There is one predominant reason why Hillary Clinton has no chance. The vast , overwhelming percentage of national media outlets have completely abandoned their responsibility to investigate and report relevant news concerning the positions and associations of the Presidential candidates on a fair basis.
No Presidential candidate can succeed without some substantial support, or rather, fair treatment in the national press. The behavior of the media in the current campaign is the most serious example of media bias ( "in the tank" for Obama, hostility toward Clinton) in modern American political history. I intend to look at examples of this bias as the weeks and months approach the convention. Although Clinton cannot win, because the media simply will not permit information about the candidates to be disseminated in an open and fair manner, it is important that Clinton supporters maintain their support for whatever course their candidate elects to undertake, through the convention. At that point, we can decide to tell Obama and his team to go jump in the lake, and walk away from the November election should we so choose.
Again, let us suppose Clinton began to persuade super delegates to support her, after the primaries are completed. When this becomes known the media would immediately begin a campaign of harrassment and intimidation against these individuals, 'shaming' them into retracting their newfound support for Clinton. I don't think there is the slightest doubt this would happen. So she has no chance, in the sense of there being a question as to who will be the candidate, it is over. Bringing to light the outrageous, unprecedented bias of this campaign will, however, be an ongoing endeavor.
________________________________
"The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book, Black Power and Black Theology."
Trinity United Church of Christ official web site
The church which Barack and Michelle Obama have attended for almost two decades is based on a racist 'theology'. This is indisputable to anyone who honestly looks at the works which the church itself trumpets as the foundation of it's beliefs. James Cone has explicitly called on God to destroy the white race, and in fact has explicitly said that blacks should not honor a God who refuses to destroy the white race.
One would think, a most fair assumption indeed, that the American voter might be pretty interested in learning the NATURE of the ministry which attends to Barack Obama's 'spiritual' needs.
The national, mainstream media has literally ignored the connection between black liberation theology, Rev. Wright, and Barack Obama. We have no idea whether Barack Obama agrees with the racist basis of his church, one could somewhat assume he does, because certainly he is aware of Cone and BLT and the TUCC adherence to this doctrine and yet has remained at the church for 20 years, but we don't KNOW because Obama has explicitly and specifically refused to answer any questions about Cone or black liberation theology.
The media has done NOTHING to shed light on this situation. About a week ago, I did an internet search for the words "James Cone" on the online versions of the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun Times and CNN, covering the period of the three weeks immediately follwing the release of the Rev. Wright videos. Among these 5 most prestigious and important of American journalistic institutions, there was ONE mention of James Cone, a basically biographical depiction of him in the Washington Post. So at the very time Rev. Wright was the most talked about topic in the nation, the media was doing nothing to enlighten the public as to the foundation and core beliefs of this church, and they continue to do nothing.
Hillary Clinton simply cannot compete against such a massively willful dereliction of duty on the part of the media on this and other topics.
"Boldly goes ... where no other candidates has ever becomes a successful conventioner?"
This race is undoubtedly going to the convention. Clinton has a chance.
The national media, print and electronic have decided, long back actually, that Barack Obama will be coronated this year.
Ok, I buy that the media is for Obama. I of course also subscribe to the philosophy that in general the media favors Democrats over Republicans. Given that how is that 5 out of the last 7 elections have been won by Republicans?
The media is playing this election like a soap opera for the ratings/advertising boost, but I think you are giving them a little too much credit for their ability to sway public opinion.
Well, I agree that they control the way issues and controversies are reported but what evidence do you have that it has any effect on the election process, other than supposition?
Well, off the top of my head I would say that the Republicans do have a significant favorable media presence. Fox News, certain prominent newspapers, certainly a large number of successful nationally syndicated radio talk shows.
I'll agree that media landscape has improved over the years. However the Democrats have ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS. On cable there is CNN (and sister station HNN) and MSNBC. The NY Times, the LA Times, and the Washington Post plus who knows how many other newspapers. On the Internet I would guess that left wing sites have a profile and influence than right wing sites. Not to mention Hollywood. Overall I'd give the media edge to the Democrats.
While I do think the media does have an influence - I don't think it is as strong as you (and to be honest many others on the right) think it is.
Hillary in my opinion certainly has a chance, especially if Obama can't stop aiming at is foot in these final weeks. I still say it is his to lose though.
The media isn't 'rigging' the election. They're selling stories that they know will sell based on demographics.
The strongest candidate back then was Hillary Clinton. At that point, Barak Obama was buzz, who the hell is going to care about what church he goes to and what his reverend says? Now that he's running an obviously successful campaign, people are paying closer attention.
As far as educating us on the excitement that is Black Liberation Theology, that's PBS territory. They don't have advertising revenue to worry about.
My comments are not in support of Obama, I won't be voting for him, Hillary or McCain.
Why's that?
Obama has explicitly and specifically refused to answer any questions about Cone or black liberation theology.
John - I agree the mainstream media has been negligent in properly vetting obama because hands down they want him to be the nominee, so indeed there is truth to hillary's complaints that she is being treated unfairly. It's amazing to me how fast the mainstream media threw Mrs. Clinton and her husband under the bus to let this young buck (is that racist?) jump the front of the line. The Clintons have made their case to the superdelegates that Obama is not electable ---and they may have a case to make. That will ultimately be up to the American people---but I can assure you once Obama is the nominee he will not be able to hide any longer from the tough questions as he largely has been able to do throughout the dem primaries. The mainstream media has helped obama to create an image that is at least partially false that he alone can unite this terrible broken down country and save us all from ourselves. Already I believe since the Rev Wright scandal, the public is slowly starting to catch on that Obama is not who he pretends to be. But hey - I'm just a republican so what the heck do I know about who the dems want to nominate for President.....not much.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |