Support NeoGAF

[Deku]

uh i really hope she doesn't go nuclear

i want the candidate to actually have a chance at winning and all

Do you think the party will forgive her? Aside from her core demo of aged women over 80 and white male apologists.

We have people here openly musing about Speaker Clinton.

 

[APF]

sangreal: I'd love to, but first I'd have to sift through the mountain of reports saying how amazing and transformative a figure he is, and how his rallies are like religious experiences where you gain enlightenment and blind people can walk again.

 

[AstroLad]

I've been following this shit for way too long, and to make an analogy that some here might be able to relate to, bitching about "media bias" or what "the media" is doing--as if they all get together to hash out an agenda every weekend-is akin to fanboys over on the gaming side whining about how "GAF" is "so unfair" toward the PS3/Wii/Wii third parties/360 2008 lineup/etc. That's to say it says a lot more about the person doing the complaining than anything else.

 

[APF]

It says that they're interested in media analysis?

 

[Atrus]

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you but it's impossible to deny that the media has literally gone to bat for Obama constantly. Which is a shame because they're letting him walk through the election without taking a critical look at him, perhaps to avoid the calls of prejudice and racism his campaign has been effective at using to their advantage.

The longer this race goes on the longer the high ratings will be. It behooves them to par up the underdog, and it's been a strategy of both candidates to try and retain/attain that status.

This is why they cut away from Clinton's speeches. People will lose interest and switch away, and I've no doubt that's the actual case in whatever hard data they can collect. Obama on the other hand means high ratings, and so you cut to him rather than away.

They try to offer equal time but the candidates themselves aren't equal. People enjoy listening to Obama more, and Clinton has a former president stumping for her. More exposure from her side means more points of attacks, and a failure to get people to like to listen to you means less time people will devote to airing it to others.

People are also confusing 'critical look' with digging as deep as you can until you find inevitable points of disagreement. They've dug as far as they have for Clinton, it just so happens that Obama is a relatively clean candidate up to that point and they'd have to forensically analyze his life for more 'critical' dirt, something that they didn't need to do for Clinton because the skeletons in her closet float to the surface readily.

 

[APF]

Why is it that "balance" is always confused for "digging up dirt?" I just wanted less fawning reports. If there's nothing "dirty" to say about someone, fine; but this doesn't mean the tone of the coverage changes from neutral to overwhelmingly-positive, while the tone of the opposition's coverage changes from neutral to overwhelmingly-negative. Objective coverage is neutral in tone.

 

[AstroLad]

It says that they're interested in media analysis?

no, but i certainly don't expect self awareness in these situations. try telling a sonyfan that "GAF" really doesn't hate/conspire against the PS3. it's more just an amusing thing to observe; i don't expect any epiphanies.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Hillary today:


Meltdown continuing at a good pace

She saw that playing the victim worked for McCain so she's going to try it herself. It's not a bad strategy but the fact that she's following McCain's lead shows you just how much smarter his campaign manager and assortment of lobbyist truly are. MCcain has the machine behind him so he's going to give the democratic nominee a real fight this election year.

 

[APF]

no, but i certainly don't expect self awareness in these situations. try telling a sonyfan that "GAF" really doesn't hate/conspire against the PS3. it's more just an amusing thing to observe; i don't expect any epiphanies.

You realize there is such a thing as media analysis, correct?

 

[scorcho]

Care to cite any examples of the media downplaying or ignoring an important Obama story?

since i don't consider my politicians to be untarnished saints, the fact that nearly zero critical articles have come from the MSM of Obama is enough to prove the point. he emphasizes change, but has a healthy share of Clinton's old guard as his advisers. he wants to bring about 'change' and end partisanship when it is neither certain that bipartisanship brings about better legislation (NCLB anyone?), nor clearly defined how he is going to change what has become institutional over the last two decades. even more to the point, i've yet to see anyone address what i find so perplexing about Obama's sudden surge - the campaign has essentially made a movement out of a single individual, to the point where he's now some type of vapid political fad for the young.

 

[AstroLad]

You realize there is such a thing as media analysis, correct?

Well, we should throw scare quotes around that if we're talking about your biasmeter; let's not confuse your message-board posting with, you know, anything legitimate. Why are you wasting time debating this? There's important analysis to be done! Can't wait for the general!

 

[APF]

Well, we should throw scare quotes around that if we're talking about your biasmeter; let's not confuse your message-board posting with, you know, anything legitimate. Why are you wasting time debating this? There's important analysis to be done! Can't wait for the general!

I don't understand what you're getting at above.

The fallacy you make is akin to someone seeing the fanatical and quasi-religious / political seriousness of debates on the internet--say, regarding SNES vs Genesis--and then concluding that religious and political issues are as inconsequential as long-dead, long-obsolete commercial entertainment vehicles.

 

[AstroLad]

I don't understand what you're getting at above.

The fallacy you make is akin to someone seeing the fanatical and quasi-religious / political seriousness of debates on the internet--say, regarding SNES vs Genesis--and then concluding that religious and political issues are as inconsequential as long-dead, long-obsolete commercial entertainment vehicles.

Don't really need an analogy; it's just me enjoying the work of an armchair internet "media analyst" and his hilarious "insights." It's not a comment on legitimate analysis whatsoever, just on the hilarity of your own serious/joking forays into analysis. I would think that a serious analyst such as yourself would have been able to make that distinction, or at the minimum not confuse your own "work" with anything legitimate.

 

[Loudninja]

NM

 

[typhonsentra]

Uhh ok, give me quotes of CNN anchors comparing Obama to Hitler and calling him the anti-Christ.

I wasn't speaking about CNN specifically there, but the anti-Christ connection is a little more subtle (I.E., the right's new nickname for him, "The Messiah".). Whether knowingly or not the media, CNN included in this case, has been feeding into this attack targeted at evangelicals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLceSHJlA7w

Referring to him as a messiah or false prophet. You get the connection, right?

 

[PhoenixDark]

your white guilt intonations aside, when has the Obama campaign used cries of prejudice and racism when it wasn't valid? from what i recall, and it may be sketchy since i don't follow politics at all, the Clintons and their surrogates "shuck and jived" down that path sometime after Iowa and New Hampshire.

otherwise i agree wholeheartedly with you and APF - Obama has been treated with kiddie gloves nearly this entire campaign (McCain too up till the NYT story). anyone who thinks otherwise has their blinders on.

edit: at this point, who the hell doesn't have a NYT registration? sad, silly people with odd convictions it seems.

First off, I'm not white.

Obama surrogates used the fairy tale and MLK comments as racial ammo, as did Obama with the MLK one. Both comments had no negative racial connotations but were blown out of proportion - especially Bill's "fairy tale" comment which had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with (spinning) Obama's Iraq stance

 

[Loudninja]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html

Very sad, thanks thefit for the video

 

[scorcho]

First off, I'm not white.

Obama surrogates used the fairy tale and MLK comments as racial ammo, as did Obama with the MLK one. Both comments had no negative racial connotations but were blown out of proportion - especially Bill's "fairy tale" comment which had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with (spinning) Obama's Iraq stance

i know you're not white, but you're painting the MSM with some collective white guilt as a weak argument as to why they're playing so soft with Obama.

again, the Clinton's started this by unleashing their surrogates and with either calculated or outright stupid public statements that were completely out of bounds.

 

[sangreal]

since i don't consider my politicians to be untarnished saints, the fact that nearly zero critical articles have come from the MSM of Obama is enough to prove the point.

Perhaps you just don't pay attention to the media enough. There have been plenty of articles critical of Obama. Some examples:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4115565&page=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html

etc

he emphasizes change, but has a healthy share of Clinton's old guard as his advisers. he wants to bring about 'change' and end partisanship when it is neither certain that bipartisanship brings about better legislation (NCLB anyone?), nor clearly defined how he is going to change what has become institutional over the last two decades.

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Obama's campaign. He isn't talking about watering down bills with bi-partisanship, he is talking about creating a progressive majority through a bottom-up movement. That is why inspirational rhetoric is so important to his campaign. I'll quote Doris Kearns Goodwin who was on Meet the Press this morning:

...what history argues, and I think this is what he's arguing, is that the only time we've seen progressive change in this country is when the country is mobilized to push the people in Congress to action. That's what happened in the Progressive Movement in the turn of the century, it's what happened in the New Deal, it's what happened in the '60s. And I think that's what he's arguing. That "I can't just get it down by myself; I need to have that movement out there that will push us in Washington, me and them included." And that's what I think is the strength of that message that he's trying to espouse.

even more to the point, i've yet to see anyone address what i find so perplexing about Obama's sudden surge - the campaign has essentially made a movement out of a single individual, to the point where he's now some type of vapid political fad for the young.

What is there to addess?

 

[APF]

Referring to him as a messiah or false prophet. You get the connection, right?

Uh no.

 

[v1cious]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html

Very sad, thanks thefit for the video

guess this is Hillary going nuclear. can't wait til tuesday.

Uh no.

you can't be this slow.

 

[APF]

Don't really need an analogy; it's just me enjoying the work of an armchair internet "media analyst" and his hilarious "insights."

What's hilarious about pointing-out research analyzing the tone of media coverage of the 2008 primary campaign? Do you find such research hilarious because you're ignorant of its existence?

v1cious: "Is our coverage of Obama playing into what mean-spirited critics call the 'cult-like' support of his amazing and transformative campaign?" is somehow comparing him to the anti-Christ?

 

[sangreal]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html

Very sad, thanks thefit for the video

She plays right into his NH concession speech

"But always remember that, no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics. And they will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks and months to come.

We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."

I wonder if she has ever seen his speech, where he talks about how he knows it won't be easy

 

[PhoenixDark]

i know you're not white, but you're painting the MSM with some collective white guilt as a weak argument as to why they're playing so soft with Obama.

again, the Clinton's started this by unleashing their surrogates and with either calculated or outright stupid public statements that were completely out of bounds.

How else would you describe it? The media has pulled no punches making sexist comments aimed at Hillary. They seem almost scared to say anything negative about Obama. MSNBC's coverage of Super Tuesday was especially disgusting. It was more like watching the coronation of a king than anything semi-fair or balanced.

 

[APF]

"We all love Obama, that much is a given. He's amazing. People love him. He's inspirational. He's like Jesus but better in every possible way. But is it possible that some people love him... too much? We think that's bullshit--he's the most awe-inspiring and important thing to happen to the world since humanity first dragged itself out of the trees and started to walk upright, develop rudimentary tools and communication--but some asshole "critics" (and we use that term loosely, like their loose mothers) who are probably also closet racists and worse than the Nazis by just about every objective measure, are pathetically bleating this may be the case for one or two people. But other people--the important people we're going to show rather than quote--say that's entirely mistaken, so fuck that noise. After all, this guy is going to change the world. Wolf?"

Yeah, that's hard-hitting reporting going on there.

 

[Sharp]

"We all love Obama, that much is a given. He's amazing. People love him. He's inspirational. He's like Jesus but better in every possible way. But is it possible that some people love him... too much? We think that's bullshit--he's the most awe-inspiring and important thing to happen to the world since humanity first dragged itself out of the trees and started to walk upright, develop rudimentary tools and communication--but some asshole "critics" (and we use that term loosely, like their loose mothers) who are probably also closet racists and worse than the Nazis by just about every objective measure, are pathetically bleating this may be the case for one or two people. But other people--the important people we're going to show rather than quote--say that's entirely mistaken, so fuck that noise. After all, this guy is going to change the world. Wolf?"

Yeah, that's hard-hitting reporting going on there.

Source? OH WAIT

 

[typhonsentra]

APF, what's wrong with that?

 

[v1cious]

"We all love Obama, that much is a given. He's amazing. People love him. He's inspirational. He's like Jesus but better in every possible way. But is it possible that some people love him... too much? We think that's bullshit--he's the most awe-inspiring and important thing to happen to the world since humanity first dragged itself out of the trees and started to walk upright, develop rudimentary tools and communication--but some asshole "critics" (and we use that term loosely, like their loose mothers) who are probably also closet racists and worse than the Nazis by just about every objective measure, are pathetically bleating this may be the case for one or two people. But other people--the important people we're going to show rather than quote--say that's entirely mistaken, so fuck that noise. After all, this guy is going to change the world. Wolf?"

Yeah, that's hard-hitting reporting going on there.

even though you're probably being sarcastic, this should've told you something right here. CNN used to be the Hillary channel, now they don't even cover her. face it, her popularity has dropped immensely. losing 11 contests in a row, and making an ass of yourself in the press will do that to you. she's the Britney of politics.

 

[APF]

Yes, I'm being slightly hyperbolic.

the point though, is that the classic: "Mr. Obama: your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?" is not hard-hitting, negatively-unfair journalism.

 

[The Chosen One]

1. No contingency plan. They didn't plan for after Feb 5. So after Super Tuesday, all their strategy evaporated. No money, no plan for ground work. Just "give it to Obama until Ohio and Texas." I think this is the number one or number two failure, depending on the hour.

I think this is the biggest reason by far. The day after Super Tuesday, it was neck and neck. It could be argued Hilary had the slight edge due to Super Delegates and the big state victories.

But soon after it was like seeing a runner hit the wall. The campaign just gassed out on Feb. 6 and beyond. Whatever momentum they gained by winning California, New Jersey, and Mass. was lost just a few days later. They ended up being so non-competitive in the subsequent primaries that defeats became huge blowouts.

Despite the awkward use of Bil Clinton and Hilary's dismissiveness to voters, I don't think this would have mattered much in the long run if they were able to be competitive in the month of February.

I think the assumption that it would all be over by Feb. 5th is the single point of failure for the Clinton campaign. Everything else could have been mitigated.

 

[Amir0x]

Man I'm used the APF at least attempting to substantiate his claims through his forest of ever weakening sarcasm, but at this point I'm guessing the rage from Hillary's impending loss is basically blinding him now.

 

[syllogism]

Now here's a good piece of reporting

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

 

[APF]

Man I'm used the APF at least attempting to substantiate his claims through his forest of ever weakening sarcasm, but at this point I'm guessing the rage from Hillary's impending loss is basically blinding him now.

Use the search; I've posted links to research, as has Stoney, and other people. Again, just because you may be ignorant of media analysis, that doesn't mean it's not going on.

 

[Mandark]

I think sangreal gets it mostly right in 2436.

 

[APF]

Then why is his claimed ability to bring compromise and work with Republicans a mainstay of his rhetoric? That runs contrary to the idea that his campaign isn't substantially-based on compromise and bipartisanship. Or is this part of your, "Obama as far-left Manchurian Candidate" theory?

 

[AmishNazi]

Sexist rhetoric again? Damn APF just because you disappeared for a while doesn't mean we forgot your message. The woman is a CUNT. Are all women cunts? No. Hillary is though. Fucking NAFTA is the last straw, once people remember that she voted for it OVER and OVER again, and now she's changed her mind. Maybe just maybe it'll finally click what Hillary's version of change entails.

 

[APF]

Sexist rhetoric again? Damn APF just because you disappeared for a while doesn't mean we forgot your message. The woman is a CUNT.

Dude, seriously? Need I make an analogous comment that will get me permabanned from this place, just to show how disgusting you're being here?

 

[gkryhewy]

I'm waiting to see if anybody has footage of that Rhode Island rally where she went crazy, to see if it's actually true.

If so, I honestly don't see what she hopes to accomplish, you can't fight the mantra of "hope" that way.

I saw that same quote earlier on CNN - I guess it was live. The crowd seemed to think it was funny. Bitter we know more than you Rhode Islanders...

 

[Door2Dawn]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html

Very sad, thanks thefit for the video

I don't recall anyone ever saying the job wasn't going to be hard.

 

[AmishNazi]

Dude, seriously? Need I make an analogous comment that will get me permabanned from this place, just to show how disgusting you're being here?

I think she's a cunt. I think GW Bush is a asshole. Only one will catch flak from you. You sir are a HYPOCRITE. To treat a woman with different standards just because she's a woman is fucking more sexist than calling Hillary a two faced, flip flopping cunt.

 

[sangreal]

Then why is his claimed ability to bring compromise and work with Republicans a mainstay of his rhetoric? That runs contrary to the idea that his campaign isn't substantially-based on compromise and bipartisanship. Or is this part of your, "Obama as far-left Manchurian Candidate" theory?

What he talks about is the need to reach across the aisle and give everybody a seat, because he isn't always right and even your opponents can bring good ideas to the table.

 

[woeds]

I don't recall anyone ever saying the job wasn't going to be hard.

Obama has been saying exactly the opposite. That hope is not blind optimism, but recognizing the challenges that lay ahead, realizing how tough they are, but still believing that you can overcome them.

 

[quest]

Then why is his claimed ability to bring compromise and work with Republicans a mainstay of his rhetoric? That runs contrary to the idea that his campaign isn't substantially-based on compromise and bipartisanship. Or is this part of your, "Obama as far-left Manchurian Candidate" theory?

There will be no need for compromise. He will have huge majorities in the house and senate. Anything he wants he will get and the republicans can not stop that. His talk of compromise is just talk to make him self look better. He will be able to push through his higher taxes, UHC and all the other social programs he can dream of. If it was closer in the house and senate we would have grid lock with president obama. You think the conservatives would sign off on billion in tax hikes and social programs?

 

[sangreal]

WTF

McCain is on CNN going on about how we need to eliminate gas tax so that "you decide how that money gets spent." He continues to say that the people know better about how to spend transportation money

Ok, I understand that the gas tax has been grossly misappropriated, but does he really think that if you eliminate the gas tax people will take the savings and put it towards highway projects?

 

[Door2Dawn]

Did anyone else notice those fliers those people in the crowds were holding up? It said "Hilary Clinton: The SMART choice." That really boils my balls.

 

[typhonsentra]

It's as if the Hillary hater of just a few months ago was replaced by a pious saint. What happened to the guy who feared criticism of Clinton would suddenly disappear once the primaries finally came?

 

[APF]

There will be no need for compromise. He will have huge majorities in the house and senate. Anything he wants he will get and the republicans can not stop that. His talk of compromise is just talk to make him self look better. He will be able to push through his higher taxes, UHC and all the other social programs he can dream of. If it was closer in the house and senate we would have grid lock with president obama. You think the conservatives would sign off on billion in tax hikes and social programs?

I agree; he's lying, and a foundational aspect of his campaign message is based on false pretenses.

What he talks about is the need to reach across the aisle and give everybody a seat, because he isn't always right and even your opponents can bring good ideas to the table.

Which either means compromise, or it means a GWB-ish, "I'm all for bipartisanship so long as that means you agree with me."

If you've posted links before, why can't you post them again now?

Do a search for "the invisible primary." I don't recall the more recent ones; maybe Stoney et al will chime in.

 

[Particle Physicist]

uh i really hope she doesn't go nuclear

i want the candidate to actually have a chance at winning and all

maybe thats her plan.. if she cant get the nomination, and obama loses the general, she'll have an easier time during the next election cycle.

 

[typhonsentra]

I just searched for "Invisible Primary" in this thread and the only result I came up with is your last post.

As far as the merits of this study you've been pimping? I'm having trouble finding information on how much positive coverage Edwards received, and how often he was mentioned. And one important detail of this study:

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.

 

[Amir0x]

maybe thats her plan.. if she cant get the nomination, and obama loses the general, she'll have an easier time during the next election cycle.

If she cuts the Democrats chances due to her bullshit, or if she goes nuclear and rips apart the party... there will be no place for her anywhere, ever. She'll be an outcast while in the senate and she'll have no viable political future.