Horse with no Name
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 10:58 PM
Original message |
The punditry are really pushing Obama and/or Hillary |
|
and turning their noses up at the other field of candidates. Sooo...what that tells me is that they KNOW Hillary and/or Obama can't win and are attempting to destroy the potentials of the rest of the field. Make no mistake...the pundits are terrified that their gravy trains will come to a screeching halt if the Democrats RETAIN power in 2008. They will only carry messages that are seemingly bipartisan, but very well researched and carry the stamp of approval of the Republican Party. Just tonight I have heard them give Gingrich a pass on his lies...state that our world will be in such bad shape because of North Korea-Iraq-Iran that Americans--who so love Guiliani by the way--will give him a pass on his personal history.:puke: Be vigilant. Be diligent. The punditry didn't just decide to be friendly to Democrats...we don't sign their paychecks, Republicans do. THAT is who they are beholden to.
This is with the disclaimer that this doesn't reflect how I feel about the candidates...just what they said.
|
The Velveteen Ocelot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 11:03 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Watch what they do. My prediction is that they will do |
|
what they do every time: They will focus on the most interesting/controversial candidates and build them WAAAAY up -- Nobody can beat So-and-So (Hillary, Obama, whoever), they'll say. This is who will be nominated for sure. And then, when they are riding high, topping the polls, the pundits will start cutting them down. They'll bring up all kinds of dirt, gossip, RW bullshitting and swiftboating they can find. For them, it's not so much that they want anybody in particular to win (except for Pox News, of course); it's all about controlling the game. Remember what happened with Howard Dean, the front-runner, the guy to beat? They built him up, then cut him down. Watch; they'll do it all again.
|
Horse with no Name
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. I have to admit that I was just barely listening after working 12 hours, coming |
|
home to cook dinner and wrapping presents (not at all distracted,lol)but if I am not mistaken I heard Gingrich say something along the lines that the only way we can win in Iraq is to admit we have been wrong. Then went on to say something like the burden needs to be shifted away from being Bush's war to being the American's war.:wtf:
|
PsN2Wind
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
13. To a greater degree than with Dean was Perot |
|
Everyone in both parties, the media, and corporate America were so concerned that the Dems or Repubs, their meal tickets, might actually lose to this jug-eared little man. So they, and many here still do, claim he was crazy for pulling out because of threats from the Bushs, people we know were way too honorable to make threats.
|
ladym55
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 11:06 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I have the same concerns you do |
|
The big push is for Hillary (who will galvanize every right wing nutjob in the universe--raising money to combat Bill and Hillary's push for global domination is a billion-dollar cottage industry) or for Obama (who is African-American and has limited experience--I see the smear ads now). I am very tired of being told by idiots in suits who I can vote for, who can run.
I am also VERY aware of who signs the PAYCHECKS of all those idiots in suits.
|
EndElectoral
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 11:12 PM
Response to Original message |
4. What does a Dem do if you don't like Hilary, Obama or Edwards???? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr |
Horse with no Name
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
I don't think the field is set by any means. I think that name recognition is a big factor at this point...and I have no idea why they haven't even mentioned Clark as a candidate.:shrug:
|
Warren DeMontague
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
Warren DeMontague
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 11:18 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Because the Democrat who they KNOW will kick ass, the one who poses the clear threat |
|
to their agenda and interests, makes them collectively soil their corporate media depends.
|
Horse with no Name
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
And they have taken special efforts to paint him as a loser candidate. That is why I know they are the most afraid of him.
|
Imagevision
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 11:28 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Edwards & Barack Obama need to get out, the people simply have to hear them |
|
then get back to their Hillary, Gore, Biden's to do their evaluating.
Personally? Kusinich isn't going to be a slug this time around...
|
Horse with no Name
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
Regardless of how I personally feel about any of them...I think any interested candidate deserves to have their ideas listened to. Nobody should be discounted at this point.
|
AtomicKitten
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 11:31 PM
Response to Original message |
11. I think that is putting the cart before the horse. |
|
The pundits are commenting because they are leading in the polls, not the other way around.
|
senseandsensibility
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 11:42 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Sun Dec-17-06 11:56 PM by senseandsensibility
And which candidate do they ignore the most? Gen. Wesley Clark. Why? I'm sure it's because the corporate media doesn't think he can win.:sarcasm:
|
Telly Savalas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-17-06 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. If the corporate media is trying to keep Clark down |
|
why does FOX News give him a paycheck?
|
Malikshah
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-18-06 12:07 AM
Response to Original message |
15. MOTS-CW Crowd in action all over again--here's how it will go |
|
Jan 2007...people continue to push the Beltway insiders. Folks here glom on and divide themselves into camps
June 2007...new voices enter the fray--non-Beltway types. Some folks here raise their names for recognition and are roundly shouted down by the MoreOfTheSame-ConventionalWisdom crowds who've divided themselves into camps
October-December 2007-- MOTS-CW crowds rally around their anointed ones and begin bandying about such phrases as "it's a chess game," and "politics is a complex game" when the anointed ones begin to be pilloried by the Rovian dogs while at the same time disparaging fresh voices who have not been anointed.
Jan 2008-- with the primaries coming up-- some folks here begin to make bizaare statements about insider knowledge, taking one for the team, more chess analogies and the like as the Rovian machine (and Mass Media) begin taking pathetic pot shots.
March 2008-- one of the anointed pulls ahead and any fresh outside of the Beltway voices are banished to wilderness...their supporters here are viewed with thinly veiled condescension ("They just don't know how politics works")
Summer 2008-- as the DNC/RNC conventions go about their paces-- calls are made to suck it up an deal with the pre-anointed one for the betterment of the country...
November 2008-- after one too many all caps Subject threads is posted, the world explodes.
December 2008-- another thread is begun concerning the 2012 elections and the MOTS-CW crowd begins foisting another anointed one on the masses. Metaphors of chess games abound.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 06:26 AM
Response to Original message |