What media bias? CNN's John King: "An Obama victory would be a more revolutionary development."

[Metric System]

I came across this interview with CNN's John King (one of the moderators of the last debate) from December 2007:

From ACAnderFan:
John, since the United States has never had a woman president or an African American president, do you think this might have an effect on the relationship between the U.S. and other countries?

***
It’s an interesting question, and ACAnderFan, a reminder of the potential history in this campaign. Both Senators Clinton and Obama promise a very different foreign policy than the Bush administration. They no doubt would pursue their goals, but history teaches us campaigning for president is very different from being president. Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel, among others, have blazed the “woman leader” trail, and Mrs. Clinton is a well known figure around the world. An Obama victory would be a more revolutionary development; there are of course many men and women of color leading their nations, but it would be a first for one of the so-called “leading” nations. I would like to hope policy would matter more than gender or color – but we won’t know until we are confronted with that new reality – if and when it comes.

http://allthingsanderson.blogspot.com/2007/12/john-king-answers-our-questions.html

[Cant trust em]

1. He was asked a direct question that only had two options

If he would have said that Clinton was the more revolutionary option (which I agree with) would that have been biased too?

[MagsDem]

2. Oh come on, is there a realistic chance of the media doing

anything but fawning over Obama, at least until the GE starts? Hell, they are parodying it on SNL. When it's that obvious it's kind of hard to deny it.

[Cant trust em]

6. That may be, but this is a bad example of it.

There were two options and King chose one of them.

[MagsDem]

8. My point is that it's no mystery which one he chose

Not to me anyway. I've been watching it for months.

[Cant trust em]

10. For sure Obama is a media darling

What is also interesting is that up until Obama stepped into the ring Clinton was the one the media couldn't shut up about.

[MagsDem]

13. Oh well, that's explainable

I think the media set us up to have the two most unelectable candidates. People forget the media is controlled mostly by rethugs.

[Cant trust em]

14. Let's say media bias didn't determine our nominee

who would you have nominated?

[MagsDem]

17. Edwards... hands down

I have been an Edwards supporter since the media wiped out Dean with the Dean scream that wasn't. I could have taken a longer look at Richardson as well.

[Metric System]

3. Well the questioner didn't ask him who'd be the most revolutionary so I'm not sure why he went there

I think both candidacies are revolutionary so if he had just singled out Hillary I would question his bias too.

[LisaM]

4. Exactly! He came up with that on his own.

And in the meantime, thoughtfully compared her to two very conservative women leaders.

[Cant trust em]

7. Seems like the "revolutionary" aspect of the candidacy

could reflect how we are preceived by those other countries. King's answer explains how electing a black president would be different than what they've had before (women) and therefore changing how the relationship might work.

[Divine Discontent]

9. well you spoke most of what I was going to reply

that he was giving an opinion... the only thing I'd add is that Obama would be more revolutionary since in my opinion white women have been treated with more (albeit slighted) respect than black men in the past...

[Cant trust em]

12. It's a strange dynamic of discrimination

Obviously the African American experience in this country has been defined by violence and repression in a very overt and systematic way. The women's struggle has been more complicated because it's been orchestrated by more of a wink and a nod. Women have always been kept in the background and since their struggle has been less obvious I think that it's tougher to break free from.

It stinks that we are forced to make these choices right now.

[RethugAssKicker]

16. albeit slighted ???? you've got be kidding me

Were white women slaves?...were they subjected to Jim Crow?..

where they despised and the object of utter contempt?

[Divine Discontent]

19. women have been kept in the background

I didn't compare them, I said that women have been slighted but Obama would be a more revolutionary change, sounds like you're agreeing and ripping on me at the same time.

Women have been treated as slaves by their men in many households, as people who were not allowed to work, who were to be kept barefoot and pregnant, cooking for their husbands, and not permitted to vote less than 100 years ago, when even black men were allowed to vote (if I'm not mistaken).

So, relax. I'm not comparing the outright act of slavery and the beatings to being a white woman.

[DJ13]

5. Did it ever occur to you that Hillary is the more conservative choice?

If King thought that way his answer is right.

[milkyway]

11. John King has been one of Hillary's biggest supporters, trying for a month to mislead the public

into believing Hillary was ahead in this race. Obama has been ahead since Iowa, but King and CNN included superdelegates in their totals, rarely making the distinction between pledged delegates that have been won by voting that has already taken place, and CNN's polling of supers about who they intended to support at the Convention.

[BenDavid]

15. October 30th CNN became a member of the whoremedia-

The philadlephia debate and hrc gave a convoluted answer to the drivers license question. Then from 10/31/07 cnn's the situation room for three hours ran negative stories against hrc and positives on obama. This kept up until 11/15/07 and the nevada debate. hrc was given at least 2 days the 16th and the 19th of november of some positive stories. The 19th is when cnn and all media ran with the abc poll that showed obama in the lead in iowa. This began negative story after negative story against hrc, and kept up until December when the des moines registar endorsed hrc. Short lived as the Tuesday following this endorsement cnn again ran negatives against hrc and positives for obama. When obama won iowa it was now time for cnn to be pro obama all the time. 24/7 of pro obama and anti hrc. This was more evident the whole week leading into New Hampshire. hrc won new hampshire and cnn even though she had won still reported negative stories and then on January 8th when Bill spoke and the "fairy tale" was pulled and used as a slur against obama and then hrc's statement about lbj and this too was reported by cnn as a slur against dr. king. The cnn people had every black surrogate they could find and interview them and posed teh questions in such a way the guest had to agree the clintons were playing the race card.Even allowing donna brazile to rant about the clintons using race baiting in their campaign as they headed into south carolina. All the media jumped on the clintons. From being a person respected in the black community cnn played a huge hand in the demonizing of bill and hillary clinton.When interviewed the guests were 1 for clintons and 3 to 4 ration for obama. cnn has kept this up through yesterday and doubt serious it will change.BUT,

the one person that just stood by and watched all this happen was barack hussein obama. He allowed this to happen and his campaign fed the media these anti hrc stories. Even as going so far as having people on that accused teh clintons of being bigots and even called racist. When Bill told the truth to the reporter J. Yelin cnn and wolf blitzer made Bill's comments to be offensive and and more negatives against hrc followed.

I fault obama and maybe he needs to repair the hole in his soul first before he tries to save the u s and repair its soul.

[npincus]

18. Gossip break: He's engaged to CNN's Dana Bash.

Who knew?

[meow mix]

20. sorry, the media hopped on the obama train late. after the voters pushed him up.

the idea that the media made obama is pure sour grapes bullshit