HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Samantha » Journal

Samantha

Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 8,187

Journal Archives

Looks like the MSM, in the face of becoming politically expendable, has canceled The Big Ignore

I believe the media thought if it just ignored Bernie Sanders, his campaign would wither away. He could not compete with Hillary Clinton without media coverage, so s l o w l y he would go away ... down ... and out.

But go away he did not. He wagered if he just played his cards well by sending out his message via alternative media, many would hear and line up to support him. Surprisingly enough, the line to do so grew so huge THE BIG IGNORE could no longer survive. The broadcast and print media gradually began to realize that while in the past they could make or break a candidacy, today a candidate is demonstrating the MSM's words and cameras are in fact expendable.

The MSM is no longer a political king- or queen-maker.

Lightning bolts struck when the MSM realized it could no longer ignore that object in its rear view mirror which kept getting BIGGER and BIGGER. Suddenly cameras are returning to capture the man upon whom the MSM had tried to force sudden political death. He had lived to fight another day! And another! Numbers climbed to startling heights.

Death by media dehydration had not killed the candidate's revolutionary run. It had made apparent success could be achieved with or without the MSM. Rather than become a dinosaur in a political cemetery, the MSM reconnoitered its position and came out in the open to stay in the game. Lights, cameras and action for Bernie Sanders are starting to happen. Why?

Because rather than go away, he lived to fight another day, and in so doing, won a striking victory over The Big Ignore.

Sam

Postscript: It is well past time Martin O'Malley be given his fair share of a place in the sun. Certainly, many of the Republicans are highlighted, even those most assume will be dropping out of the race soon. Martin O'Malley is an outstanding politician with a wonderful record of achievements. He too has been victimized by The Big Ignore.

I think we will see a huge push to eclipse coverage of Sanders' speech tomorrow

That taunt from Hillary was just the start of the obfuscation. Now here comes the BIG announcement regarding President Obama's intention to implement gun control measures through executive orders is scheduled to take place Tuesday. What a coincidence.... The talking heads have already started headlining the announcement this evening. Recently, it was said he would make the announcement soon. "Soon" then became "in the coming days." Now we learn it is the same day of Bernie's big speech.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-announce-executive-actions-gun-control-tuesday/story?id=36070572

Looks like it is shaping up to be a BIG NEWS day. Bill Clinton started campaigning in New Hampshire for Hillary this week. Of course, that HAS to be covered.

And other things could erupt -- just a few hours ago we learned the FBI started working with the local sheriff in Oregon handling the militia's takeover of the wildlife preserve. Got to cover that of course.

Stocks tumbled on Wall Street today so that as well must be covered.

Yep, it is certainly looking like a BIG NEWS day tomorrow. Dollars to doughnuts Bernie will not get the coverage he deserves, and naturally no one will cover it Wednesday because it will be stale news by then....

I feel pretty confident in saying President Obama prefers Hillary over Bernie for several obvious reasons, not the least of which is Obama's determination to keep pushing for the TPP. If Sanders were to prevail, obviously that would have a negative backlash on that "trade bill." So take a wild guess which issues the networks will cover extensively.

No disrespect intended toward President Obama. This is just politics and part of the way the game is played.

Sam



I cannot believe what this woman just said about Sanders' supporters

"Sanders' supporters are also Trump supporters." She was featured on Lawrence O'Donnell's show this evening. I had to look her up because I could not believe anyone could actually make a remark like this. So here she is:

https://www.facebook.com/carriesheffield/?ref=br_rs

Carrie Sheffield.

She also mentioned Sanders is a part of the fringe. When O'Donnell questioned her on this, she said, "Of course he is. He is a Socialist."

This woman is either incredibly dumb, very disingenuous or is desperate to drive people to her Facebook page (which is of course what I just did).

I am speechless. How low can these people go?

BUT

All of this was in the context of Sanders' seeking to siphon off some of Trump's supporters. I have always said since this race started I thought Sanders would attract a good number of Republicans. And now that this is a topic of political speculation on MSNBC no less, I have caught my breath and say to Trump supporters who also sympathize with the middle class losses as well as those of the poor these last few decades, come on over, the water is fine. Feel the Bern.

Sam




At this particular moment in time

"The essential ingredient of politics is timing." Pierre Elliott Trudeau


I think it is important to say that the timing of this DNC database breach scandal is truly suspect. It was known for three months the database was vulnerable. The problem was allowed to percolate until yesterday. It blew up into a firestorm today, on a Friday in Washington, DC -- the night before the next Democratic debate, the week before Christmas, and just a matter of maybe five or six weeks until Iowa and NH caucus.

Knowing how close both those races are and knowing that the political destiny of Bernie Sanders rests on his wins or losses in those two states, it is just too convenient for his opponents for his campaign to be database castrated at this particular moment in time.

Just my opinion....

Sam

I support Bernie but I also admire Martin O'Malley - I believe he has been denied coverage as well

One of the reasons I believe both of these candidates are being ignored is that both are against the TPP. Hillary Clinton has given several speeches supporting it, although she now says she cannot say if she will support it until she has a chance to read the finalized version. President Obama himself did not want the content of this so-called trade agreement -- there is something like 26 chapters only three of which cover trade -- made public until absolutely necessary because he knew many Americans would be outraged at the content.

Corporation lobbyists wrote much of this document. Among those are companies such as Comcast, and it, for example, absolutely doesn't want even simple constructive criticism on the proposed legislation aired. Many people believe this is why Ed Schultz was dismissed from MSNBC -- because he constantly covered extremely controversial (and that is an understatement) aspects of this legislation on air, and he even had political opponents such as Bernie Sanders often contributing anti-TPP commentary.

Martin O'Malley has publicly said opposing the TPP is just common sense. So I believe this is one of the reasons we see the debates aired at extremely usually odd times, times when obviously not too many Americans will be watching, and opponents of the TPP will be muzzled (again an understatement).

Free speech is one of the liberties of which most Americans are very protective. To protect major legislation from critical scrutiny and public comment before it is essentially finalized in form and close to an up or down vote by Congress is not what this Country is about.

Perhaps this topic is one Iowans should discuss along with the candidates when they caucus. It certainly would be in their best interests (IMHO).

Sam

From The Des Moines Register: Clinton grows lead to 9 percent (December 14, 2015 video)

Sometimes if one has questions, it is good to go right to the home source:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/media/cinematic/video/77272582/clinton-grows-lead-to-9-points-in-new-iowa-poll

Note the use of the word "grows" in the paper's headlines.

Keep in mind that our own DU Iowans have posted that many Iowans do not make up their minds until the day of the caucus. Additionally, Republicans who choose to vote for Sanders can change their registration the day of the caucus.

It is interesting the commentators noted that if Warren chose to join Sanders, that would cut the lead down to 6 points.

IMHO, Sanders will attract a lot of Independent voters. Check out this link on Bernie Sanders' secret weapon:

http://washingtonforberniesanders.com/latest-news/9-bernie-s-secret-weapon-independent-voters

There are more registered Independents than either Republicans or Democrats:



Note: this chart is from the link noted above.

The article itself makes some very significant arguments:

A poll of only Democratic Leaning Independents would likely lead to even greater support for Bernie Sanders. It is therefore likely that at least two out of three Democratic Leaning Independents support Bernie's positions on major issues more than enough votes to overcome Hillary's lead within the Democratic party.


* * *

Independent Voters Want an Independent President

As a final factor, Independents have long called for an Independent President not beholden to Wall Street or to the power brokers in either political party. Bernie Sanders has not only called himself an Independent, but he is the longest serving Independent to ever be elected to Congress. Many Independent voters would support Bernie because he is like them a true Independent. This makes Independent voters Bernie's secret weapon. If Democratic Leaning Independents turn out and vote for Bernie in the 2016 Democratic Primaries and Democratic Caucuses, Bernie will be the Presidential Nominee of the Democratic Party in 2016 and he will be the next President of the United States.


Equally important, however, is the fact that four of Bernie Sanders' salient campaign issues are issues equally important to Independents: campaign finance reform, restoring a fair tax structure, reducing income inequality and regulating or breaking up too big to fail banks. (Paraphrased from the Bernie's Secret Weapon article presented by the Washington for Bernie 2016 campaign, specifically David Spring M.Ed.)

Factoring in all of the above plus the addition of some Republicans choosing to support Sanders, and one is left with the obvious hope that Bernie Sanders can indeed win this race, and sorry to be trite, but it ain't over until it's over, and don't allow anyone to convince you otherwise.

Sam






If a network gets rid of someone like Ed Schultz because he is against the TPP

why would that network along with the others participating in supporting the TPP give Bernie Sanders time to campaign against it?

And this is exactly why Hillary Clinton is boxed in. She worked on the TPP for years, and of course she supports it. But when asked recently, she equivocated. She cannot cede an advantage to Sanders since he is a serious threat to her winning; but she can't outright deny supporting it because her corporate sponsors, not to mention some patrons of the Clinton Foundation, might not understand....

Caught in the middle of the proverbial political rock and a hard place, she at least has the comfort of knowing the networks have her back.

Sam

That reporting on the Independents breaking for Sanders was over 50 percent

was once revealed some time ago. Once. That is why all of the polling we see posted here everyday showing Hillary with the lead are misleading. Those polls consider only the Democratic vote. It was also reported that a candidate could not win with less than 50 percent of the Independents. Throw in a percentage of Republicans and I don't see how Sanders' loses.

I do think the Clinton campaign is well aware of this (especially Mark Penn, the man in the middle) which is why the propaganda has been severely ratcheted up. From hereon, it will only get worse. The only thing one can do is to take the reporting by the grain of salt.

And that includes Iowa as well. There are people at this site who are from Iowa who have said most Iowans do not make up their minds until pretty close to the election. I have also read that elsewhere. It seems to me that makes Iowa at least a toss up.

This is going to be a rough sledding for all of us -- there is just too much volatility present and way too much propaganda to obfuscate what is truly the score at the moment.

I also think we will see a lot more hit pieces on Bernie Sanders promoted by those who really want more of a corporate candidate sitting in the Oval Office. IMHO

Sam

When the headline featured Biden scheduling a meeting with Warren hit

there was a lot of speculation that he asked her should he run, if she would be his second. When questioned about the meeting, Warren was mum on that topic. Further questioning revealed that she had also met with Clinton and Sanders.

Biden has dropped out. We know she is keeping her distance from Clinton. That only leaves Sanders as a question mark. I have been hoping against hope that if he wins the primary, he picks her to run with him and that she says yes! If she continues to maintain she is happy where she is, I hope Sanders chooses O'Malley.

I do think the polling we are seeing is very misleading. They only measure Democratic voters, and do not take into account Republican cross-overs (Google Republicans for Sanders some time) and the fact that more than 50 percent of Independents prefer Sanders (reported here on DU).

This begs the question, is there an active arm of the Sanders' campaign steering Republicans and Independents who want him to win to check the voting rules in their states to see if they must register as a Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary. It would be a shame if a substantial portion of those voters were excluded from casting a vote for Sanders in the primary because they did not check the rules in their State.

Sam

It was a complex evolution over a long period of time

I previously read some time ago a military historian's statement about Gore's involvement with the creation of what we call today the Internet. I could not find that this evening, but I did start reading another interesting article that I will quote from here:

Gore's 1986 bill called for a study of the possibility of creating fiber optic links to supercomputer centers, requiring the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to issue a report on the subject. Though references differ on whether Gore's 1986 bill was ever actually passed, the report it called for was issued in November of 1987. It expressed concern that the U.S. was falling behind Europe and Japan in the development of supercomputers and high speed networks, and recommended creation of a program to advance research in those areas.

Gore's 1988, 1989, and 1991 bills were attempts to create such a program. During this period the White House was reluctant to do so, but in early 1991, just before the Gore Bill finally passed, the White House proposed in its budget to fund a High Performance Computing and Communications Program. Gore's 1991 bill defined that program and authorized spending more than a billion dollars over the next five years on supercomputing and network projects. This funding was mostly under the control of the NSF, but also parts also went to DARPA and NIST.

These efforts contributed substantially to allowing NSFNET to grow into the modern Internet. Interesting discussions of their significance can be found in a 1992 paper advocating further expansion of the net, 1993 testimony from the head of OSTP, and Vinton Cerf's description of the evolution of the Internet. All give Gore primary credit for this legislation, and stress it's importance in the development of the Internet. (emphasis added)


from: http://greatgreenroom.org/cgi-bin/bt/backtalk/wasabi/begin?item=11

The point I was trying to make, but which I seemed to have done clumsily, was that when this shall I say communication tool was no longer needed at the end of the Cold War, when the question was asked "what shall we do with this?" - the answer was "give it to the people." We the people were able to accept it and to build it from what it was then to what it is now because one person had a keen interest in this area and agreed to write the legislation creating what eventually came to be referred to as "the Internet."

This is a very long article about Gore which might interest many DU'ers.

Sam

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »