What will it take for the MSM not to anoint Hillary as the presumptive nominee?

[RiverStone]

Ok friends, we have established that Hillary Rodham Clinton is not DU's majority choice for the DEM Presidential nominee. This thread is not to prove that point; there are many other why we don't want Hillary threads.

My frustration, which is shared by many others, is how other candidates in the pack not only have to state their case for nomination, but fight a perception endorsed by corporate thugs in the MSM that Hillary is 'the one'. Case in point occurred today on Meet The Press - Tim asked John McCain how he felt about Hillary as a Presidential candidate - McCain responded with a polite, she would be formidable; then Tim flashed a poll that had Hillary beating McCain 47% to 46% in a head to head comparison. There was not even a whisper of Edwards or Obama or any other DEM in the field. :grr:

If this bullshit continues, I wonder if other DEMS who have declared a Presidential run will need to overtly (or quietly) form a coalition of words or actions with other DEM Pres hopefuls to de-throne her as the media darling? It reminds me of those goofy wrestling entertainment free-for-alls where several wrestlers decide to throw the BIG fish over the ropes before they proceed to win as individuals. Even Hillary defenders may admit that the media, for reasons well documented, is heavily invested in fronting her above the other runners in the race.

I hope we are not going to have to deal with this media bias all the way to the first DEM primaries next January! Yet minus Al Gore throwing his hat in the ring (YES!!!!!!! Please Al), I don't see an easy strategy to upset her top-dog position on the donkey cart in the eye of the media.

Maybe some other DUer can offer a more optimistic scenario? :shrug:


RiverStone~





on edit: spelling

[jody]

1. Why not Hillary, she's the most electable candidate among those who might run? n/t

[Lindsey]

6. Hillary is one of the most polarizing (if not THE most polarizing)

politicians in the country. IMO a lot of it is not her fault. However, we have too much at stake to not deal with reality. My fear is that the MSM and those on the right will build her up to try to get her nominated so they can slaughter her in the '08 election. I've already had people at work (yea, it is Orance County) tell me that they've never voted before but if she runs, they'll register and vote just so they can vote against her. This is the right-wing and the MSM's wet dream (that she's now thrown her hat in the ring). Unless a lot has changed in the consciousness of the "average American" (those that really disliked the Clintons)she'll be crushed and we'll be doomed. However, maybe I'm wrong in the sense that the "average Clinton haters" are singing a different tune due to what we've all been through because of *.

[jody]

10. "polarizing"? Perhaps but still electable. n/t

[DianaForRussFeingold]

12. Is Hillary Another LieBerman?

We Can't wait till someone like Karl Rove asks the questions! We need someone who has the vision and leadership to be a great president. The following proves Feingold has the foresight and leadership to protect us as well as the Constitution and Bill of Rights :

Only one Member of the Senate voted against the Patriot Act: Sen. Feingold (D-Wis)... In an address given October 12, 2001, Sen. Feingold (D-Wis) explained why he, alone among United States Senators, voted against the Administration-sponsored “U.S.A. Patriot” Act. The text of his speech : http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm "We must redouble our vigilance to ensure our security and to prevent further acts of terror. But we must also redouble our vigilance to preserve our values and the basic rights that make us who we are.

The Founders who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights exercised that vigilance even though they had recently fought and won the Revolutionary War. They did not live in comfortable and easy times of hypothetical enemies. They wrote a Constitution of limited powers and an explicit Bill of Rights to protect liberty in times of war, as well as in times of peace.

There have been periods in our nation’s history when civil liberties have taken a back seat to what appeared at the time to be the legitimate exigencies of war. Our national consciousness still bears the stain and the scars of those events: The Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the internment of Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans during World War II, the blacklisting of supposed communist sympathizers during the McCarthy era, and the surveillance and harassment of antiwar protesters, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during the Vietnam War. We must not allow these pieces of our past to become prologue.

.. even in our great land, wartime has sometimes brought us the greatest tests of our Bill of Rights".

:patriot:

[kentuck]

2. The first primary.

if someone else wins...they will say, "Never mind"..

[katsy]

3. ooops

on edit: broke the rule...

(but seriously, it would take Al Gore to run)

[ClassWarrior]

4. Us.

NGU.

[XemaSab]

5. I'm thinking it's going to be like Dean

She'll be the front runner for a while, but that story is "boring," so they'll start dredging up dirt on her and by the time of the primary they'll start referring to her candidacy as "troubled."

[MzNov]

7. Al Gore would be the only candidate who could and would change the Hillary steamroller.

Gawd how I wish he would run!

[emulatorloo]

8. A defeat in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire. n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. More discussion of this here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3170242&mesg_id=3170242

[rocktivity]

11. The MSM wants Hillary to win for the same reason why they wanted Kerry to win

Because the GOP wants wants her to win--and the GOP wants her to win because she'll be the easiest candidate for them to beat.

:headbang:
rocknation

[blm]

13. MSM worked to kill Kerry's campaign off EARLY because he filed a senate resolution

that intended to overturn the ruling that allowed their expansions.

They called his campaign dead throughout the fall to dry up his fundraising which forced him to finance the rest of the campaign on his own. When he was endorsed by the Firefighters he received no airtime for that endorsement.

It is ludicrous to believe that the MSM wanted Kerry.

KERRY SEEKS TO REVERSE FCC’S “WRONGHEADED VOTE”

COMMISSION DECISION MAY VIOLATE LAWS PROTECTING SMALL BUSINESSES; KERRY TO FILE RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL

Monday, June 2, 2003


WASHINGTON, DC – Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a “Resolution of Disapproval” as a means to overturn today’s decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America’s small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC’s decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today’s media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC’s decision, Kerry said:

“Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today’s wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

“Today’s vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public’s access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission’s responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today’s vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy.”

-- 30 --

[zbdent]

14. Would barely take anything ... maybe one or two e-mails

from "connected" operatives (from Repuke think tanks, but claiming to be "insiders") ...

Like it would take anything for the corporate media to be coerced into lying about any Dem candidate ... look how, all of a sudden, Barack Obama's middle name became an issue ...

[MonkeyFunk]

15. It seems like when

it's a candidate somebody doesn't like, the "MSM" is "anointing" them. When it's a candidate somebody DOES like, it's the "MSM" giving us a "rare moment of truth" when they cover them.

News coverage of Senator Clinton is not surprising, and I don't see why it should garner conspiracies about corporate media conspiring in back rooms to foist her on us. She's a very famous woman, you know! And this is a historical moment in American political history.

Remember 2004? Many considered Dean the "anointed" frontrunner. That wasn't true either - he was just doing well in the polls, and thus garnered attention.