FTA Walter Shorenstein, a prominent San Francisco-based real estate developer, Democratic fundraiser and longtime supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, penned a memo to Democratic party "superdelegates" and other activists criticizing media coverage of the presidential campaign.

Wow, using a biased source to claim bias in other sources. The Clinton campaign has Rovian tactics down to a T.

Walter Shorenstein, a prominent San Francisco-based real estate developer, Democratic fundraiser and longtime supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, penned a memo to Democratic party "superdelegates" and other activists criticizing media coverage of the presidential campaign.

Speaking of bias...

The Media is pretty clearly biased in favor of Hillary.

They annointed her the 2008 nominee in 2005 and have hyped her up for 3 years. They never question her obviously resume inflation "35 years!", they never don't press her on tax returns even though politicians normally are hammered about that, they keep claiming she is a contender despite losing 11 primaries by huge margins (something that would force any other candidate out of the race)...

the idea that the media is biased against her is absurd.

Love how everyone's basically now hollering, "You aren't showing enough dirt about Barack!". He's been campaigning for months, if you had any, you'd be showing it instead of biatching about some perceived bias. Scandal sells. Or in Farkese, "Pictures or it didn't happen." shiat, I know if I were running for President they'd have their fodder by now.

Besides, I think he'll be unbeatable with his new Veep choice:

Bill Frist: The Media is pretty clearly biased in favor of Hillary.

*snort*
I dislike Hillary as much as anyone but it's fairly obvious that saying the media is biased for her against Obama is absurd.

If the media weren't pro-Clinton, you'd think someone would start pressing her on her numerous connections to Bill's questionable 2001 pardons.

I don't see why people think she is such an empowering feminine figure. Let's see her resume:

-Governor's Wife
-President's Wife
-Elected to Senate on Husband's name
-Running for Presidant on Husband's accomplishments

Truly inspiring.

Descartes Quote 2008-03-02 12:07:35 PM
Bill Frist: The Media is pretty clearly biased in favor of Hillary.

*snort*
I dislike Hillary as much as anyone but it's fairly obvious that saying the media is biased for her against Obama is absurd.

Bull farking shiat dude. Let me guess, you also think the media was biased in favor of the Patriots last season?

Obama is getting better media coverage because he has been doing better and winning more. He SHOULD get better coverage. When you win contests, raise tons of money and get big endorsements you are going to get better coverage.

But the media still buys completely into the Hillary narrative and into the Hillary anti-Obama talking points.

Any other candidate would have been forced out of the race by the media weeks ago. The fact that Hillary is not only still in the contest, but is still considered a strong contender is absurd.

FTA: Walter Shorenstein, a prominent San Francisco-based real estate developer, Democratic fundraiser and longtime supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, penned a memo to Democratic party "superdelegates" and other activists criticizing media coverage of the presidential campaign.

All you need to know about this story.

GradStudentForLife: Jinx.

Descartes
I dislike Hillary as much as anyone but it's fairly obvious that saying the media is biased for her against Obama is absurd.

If it were Obama who had lost 11 straight primaries, and had only a long shot of capturing the nomination, would the media be treating him with half the grace and deference it shows to Hillary?

If he utterly refused to acknowledge his losses in "concession" speeches and cried on stage, would the media be treating him with half the respect and positivity that it grants to Hillary?

Ah well it couldn't be her campaign which looks like it's being run by a bunch of retarded drunken monkeys, it must be the media.

mrexcess [TotalFark] Quote 2008-03-02 12:18:20 PM
Descartes
I dislike Hillary as much as anyone but it's fairly obvious that saying the media is biased for her against Obama is absurd.

If it were Obama who had lost 11 straight primaries, and had only a long shot of capturing the nomination, would the media be treating him with half the grace and deference it shows to Hillary?

If he utterly refused to acknowledge his losses in "concession" speeches and cried on stage, would the media be treating him with half the respect and positivity that it grants to Hillary?


Would the media let Obama, or anyone else, get away with saying every state Hillary won "doesn't count"?

Would the media let another candidate with very little experience get away with claiming to be the experience candidate?

Would the media let anyone else get away with not releasing tax returns when they loaned their campaign money?

Would the media let anyone other than Hillary keep moving the goal posts after each defeat?

Would the media ever go after Hillary and rag on her to "reject and denounce" every random douchebag that says something nice about her?

Would the media let any other candidate so shamelessly plagiarize and steal lines from their opponent?


The media has been carrying Hillary along on its back for this entire election cycle.

She would hve been dead in the water without them.

Obama appears better in the press than Hillary because the press has been covering Obama and Hillary. I don't see how it could be any simpler than that.

mrexcess: GradStudentForLife: Jinx.

I don't think it counts as jinx after a ten minute interval.

In any case, the fact that three people pointed out the obvious bullshiat element of this story within ten posts causes one to wonder: WHY THE HELL IS THIS A STORY? Why is the AP reporting this when it is such obvious crap? Further, does any jackass who claims to be an expert and writes a memo warrant a wire service story now?

Unless they feel like they have to run this story to prove they aren't biased against Hillary. But, with this story obviously being horseshiat, it just makes Hillary look bad, so maybe this shows that they are biased against her?! AHHH! *head asplode*

Bill Frist
The media has been carrying Hillary along on its back for this entire election cycle.

You make a strong case.

GradStudentForLife
Unless they feel like they have to run this story to prove they aren't biased against Hillary. But, with this story obviously being horseshiat, it just makes Hillary look bad, so maybe this shows that they are biased against her?! AHHH! *head asplode*

This story sounds good for Hillary to one set of people: die-hard Hillary supporters ready to fall back on "conspiracy" before accepting that she's the inferior candidate.

Let me note, however, that I don't think the media is anti-Obama or McCain either.

McCain Obama and Clinton are probably the three candidates the media loves the most. hmm, how surprising they are the last three standing?

FTA: He was quoting the 1976 movie "Network," in which a mentally disturbed television news anchor played by Peter Finch went on the air and implored viewers to rebel against gimmicks staged by network news executives.

Heh heh. OK maybe they didn't have to elaborate on his source with that much detail.

Still, heh heh.

Bill Frist
McCain Obama and Clinton are probably the three candidates the media loves the most.

I don't say there isn't truth there, but I think there's also a bit of chicken versus egg.

mrexcess [TotalFark] Quote 2008-03-02 12:36:46 PM
Bill Frist
McCain Obama and Clinton are probably the three candidates the media loves the most.

I don't say there isn't truth there, but I think there's also a bit of chicken versus egg.


Obama and Clinton would have been the top 2 Dem candidates no matter what, but I honestly do think the media gave McCain the nomination.

He was broke with no money and little support. By most standards, he should have been as talked about as Ron Paul or Hunter. Instead the media still hyped him as one of the best candidates and put him on the same platform as Rudy and Romney. This allowed him to stage his NH comeback.

He never would have won NH without the media.

Bill Frist
but I honestly do think the media gave McCain the nomination.

Hmm, really? When I think back on the coverage McCain got before and around Iowa, it's hard for me not to conclude that they'd written McCain off themselves, moreso than had anyone save perhaps Republicans inside the beltway. No one could have anticipated what a terrible campaign Romney or Thompson would have run, or that corporate interests and financial conservatives would prove so fearful of budding theo-populist Huckabee.

If anyone was a media darling on the GOP side this time around, I'd say it was Thompson. They were really creaming their jeans over him, but he just couldn't deliver. McCain's a second choice all around, his support primarily being dogmatic conservatives who remember what he did in Vietnam.

Remember this fracas from the election of 1760?

Magua, a prominent Huron real estate developer, French-allied partisan, and longtime supporter of the Marquis de Montcalm, penned a memo to Mohegan, Mohawk, and other activists criticizing media coverage of the Grey Hair's campaign.

During super Tuesday event I was with a group of Democrats. The usual Obama V. Hillary Debates were going on.

The Hillary people were claiming a vast media conspiracy against Hillary. Not just a media bias statements, they could have matched Ron Paul supporters with their tinfoil hat conspiracies.

"The media wants Hillary to lose because they claim she's divisive, when she's not"

"They're afraid of a woman in power"

"They hated Hillary from the start"

If you get caught in this debate, trying to explain that from 2004 to the Iowa Caucuses she's been the presumptive unbeatable candidate is a useless tactic. Also explaining Obama's more consistent stance, widespread appeal among independents and the fact that people like good orators who can give them hope instead of cynical talking points doesn't work either.

Hillary Clinton supporters are the new Ron Paul supporters.

at least Ron Paul supporters actually liked Ron Paul. Hillary Clinton supporters just like her last name and/or want a woman in power.

Bill Frist: If it were Obama who had lost 11 straight primaries, and had only a long shot of capturing the nomination, would the media be treating him with half the grace and deference it shows to Hillary?

No.

If he utterly refused to acknowledge his losses in "concession" speeches and cried on stage, would the media be treating him with half the respect and positivity that it grants to Hillary?

No.

Would the media let Obama, or anyone else, get away with saying every state Hillary won "doesn't count"?

Hell no.

Would the media let another candidate with very little experience get away with claiming to be the experience candidate?

No.

Would the media let anyone else get away with not releasing tax returns when they loaned their campaign money?

No.

Would the media let anyone other than Hillary keep moving the goal posts after each defeat?

No.

Would the media ever go after Hillary and rag on her to "reject and denounce" every random douchebag that says something nice about her?

No.

Would the media let any other candidate so shamelessly plagiarize and steal lines from their opponent?

Well, Bush in 2000 with McCain. This time? No.

The media has been carrying Hillary along on its back for this entire election cycle.

Yes.

She would hve been dead in the water without them.

Also yes.

I don't want someone who is wiling to bend over and give the Republicans an inch.

ARE YOU farkING KIDDING ME!?????!!!!!!

Is this your first year paying attention to politics?

The ENTIRE farkING PHILOSOPHY of the Clintons has been "triangulation" which means adopting republican policies to try and broaden your support.

The Clintons don't just give republicans an inch, they give them yards and yards.

Jesus christ.

Clinton has not been some leftist leader in the senate. She has tried to be as centrist as possible to appease the republicans.

Obama looks FAR FAR FAR stronger to face up against the republicans than Clinton.

farking hell.

was that a joke? Tell me that was a joke...

The Obama "bipartisan" philosophy is to force republicans to follow him based on public support, rhetoric and finding common ground.

The Hillary "bipartisan" approach is to move her positions more and more to the right until Republicans will support her.

Obama doesn't say "fark you" but he is the one who forces Republicans to play along. Clinton just gets tugged around by the Republicans.

Have you payed any attenton to their political careers?

The media loves a horse race because it's the only thing that keeps the average American interested in the Primary season. The Hillary/Obama race is the only one that's even close so they're going to drag it out as long as possible.

Outtaphase: Obama appears better in the press than Hillary because the press has been covering Obama and Hillary. I don't see how it could be any simpler than that.

This.

When HASN'T the media been biased toward one candidate or another? Here's a tip: the right-wing media is usually biased toward the Right candidate, and the left-wing media is usually biased toward the Left candidate.

Ding-dongs like those here at Fark are usually biased toward whoever we want to stir up the pot a little bit and make noise so we can have a really entertaining thread for the afternoon.

/not a ding-dong, but perhaps a ho-ho.

I saw Clinton campaign manager Howard Wolfson square off with Obama campaign manager David Axelrod on ABC "This Week" earlier today. Wolfson was going on and on about the media not investigation the Rezko connection more thoroughly, including them buying adjacent houses a couple of years ago. Axelrod countered by asking again about the Clinton tax returns (now promised for release on April 15 - about a week before the Penn. primary).

And then Axelrod mentioned that maybe the Clintons don't want the media digging around for details of old real estate deals...

I took that as a shot across the bow - just because Obama's been keeping his campaign as clean as anyone in living memory, he's not going to lie there and take Clinton's Rovian tactics indefinitely.

FTFA: "There is too much on the line for the media to ignore important issues while they obsess about Hillary's hairdo or Barack's baritone," Shorenstein continued. "Is it in the country's best interest that voters received far more information about Hillary's laugh than Obama's legislative record? Is it good for our nation that more attention is paid to the differences in their speaking style than their health care plans?"

Yes, let's look at those legislative records. Linked on FARK a few days back: Some chick does the research (new window)

Methinks Shorenstein hasn't actually looked at the records. Farking idiot.

Shorenstein is a rabid Greater Israeler. He's just doing his job here, trying to help install an AIPAC approved candidate, can't blame him for that. He can still kiss my ass, the un-American foreign agent that he is.

Obama gets an "easier time of it" because his record isn't replete with hypocrisy and special interest handouts.

Obama and other Democratic Senators who wanted to debate the PATRIOT Act before re-authorizing it were shut down by Hillary and others who joined with the Republicans. Is she running on that? Or when that is brought up, does it make for bias against her?