Corporate media continues to spread lies about Barack Obama... anyone surprised

[maineman]

It IS every bit as racist as if the mission statement of my church said, "Our mission is to support single women with children, who've been victimized by society, blah, blah, blah...

it would only be racist if it sought to support african americans at the expense or to the detriment of white americans...which is does not.

 

[Annie]

it would only be racist if it sought to support african americans at the expense or to the detriment of white americans...which is does not.

Excuse me, when any group is being 'protected' or 'agendized' others suffer. Ask any minority or female prior to '64.

 

[maineman]

Excuse me, when any group is being 'protected' or 'agendized' others suffer. Ask any minority or female prior to '64.

excuse me...this isn't 1964...this is urban southside Chicago and the UCC is trying to minister to its flock. Like I said...I have absolutely NO doubt that, were I to find myself in CHicagoland, I would jump at the chance to worship in Obama's church and I also have no doubt that they would be warm and welcoming and glad to break bread with me.

 

[Annie]

excuse me...this isn't 1964...this is urban southside Chicago and the UCC is trying to minister to its flock. Like I said...I have absolutely NO doubt that, were I to find myself in CHicagoland, I would jump at the chance to worship in Obama's church and I also have no doubt that they would be warm and welcoming and glad to break bread with me.

Which only makes it worse. Check out how most urban blacks in Chicago feel they are being treated. To have an agenda that sounds like WJ is just SO Wrong.

 

[maineman]

Which only makes it worse. Check out how most urban blacks in Chicago feel they are being treated. To have an agenda that sounds like WJ is just SO Wrong.

wj?

 

[Annie]

wj?

William Joyce.

 

[maineman]

William Joyce.

I do not think that the mission of Obama's UCC church sounds at all like that...it rejoices in the ethnicity of CHicagoland's black population...it does not hate or exclude or denigrate any other group.

 

[dilloduck]

So Hilary Clinton possibly recieving money from corporations justifies the media slandering the man's reputation how?

That's the craziest shit I've ever heard.

Why are corporate interests running scared?

This implication that "corporate interests" are conservative run media companies is ludicrous.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I'm sorry...but change the name and tweak the accusations and you have the political life story of any major "player" in Washington. Hasn't Bush been the target of attacks, smears, and innuendo throughout the media? Hasn't his religion been questions and mocked and misrepresented? Hasn't he been accused of lying about issues that he hasn't lied about, had his statements misrepresented, had major "corporate" media outlets blatantly attempt to lie and distort in order to smear him? Hasn't he heard playground insults mocking his name and even listend to media figures question almost every aspect of his life?

Does that make it right?

Hillary Clinton has sufferred the same at the hands of the Right - as did her husband, as did John Kerry, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, etc. etc. etc. Condeleeza Rice and Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Newt Ginrich, etc. etc have sufferred the same at the hands of the Left.

Does that make it right?

We show pictures of Condi Rice as a black nursemaid and Obama gets GQ pics of himself in swim suits...Colin Powell is called an Uncle Tom and this site gets upset because Obama was once called Osama Obama by TED KENNEDY and others have since brought it up or made issue that his middle name is Hussein (I wonder if the political columnists would have been above making comment if Bush's middle name had been Hitler or Judas...or if Tom Delays middle name had been Osama - somehow I doubt it.)

Does that make it right?

If you are unhappy with Barak Obama's treatment (and truly you are crazy if you are upset with his treatment - every 'scandal' the media looks into is nothing more than a hyped nothing that the media barely covers one day, so it can turn around and say - 'we investigated this story we hyped yesterday, and it was nothing more than a right-wing smear' hint-hint: you should like Barak even more). You really should turn your partisan eyes away from the right-wing...who is sitting comfortably with a lead in almost every poll (even if their candidates aren't "ideal," they will take their less-than-ideal republicans over the ideal democrats any day...and so will more than enough democrats the polls seem to indicate!) waiting while the HILLARY campaign loses sleep over Barak, and turn them to the media - who picks its darlings and coddles them one minute, only to smash them agains the rocks the next.

I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one. I'm looking at 15 different poles right now covering every conceivable race from Clinton v McCain to Brownback v Dodd and not one gives either party a lead greater than 5% in any race. Do you have backing?

 

[Mr.Conley]

This implication that "corporate interests" are conservative run media companies is ludicrous.

What are you talking about? Of course the corporations run the various media outfits. GE didn't buy NBC so that the producers could just run amuck. Viacom doesn't pretend that it doesn't own CBS. Murdoch always keeps an eye on Fox's bottom line. It's not like these corporations totally distance themselves from their media trophies, that'd be stupid. Now of course you can argue over the degree of influence these corporations influence the news, whether they affect editorial content or just look out for the accounting and whatnot, but to say they do nothing is itself ludicrous.

 

[Merlin]

Does that make it right?

Does that make it right?


Does that make it right?


I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one. I'm looking at 15 different poles right now covering every conceivable race from Clinton v McCain to Brownback v Dodd and not one gives either party a lead greater than 5% in any race. Do you have backing?

Thats where your mistake comes in. You have to pole at least 100 million voters for a pole to be even close to be accurate. If edwards, obama (or whatever his name is) and hillery are all the democrats has to offer, they are in sad shape indeed. If an accurate pole was done, these three clowns wouldn't get one percent of the votes. So at this time I would say "the other party" has about 99 percent of the votes. And "YES", my pole is as accurate as any put out to date.

 

[red states rule]

Hillary: The Big Sister We Can Do Without
By Steve Chapman

Everyone knows Hillary Rodham Clinton, and everyone has a different reaction to her. Some find her as irritating as fingernails on a chalkboard. Some find that she makes their skin crawl. Some run screaming from the room. And some want to drink a gallon of rat poison while lying across a railroad track.

The conventional wisdom is that the former first lady will be a formidable presidential candidate because she has lots of money, veteran campaign aides, a shrewd political sense and a close connection to a president beloved by Democrats. But those may be nothing next to a couple of fairly major factors operating against her.

The first is that many people in both parties see her as ideologically repellent. Conservatives think she's an arrogant busybody with an addiction to big government. The left regards her as a cynical trimmer who can't admit when she's wrong.

The second is that many people, again in both parties, just can't stand her. You want a uniter, not a divider? Hillary has a way of uniting people who ordinarily would be pelting each other with eggs.

That explains the appeal of the new YouTube ad, modeled on Apple's famous "1984" Super Bowl commercial, which portrays her as a blandly sinister Big Sister on a giant screen, uttering phony platitudes to an army of robotic slaves. It ends happily when a blonde female athlete sprints in and hurls a sledgehammer at the screen, obliterating the image.

Though the ad included a plug for Barack Obama (who denies any involvement), it would draw equal ovations if it were shown at a meeting of MoveOn.org or The Heritage Foundation. Which raises the question: If the right regards her as a dangerous leftist and the left regards her as an unprincipled accomplice in the Iraq disaster, who really likes her?

It's not as though she warms the hearts of moderates everywhere. Her husband was a master of triangulating between the two poles. But Hillary's efforts to place herself in the sensible center suggest naked opportunism, not hardheaded practicality.

The candidate we all know is the one portrayed by Amy Poehler in the "Saturday Night Live" skit who, when asked about her original position on Iraq, replied with a condescending smile, "I think most Democrats know me. They understand that my support for the war was always insincere."

Any candidate can suffer reputational damage during the course of a bitterly fought election. But Hillary rouses an exceptional amount of dislike even before we've been reminded of her flaws.

In a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, only 19 percent of those surveyed had an unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama. Even the abrasive Rudolph Giuliani had only a 22 percent unfavorable score. But 40 percent had an unfavorable opinion of her.

A December poll found 47 percent of Americans would not even consider voting for Hillary. Karlyn Bowman, a polling expert at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and author of a forthcoming report on attitudes about Hillary, says she can't remember a major party presidential candidate whose negative rating was so high at the start of a campaign.

Conservatives, of course, remember her angry response when her husband was accused of having sex with Monica Lewinsky -- which she dismissed as a smear from a "vast, right-wing conspiracy." It turned out her enemies were telling the truth and she was not.

But even many Democrats find her impossible to take. A recent online poll by The Nation, a leftist magazine, asked readers to name her "greatest weakness." Among the choices it offered, besides her refusal to apologize for supporting the Iraq war resolution, were "her rigid, poll-driven style" and "her tendency to stomp all over her critics."

Much of the support she has comes from people who wish her husband could serve a third term. But weak nostalgia is a poor campaign theme. And Hillary fails on one of the most basic tests: personality.

This is someone, after all, who will be in our living rooms every night for at least four years. Looking back on recent elections, the candidate who wins is usually the more likeable one -- Bush over Gore, Clinton over Dole, Bush over Dukakis, Reagan over Carter. Polls indicate that the aversion to Hillary is less about her politics than about her as a person, and overcoming that sentiment will not be easy.

As the campaign proceeds, some people will be hoping for her to succeed. But I'm betting a lot more will be rooting for the blonde with the sledgehammer.

[email protected]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/hillary_the_big_sister_we_can.html

 

[maineman]

Thats where your mistake comes in. You have to pole at least 100 million voters for a pole to be even close to be accurate. If edwards, obama (or whatever his name is) and hillery are all the democrats has to offer, they are in sad shape indeed. If an accurate pole was done, these three clowns wouldn't get one percent of the votes. So at this time I would say "the other party" has about 99 percent of the votes. And "YES", my pole is as accurate as any put out to date.

the bolded statement is patently false. Your knowledge about probability and statistics could fit in a coffee cup and there would still be room for a full cup of coffee. When you make idiotic pronouncements like this, it only serves to marginalize everything else that you say.

 

[red states rule]

the bolded statement is patently false. Your knowledge about probability and statistics could fit in a coffee cup and there would still be room for a full cup of coffee. When you make idiotic pronouncements like this, it only serves to marginalize everything else that you say.

Polls show Dems losing to Rudy, and Hillary losing ground to Obama

08 is looking real good thus far for Republicans

 

[red states rule]

The litany of lies focused at Barack Obama is proof that he has the right-wing running scared. And the corporate media (CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, Fox, NYT, Clear Channel, etc.) is swinging in full-force to spread lies and mis-information regarding him.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200011

Why are corporate interests running scared? Because Obama's a direct threat to their bought-and-paid-for Republican politicians.

Mystery Creator of Anti-Clinton Ad ID'd
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
6 hours ago

WASHINGTON - The Internet video sensation that targeted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton now has rival Sen. Barack Obama on the spot.

Heralded by many as the embodiment of Web-driven citizen activism, the mysterious YouTube ad now stands revealed as the work of a Democratic operative employed by a consulting firm with Obama links.

"It's true ... yeah, it's me," said Philip de Vellis, a 33-year-old strategist with Blue State Digital, a Washington company that advises Democratic candidates and liberal groups.

Blue State designed Obama's Web site, and one of the firm's founding members, Joe Rospars, took a leave from the company to work as Obama's director of new media.

Obama, Blue State and de Vellis all say de Vellis acted on his own. De Vellis left the company on Wednesday. He said he resigned; Thomas Gensemer, the firm's managing director, said he was fired.

The entire episode hangs a cloud over the Obama camp.

Since he arrived on the national political scene, Obama has won convert after convert with a vow to rise above the bare-knuckle fray of politics.

However tenuous, any link to the ad, with its Orwellian image of Clinton as Big Brother, raises questions the Obama camp would rather not face.

In a statement, the Obama campaign said it "had no knowledge and had nothing to do with the creation of the ad."

"Blue State Digital has separated ties with this individual and we have been assured he did no work on our campaign's account," it added.

De Vellis, in a blog he wrote after he had been identified by Huffingtonpost.com, appeared to acknowledge the trouble he had brewed. "I support Senator Obama," he wrote. "I hope he wins the primary. (I recognize that this ad is not his style of politics)."

It's not as if Obama's campaign is not willing to mix it up.

Last month, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs referred to the infamous Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers of the Clinton era after the Clinton team demanded that Obama apologize for anti-Clinton remarks by Hollywood producer and Obama backer David Geffen.

And this week, Obama consultant David Axelrod publicly challenged Clinton strategist Mark Penn over his characterization of Obama's stance on the war in Iraq.

The unmasking of de Vellis also cracks the enticing image of the Internet as a freewheeling arena where average citizens engage in vigorous, often provocative, discourse.

De Vellis said he acted like any techno-savvy, politically attuned Web surfer. He said he worked on a Sunday in his apartment, using his Mac computer and video editing software to alter an updated version of a classic Apple ad that aired during the Super Bowl in 1984.

But the fact remains that de Vellis was a political professional. He had worked for Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown in his successful campaign for U.S. Senate in Ohio. And he was working for a firm with political clients, including Obama.

"Obviously some people are going to look at this and see that I'm working in politics and they'll think that it's kind of disingenuous or not genuine," de Vellis said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I still think that ordinary citizens can change politics. It could have been anyone else who could have made this ad."

The ad portrayed Clinton on a huge television screen addressing an audience that sat in a trancelike state. A female athlete, running ahead of storm troopers, sprints into the auditorium and tosses a hammer at the screen, destroying Clinton's image. "On January 14th the Democratic primary will begin," the text states. "And you will see why 2008 isn't going to be like '1984.'" It signs off with "BarackObama.com"

In the interview, and later in a blog written for the Huffington Post, de Vellis expressed pride in his creation, while acknowledging that his employers are "disappointed and angry at me, and deservedly so."

"It changes the trajectory of my career," he said.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.js...=itn_hillaryad

 

[Merlin]

the bolded statement is patently false. Your knowledge about probability and statistics could fit in a coffee cup and there would still be room for a full cup of coffee. When you make idiotic pronouncements like this, it only serves to marginalize everything else that you say.

I beg to differ with your statement. Any poll less than that would give a false positive or a false negative, depending on who you ask. Another negative about poles is the questions can be asked in a way that the pole turns out the way it is paid to do. If a pole taker wants it to turn out for Republicans to lead, he ask the questions where it will turn out that way. And vise versa. In my life time I have been contacted 3 times by pole takers and each time I could tell it was leading toward a certain direction. I politely told them to take their pole taking elsewhere. Anyone that has any savvy about poles will tell you that it is an impossibility to get even a close picture of anything with just a few well worded questions with a few well picked people. They have been labeled useless by too many people to even use. I think the probability and statistics ignorance is in your court.
To add another sentence to this post mainman, you have been de-marginalized on this board by everything you say.

 

[maineman]

I beg to differ with your statement. Any poll less than that would give a false positive or a false negative, depending on who you ask. Another negative about poles is the questions can be asked in a way that the pole turns out the way it is paid to do. If a pole taker wants it to turn out for Republicans to lead, he ask the questions where it will turn out that way. And vise versa. In my life time I have been contacted 3 times by pole takers and each time I could tell it was leading toward a certain direction. I politely told them to take their pole taking elsewhere. Anyone that has any savvy about poles will tell you that it is an impossibility to get even a close picture of anything with just a few well worded questions with a few well picked people. They have been labeled useless by too many people to even use. I think the probability and statistics ignorance is in your court.
To add another sentence to this post mainman, you have been de-marginalized on this board by everything you say.

like I said, you don't know what you are talking about regarding polling. Push polling, as you seem to be describing, or poll question design, has nothing to do with sample size. Your statement about sample size is foolish.

 

[jasendorf]

This implication that "corporate interests" are conservative run media companies is ludicrous.

Are you saying that the corporate media aren't corporate? Hannity on ABC, Glenn Beck on CNN...

Face it... the "MSM" is the Corporate Media.... and they bash liberals every chance they get. Particularly those who might want to do something like tax their profits.

 

[maineman]

To add another sentence to this post mainman, you have been de-marginalized on this board by everything you say.

"de-marginalized" eh?

why thank you.

mar·gin·al·ize [mahr-juh-nl-ahyz]
–verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing. to place in a position of marginal importance, influence, or power: the government's attempts to marginalize criticism and restore public confidence.

therefore, your quaisi-made up word would be the opposite of that....

thanks again.

 

[dilloduck]

What are you talking about? Of course the corporations run the various media outfits. GE didn't buy NBC so that the producers could just run amuck. Viacom doesn't pretend that it doesn't own CBS. Murdoch always keeps an eye on Fox's bottom line. It's not like these corporations totally distance themselves from their media trophies, that'd be stupid. Now of course you can argue over the degree of influence these corporations influence the news, whether they affect editorial content or just look out for the accounting and whatnot, but to say they do nothing is itself ludicrous.

I'm challenging this quote.

Why are corporate interests running scared? Because Obama's a direct threat to their bought-and-paid-for Republican politicians.

Obama is currently a much greater threat to Hillary than the GOP. Hillary has her political machine, the LIBERAL corporate interests AND the LIBERAL MSM busy shooting Obamas' legs out from underneath him.