    
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 7036
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 07:51 pm: | 
|
A Grotesque Alliance: Hillary Clinton and the Media
Posted by Nicholas Joseph on 04.19.2008
If you harbor any doubt that there has been an unholy alliance between Clinton and the media to derail Obama's populist campaign and destroy his candidacy, the latest ABC-sponsored mafia-style assassination attempt, dubbed a debate, is ample proof. Never mind the persistent right-wing talk-show drumbeat by Sean Hannity that the press has given Obama "a pass;" it is abundantly clear that the media is presently and conveniently attached, like a grotesque Siamese twin, to the hip of the Clinton campaign. Unable to set the agenda in this election cycle because of the engagement and "bitterness" of an informed public, the mainstream press is hell-bent on the complete eradication of Obama from the political contest. It is patently obvious that since the new alliance could not accomplish their mission covertly, they are now prepared to piss in the ears and eyes of the American people and call it rain.
What was supposed to be a public forum for the vetting of the candidates on issues of national, economic and cultural importance turned out to be a media engineered, attempted lynching of Obama. No other presidential candidate has been given such scrutiny. Never before has so much been expected from a candidate. No other candidate has had their association with individuals and their church so heavily scrutinized.
From the start of the media assassination attempt, it was clear that it was a set-up and Obama would be placed on the defensive from the get go. The Obama revolution that is sweeping America must be stopped at all cost. While the American people are clamoring for change and a new direction, Hillary's Siamese twin is terrified and mystified at the prospect of a black American president in the person of Barack Obama, who can alter the status quo and shift the balance of power.
Moderator and questioner, Charles Gibson, commenced with what he described as a general question, but which he framed as a pledge that the candidates should select each other as running mates. It was a strange question, if you can even refer to it as such. After all, both Obama and Hillary are not yet at the vice presidential selection phase. The primaries, by all account, especially Hillary's, are far from over and any talk of running mates is not only presumptuous, but also unnecessary and calculatedly mischievous. Do not ever be misled into thinking it was an accidental remark. It was to set the stage for a night of "bitter" media questioning and posturing.
Obama took the first bite at the strange statement and approached it in a statesmanlike manner, noting that it was "premature" to talk about running mates since the contest was still on to determine a democratic nominee. It was a gracious, thoughtful and diplomatic rebuff to a cheesy question. Then, it was Hillary's turn to pander, putter and pretend, in the face of millions of American citizens and millions more observers in the international community, "Well Charlie, I will do anything for one of us to take the oath of office in January." Is this the same Hillary Clinton that has emptied the stinky "kitchen sink," at her democratic rival? Isn't this the same Hillary who has repeated now, hundreds of times, that Obama does not have enough "experience" to be Commander in Chief? Isn't this the same Hillary Clinton who has suggested and intimated, over and over again, that republican candidate John McCain would be a more "experienced" and capable President than Barack Obama? Hillary was lying through the teeth, just as she did when she was supposedly leaving an aircraft "under sniper fire" in Bosnia.
Here we have someone who is aspiring to be President of this great American nation, who lies so shamelessly in the face of John Public. Wasn't it on the basis of lies that President George W. Bush took this nation to war in Iraq, a war that has cost us over 4,000 American lives, and has hastened the deaths of more than a million innocent Iraqis? Do we care as a nation how serious it is that an important candidate to the presidency is just as conniving and deceitful as President George W. Bush? Are we not at least afraid of the extent of Hillary's shameless ambition to win the American presidency at any cost and what that can entail for our nation? What have Mr. Gibson and company been saying about Hillary's despicable behavior?
Mr. Gibson then turned his attention to Obama's "bitter" statement at a fundraiser and wanted him to explain what he meant. Now, how many times should someone have to explain a statement they have already explained? Charlie and the media possess blinkers when it comes to understanding such basic truth, but it is clear that what Obama said is a factual societal and sociological reality; that in difficult economic times people seek comfort in the things that are special and dear to them. Some turn to religion, others to guns, and some turn inward and even turn upon themselves, committing suicide in the process. Obama may not have presented this truth in a politically correct manner, but there was nothing "condescending" or "demeaning" about his attitude and statements on the issue.
Immediately after the statement was leaked the media went into an orgy. They pronounced the campaign "over." The "sniper fire" liar, a.k.a Hillary Clinton, said Obama was "elitist." McCain chimed in as if quoting from Hillary's notes. Then, believing she had found an opening, she rapidly transformed into a gun-toting lover girl. Soon she was at the late night beer counters throwing back shots with barely contained glee.
By the second question, Obama realized that he had walked into a booby-trapped minefield. Once again Obama had to explain that his statement was "mangled" and had to repeat what he had said umpteen times before. George Stephanopoulos picked up the theme and gave Clinton an opportunity to take her digs at Obama.
Obama is absolutely right. The first half of the debate, forty-five minutes, was spent on either comments Obama made or his associations with individuals whose actions he cannot control. Forty-five minutes of airtime that should have been spent underscoring the serious economic hardships faced by skyrocketing fuel prices, an imploding mortgage crisis, an ailing airline industry and a global food crisis that has begun to generate riots in poor countries like Haiti.
Let's not forget the Iraq War, in which we have lost more than 4,000 citizens (more than the number killed in the 9/11 terrorist incidents). Something is wrong with that picture. The terrorists killed 3,000 and we supposedly went after them in a place where they did not exist. According to the 9/11 Commission we invited them in with the invasion. So, the action of the Bush government has cost us more lives than that which were taken by the terrorists and caused more suffering than 9/11. What kind of logic is that? Isn't that kind of reasoning treasonous and a punishable offense? Is the Bush administration not liable? To add insult to injury, Bush lied to take the nation to war in Iraq. Shouldn't he have been at least impeached by now? Didn't we want to impeach Bill Clinton for his attentions to Monica? I wonder what Hillary and her Siamese think about all this.
While I do not expect that an Obama presidency will radically change the white power structure, Hillary, CNN (Clinton Naughty Network) and company find themselves in deep consternation that nothing they have tried is working. The more they pile on the mud, the more his poll numbers climb. They moan and groan in utter disbelief: "The polls are not telling us anything!"
Yes, the polls are indeed saying something. It is a vindication of Obama and his penchant for speaking the truth to the people. We must keep constantly in mind that unlike Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush, Barack Obama has not been known to be a panderer and a liar. He insists on speaking the truth "though the Heavens fall and this is one of the secrets of his attractiveness to the American people, young people in particular. How many politicians would willingly and unsolicitedly admit to the use of illegal drugs in one of their publications? In his first book, Dreams from my Father, Barack admitted to the use of illegal drugs, including cocaine, but clearly indicated that the last time he touched the stuff was in 1974, thirty four years ago. The truth, up front; that's the sort of stuff real leaders are made of; no misspeaking "under sniper fire!"
The people are sick, tired and "bitter." There is a transformational political process in progress, in which the American people are defying the established powerbrokers and the Washington Demigods and restructuring the power at the grassroots. It's called people's power.
This is going to be the first election in which the Internet will play a major role in reshaping the political landscape and the debate. It is the media, Clinton Naughty Network, and the political elite that have been ambushed. In fact, the mainstream media will be forced to react to the alternative media that is more highly and more honestly connected to the working people of America.
So despite their unholy alliance, and their grotesque Siamese posturing in this election campaign, the Swift Boaters may not have much of an impact on the will of the people.
Sunday Morning SmackDown!
Shoddy! Tawdry! A Televised Train Wreck!
By FRANK RICH
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/opinion/20rich.html?em&ex=1208836800&en=5bcf5a e80526c0a3&ei=5087
Stupid Is As Hillary (and Charlie, George, and Tim) Does
by Steve Brant
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steve_br_080420_stupid_is_as_hillary.htm
Bill and Hillary's Unfavorable Ratings Skyrocket, Media Mostly Mum
By Noel Sheppard
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/20/bill-hillarys-unfavorable- ratings-skyrocket-media-mostly-mum
------
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/73495/A-Grotesque-Alliance:-Hillary-Cli nton-and-the-Media.htm
------
(The only thing I disagree with is that BO lost or did poorly in the debate) |
Email This Page