BoaterTalk: LiquidLounge: If the media had vetted Obama from the beginning the way they should have, and had they given Clinton the love they've

Home

Forums

Resources

User

BoaterTalk: The International Information Site for the Whitewater Paddler

Forum: LiquidLounge

Clear all "New" markers Turn on extra data

Thread View Frames View Board View

If the media had vetted Obama from the beginning the way they should have, and had they given Clinton the love they've New

Forum: LiquidLounge
Date: May 11 2008, 15:33 GMT
From: GRITS

shown him, would the Dem race be so close?

Even as late as this morning, Tim Russert showed stats on the two that show they are neck and neck, but there was Chris Dodd claiming that Obama will be the nominee. In fact, Clinton has won all the large states that are necessary to beat the Repubs in the general election and has a slight lead in pledged superdelegates over Obama. In the popular vote, Obama has a slight lead, but she is expected to win WV and KY in their upcoming primaries. And before anyone objects that FL and MI "don't count," those votes will certainly count in the general election, and the point is to win the general election.

Yet, the media is showing his supporters in the Dem party saying that Obama is the presumptive nominee.

Uh, HUH????

Did they ever take 3rd grade math? Clearly she has more of a chance of beating McCain in the general. She carries working class whites. Obama carries the black vote 92 to 8%, but if he isn't the nominee, do you think black voters are going to run vote for McCain? Worst case scenario for the Dems, they'll stay home, but I'm betting most will vote for whoever gets the Dem nomination.

On the other hand, there are many working class whites who voted Repub in the past and won't be shy about doing so again, esp if McCain chooses Mike Huckabee to be his running mate. And I don't think it has anything to do with race. Obama is a ONE TERM SENATOR with no other relevant government experience. Clinton has been in government for years, and also has had every possible bad thing brought out about her by both the media and the Repubs for the last 15 years, whereas Obama is only just starting to get honestly vetted by anyone. The whole Rev Wright thing was uncovered a year previously but the media was so in love with him that they wouldn't report on it til someone posted the video on youtube and people found out about it anyway. (Whether it matters or not is another issue, the point is that things about Obama's past that should be brought to light are not being brought to light.) So much for the "liberal media" that the Repubs STILL spout off about to this day - they are not and never have treated either Clinton kindly. For sure they have never been in love with either Bill or Hillary the way they have been with Obama.

So here's my question: the race is neck and neck if you look at numbers. Why does the media continue to insist on trying to push Obama as the nominee? His supporters within the party can be expected to campaign for him by saying "he's the nominee" before anyone becomes the nominee, but the media should report the facts. Had they treated Hillary and Obama equally, Obama wouldn't have lasted a New York minute in this race, no matter how good looking or charismatic he is. His lead is in fact very slim. Hillary's people could make the same claim, that she is the presumptive nominee and Obama should drop out for the good of the party, with equal substance (except they wouldn't get any media coverage if they did that.)