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.
No comments :
Post a Comment