts---that she herself and her hard-working supporters won over the many undecideds.

And, just to mention it, when Obama won Iowa, I didn't here anyone cry that Iowa was sexist.  I didn't here anyone say that, "o, you know, Iowa never elects women to high offices."  And rightfully so that they didn't say that.  Obama won Iowa because he worked hard at it and had impeccable organization.  So why the double standard?  Simple, Obama is the media's baby, and they have a natural hate for the Clinton's.  It's not fair, it's not right, but it is, for right now, reality.  The only way the American people are going to get a more fair, balanced media is to give the media a reality check----the American people will vote how they want to vote----not how the media tells them they have to.  So, to say that there was a racist undercurrent to Clinton's win, is not just insulting to the work of the Clinton campaign, but also to the integrity of New Hampshire voters. 

And finally, the Obama campaign is also out making sad excuses.  Their latest spin, laid out by Obama co-chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., has attributed Hillary's win to the tears she shed over a very emotional moment a few days ago.  If attributing a win to tearing-up wasn't silly enough, not to mention insulting to the very serious New Hampshire primary voters, Jackson went on to question the authenticity of Hillary's tears.  Again, like her or not, that moment where Clinton got teary-eyed was one of the realist moments ever seen on a campaign trail.  Again, this spin from both the Obama camp and the media is getting out

of control.  There is such a hate for Clinton that people are willing to say whatever they want to bring her down, and quite frankly, it's just plain wrong.  

On a side note, I give huge credit to people like Pat Buchanan, Dan Abrams, Craig Crawford, and Rachael Maddow for saying, in essence, "enough is enough" and trying, at least, to give fair coverage and change the media narrative towards Sen. Clinton. 

ABC's Republican and Democratic Debates

The back to back Republican and Democratic debates in New Hampshire demonstrated to the American people that their choice for the next president really does matter.  The Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, would continue the same policies of George Bush and are still quoting Ronald Reagan nonstop.  Rudy Giuliani still talks about a reduced government role like Reagan, but he is clearly not in command of the facts.  As George Will wrote a long time ago, the federal government grew and spending increased on Reagan's watch. 

 

As far as Republicans go, I thought Romney won the debate based on his answers to the questions.  People were able to understand what he was saying.  On the issue of healthcare, he knows more about the subject than his Republican opponents and explains it well.  I thought it odd that there were two questions that brought a good response but McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani were almost silent.  In fact, those three seemed to be detached at times.  The other Republicans are lost when Ron Paul talks about the fiscal disaster the Bush administration has put our country in.  They can't answer him because they bought into this fiscal disaster.

 

The Democrats debated issues that are more related to the problems facing the people.  Good thing Obama has his stump speech down pat on the campaign trail, because his answers in the debates are usually incoherent, off the mark, fragmented, and rarely, if ever, answer the question asked with any substance.  

 

John Edwards would get my vote for winning the first half of the debate, and Hillary Clinton for winning the second half.  Both of them gave answers to the questions that were good and could be understood.  Hillary was a little late getting started but she finished strong and well.  Obama talks about change, but he has yet to articulate how or what he would change.  Edwards and Clinton have done a much better job in that regard.

 

Richardson is a capable candidate, but lacks the ability to stay focused on the questions and the issues and therefore his answers are not easily absorbed.  He loses his chain of thought.  The biggest void in the debate was the absence of Biden and Dodd.  They are two people who know the issues and who can articulate what they would do if elected president.  A 20% turn out in the Iowa caucus eliminated them from the campaign.  Their valuable thoughts will be missed.

 

Edwards was the most inspired I thought and Hillary was able to make her point that you can't make change simply by talking about it.  I think the best thing that could come from the New Hampshire vote is a close race with no real winner.  That would bring out the best in the remaining candidates because they would all be forced to articulate their positions more sharply and then the people would really be able to make a decision based on some thing concrete rather than a stump speech.  Besides it would balance the sides because Obama is the darling of the news media and is getting all the positive attention.

 

It requires winning over 2000 delegates to win the Democratic nomination, so we have a long way to go.  I can not agree that a quick knock out in either party serves the American people well.  If a quick knock out occurs, then the issues will lay dormant.  That is not good for America.  We have seen that happen in the past.

Thank You Hillary

Hillary, whether you win or lose this nomination, I want to say thank you for your very hard work, work that you have done for 3 decades on behalf of the American public.  Today, after taking a question on why she's running and how she keeps going, this is how Sen. Clinton emotionally responded:

This is why I admire Sen. Clinton. She does what she does for the American public and she feels passionate about it.

Obama And Lobbyists: The Facts

Barack Obama, now the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, has made a case in this election concerning what he claims is his outright disgust for lobbyists.  Although that it is true that Obama has not taken any money from special interests or lobbyists since he announced his candidacy, Obama did in fact have a "cozy" relationship with lobbyists before his Presidential bid, to say the least.  

So why does it matter if he no longer takes lobbyist money?  It matters because it reveals Obama to be something he claims not to be----just another politician.  He didn't mind taking lobbyist money until he realized it might challenge him politically.  This reminds me a whole lot of Mitt Romney, who was pro-choice until he decided to run for the GOP nomination.  Both Obama and Mitt made the calculated, political decision rather than a sincere, honest conversion.  They want votes.  In part, that's why I admire people like Clinton and McCain, not that I agree with them 100% of the time, but because they at least stand up for what they believe in.  They don't change just to try to gain points with an electorate.  You may not agree with them, but at least their consistent and sincere in their positions.  

So here is Obama's history with lobbyists:

-In Chicago, the AP reports, 

"Barack Obama played poker and basketball with lobbyists when he was a state senator. He took their campaign donations and worked with them to write legislation ... A look at Obama’s seven years in the Illinois Legislature reveals a complicated relationship with lobbyists - particularly for someone who now makes criticism of lobbyists a centerpiece of his presidential campaign."

-David Boniers of the Edwards's campaign had this to say:

"If you look at his record in Illinois when he had a major -- sponsored a major health bill that's what he did. He watered down with the help of the corporate lobbyist and they got a weak product out of that."

-Now on to his Presidential ambitions, the No Quarter political blog reports:

"Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents."

-Domenico Montanaro of NBC, reports on the role of lobbyists in the Obama campaign:

"Obama's co-chair in New Hampshire, Jim Demers, is a state based lobbyist for the pharmaceutical and financial services industries amongst others.   Michael Bauer is a state based lobbyist in Chicago. And in Nevada, Obama's campaign also has three state based lobbyists who play senior advising roles in August last year."

-Domenico also reports on Obama's national co-chair, Jim Hodges of South Carolina:

"Hodges is the founder of Hodges Consulting Group, a state-based lobbying firm he started in 2003. The firm is a subsidiary of Kennedy Covington Lobdell & Hickman, L.L.P, a law firm that represents clients in North Carolina and South Carolina.  Hodges Consulting describes itself on its Web site as “well positioned to offer highly effective lobbying services and unparalleled state budget expertise. Hodges Consulting Group can also provide federal representation to clients.  Hodges is, in fact, a registered federal lobbyist, a search of the Senate Office of Public Records Lobbying Disclosure Act Database shows."

-Oh, yea, and by the way, Obama does take lobbyist money it appears, just not at the federal level, as NBC's Domenico also reports:

"Though Obama has also said that he won't take federal PAC and lobbyist money on his campaign, he does take money from state based lobbyists. Obama has justified taking money from state based lobbyists and working with them."

It seems the media does indeed have a lot of dirt to report on.  Why leave it just to independent researchers on the internet?  The American public deserve the truth----a complete, un-biased vetting of all candidates running for public office, especially the Presidency.

Bill Is Absolutely Correct

Today, at a campaign rally, Bill Clinton once again laid out the truth about Obama.  I hope that New Hampshire and the country takes notice:

"They want you to believe it’s change versus the status quo or change versus experience.  Hillary wants you to believe it’s words versus deeds, talk versus action, rhetoric versus reality. You gotta decide who's right.  There’s a difference between talk and action.  It makes a big difference if you’ve actually changed other people’s lives, and if it’s the work of your life."

Bill also tackled the issue of Barack being against the war, before he was for it, before he was against it again:

"Senator Obama’s tried to beat the livin' daylights out of Hillary and everyone else about this. But in 2004 at the convention he said he didn’t know how he would have voted.  It’s inconsistent with the narrative, that he was always against the war, and everybody else was for it.  It was far more complicated.”

I Hope The Media Takes Notice

After months and months of Hillary Clinton and her record being negatively pounded by pundits and analysts in the media, the Clinton campaign is at least trying to get the media to pick up on Obama's record----and rightfully so.  I'm quite frankly sick of people like Chris Matthews who gush openly about Barack Obama and show an obvious bias towards him, yet attack Clinton for things that are proven false.  I'm not saying that the media should not be tough on Clinton, but rather saying they should be equally tough on all candidates, and that includes Sen. Obama.

I hope that now that the Clinton campaign is trying to bring issues to the forefront, the media picks up on it.  What I'm afraid of is that, instead of questioning Obama on his record, they will attack Hillary for pointing out Obama's record.  Of course, the media loved it when Obama went after Clinton's record earlier in the year.  But, if we can't get a fair and balanced media, we are doomed.  Instead of reporting on facts, they report on opinions, mostly their own, and on what makes a good story.  The truth gets pushed to the side to make room for the "media babies" like Obama and McCain.  Just remember, in 2000, Bush was the media's baby...and we all know how that turned out.  

Here is a short clip of an article from NBC's Mike Murray on the Clinton campaign trying to point out aspects of Obama's record that have been skipped over by the media and Obama's campaign's spin in response.

"After what she called Clinton's "real actions, real results" (on health care for children, foster care, and other issues), Clinton New Hampshire co-chair Kathy Sullivan pointed out that Obama opposed the Patriot Act when running for the Senate in 2004, but voted to extend it while in Congress. She also noted that he opposed the Iraq war, but also voted to fund it (until last year). Sullivan then implored the reporters to ask why Obama "has changed his position on critical issues... Inquiring voters want to know the answers to those questions."

Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer later added, "People don't want talk. They want action."

Asked in the Q&A whether the conference call was a sign of desperation, after Obama's win in Iowa and his gains in the polls here, Sullivan replied, "When did looking at someone's record become an attack? That is actually vetting the candidates."

Asked for a response to the conference call, Obama spokesman Bill Burton emailed First Read, "The Clinton campaign's false negative attacks were rejected by Iowa voters, and we expect that they'll suffer the same fate here in New Hampshire.

Singer, the Clinton spokesman, responds to Burton: "There’s nothing false or negative about pointing out basic facts in Senator Obama’s record.  It’s unfortunate that Senator Obama doesn’t think voters should have a chance to examine his record."

Let's hope that the media picks up on this so at least the voting public gets the information they need to make a well-informed decision, not only in Tuesday's primaries, but also in later voting.  After all, we are choosing a President here---we should elect a leader based on facts and his/her record, not because he/she can give a good speech or is seen as more popular.  

For the full NBC article, click here.