Deus Ex Machina
Member
If she doesn't stop this that's exactly whats going to happen.Amir0x said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Official CNN Democratic Presidential Debate Thread of CHANGE you can XEROX
- Thread starter Triumph
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Amir0x said: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.
She don't care this is it for her. She does not win her career is over. I doubt she would even bother hanging around the senate. She wants to be the president plain and simple.
quest said:She don't care this is it for her. She does not win her career is over. I doubt she would even bother hanging around the senate. She wants to be the president plain and simple.
This is not just about her. It's about the Clinton legacy. If she loses, yes it's a big scar... but they can go out with dignity and grace, and preserve her tenure in the Senate and her husband's presidency.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Amir0x said:This is not just about her. It's about the Clinton legacy. If she loses, yes it's a big scar... but they can go out with dignity and grace, and preserve her tenure in the Senate and her husband's presidency.
well, she obviously decided against that..
Amir0x said:This is not just about her. It's about the Clinton legacy. If she loses, yes it's a big scar... but they can go out with dignity and grace, and preserve her tenure in the Senate and her husband's presidency.
The legacy is trashed with a loss anyways. There is no legacy any more with bill screwing around and hillary being humilated in this election. The only way to save the legacy is to win and to have a few good years in the whitehouse. Dignity and grace this is politics there is no such thing.
quadriplegicjon said:well, she obviously decided against that..
She hasn't "gone too far" yet.
Amir0x said:She hasn't "gone too far" yet.
I don't know, the "shame on you Obama, meet me in Ohio" is pretty close.
misogyny is one thing that all Americans can get behind; that the press hasn't grilled Obama as much as Clinton owes more to Clinton's history (esp. her chilly relationship with the press) than the argument you're making.PhoenixDark said: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.
Amir0x said:Nah it's clearly desperate but it's nothing really destructive YET. She's skirted the line a few times, particularly with the Karl Rove comment, but she's left herself escape room.
You seen this yet?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html
scorcho said:misogyny is one thing that all Americans can get behind; that the press hasn't grilled Obama as much as Clinton owes more to Clinton's history (esp. her chilly relationship with the press) than the argument you're making.
I'm beginning to think the only reason Hillary supporters are getting away with playing the misogyny card is that, unlike in the African American community and race, there is a relatively short history of what counts and doesn't count as discrimination when it comes to gender.
The things people are calling misogynistic are downright befuddling. If making the observation that Hillary's emotional appeal at the end of the debate appeared valedictory is somehow tantamount to spitting in the face of women everywhere, then I just don't get where her supporters are coming from.
She can't have it both ways. In her stump speech, she's often inserted language to indicate that her gender would be an advantage in certain situations. Even if anyone were to point out a way in which it might be disadvantageous, it wouldn't be inherently misogynous. But no one's even going that far! They just plain don't like her. If someone even remotely likable, like Elizabeth Edwards or Maria Shriver ran for President, this misogyny argument would be completely lost.
Juice said:I'm beginning to think the only reason Hillary supporters are getting away with playing the misogyny card is that, unlike in the African American community and race, there is a relatively short history of what counts and doesn't count as discrimination when it comes to gender.
The things people are calling misogynistic are downright befuddling. If making the observation that Hillary's emotional appeal at the end of the debate appeared valedictory is somehow tantamount to spitting in the face of women everywhere, then I just don't get where her supporters are coming from.
She can't have it both ways. In her stump speech, she's often inserted language to indicate that her gender would be an advantage in certain situations. Even if anyone were to point out a way in which it might be disadvantageous, it wouldn't be inherently misogynous. But no one's even going that far! They just plain don't like her. If someone even remotely likable, like Elizabeth Edwards or Maria Shriver ran for President, this misogyny argument would be completely lost.
I am sure if anyone in the press ever has the guts to publish a negative Obama story they will be able to play the African American card just fine. There has been no reason to need it as every story has been glowing of Obama. I could see were a hillary supporter would get frustrated with negative story after negative story. McCain has just gotten a small taste of whats to come once Obama officially wraps it up. They will move all the negative focus from hillary to McCain.
thekad said:Two questions for PD: When did Obama use Hillary's comments on MLK as "racial ammo?" When has the press let loose sexist comments regarding Hillary? You're seriously starting to sound like topsyturvy.
Yeah if anything, the Clinton campaign was virulent about the whole "pimping" thing and yet you haven't heard word one from the Obama camp about O'Reilly's "Lynching mob" on Michelle Obama.
Negative articles on Obama have already been posted in this very thread.quest said:I am sure if anyone in the press ever has the guts to publish a negative Obama story they will be able to play the African American card just fine. There has been no reason to need it as every story has been glowing of Obama. I could see were a hillary supporter would get frustrated with negative story after negative story. McCain has just gotten a small taste of whats to come once Obama officially wraps it up. They will move all the negative focus from hillary to McCain.
Newspapers: [...] For the top tier Democrats, the positive tilt was even more the case than for Democrats in general. Obamas front page coverage in the sample was 70% positive and 9% negative and Clintons was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative.
[...]
Online [...] Another distinction was in who got covered. Online, Barack Obama was the most covered candidate, not Hillary Clinton. The Illinois Senator was the focus of 19% of all election stories vs. 10% for Clinton and 11% for Giuliani.
[...]
Evening News [...] The tone of coverage in the 30-minute evening newscasts was much more positive toward the Democrats than Republicans. And again, among the major candidates, Obama got the best of it and McCain the worst.
[...]
Network Morning NewSunrise Shows Feature Obama and Romney [...]
PBS [...] Otherwise, top candidates Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani were the primary figures for just a single story each, as were lesser-known candidates Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Tom Tancredo. (Hillary Clinton had two stories in all.)
[...]
CNN: The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidatesby a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain fairing the worst (63% negative) and Romney fairing a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral.
Its not that Democrats, other than Obama, fared well on CNN either. Nearly half of the Illinois Senators stories were positive (46%), vs. just 8% that were negative. But both Clinton and Edwards ended up with more negative than positive coverage overall. So while coverage for Democrats overall was a bit more positive than negative, that was almost all due to extremely favorable coverage for Obama.
[...]
NPRMorning Edition [...] Looking at specific candidates, stories about Barack Obama carried a clearly positive tone two-thirds of the time. Not a single Morning Edition story was negative. Furthermore, 43% of Hillary Clintons coverage was positive vs. 14% negative.
[...]
Seriously, one comment about Conservative talk radio going after Hillary was all you got? This makes me skeptical about your ability to discover valid contrary research.
misogyny isn't and was never the taboo that racism was - that's why a story like this gets only scant attention from the media.Juice said:I'm beginning to think the only reason Hillary supporters are getting away with playing the misogyny card is that, unlike in the African American community and race, there is a relatively short history of what counts and doesn't count as discrimination when it comes to gender.
The things people are calling misogynistic are downright befuddling. If making the observation that Hillary's emotional appeal at the end of the debate appeared valedictory is somehow tantamount to spitting in the face of women everywhere, then I just don't get where her supporters are coming from.
She can't have it both ways. In her stump speech, she's often inserted language to indicate that her gender would be an advantage in certain situations. Even if anyone were to point out a way in which it might be disadvantageous, it wouldn't be inherently misogynous. But no one's even going that far! They just plain don't like her. If someone even remotely likable, like Elizabeth Edwards or Maria Shriver ran for President, this misogyny argument would be completely lost.
typhonsentra
Banned
Do Obama haters just have blinders on, or is this some kind of elaborate joke?
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/obama.sobu/?iref=mpstoryview
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/02/conservatives.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/shame-on-you-ba.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/23/wUS123.xml
Want me to go on?
Even your study which you've been touting for months now admits the inclusion of talk radio in their figures skews the results.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/obama.sobu/?iref=mpstoryview
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/02/conservatives.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/shame-on-you-ba.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/23/wUS123.xml
Want me to go on?
Uh no, my issue was with them including conservative talk radio in their figure of overall media coverage. No one in their right mind would deny the overwhelming hatred of Hillary Clinton on talk radio.APF said:Seriously, one comment about Conservative talk radio going after Hillary was all you got? This makes me skeptical about your ability to discover valid contrary research.
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.
Even your study which you've been touting for months now admits the inclusion of talk radio in their figures skews the results.
typhonsentra said:Do Obama haters just have blinders on, or is this some kind of elaborate joke?
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/obama.sobu/?iref=mpstoryview
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/02/conservatives.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/shame-on-you-ba.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/23/wUS123.xml
Want me to go on?
No offense maybe you should have read the articles you posted a little better. Hint: Read your third link :lol
And you think that proves that the media has given Obama a free pass? Really?APF said:Seriously, one comment about Conservative talk radio going after Hillary was all you got? This makes me skeptical about your ability to discover valid contrary research.
no, people who don't believe that Obama hasn't been coddled by the media-at-large have blinders on. i thought i made that clear.typhonsentra said:Do Obama haters just have blinders on, or is this some kind of elaborate joke?
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/obama.sobu/?iref=mpstoryview
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/02/conservatives.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/shame-on-you-ba.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/23/wUS123.xml
Want me to go on?
Tamanon said:Yeah if anything, the Clinton campaign was virulent about the whole "pimping" thing and yet you haven't heard word one from the Obama camp about O'Reilly's "Lynching mob" on Michelle Obama.
My guess is the Obama camp was just happy the story went away thanks to the McCain story. It went away no reason to bring it back to the spot light. Now if the McCain story does not happen and she was under fire damn strait they would of used the O'Reilly's comments.
Based on common sense. Why would they want to drag up the only negative story against Obama? What next you going to say McCain planted that NYT story to get sympathy from the right?icarus-daedelus said:And you base this on what? Speculation?
typhonsentra
Banned
Noted. This is the one I wanted to post:Amir0x said:No offense maybe you should have read the articles you posted a little better. Hint: Read your third link :lol
Barack Obama continues to attack Hillary Clinton's NAFTA support
PhoenixDark
Banned
thekad said:Two questions for PD: When did Obama use Hillary's comments on MLK as "racial ammo?" When has the press let loose sexist comments regarding Hillary? You're seriously starting to sound like topsyturvy.
Do I have to bring up MSNBC's antics with respect to sexism? :lol
And with respect to MLK
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/13/edwards_obama_join_fray_over_c.html"I mean, I think what we saw this morning is why the American people are tired of Washington politicians and the games that they play," Obama said. "But Sen. Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn't make the statement. I haven't remarked on it. And she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that. But the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."
I understand this gaffe fell right into his lap, but to play along was just stupid
Nothing Obama said there implied any sort of racial connotations. Show me where he has used the MLK comment as "racial ammo" like you said. Oh and, "pimped out" isn't sexist.PhoenixDark said:Do I have to bring up MSNBC's antics with respect to sexism? :lol
And with respect to MLK
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/13/edwards_obama_join_fray_over_c.html
I understand this gaffe fell right into his lap, but to play along was just stupid
icarus-daedelus said:The lynching mob story was not negative at all, buddy, but very sympathetic towards the Obama camp. I think you are confused.
The lynch mob story would of brought his wifes comments right back in to the spot light. You really think it would be worth it to have those comments back in the spot light to go after O'Reilly? The Obama camp I am sure is just happy to have those comments disappear for ever.
PhoenixDark
Banned
thekad said:Nothing Obama said there implied any sort of racial connotations. Show me where he has used the MLK comment as "racial ammo" like you said. Oh and, "pimped out" isn't sexist.
The pimp quote wasn't the only instance, and I'd argue it was the least offensive. Compared to some of Matthews' other comments it was rather tame
Not sure if this has been posted yet or not...
Ad is another version of "real" Clinton
Hillary's using her closing Austin debate remarks in a commercial in Ohio.
Ad is another version of "real" Clinton
Hillary's using her closing Austin debate remarks in a commercial in Ohio.
Article said:I said then that Clinton needed to show that "her real voice sounds different than what we've all heard for a year." I don't think she did that, and this ad is clearly the latest, and probably last, attempt to show a different side of Clinton. The ad is one of several new spots airing in Ohio and Texas. It comes 10 days before Democrats in those states get their say in the close race between Clinton and Obama.
Article said:Texas State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte said Clinton's statement "was an unbelievable moment a moment you see very rarely in politics."
Clifford Milbry thinks the ad shows really good minutes for Clinton, too. But he's an Obama supporter and doesn't think the new Clinton will move voters. He makes a pretty good point:
"They're not focusing on what she can do, other than reaching people emotionally. There's no substance there. Isn't that what they've been criticizing him for?"
Article said:"Hillary's not a bad Democrat," he says. "It's just that we have somebody better."
typhonsentra
Banned
Yeah, I don't know what's going on there. APF, how can you possibly argue that CNN calling his supports ""Cult-followers", him a "Messiah", and the overall movement "Creepy" neutral? Are you just fucking with us here?icarus-daedelus said:Can you seriously call the articles that talk about how terrifying it is that Obama is a "messiah" neutral-to-favorable? like, whut?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Triumph said:Soooo... what do people think about a new debate thread seeing as how the MSNBC debate is Tuesday at 9?
Sounds good
That's how the primary has went so far, each new event garners a new thread, and all discussion till the next big event is in the same thread.
Seems to be working pretty good actually.
Some news gets it's own thread, but other then that...
CNN's position as a news organization is that Obama's supporters are creepy. That's your assertion.
Argh this is why I hate talking to people here, they're like fucking brick walls. But at least the brick wall will give you a reacharound.
"Barack Obama is overwhelmingly popular. Some people who are critical of him appear to find that creepy. He's so loved that people have fainted at his rallies. He's a brilliant speaker and very inspirational. Many prominent people support him. Some skeptics say he's just about speeches. His people say that's completely false, and point to the substance behind his speeches, and say he's a brilliant and charismatic person who brings people from all walks of life together. In fact, attacking popular people as being messianic and other nonsense is a common horrible means of attack by evil people with bad intentions, so don't let that line of garbage persuade you away from the most beloved figure in politics today."
"Mr. Burns: your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?"
Argh this is why I hate talking to people here, they're like fucking brick walls. But at least the brick wall will give you a reacharound.
"Barack Obama is overwhelmingly popular. Some people who are critical of him appear to find that creepy. He's so loved that people have fainted at his rallies. He's a brilliant speaker and very inspirational. Many prominent people support him. Some skeptics say he's just about speeches. His people say that's completely false, and point to the substance behind his speeches, and say he's a brilliant and charismatic person who brings people from all walks of life together. In fact, attacking popular people as being messianic and other nonsense is a common horrible means of attack by evil people with bad intentions, so don't let that line of garbage persuade you away from the most beloved figure in politics today."
"Mr. Burns: your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?"
Not to mention that the Clintons - and by extension, PD - accused Obama of using the MLK comments as "racial ammo" before he made that quote.icarus-daedelus said:I'm pretty sure anything about "lynching," whether misconstrued (and I think it was) or not, is enough to drown out "lol anti-patriotism!!!" but I see your point. We'll agree to disagree.
Right, but I still don't see the racial connotations in the quote you posted. Seemed to me like he was trying to refrain from commenting on it, for the most part.
No no no, you mistake APF. All he needs to is make assertions that your point is wrong.icarus-daedelus said:So do you even try to back up your assertions, or do you just make up hyperbole to suit your needs?
I think I'm trying to argue that my point is right, and that alleged counter-examples do little to mitigate how right I am.Triumph said:No no no, you mistake APF. All he needs to is make assertions that your point is wrong.
icarus-daedelus: didn't I just point to actual research rather than try and cull single articles out of months of daily reporting? How is that not "backing up my assertions?"
People understand the concept of averages, right? People understand that if over 70% of your coverage is positive, and, hypothetically you get daily coverage for months-on-end, that a single article that comments neutrally on an opponent's criticism does little to budge that average, right?
Triumph said:No no no, you mistake APF. All he needs to is make assertions that your point is wrong.
That's inline with the Clinton strategy of wishing a premise to be true.
? So you would characterize overwhelmingly-positive coverage across every spectrum--except the two outposts of right-leaning media--reportage that skews the entire tone of coverage in favor of Democrats over Republicans, reportage that even when negative plays into his strengths as a charismatic figure everyone loves but perhaps too much but not really, this is not giving him a free pass, when every other candidate had, on balance, a good proportion of negative-to-positive, especially as the campaign rode on? Seriously? The reportage on Obama only got better from the point of that study, with the reportage on Clinton only getting worse. You aren't existing in the reality-based community here, unfortunately.thekad said:You do understand that your own study refutes the idea that Obama has gotten a free pass from the media, right? Well, except for Morning Edition.
Wow, what a bitch. Yeah, because Obama has constantly alluded that he'd wave a magic wand and make everything better, right? Or that it would be easy. He has articulated how difficult it would be to make changes countless times. This vengefulness, spite, and anger by Hillary based soley on the fact that Obama can make uplifting speeches and make people passionate is pretty disgusting of her, as per the status quo. In any case, she's becoming phychotic, and this is only damaging her further. She's finished, and Im sure I and millions of others will be smiling when she's out of the picture.
Slurpy said:Wow, what a bitch. Yeah, because Obama has constantly alluded that he'd wave a magic wand and make everything better, right? Or that it would be easy. He has articulated how difficult it would be to make changes countless times. This vengefulness, spite, and anger by Hillary based soley on the fact that Obama can make uplifting speeches and make people passionate is pretty disgusting of her, as per the status quo. In any case, she's becoming phychotic, and this is only damaging her further. She's finished, and Im sure I and millions of others will be smiling when she's out of the picture.
I like how she says the Special Interests won't disappear..... Same old Washington.
Hillary was the top funded by Lobbyists so far in 2008:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=K02&Cycle=2008&recipdetail=A&Mem=N&sortorder=U
Deus Ex Machina
Member
APF said:? So you would characterize overwhelmingly-positive coverage across every spectrum--except the two outposts of right-leaning media--reportage that skews the entire tone of coverage in favor of Democrats over Republicans, reportage that even when negative plays into his strengths as a charismatic figure everyone loves but perhaps too much but not really, this is not giving him a free pass, when every other candidate had, on balance, a good proportion of negative-to-positive, especially as the campaign rode on? Seriously? The reportage on Obama only got better from the point of that study, with the reportage on Clinton only getting worse. You aren't existing in the reality-based community here, unfortunately.
How do all of the articles describing Obama's supporters as being naive, cultlike, and foolish mesh with the idea that the press is overly favorable to Obama?
The simple explanation is that when one side goes strongly negative and the other doesn't, the side that went negative looks bad in comparison.
It's not a vast Democratic or Republican conspiracy. It's not a media conspiracy in retaliation for the Clinton's blaming them for the Lewinski scandal. No one made up the 10 wins in a row. No one made up the elected Democrats reaction to the Clintonian tactics.
They aren't victims, as much as they would like us to believe otherwise.
Do the recent, post-front-runner articles describe his supporters this way, or do they say this is what critics have recently been saying about his overwhelming popularity, and here's the counter-argument that explains why people love him so much?Deus Ex Machina said:How do all of the articles describing Obama's supporters as being naive, cultlike, and foolish mesh with the idea that the press is overly favorable to Obama?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.