Visit JohnRussell's column >>

JOHNRUSSELL

Add To Watchlist
Articles Posted: 83; Links Seeded: 514
Member Since: 12/2007Last Seen: 11/24/2009

Why Hillary Clinton CANNOT Win - Pt. 1

advertisement

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.

  • 8 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
4.4
2.2
{"commentId":1697550,"authorDomain":"JohnRussell"}

"But in repudiating and putting in context Wright's inflammatory lines about whites and U.S. foreign policy, the Democratic presidential front-runner didn't address other potentially controversial facts about his church and its ties.

It isn't clear where Obama's beliefs and the church's diverge. Through aides, Obama declined requests for an interview or to respond to written questions about his thoughts on Jesus, Cone or liberation theology."

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/?p=11541

{"commentId":1697550,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"JohnRussell"}
    Reply#1 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:15 AM EDT
    {"commentId":1697741,"authorDomain":"africanj60"}

    "Boldly goes ... where no other candidates has ever becomes a successful conventioner?"

    {"commentId":1697741,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"africanj60"}
      Reply#2 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:57 AM EDT
      {"commentId":1698148,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}

      This race is undoubtedly going to the convention. Clinton has a chance.

      {"commentId":1698148,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
        Reply#3 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:21 AM EDT
        {"commentId":1698220,"authorDomain":"JohnRussell"}

        I wish you were right, but the media narrative controls the outcome. The national media, print and electronic have decided, long back actually, that Barack Obama will be coronated this year. They despise Hilary Clinton and will never give her an even break. Let's say she were to win Pennsylvania by 15 points. The next day all the Obama media apologists, and I'm talking about people on national news broadcasts and cable opinion shows, would be downplaying the victory and repeating that the race is all locked up for Obama, what is the sense of Hillary continuing, bla bla bla. How long did the 'glow' of her Texas and Ohio wins last in the media. Days, hours, minutes? They will never let her regain any momentum and if she does they will harrass and intimidate the superdelegates until they pick Obama. It is over.

        {"commentId":1698220,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"JohnRussell"}
          #3.1 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:33 AM EDT
          {"commentId":1698470,"authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}
          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?

          {"commentId":1698470,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}
          • 2 votes
          #3.2 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:15 PM EDT
          {"commentId":1698629,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}

          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.

          {"commentId":1698629,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
          • 2 votes
          #3.3 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:45 PM EDT
          {"commentId":1698638,"authorDomain":"JohnRussell"}

          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. There is much more favorable media available to the Republican candidate than there has been for Hillary Clinton.

          {"commentId":1698638,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"JohnRussell"}
            #3.4 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:46 PM EDT
            {"commentId":1698654,"authorDomain":"JohnRussell"}
            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

            .

            I don't think so. They don't say "go vote for Obama", but they do control the way issues and controversies are reported and presented to the public. This latest flap with Obama is a good example. Soon after the controversy began, the dominant media began to change the issue from "did Obama say something offensive?" to "is Hillary overplaying her hand?" to the point where now almost all the emphasis is off of Obama and in a negative way onto Clinton. This is not her doing, it is the medias doing, pure and simple.

            {"commentId":1698654,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"JohnRussell"}
              #3.5 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:50 PM EDT
              {"commentId":1698735,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}

              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?

              {"commentId":1698735,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
                #3.6 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:04 PM EDT
                {"commentId":1698771,"authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}
                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.

                {"commentId":1698771,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}
                • 1 vote
                #3.7 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:12 PM EDT
                {"commentId":1699039,"authorDomain":"JohnRussell"}
                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?

                Evidence? What are you looking for, an exit poll that says " I voted for Obama because Tim Russert likes him better"?

                The evidence is inherent in the misreporting of the stories. How many votes do you think Obama would have lost if the Rev. Wright story would have been accurately reported since last February (2007)when his church membership was first revealed. To this day, only a small percentage of voters have ever heard of Black Liberation Theology, because the dominant media have barely ever mentioned it, in some cases and locations not at all. Only the relatively small number of people who frequent political forums on the internet are aware of these issues. One can easily predict it has a huge effect on the vote. Why do you think Obama has refused to answer any questions about it?

                {"commentId":1699039,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"JohnRussell"}
                  #3.8 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:58 PM EDT
                  {"commentId":1701053,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}

                  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.

                  {"commentId":1701053,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
                    #3.9 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:10 PM EDT
                    {"commentId":1701074,"authorDomain":"JohnRussell"}

                    I don't want a President that is an active member of a church that is based on racism. If you don't mind it, vote for him.

                    {"commentId":1701074,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"JohnRussell"}
                      #3.10 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:20 PM EDT
                      {"commentId":1702780,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}

                      My comments are not in support of Obama, I won't be voting for him, Hillary or McCain.

                      {"commentId":1702780,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
                        #3.11 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:58 AM EDT
                        {"commentId":1702939,"authorDomain":"JohnRussell"}

                        That's interesting.

                        {"commentId":1702939,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"JohnRussell"}
                          #3.12 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:30 PM EDT
                          {"commentId":1703310,"authorDomain":"ririaroo"}

                          Why's that?

                          {"commentId":1703310,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"ririaroo"}
                            #3.13 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:43 PM EDT
                            Reply
                            {"commentId":1699207,"authorDomain":"lisaed"}
                            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.

                            {"commentId":1699207,"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084","authorDomain":"lisaed"}
                            • 1 vote
                            Reply#4 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:36 PM EDT
                            {"canLink":false,"threadId":"250970","isPrivate":false}
                            Leave a Comment:
                            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                            {"threadId":"250970","contentId":"1434084"}
                            Start TrackingStart Tracking
                            Stop TrackingStop Tracking