|
|
Post by Southie on Feb 27, 2008 11:56:27 GMT -5
Is the media being fair to Hillary? Do you think Obama is now being considered to be the "nice one"? Prior to the Obama campaign, Hillary has been in media, and do you think it has become progressively good or bad press? How influential is the media in shaping your decision?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Feb 27, 2008 12:01:12 GMT -5
Obama has not gone negative on Hillary. She was always seen as a mean bulldog and besides the crying incident, she has not given anyone any reason to think otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Champs Elysees on Feb 27, 2008 12:03:27 GMT -5
The media build people up to tear them down.
They are in love with Obama now, but Hillary has made it hard on her herself (see last night's debate).
Once the nomination is officially Obama's, the dogs are gonna come out. Trust!
Obama is the more likeable candidate. He's just a fcuking rockstar!
|
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Feb 27, 2008 12:03:31 GMT -5
I watched Fox News this past weekend, and they were terrible in providing a Hillary perspective. This was not the first time, and I am wondering if the media is providing a "fair" perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Feb 27, 2008 12:05:36 GMT -5
On the Hannity/Combs show, Hannity asked a few people in the audience if they could articulate any specific programs that Obama has supported? Could they speak on any agenda's that he supported? Now, I am certain this was a carefully selected audience, however it was interesting that no one could site one program.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldfront06 on Feb 27, 2008 12:06:55 GMT -5
Fox News is so tilted, that my TV leans to the side when I watch it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrimsonENDvy on Feb 27, 2008 12:08:34 GMT -5
lol. I thought I was the only one that noticed my TV leans heavily to the right when I watch that channel. But you know what, sometimes I really like to watch Fox News because it reminds me how narrowminded the world can be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Feb 27, 2008 12:09:57 GMT -5
What about CNN? MSNBC? At times it seems they attempt to have a very liberal perspective but lately its hard to understand how they are attemting to characterize both candidates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Champs Elysees on Feb 27, 2008 12:12:48 GMT -5
No one ever can! Did they ask the audience about the programs that John McCain supported? What about Sen. Clinton?
So far, the stuff they are throwing at Obama ain't sticking, so they are chipping at the experience block. That's all they have and it's bullshit.
He has written/co-written legislative actions like many other members of Congress. If the public doesn't know what he's done' that's their fault.
Obama's point is that change happens from the bottom up. That means people have to be motivated to look at candidates and where they stand on issues. They have to form their own coalitions of support for the causes they believe in. They have to make sute they hold the people they elect accountable to them. That's how we improve our conditions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Feb 27, 2008 12:14:45 GMT -5
That is what I am saying. Media outlets have been very selective in showing good or not so good behavior with all of the candidates. Again, this is politics and we do have to remember who is controlling the media.
|
|
|
|
Post by Champs Elysees on Feb 27, 2008 12:18:41 GMT -5
Yup! I am so glad that they KNOW that we are supporting Obama. The blacks who aren't are a small minority and either they will cross over or were never looking at the Dems anyway, so they don't count.
They can't come to us with this foolishness!
|
|
|
|
Post by CrimsonENDvy on Feb 27, 2008 13:53:03 GMT -5
Is the media being fair to Hillary? Do you think Obama is now being considered to be the "nice one"? Prior to the Obama campaign, Hillary has been in media, and do you think it has become progressively good or bad press? How influential is the media in shaping your decision? It's actually quite disturbing. At first, when Hillary topped the poles and I heard nothing but good things about her, I was rooting for her. I kind of felt that Barack wasn't ready for primetime just yet because that's how the media portrayed him. Then, as he began to gain momentum and started portraying Hillary as the anti-, I started to root for Barack...it's funny because I can see in my own self how the media has influenced me, and I consider myself a very intelligent and well-informed person. That's scary to think about the people who don't even care about it or who don't know any better and just vote based on what they see. |
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Feb 27, 2008 14:04:54 GMT -5
Anyone notice that the two candidates that were focussed on the most are the two standing. Not taking anything away from them but I really feel that america allows the media to select the candidates for them. There is supposed to be equal and unbiased coverage and reporting on all the candidates. We are not getting any of that. :smh:
|
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Feb 27, 2008 14:15:30 GMT -5
Yes, I have noticed the same thing. I have been a Kucinich supporter for a long time, and people would make fun of me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Champs Elysees on Feb 27, 2008 14:32:19 GMT -5
Ya'll are absolutely right. The other candidates were not good "stories."
Our media is $$$ based, so they are going to run with what makes them the most money. Should politics be run the same way? No, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Feb 27, 2008 14:36:59 GMT -5
I was told that Kucinich did not look "presidential". What???  |
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Feb 27, 2008 14:38:56 GMT -5
Someone said that to you Southie? And GWB does?!!! Who knew. LOL People are sooooo fickle. And then they wonder why ish goes to pot after making choices for the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Feb 27, 2008 14:44:08 GMT -5
Yes!! I was at work, and we were discussing all of the candidates, and I mentioned that I like the position that Kucinich has on many issues, and then I was informed that he does not look presidential. I nearly fainted! He is too short and no one would take him seriously. Again, I nearly fainted! GW is a drunk, cocaine addict, purchased MBA, can not name three states and thier capitals, and you mean to tell me, he looks like the man of authority??? |
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Feb 27, 2008 14:47:46 GMT -5
Preach Southie. Not to mention he has bankrupt every company he ever headed except the Texas Rangers and even they weren't as profitable as they could have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrimsonENDvy on Feb 27, 2008 15:40:08 GMT -5
How about people who vote for a candidate based on political affiliation? Down here in Mississippi, where they have NEVER have swung blue, these people think that just because a candidate is Republican they have to vote for them. They may not know about what they stand for, much less how to even spell Republican, but since Democrats are typically "N***** lovers" they vote the other way. Now, that's some messed up thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldfront06 on Feb 27, 2008 15:41:19 GMT -5
Its the same way in Alabama, Crimson.
|
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Feb 27, 2008 15:45:53 GMT -5
How about people who vote for a candidate based on political affiliation? Down here in Mississippi, where they have NEVER have swung blue, these people think that just because a candidate is Republican they have to vote for them. They may not know about what they stand for, much less how to even spell Republican, but since Democrats are typically "N***** lovers" they vote the other way. Now, that's some messed up thinking. I think that is going to be slow changing process. We are now seeing people being critical of both parties, looking more favorable at an Independant party, rather than voting strictly on party lines. |
|
|
|
Post by CrimsonENDvy on Feb 27, 2008 15:51:04 GMT -5
Maybe that's where you live lol. Here, I think that it is going to stay like this. You have to want to change the way you think to change at all, and here they are happy with that feeling of supremacy.
Half the people here don't even understand what each party stands for. They're all hicks! lol I'm just kidding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nupey on Feb 27, 2008 15:55:05 GMT -5
Your not Kidding Crimson...
|
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Feb 27, 2008 15:57:30 GMT -5
Maybe that's where you live lol. Here, I think that it is going to stay like this. You have to want to change the way you think to change at all, and here they are happy with that feeling of supremacy. Half the people here don't even understand what each party stands for. They're all hicks! lol I'm just kidding. LOL at hicks! What supremacy are you referring to? Just because you vote strictly for one party does not mean they reign supreme. Now, in terms of the South moving in a more progressive change manner, I am sure that will take some time. |
|
|
|
Post by CrimsonENDvy on Feb 27, 2008 15:57:34 GMT -5
No I'm really not  |
|
|
|
Post by CrimsonENDvy on Feb 27, 2008 16:01:06 GMT -5
White supremacy. Like I said before, the perception is that the GOP are the white men who have money and power and are against anything that has to do with blacks. The Democratic party is viewed as being more progressive toward the advancement of black people. It's seen as the anti-GOP. What I'm basically saying is that anything that is for blacks is viewed as bad down here, and that explains in a simple way why this state always votes Republican. It's not about their ideals, its about keeping white supremacy alive. But again, that's the thinking down here. I would hope its not like that in other places.
|
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Feb 27, 2008 16:05:55 GMT -5
O.k You are referring to the White Supremacy Groups and their view on the GOP party. Well if that is the case then you have a good point. However, I do wonder where the perception of the GOP as being rich, white, men came from? I have met and seen on TV those die-hard Republicans, especially in the South, that was far from being wealthy and powerful. In fact, they were complaining about how jobs were moving from the U.S., lack of government funding to assist them with their foreclouser issues, etc. Its really an interesting dynamic.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrimsonENDvy on Feb 27, 2008 16:09:00 GMT -5
EXACTLY!!! The GOP couldn't care less about the poorer white people down here and that's exactly who they vote for. Meanwhile, Democrats tend to push issues on poverty and helping the middle class, and they shun them. You are absolutely right, but its more insane than an interesting dynamic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Feb 27, 2008 16:11:03 GMT -5
Well yes this is crazy, but I said its an interesting dynamic because the poor white folks in the South will still vote Republican, even though the GOP could care less about them. They continue to watch them suffer, and yet they get their support.
|
|
