[Tor]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

Was watching CNN last night, and Lou Dobbs finally said it.




He even said on his own network, which is clearly for obama. I wake up to CNN almost every day and they got everything obama. The only channel that I seen, that isn't so bias about this is FoxNews O_o They even picked up a story that no other network picked up (base on what i seen, didn't go digging for it). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342728,00.html



LMAO, this guy cracks me up. I don't agree with his views, nor do I believe obama is thrash.

What's up with media bias on clinton? I feel that it effects the way voters see the candidates.

[hazelmurphy]

There hasn't been an unbiased mass media news station in a decade.

Just wait - on the off chance that Hillary pulls out the nomination somehow, CNN will be her new best friend.

[Tor]

I'm talking about right now. I don't usually follow elections, but this one will go down as the greatest ever for democrates because it features two very unique people IMO.

From what I can see, there's definately media bias for Obama, which I think is totally unfair for the voters.

[hazelmurphy]

How do you think I feel as a republican? For the most part, the national media has heavily biased against my party for a long time. Media bias exists because the role of the media - especially network media - has gone from reporting the news to trying to alter the way news happens.

Btw the site was timing out for me for about a 10 minute period from 7:35-7:45 eastern.

[Tor]

Thx, I'll check my mail to see if the server sent anything.

Yea I feel bad for Mccain too. He barely gets any coverage, but he already won his party. I agree on what you said about network media. Still I haven't seen this kind of media bias ever on someone.

Was listening to the radio earlier and foxnews radio's new "station idetification" slogan "Unbias, and Fair". It was something different the other day. I konw some people who hate foxnews, but are now watching it just because they feel those other networks are so bias. Foxnews gots its own bias but, it's not as bad as thsoe other networks.

Stilll though, I find myself watching CNN more.

[hazelmurphy]

Originally Posted by Tor

Was listening to the radio earlier and foxnews radio's new "station idetification" slogan "Unbias, and Fair". It was something different the other day. I konw some people who hate foxnews, but are now watching it just because they feel those other networks are so bias. Foxnews gots its own bias but, it's not as bad as thsoe other networks.

Unbiased and fair or something along those lines has always been FoxNews' motto. Do they lean right, yeah. The effect is multiplied by the fact that so many (cough cough all) of the other major networks lean to the left.

The bias has always been there, just not as noticable. When was the last time the primary elections have gone this long without an outright winner? It was easy for the networks to say "Oh Kerry is wiping up" or "Obviously Gore has the nomination so let's support him"
For once, they have to choose someone in their own party - and it's making thier bias more obvious.

[Zodia]

overhere in wisconsin, nobody likes hilary. we all see her as a cheating lying scumbag, and she'll say and do anything to win.

Ever heard of what she did in florida and michigan?
And was she really dodging sniper fire in bosnia as soon as she landed? with no welcome, no support when she landed? WTF does that have to do with anything even if she IS OBVIOUSLY LYING? (airport cameras can prove her statement is a total lie, its actually pathetic and funny, check it out on youtube)
I was once for hilary, but after that stunt, nah...obama all the way.
and what's up with this superdelegate bs anyway?

[hazelmurphy]

Superdelegates are delagates that aren't "required" to cast their votes as their voters prefer. That said - if the democratic superdelegates decide to go against the wishes of the populace to vote for - and pardon the bluntness - a white women against a black man . . . talk about all hell breaking loose.

[Moshineko]

Originally Posted by hazelmurphy

Superdelegates are delagates that aren't "required" to cast their votes as their voters prefer. That said - if the democratic superdelegates decide to go against the wishes of the populace to vote for - and pardon the bluntness - a white women against a black man . . . talk about all hell breaking loose.

Not quite right. No delegates are actually required (in the Democratic race, not sure about Republican) to go with the popular vote. There is some "good conscience" clause in there or something.

Superdelegates are there for when there isn't a clear enough majority for one candidate or the other. I forget the exact numbers, but I know that both Hillary and Obama are short of a guaranteed seat as the candidate, and will be no matter what.

The superdelegates will be a sort of "sudden death" for the candidacy, deciding the outcome if all the pledged delegates actually vote as they've said they will.

[hazelmurphy]

True, but the superdelegates are "expected" (heavily) to go along with the canddiate who leads in total delegates.

[bhamlaxy]

I have a few points to make on this.

The first is that I believe the media is to a certain degree a little bit biased, but it is mostly deserved.

Obama has gotten hit recently, with the pastor issue. Everyone was talking about him and his nutso racist extremist pastor. How does he respond? He addresses the issue head on, gives a speech on race, and its smooth sailing. He made good, logical points, and explained his actions. Additionally, there have been other sources of negativity for

Lets talk about one of the recent issues the media covered for Clinton: the trip to Bosnia. She gave a few speeches on "avoiding sniper fire" and "running across the runway with no welcoming ceremony", when video shows a safe welcoming ceremony complete with little girls reading poetry. Her response? She was "tired", she "made a mistake", and that we should remember that she is "human". Are you kidding me? The bitch completely embellished the story, then came up with stupid and pointless excuses. I mean come on, maybe there is more positive stuff on Obama and more negative stuff on Clinton because thats what there is to report!

but this one will go down as the greatest ever for democrates because it features two very unique people IMO.

Are you serious? This is a recipe for disaster. It will already be looked at as a shit storm. Two states not counted, then the race gets so close they need to figure out what to do (not sure what they will do), and then having the candidates spending millions of dollars beating the hell out of each other, polarizing the democrats. The only way this will go down as even a positive time for the democrats would be if they were both on the same ticket. If they win, it will be viewed as just having been able to make it. This was expected to be an easy win for the dems, and now they have made it difficult.

From what I can see, there's definately media bias for Obama, which I think is totally unfair for the voters.

I think it is totally fair at the point where it is justified. All these calls for her to give up? That's because she really SHOULD give up, and there are a ton of people within the party telling her to give up. Those are the facts.

There is still negative coverage on Obama. The Washington Post did an article on how he is extremely liberal when it comes to abortion (he opposed a bill banning partial birth abortion and a bill that bans the killing of infants left alive after an abortion!). They did another story about how Clinton shouldn't give up. And come on, if the media was so biased about Clinton, why would they admit to it? If they truly didn't like her, why would they report "Newsflash: We are biased against Hillary, VOTE CLINTON 08' LOL".

Yea I feel bad for Mccain too. He barely gets any coverage, but he already won his party. I agree on what you said about network media. Still I haven't seen this kind of media bias ever on someone.

I just think the media reports on what is going on. What is McCain doing? Raising a little money, traveling around. I check out the news every day, and there is certainly reporting on everything McCain does. He was in Iraq a few weeks ago, he gave a speech with Romney somewhere (out west I think), he recently gave a speech about finding a running mate, which was at the naval academy I think. He's just not doing anything very interesting.

Was listening to the radio earlier and foxnews radio's new "station idetification" slogan "Unbias, and Fair". It was something different the other day. I konw some people who hate foxnews, but are now watching it just because they feel those other networks are so bias. Foxnews gots its own bias but, it's not as bad as thsoe other networks.

Fox news isn't biased because it's the democrats. Wait until the actual election to see some good ol' Fox News style bias.

Ever heard of what she did in florida and michigan?

What? She did nothing wrong there. The parties of those states decided to hold their elections early, violating party rules. The DNC stripped all their delegates away. Clinton is now pushing to have their voices heard and votes counted, either the way they are or in a recount, and Obama's team is trying to stop them.

[Tor]

Are you serious? This is a recipe for disaster. It will already be looked at as a shit storm. Two states not counted, then the race gets so close they need to figure out what to do (not sure what they will do), and then having the candidates spending millions of dollars beating the hell out of each other, polarizing the democrats. The only way this will go down as even a positive time for the democrats would be if they were both on the same ticket. If they win, it will be viewed as just having been able to make it. This was expected to be an easy win for the dems, and now they have made it difficult.

Yea I'm serious. You don't think the first female or black president is gonna go down in history? If Obama agree's to it, those two states could just do a revote. But he isn't. He was one the one, that didn't want his name in Michigan's ballot. If you count those two states, Hillary right now is in a virtual tie in delegates and with a win in PA she would take the lead by far. But because the rules are broken, they won't be counted.

It's gonna look bad for Obama no matter how you look at it in Novemeber when it comes down to those two states he didn't want their votes to be counted even though it was the rules that were broken.

Tons of people care about this election right now. More people are voting. More people care.

Why doesn't Obama drop out if everyone's so worried about the democrates splitting up? Isn't it hypocritcal to ask hillary to drop off when both of them won't have enough delegates anyways? If both aren't gonna get enough might as well ride this train till the end to see who the winner will be. According to the poll, Hillary's supporter will jump the boat into Mccain's ship which would probably cost the democrates the election anyways. If those polls were accurate of course, which I don't think they are.

And come on, if the media was so biased about Clinton, why would they admit to it? If they truly didn't like her, why would they report "Newsflash: We are biased against Hillary, VOTE CLINTON 08' LOL".

Ratings what else? How many hilary supporters probably stop watching CNN and went straight to FOX news or some Pro hillary network?

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/...y-clinton.html

Not sure if the response at the top was actually from CNN. But as you can see, there clearly is a media bias on Clinton and some people who signed a petition about it.

Fox news isn't biased because it's the democrats. Wait until the actual election to see some good ol' Fox News style bias.

I'm talking about Hillary and Obama. They aren't as bias as other networks. I'm pretty sure they will when the candidates get picked but until then, right now some people see them them as "fair"

[bhamlaxy]

Yea I'm serious. You don't think the first female or black president is gonna go down in history?

Sure, it will be monumental since both are historically unique, but the way the democratic party is acting right now is very messy. Dean calls for it to end soon, Clinton immediately announces she will take it to the convention, attacks continue, and the whole Michigan/Florida thing. If they win, it will be viewed as "The historical moment when the first black/woman president was elected, when the Democrats made their lives MUCH harder than they had to be".

If Obama agree's to it, those two states could just do a revote.

Thats what I think he should do, and its what Rove recommended. It would make Obama look like a problem solver, and increase support for him in those two key states. There are other issues like money involved, but a plan will probably come to fruition sometime soon.

He was one the one, that didn't want his name in Michigan's ballot.

Because he was told it doesn't count. And the "Undecided" section functionally serves as his name.

. If you count those two states, Hillary right now is in a virtual tie in delegates

This is ABSOLUTELY false. The only "count those two states" plans count Obama under "undecided", which is what people chose since he wasn't in the ballot in Michigan. If all the delegates from Michigan and Florida were seated as is, it would give Clinton a boost of approximately 54 delegates. Now different sources have different numbers for delegates, but Obama would still be ahead by 86 delegates, a decent lead. And with his numbers absolutely skyrocketing in Pennsylvania, it would be game over.

But because the rules are broken, they won't be counted.

Wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/...ign/index.html

Why doesn't Obama drop out if everyone's so worried about the democrates splitting up? Isn't it hypocritcal to ask hillary to drop off when both of them won't have enough delegates anyways?

Because he is winning...

Not sure if the response at the top was actually from CNN. But as you can see, there clearly is a media bias on Clinton and some people who signed a petition about it.

Oh come on. I provide you very clear and detailed analysis as to why Hillary's responses to different issues brought up means that she deserves bad coverage, because she does worse things. I give you multiple examples as to how Obama has received negative coverage.

Your response? "There's a petition that some people signed!"

[Tor]

Sure, it will be monumental since both are historically unique, but the way the democratic party is acting right now is very messy. Dean calls for it to end soon, Clinton immediately announces she will take it to the convention, attacks continue, and the whole Michigan/Florida thing. If they win, it will be viewed as "The historical moment when the first black/woman president was elected, when the Democrats made their lives MUCH harder than they had to be".

Democrates made it harder than they had to be? People are still voting and eager to vote. Let them be heard.

Thats what I think he should do, and its what Rove recommended. It would make Obama look like a problem solver, and increase support for him in those two key states. There are other issues like money involved, but a plan will probably come to fruition sometime soon.

Sorry not gonna quote everything =D

Clinton received 55 percent of the primary vote, compared with 40 percent for "uncommitted."

According that article you posted, why would Obama receive the uncommitted votes, when during that period, there were way more canidates than just Clinton and Obama, but instead they think giving 40% of the votes to Obama is justifiable? That makes absolutely no sense at all. They are saying that that absolute 40% were all obama voters. >.>

Because he is winning...

Why use the argument that they care so much about the party, that it's hurting the party. If you care so much about the party, why not drop out yourself? If not, then drop the case that Hillary should drop out.

Both canidates are getting tons of media coverage. As many have said, "there is no such thing as bad publicity." Though I disagree somewhat with that statement.

Let the people vote!

I provide you very clear and detailed analysis as to why Hillary's responses to different issues brought up means that she deserves bad coverage, because she does worse things.

Nafta and Bosnia? I'm not even just talking about bad coverage. I'm talking about the total coverage on both canidates. Log into CNN and you'll see yourself. Compare the "good" coverage of Obama and then the "good" coverage of Clinton. Sadly that's not really new revealing information that's just how the media is.

Hey I'll agree you should get coverage when something controversial happens.

[bhamlaxy]

Democrates made it harder than they had to be? People are still voting and eager to vote. Let them be heard.

Yea, I want them to be heard, I'm just responding to your argument that this will be the "legendary triumph of the democrats". While this was supposed to be a walk in the park, it's turned into the most difficult primary in decades, with a bunch of problems.

According that article you posted, why would Obama receive the uncommitted votes, when during that period, there were way more canidates than just Clinton and Obama, but instead they think giving 40% of the votes to Obama is justifiable? That makes absolutely no sense at all. They are saying that that absolute 40% were all obama voters. >.>

Plan
"Under Stupak's proposal, Clinton would receive 47 delegates based on her vote total, while Obama would be awarded 36 delegates based on that "uncommitted" result; the rest would be divided according to the nationwide popular vote total after all the primaries are completed."

Listen, I absolutely guarantee that if a single delegate is seated from Michigan, Obama will get the uncommitted. First of all, that section functionally was Obama. If you were a Michigan democrat and wanted him, thats what you put. Next, do you understand how extremely unfair it would be to say "Obama, you don't even need your name on the ballot, Michigan doesn't count" then to say "Oh lol sorry, it does count, you lose"? It would be outrageous, and no one is proposing that.

Why use the argument that they care so much about the party, that it's hurting the party. If you care so much about the party, why not drop out yourself? If not, then drop the case that Hillary should drop out.

No. The argument is that it is almost statistically impossible for Hillary to have more delegates coming into the convention. This means the only way for her to win would be to have superdelegates ignore the "will of the people" and just go ahead and vote for her. This creates the perception that the first real shot at a black president, supported by the will of the people, was destroyed because a bunch of old white men and a white woman decided not to. Good luck getting black voters to get out and vote in November. It would be game over.

Obama shouldn't drop out because he is winning, winning the nomination won't alienate a huge portion of voters, and he will have the most delegates going into the convention.

Nafta and Bosnia? I'm not even just talking about bad coverage. I'm talking about the total coverage on both canidates. Log into CNN and you'll see yourself. Compare the "good" coverage of Obama and then the "good" coverage of Clinton. Sadly that's not really new revealing information that's just how the media is.

It's hard to have "good coverage" when the candidate is a lying, conniving bitch.