primitives upset that media lust for Barry "Goldwater" Obama ostensibly over

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6539842

Oh my.

monmouth  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-25-08 01:24 PM
Original message

"Press love affair with Obama is over." WTF does that mean?
   
I am increasingly becoming wary, nervous and genuinely concerned about the press/media in general. Obama's campaign fights back, his campaign calls the press on their lies, so now he's the bad guy? One of America's most treasured institutions through the years (from what I learned in school that is), was the newspaper, radio and television journalism. I see this institution crumbling before my very eyes.

Of course the Obama campaign is going to start "shutting" them out and calling them on the distortions. I am so disgusted, but I'm also fearful of the impact this has on the low info voter. McCain goes on a whining binge and they crumble and coddle him. I marvel that the pundits can mouth what they do without cracking up laughing at themselves. They look and act foolish. Professionalism has left the building. I put my TV on later and later each day for fear I'll be exposed to the snarkiness and lies of a David Gregory, the inane comments of Matthews (and he wants to run for the Senate? Dear God). My only salvation is Keith and Rachel, and if I'm in the mood, Dan Abrams. How many e-mails can one send? Thoughts?

supernova  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-25-08 01:25 PM
Response to Original message

1. That just started today
   
I read HuffPo first thing this morning and it was Press love affair w/ Obama over"

When was it ever begun?

Huh?

Cant trust em  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-25-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #1

4. The press is interested in covering Obama. But that coverage hasn't always been flattering.
   
It's true that Obama is a more interesting story than McCain, largely because he's new and McCain has been around since the 80's. But all of those extra scrutiny on Obama hasn't been helpful.

It's funny how quickly these people seem to forget the feeding frenzy that was Pastorgate. If that month didn't disprove the "media is in the tank for Obama" theory, I don't know what will.

SteveM  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-25-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #4

26. What? Now we'll hear how Michelle picked her nose?

Virginia Dare  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-25-08 01:25 PM
Response to Original message

2. Obama doesn't need the press..
   
he just drew a crowd of anywhere between 200,000 to 500,000 in Germany. He could do the same here in a heartbeat. Maybe that's what scares them so?

Oh my.

The virginal primitive is so wrong, so very wrong.

griffi94  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-25-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #2

8. sorry
   
but you're incorrect. obama does need the press. the fact that he drew 200,000 people is impressive, unfortunately most of those people can't vote in our elections. obama is going to need to the support of voters in flyover swingstates, and if the msm decides to swift boat him, then he's in trouble. imo it doesn't help when mathews says idiotic things like getting a tingle down his leg when obama speaks. i wish they would stick to his message.

Virginia Dare  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-25-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #8

10. If he needs the American mainstream media to carry his water..
   
in order to win, then he is screwed, because it isn't going to happen. I personally don't think he does.

griffi94  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-25-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #10

13. they shouldn't carry water
   
for either candidate, but if they turn on him and start giving validation to groups like the swift boats (or puma)
and start the subtle,at first,memes of he feels like he's already potus because the germans like him. or he's really an arrogant elitists off camera and he did so well at first because of a favorable bias.

they can in fact hurt him in flyover country. i wish they would stick to factual reporting of his message and how he intends to carry it out.

Virginia Dare  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-25-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #13

14. I do too, but we know that's not going to happen..
   
I think Obama has the potential at least to rise above this through shear personality and charisma, neither Kerry nor Gore had that.

You mean if Barry "Goldwater" Obama changes his hair-style so as to hide those big floppy ears?

politicasista  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-25-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #14

23. Unless we stop repeating the media spin about our past nominees
   
The media said Gore was a bore in 2000 (despite the fact that he is funny). Kerry had charisma in 2000, but Kerry was a "social loner" and didn't have charisma in 2004 (despite people here that have met him that say the opposite).

That's how the media frames our candidates and we help them by repeating their spin.

In addition to the political climate we are living in, the big difference is that Obama is getting the defense from Dems. Much more than Gore and Kerry got. Obama is going to need more than just charisma and political skills to win. Obama needs us to be the media, he can't do it by himself. We have to keep hammering his strengths, not give into the media spin like the past.

It's a very big bonfire, blazing away as the primitives jibber-jabber and wiggle-waggle their armpits at each other.

Az  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-25-08 01:30 PM
Response to Original message

6. The right is going to spin everything and anything it can against him
   
So they start by spinning the press reacting to the obvious attention generation that Obama is creating overseas as the press loving him. The implication is of course that the media is left wing biased and are pumping Obama up. This just confirms what many on the right have believed for some time now (all the way back to Nixon's time). It also places pressure on the press as they are always nervous about appearing biased as the right has claimed.

The only reason the press followed Obama like puppies is that he is generating attention. Lots of it. And the press craves attention. Imagine if the press followed McCain around with as much focus as they did Obama this past week. It would have been horrible for McCain and boring for the media. The right is just trying to spin things to its advantage.

So the next stage is of course the press trying to balance itself in order to avoid any signs of bias. And they can either focus on McCain(boring) or they can try to topple the man they just placed on a pedestal. Guess which route they are likely to take.

It goes on and on, forever.

newmajority  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-25-08 02:27 PM
Response to Original message

19. Yes, the press love affair with Obama is over. Just like my affair with Angelina Jolie is.
   
Over, as in "never existed in the first ******* place".

I'll close this condensed primitive bonfire with the skidmarked underwear primitive:

Skidmore  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-25-08 03:32 PM
Response to Original message

21. Some Republican rat-teeth operative was on Morning Joe yesterday and very ominiously intoned something to the effect that "The press was about to turn on Obama." We need to be vigilant. I was going to post this yesterday but was busy and didn't get around to doing it.

[USA4ME]

It's funny how quickly these people seem to forget the feeding frenzy that was Pastorgate. If that month didn't disprove the "media is in the tank for Obama" theory, I don't know what will.

The story from the "media" (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, PBS, etc...) during that whole event was that Wright was misunderstood, that B. Hussein wasn't even aware of these things being said, and that we can't judge B. Hussein by the company he keeps.  Any message you got other than that automatically tells me you didn't get it from the "media."

i wish they would stick to factual reporting of his message and how he intends to carry it out.

Doing that would expose him as a Marxist.  No way they're going to do that.

It also places pressure on the press as they are always nervous about appearing biased as the right has claimed.

At one time they might have been interested in appearing objective, but that was quickly remedied by reading what they wrote and listening to how they spoke.  Now, they don't even try to cover it up.  So, they're nervous?  Not really.

.

[Peter3_1]

Obama cannot go off subject and answer a question without stuttering. Obama, today, dissed our  Wounded Warriors by chosing to cancel his visit and went to the hotel gym insted. Thinks he's visited 57 states and has 2 left to see. Doesn't know the word "respirator". Believes that "global Warming" is human caused. Does not believe in market forces , thinks that high taxes mean high tax revenues ignoring that the norm is high rates mean lower tax income, and so on.

I think that we should encourage the drive by's to spend as much time as possible with him, as even they are certain to lose that "thrill up the leg" shortly and wake up to the faxct that he's an empty suit bozo far less bright than he appears when on message.

[Carl]

Yes,the press has clearly been in the Republican tank for decades.



Do they really believe the stupid shit they post?

[JohnnyReb]

WHAT HAPPENED?......somebody in the news media ask Big O' a question harder that "Boxers or Briefs"?

[franksolich]

WHAT HAPPENED?......somebody in the news media ask Big O' a question harder that "Boxers or Briefs"?

That's it, exactly.

[jukin]

What planet are these people from?

Just yesterday the story broke about the media giving 99 to 1 donations to the left.  I'm sure their professionalism (sorry I lol'd when I wrote that) and journalistic integrity (sorry I lol'd again when I wrote that) will beep that impartial (sorry I lol'd again when I wrote that).