McCain, not Clinton, got negative coverage
It is one of the core complaints of Hillary Clinton's loyalists -- the media has been harsh toward her and soft on Barack Obama.
But an exhaustive new study out today suggests that if anyone has a bone to pick, it's Republican John McCain.
While the narratives about Obama's character were 69 percent positive and those about Clinton's were 67 percent positive, only 43 percent of them were positive for McCain, according to the analysis by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University.
"From January 1, just before the Iowa caucuses, through March 9, following the Texas and Ohio contests, the height of the primary season, the dominant personal narratives in the media about Obama and Clinton were almost identical in tone, and were both twice as positive as negative, according to the study, which examined the coverage of the candidates’ character, history, leadership and appeal -- apart from the electoral results and the tactics of their campaigns," according to a release about the study.
"The trajectory of the coverage, however, began to turn against Obama, and did so well before questions surfaced about his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Shortly after Clinton criticized the media for being soft on Obama during a debate, the narrative about him began to turn more skeptical -- and indeed became more negative than the coverage of Clinton herself. What’s more, an additional analysis of more general campaign topics suggests the Obama narrative became even more negative later in March, April and May," the summary continues.
"On the Republican side, John McCain, the candidate who quickly clinched his party’s nomination, has had a harder time controlling his message in the press. Fully 57% of the narratives studied about him were critical in nature, though a look back through 2007 reveals the storyline about the Republican nominee has steadily improved with time."
The study notes, however, that while "public perceptions of McCain and Obama ... largely tracked with the tenor of the press coverage’s major narrative themes," with Clinton, "the public seemed to have developed opinions about her that ran counter to the media coverage, perhaps based on a pre-existing negative disposition to her that unfolded over the course of the campaign."
The dominant positive character trait for Obama in the coverage was that he represents hope and change, while the most prominent negative theme was criticism that he is inexperienced, the study found.
For Clinton, the primary positive trait was that she is ready to lead on day one, and the dominant negative theme was that she represents the politics of the past.
And for McCain, his coverage was dominated by the assertion that he is not a true or reliable conservative, the study concluded.
I don't think so! I'm voting for McCain, just FYI and have been watching the coverage on all networks. All networks besides FOX news, have been truly unfair to Clinton. I am outraged over the negative treatment she has received from the networks including the debates. CNN, NBC, MSNBC, have absolutely no BALLS when it comes to Obama. You tip-toe through issues when it comes to Obama. You all are truly pussies.
More from the study:
It's called confirmation bias. Journalists and readers alike exhibit the tendency. This in all likelihood includes Cindy (#1), who I seriously doubt took the time between 1:33 PM and 1:56 PM (EST) to read this article and all 10 pages of the study to which it points, and absorb the information, and form an informed opinion before responding. Instead, she was content with a simple "I don't think so!" as if a gut feeling actually bears the same weight as studying a subject in earnest. This is the society we live in, however. It's not surprising; it's just continually disappointing.
Here's to the hope that all of us, journalists and their readers alike, will continually strive for greater intellectual honesty.
Somehow repetition of a phrase becomes truth in people's minds. Clinton, despite having run a campaign that shows she is anything but, still exists in people's minds as "ready to lead on day1" Interestingly enough, the claims that McCain is not a reliable conservative, while a negative in the republican primaries, probably helps him with independent voters. Obama represented hope and change early in the process but for many reasons has been dragged through the mud in the protracted campaign and he will have to fight to retain that image in November given the polarization of his support and opposition
Cindy, take your blinders off! Sen. Clinton brought negative press on herself! When you constantly whine, "misspeak" about how much you've been through (sniper fire!!), and attack your opponent in the lowest way possible, the press will pick up on it! She was just fine before she started losing primary contests, because she thought she had the nomination wrapped up with her name being Clinton. Now, because she is desparate, she has to blame someone other than herself, so the press is the most likely candidate!
A chickhen is what a chickhen eats...So long Hillary
The methodology, the definitions of positive or negative coverage, etc., in the study are missing from this poorly reported story. So, since it additionally departs from other studies with quite different results, this story is useless. More wastes of trees and bandwidths by a media just trying to put a band-aid on the gaping wounds to its credibility lost by the incredibly bad job of journalism done about this campaign.
"... With Hillary Clinton, however, the public seemed to have developed opinions about her that ran counter to the media coverage, perhaps based on a pre-existing negative disposition to her that unfolded over the course of the campaign."
I don't tend to read what presumed opinion-makers write about the candidates, preferring to form my own opinions from the candidates' own words and actions.
When the campaign started, I could have voted for Clinton. It was not my preference -- I felt it would ultimately be a wasted vote because it was my perception that Clinton could not win over enough Americans to prevail.
However, I did not imagine the disgraceful tenor of Clinton's campaign or the baseness of some of her support.
Two things seem clear to me now:
1) Clinton has few compunctions about doing whatever she thinks will advance her ambitions.
2) Clinton has a 'tin ear' for the voice of the American people; yes, she was able to play lingering racial animosity among less educated whites into a certain amount of support -- but her attempts to marginalize and demonize Obama have, by and large, only alienated greater numbers of Americans, driving negative public perceptions of her steadily upward over the course of the winter and spring campaigns.
Of COURSE McCain got more negative coverage. He is the most closely associated with the Bush administration out of the 3. With Bush's approval rating in the toilet, it is no surprise that McCain has acquired the Bush stink. The media reporting on McCain's closeness to Bush is all that is needed to explain his negative coverage.
I know the media is all about their 'narratives' and most of its members are too dense and/or weak to report outside of the narratives, but come on, we can't blame media bias and narratives this time. If by some miracle McCain made strong and major breaks from Bush policy and still managed to get the nomination, his coverage would have been decidedly more positive.
That study sounds about right. Clinton has no cause to complain.
Sometimes I wonder whether people like Cindy, who react purely with gut emotion without considering the facts, are truly better off voting for a Republican anyways since this how most of them act too. It is important when trying to make the most objective decision possible to let go of any emotion one feels lest it interferes with rationality. Please justify voting for a candidate whose political views are almost completely the opposite of your currently preferred candidate just because you think the media was unfair (whether it is actually true or not is a whole different matter).
Clinton is just a whiny loser and Obama is a hopeful winner.
Of course they sidetracked Hillary. Let's face it, the liberal media wants Obama because he is black so they can celebrate a black president.
He is liberal, doesn't have any good ideas and went to church where his pastor blamed the US for terrorist attacks.
Why would anyone vote for him.
I'm voting for McCain, and of course, it's a fact that the Republicans get the short end of the media stick. However, I don't see HOW they can say that the media's coverage of Clinton and Obama was the same. It's a running joke here in my office where we'll pretty much evenly divided between the three, that Obama's been getting the fawning sycophantic treatment from the media while Hillary's being toasted. While the Pew Research Center often produces some interesting (albeit extremely liberal) issues, they really shouldn't have tried to spin this one so ridiculously.
Cindy,
I guess you didn't see the great ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Debate fiasco. It had something like 10 million viewers and was a one sided (Clinton loving) joke. You go vote for McCain - You probably deserve 4 more years of the type of leadership that would make the founding fathers turn over in their graves!
The world will be a much better place when the Clinton's finally exit the world stage. The abysmal way Hillary has run this campaign has destroyed. She has finally been exposed as what she really is.
Interesting article. Thanks, too, for the link to the study. For those who follow the link, there's an option to save the study in .pdf format. You can then take the time to review it.
I agree with Cindy about Clinton. Everything that Clinton has gotten major "boos" about Obama has done as well, with little or no criticism. I read today that he said that if he didn't get the numbers he was looking for to clinch the nomination then he would have to keep trying. Isn't that what people have been bashing Clinton for? For continuing to try when she's behind? They call it motivation with Obama and bitchiness with Clinton. 62-year old woman, didn't Obama just "misspeak" about his Uncle's accomplishments to puff himself up? If you truly want your politicians to be robots then you need to start the National Autonomaton Party.
While I'm not surprised about the low percentage of positive press for McCain, given the shadow of the current administration on him, I think the real issue regarding coverage for the candidates is more about the type of coverage, not just whether or not it was positive. Rather than "positive," I think the word that could be used with regard to Obama and Clinton is "favorable." I watch the news all day and evening, and I must admit that news about Obama has always been cast in a more favorable light than news about Clinton. While news about Clinton overall may not have been negative, when comparing Clinton and Obama (as is most often the case), Obama gets a seemingly more favorable treatment than Clinton. I'm for both of them, so I'm not choosing sides, just stating what I have perceived.
Both are fine to me but I think Hillary is overstating her experience during her husband's administration. One does not gain political experience through osmosis. Through her reasoning, every spouse of a political office holder is ready to lead "on day 1" since he/she is familiar with the issues/politics of the office.
She should be judged on her accomplishments--not her husband's. She has been a senator and was an accomplished lawyer that worked towards the betterment of children. That is what her experience really is.
Um hasn't anyone bothered to figure out:
A) Clinton won more of the large and swing states than Obama
B) The Republicans want her to lose now because they don't want to face her come November because they would have to engage in a nasty campaign whereas defeating Obama will be easy because of his inexperience. Not to say Hillary has more or less but McCain would defeat Obama.
C) Depending on how Michigan, Florida, and the other remaining Primaries play out along with unpledged Super delegates, Clinton actually has a shot.
Hillary, please take note: it's not too late for you,
(although it probably is for Bill):
" O, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"
Sir Walter Scott
Hate to say it, but I think Hillary's got a point. The mainstream press did go ga-ga over Obama. He comes across as being a very nice, charismatic and likeable person. I would much rather have a meal with him and his spouse than Hillary and, especially, her spouse. But, the press patronized Obama by not forcing him to provide real details to his fuzzy promises of feel-goodism.
People are judged on the basis of their character. If you lie and cheat, then YES, the press will call you on it. Clinton drones on about how unfair the press is being to her. She brought that upon herself. However, I do think Obama is not as pure as he is portrayed to be. The sooner America realizes that, the better off we'll be.
McCain is a big fat old whining baby - because mccAin't gonna win - sore loser.
Hillary please stop whining and grow up; you'll make a fine adult some day!
Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!
http://klintons.com
This is hilarious. You want to talk about negative/non coverage? Look at the Ron Paul campaign. The media mostly completely ignores him and when they do report on him it is almost always negative. Clinton and McCain are both products of the establishment and military industrial complex. The media will treat them with kidd gloves.
HAHHA This is too funny. I was just reading on FAIR.org (fairness and accuracy in reporting) the opposite of what this article alludes too. McCain gets the best Press treatment. Check it out for yourself. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3369
Cindy, Go ahead and vote Republican!
Go Ahead and Vote Republican and continue to have our boys and girls killed and maimed in a war that was never about terrorism or national security.! Go ahead and vote Republican and watch your tax dollars get sucked into Iraq while the US economy goes into the toilet. Go ahead and vote Republican and keep giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy while we watch our jobs be shipped overseas! Go ahead and vote Republican and watch your hard earned pay get sucked into your gas tank! Go ahead and vote Republican and watch McCain get rid of your employer provided health insurance while you get to bid on the open market for your health insurance (hope you and your family don't have any chronic illnesses).
Go ahead and vote Republican Cindy along with all you other Cindys...then when you are all sitting around in a year or so wishing things were different, you can thank yourself for voting Republican. Fact is it was a hard fought campaing and you should vote for whomever the Dem is!
I was absolutely stunned when Clinton campaigner and FOB, Lanny Davis, commenting on media bias against Clinton, said he now knows what it is like to be a Republican.
Don't you just love Democrats whose mantra is "count every vote" now want to disenfranchise primary voters in Florida and Michigan. What a pack of hypocrites!
As Bill put it - If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. This would apply to any candidate including his beloved one.
I think it's good that McCain isnt very conservative. we dont need any ultra-conservatives or ultra-liberals, we need someone who is right down the middle and willing to mak)e comprimises. the president doesnt just govern the people that voted for him, he governs everyone. We need a president who will focus on long-term threats, and politicians who will not get caught up in meaningless quarrels. if we spent the 200 billion dollars that we spend on iraq per year killing people on renewable energy sources, then we wouldnt need to invade the middle east because it will not be nearly as stategic an area.
(but thats just my opinion)
HAHHA This is too funny. I was just reading on FAIR.org (fairness and accuracy in reporting) the opposite of what this article alludes too regarding McCains media bias. McCain gets the best Press treatment. Check it out for yourself. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3369 Interesting to see two opposing articles from decent publications on the same day.
Hillary got rave reviews at the outset. Nobody thought that was presumptive. Then the voting started and, oops! The people saw things differently than the pollsters and the pundits. Hillary has sure put on a show for us. She has given us top notch political acrobatics, bait and switch, feint and dodge. Lying, cheating, misdirection, crying, playing the martyr...all in all a fabulous show! She still has time left to continue her politics of division and maybe, just maybe, she will win. I wonder if she will try the crying part with the Iranians?
I am so sick and tired of Clinton's Media-mistreatment complaint.
She is the biggest twister and liar. She counts her marriage to Bill Clinton as her "experience". She is already a sexist. Then she complaints about the sexist treatment from the Media and the public. For all her shining jewelries and outfits. I will not vote for her and I am a woman supporting women's causes.
Hey Cindy, that's exactly who we don't need in the White House-someone with no balls. That's why you women should sit down and shut up and go cook me something to eat.
Hillary was on top of the world when she was leading in all of the polls. But, she was such a politically conniving automation, that people began to get turned off from her (she wouldn't even say that the war was a mistake until she started losing primaries).
Obama ... who everyone said was unelectable because he was black starts winning white states (not black states) and everyone started to learn more about him and his genuineness ... and that's when Hillary and Bill start playing the race card, trying to alienate white voters from Obama's campaign.
Let's not rewrite history here.
Now, Hillary is whining and despearate and she is even raising the woman card. Please. She is such a conniving, untrustworthy personn.
The lack of any scrutiny of Obama and positive push by the media let him get momentum before some of the negative like taking his daughters to a hate white america church came out in the open. The media then quickly calls his "response" brilliant and uniting.
His lack of any real experience should have been and still should be challenged. The logic of the most liberal senator being a uniter to bring positive change should be challenged if not laughed at. Instead his message gets repeated. The point is Obama has many negatives and if they were treated reasonably by the media he would have been out of race and back in the Senate perhaps even learning to actually be ready to be president..
I'd like to see the methodology for that research. Did they weight coverages by viewership? Or do they consider FOXNews coverage as having the same weight as a local station?
Over what range are those percentages? Surely, Clinton and Obama have been receiving more negative coverage now than 12 months ago. Over the past month or two, I'm certain the preferences have changed.
Why do they avoid quantifying the negative comments? Those stick more in the public mind than any amount of praise. It could very well be that the media is polarizing the opinions of the American public with respect to Clinton and Obama, bu offering high praise and sharp criticism (information sources should be unbiased) while letting McCain fly under the radar with muted opinions.
In other words, the research you cited likely has a lot of holes in its methodology, and as a result is not telling us very much.
> All networks besides FOX news, have been truly unfair to Clinton.
Have you ever looked into the accuracy of FOX's coverage? There's a difference between "unfair" and "accurate" ...
I just need to say that I am disgusted by the lack of decency shown by some of the people commenting. There are obviously differing political views on this board, so how about everyone tries to act their age instead of throwing insults at people on the opposite side of the spectrum and their respective party. I'm 16 and I even think this is ridiculous.
mccain (at start of war): The success will be fairly easy.
mccain: I believe we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.
mccain (Jan 2007): The American people were led to believe this would be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very difficult undertaking.
mccain: I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough, and those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was gonna be some kind of an easy task, then I'm sorry they were mistaken. Maybe they didn't know what they were votin for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI (video of him talking)
...and another video of mccain full of himself and delusions: http://therealmccain.com/
We're in deep. We need Ron Paul.
The lack of any scrutiny of Obama and positive push by the media let him get momentum before some of the negative like taking his daughters to a hate white america church came out in the open. The media then quickly calls his "response" brilliant and uniting.
His lack of any real experience should have been and still should be challenged. The logic of the most liberal senator being a uniter to bring positive change should be challenged if not laughed at. Instead his message gets repeated. The point is Obama has many negatives and if they were treated reasonably by the media he would have been out of race and back in the Senate perhaps even learning to actually be ready to be president..
Steve G.
You are one sick puppy
Anyone who ever uses death of our men and women serving this country as an example for their own arguments of not being for one party or another is just plain sick. Obviously you did not think those comments out, or you just dont have any better way to speak
Cindy, you think it's not so? Why? Did you do an exhaustive study? I didn't think so. Yes it's disappointing Hillary is losing but it's no ones fault but her own.
So, "62-year old woman," if the candidates bring it on themselves, why does the following gaffe of mammoth proportions hardly get any attention? "Because some folks were willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama, Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama." Selma was 1965. Obama was born in 1961. So he was the product of a miraculous conception that occurred four years before an historic event he wants to own to authenticate his blackness (what does Selma have to do with a American marrying an African she met in Hawaii any way)? His uncle (er, great uncle) liberated Auschwitz (er, a subcamp at Buchenwald). There's more, a lot more, but I have to eat a wonderful dinner my sweetie prepared for me. She picks up my dirty socks, too.
If anyone has a bone to pick with the media it would be Ron Paul. Leading up to super tuedsay he got virtually zero mainstream media exposure despite finishing above Guiliani, Thompson, and Huckabee in several races. When the media did mention him at all it was pejorative with the adjectives "long-shot" or "quixotic" attached to him.
http://www.journalism.org/node/9515
Ron Paul is the real face of opposition in the current nomination process. Romney and Huckabee engaged in a lot of shadow boxing, before running out of money, and then backing the commercial media approved candidate, John McCain.
Fox News organized debates for the Republican candidates (and at one point excluded Ron Paul), and focussed heavily on 'educating' the viewers to McCain, Guiliani, and Romney. Guiliani flopped. Romney dropped out. Huckabee as the representative of the Evangelical wing of the party, was always going to accumulate a solid fraction of support, especially in the South.
The only actual debate that took place was around Ron Paul, and his controversial positions on Foreign Policy, Civil Rights, and Economic Policy. In each case, the news journalists steadied the debate to assist other candidates. The TV cameras focussed on the other candidates looking away while Ron Paul spoke. The time allocated to Ron Paul was always minor.
But what Ron Paul has done more than anybody else is challenge many prevalent assumptions concerning the electorate. He made inflation and currency devaluation an issue a long time ago. He voted against much of the legislation that has the other candidates in convulsion, over their voting record. He gives straight answers to all the controversial topics that seem to preoccupy candidates both right and left. He has stood consistently on dozen of options, where the other candidates have stood in grey areas, or fallen into party line, after initial reservations. Ron Paul has opened up questions about the success of policies that are pursued by both Democrats and Republicans. He has exposed Republicans as having Democrat policies, and Democrats of behaving like Republicans.
The reverend wright thing scared the bejesus out of me. Honestly I hate hate hate this reverse racism...I've been a victim too often of it. Don't get me wrong there were times when Obama's street team would call me up to volunteer in Pennsylvania and I'd scream at them for 5 minutes until they hung up.
Now, I've come to my senses and I realize that despite the glaring and vommit inducing negatives...Mr. Obama is indeed and intelligent and reasoned man. One quote did it for me. It came from 10 years ago, right after he was elected edited the harvard law review. "I personally am interested in pushing a strong minority perspective. I'm fairly opinionated about this. But as president of the law review, I have a limited role as only first among equals.
Hate to say it, but I think Hillary's got a point. The mainstream press did go ga-ga over Obama. He comes across as being a very nice, charismatic and likable person. I would much rather have a meal with him and his spouse than Hillary and, especially, her spouse. But, the press patronized Obama by not forcing him to provide real details to his fuzzy promises of feel-goodism.
I aggree with Cindy that Obama got the best coverage. There is really not a question there. The funny thing about all this is all the low income working white males will flood the polls this November and the all the media with the exception of Fox will be so stunned at the landslide win by McCain. The only chance is if Obama picks Clinton as his running mate he might get enough women voters to offset this big onslaught of blue collar white males that will come out of the woodwork everywhere in droves to vote.
McCain gets bad press because he changes his mind every 30 seconds and has so much contradiction in his record it would be a real story if you could find a consistency. Hillary gets bad press because she has lost something that she acted like she was going to win without question and is now behaving like a privileged brat for whom the rules should change because she lost and she believes herself too special to lose. Barack Obama gets bad press because he had a freaky pastor that he hung around with too long and it makes a great spectacle. And the commenters are acting like 16 year olds and the 16 year old is acting like an adult. It must be election season.
The article noted that from March until now Obama has received the most negative coverage followed by Clinton. I have to agree. Early in the campaign Obama's coverage was mostly positive then came March when it went down hill for him in terms of media coverage. Clinton got a free ride until her Bosnia snafu. As to McCain the media haven't touch him as yet.
The only thing wrong with Steve G is that he thinks voting for a democrat will make a difference.
The day I read and hear either Barack Obama's or John McCain's male anatomy and their physical characteristics ridiculed; their birth lineage described with a slur; their children and/or their spouses involvement in the campaign referred to as "pimping out"; the manufacture of novelty dolls depicting a "breast basher" or a "cunt crusher"; the taciturn approval of questions from their crowds such as "How do we beat the bastard?", all perpetrated by the press and reported gleefully from the press, then, I will know that they are having a bad time in the press. To this day, any difficulties with bad press have been of their own such as policies, personal associations, and other things that they have been called to answer. It's over and I know it. What isn't over is the really ugly stain left on the reputation of this country from the machinations of this primary election, particularly on the part of Democrats, voters and leadership combined. It has had nothing to do with Sen Clinton. Whatever reasons you may have had for not supporting her, there was no need to resort to the filth and to create such acrimony. I have my reservations about both Obama and McCain but I cannot bring myself to attack them in the same personally destructive way. It is over and Pelosi and Reid will see to it that it is over because they "fear harm to the party". I just wonder that they can expect everyone will feel better when they declare it "over" after such a coup as we have now. Do they really think approximately 20 million Democratic voters are going to feel good after how they have behaved? Do Obama supporters really think we are going to come aboard after reading and hearing the filth that has poured forth from their mouths? It is not about an election lost. It's about an election made ugly and dirty.
The person who cited the website FAIR.org is in dire need of a reality check. As a self-described "progressive" group, fair.org is run by the wing-nuts on the far left. That is, it is anything BUT "fair."
The NY Times has clearly been out to smear McCain several times over now; they should be ashamed of themselves, no journalistic integrity left at all.
As for Obama vs. Mrs. Clinton, I think it's also pretty obvious that the media has been all goo-goo eyes for Obama, and not entirely fair to Mrs. Clinton. However, they're still better to Hillary than they are to McCain. As Pew Research proved a few years back, the news media are overwhelmingly of a liberal bias -- even just on the self-descriptions of journalists themselves.
For what it's worth, I doubt I'll vote for any presidential candidate this time around. I wanted to see Rudy Giuliani as president, because he was the only real centrist in the race, at a time when politics has become so polarized. Instead we'll have a choice between Obama (the guy with the most liberal voting record in the whole senate) and McCain (not quite the most conservative, but not really a moderate either).
And the news media was not nice to Rudy, either. Why? Maybe because they realized that if he won the Republican nomination, he would have a real chance of bringing some unity to the nation, and defeating the Democratic candidate. Does either McCain or Obama have that potential? I doubt it. You can't unite the country by staking out a position on one extreme or the other. McCain is less of an extremist than Obama is, but he still panders to the Christian vote too much.
Who cares which candidate got what amount of any type of coverage?
What does this have to do with the candidates themselves? With the real issues?
It's just another distraction from what matters.
This is all good entertainment, but if you are under the delusion it is anything but its own reality, do take the time to read the methodology and particularly to scan the data tables. The findings are apparently composite scores of assertions as disparate as radio "personalities" (e.g., Rush Limbaugh), spokespersons pronouncements, pundits and people in the street. From a news perspective, it might be likened to a very complex approach to masturbation. To the extent there's any "science" here it may be to the degree we can see positions articulated by one or another candidate actually being pushed into the public consciousness - and in detailed examination, who is doing that pushing.
What might be of value is the observation that several candidates have had their stories "get away from them." That is, news not manufactured within the campaigns got loose in the world. Likely there's far too little of that. On the observation that some don't get their due - e.g., Ron Paul - what the hell do you think this stupid game is all about anyway. If you can't play in it, you can't win in it.
Dick
Wow, I am a little shoked, I haven't seen a positive comment about Clinton yet. Obama must have purchased the news because Clinton got slammed. I didn't watch the TV adds but I did hear that Obama was slammed on TV, which caused an uproar. Again, I was a little surprised. I can't say that I'd vote for either of these candidates. As for McCain, he is getting a beating too and tied to Bush in the oddest way. He has clearly nothing in common with Bush as can be identified in the difficulties he had getting through to the staunch conservatives in the republican party. As for change, Obama certainly offers a change in color and Hillory certainly offers a change in sex but McCain seems to offer the only true political change. Obama changes his tune every interview because he has absolutely no experience dealing with the political responsibilities of the presidency. He is a great guy but I really wouldn't want an inexperienced great guy running the country. I mean, are you going to talk with political ennemies or not, are you in favor of your pastor or not, are you for health care or not, are you patriotic or not. Something stinks of bad BO.
Are you unhappy with the way things are going, or are you going to vote for "John McSame"?
If you get laid off, it is okay, because you can't afford to fill your car's gas tank to drive to work anyway.
Any of John McSame's economic proposals *COUPLED WITH STAYING IN IRAQ* will cost billions upon billions more than any proposals from either of the other two, not to mention SAVE LIVES.
Would you like some fries with that?
Oh, please, or you trying to tell me Hillary has received her share of the
"Caring Syndrome" from the media in comparison to McCain?
There has been so mouch hostility towards Hillary, and you want us to think
you (the bias media) cares?
If you cared so much, how come you didn't ask the right questions about the Iraq War? McClellan cared enough to write a book just about how the media plays
the good role of enabler, instead of finding out the truth.
Why did you not come out earlier in the campaign with information on Rev. Wright,
you knew he was there for 20 years, but you didn't care! And now you want everyone to come together and care about interchange in this election! You the media are part of problem, part of the tensions we have in America!
Does no one remember Reverend Wright? This country has such a short-term memory. By the way, which of the following McCain actions is real, and which did I make up?
1. Mistakenly said that Iran was training Al-Qaida, though he claims to be an expert on the situation in the Middle East.
2. Called his wife a "cunt" in public.
3. Has lobbyists still working in his campaign despite "purging" them weeks ago, including lobbyists who worked for brutal dictatorships.
4. Organized multiple land swap deals that benefited his campaign contributers.
5. Is against a GI Bill that would improve benefits to veterans, including better college tuition, as he pushes on an indefinite Iraq war.
6. Voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.
7. Voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr.
8. Sought out and accepted endorsement from pastors that said things just as bad as Reverend Wright, one of whom called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore"
9. Owns at least eight homes but says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.
10. Has one of the most conservative voting records in the senate, despite being labeled a "maverick" by the press.
Surprise! They're all true. You probably haven't heard about most of them because the press has just looked the other way. Harshest treatment my tail.
Anybody, and I mean ANYBODY who votes for Obama OR Chelsey's Mama has a brain fried by something ( remember that commercial ?) McCain ain't much better but he ain't Obama and Chelsie's Mama. if I thought they had to start over, I would vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE, but since that isn't to be, McCain it is...
Hilliary Clinton brought the negatively upon herself. Her behavior in the debates was immature and condescending. Remember her infamous cackle, her we should get Barack a pillow, why do I always get asked the first question, etc. etc.?? How about her comments in her speeches, "SHAME ON YOU, BARACK OBAMA, I EXPECT BETTER FROM YOU". Just how condescending and I am better than you are attitude is that??? She played the race card here, she the "pious dowager and he the lowly slave". Disgusting! How about her, "enough of rallies, enough of speeches!" Wasn't she conducting a rally and wasn't she giving a speech at the time she said this?? Talk about hypocritical!! How about her fraudulant claims, "I remember landing under sniperfire, putting our heads down, and running to our cars to get to our base"; even when Sinbad said that had not happened, she dismissed him as a liar and kept repeating this fraudulant "experience". Finally, a tape from that day in Bosnia showed up proving her fraud!! How about her constant lying, distortions, deceit?? Did and does she think the American public is ignorant?? Hilliary and BIll have have always seen seen themselves as being above the law and above the citizenry, we just saw much more of it during the campaign. We diid not, and do not. like what we saw and continue to see!! An egomaniac who thinks she rules the world and who thinks she can dictate our thoughts. Not all of us are gullible, uninformed, and uneducated white hardworking Americans like in the majority of people in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia....the great majority of Americans are not racists and bigots like the majority of people in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Has anyone ever wondered why the racists and bigots have flocked to Hilliary?? Because they recognize and like the fact that Hilliary and Bill are racists and bigots themselves, afterall, the kept playing the race card throughout her campaign. And they call themselves leaders of democracy??? Yeah, right!!!
Hilliary Clinton brought the negatively upon herself. Her behavior in the debates was immature and condescending. Remember her infamous cackle, her we should get Barack a pillow, why do I always get asked the first question, etc. etc.?? How about her comments in her speeches, "SHAME ON YOU, BARACK OBAMA, I EXPECT BETTER FROM YOU". Just how condescending and I am better than you are attitude is that??? She played the race card here, she the "pious dowager and he the lowly slave". Disgusting! How about her, "enough of rallies, enough of speeches!" Wasn't she conducting a rally and wasn't she giving a speech at the time she said this?? Talk about hypocritical!! How about her fraudulant claims, "I remember landing under sniperfire, putting our heads down, and running to our cars to get to our base"; even when Sinbad said that had not happened, she dismissed him as a liar and kept repeating this fraudulant "experience". Finally, a tape from that day in Bosnia showed up proving her fraud!! How about her constant lying, distortions, deceit?? Did and does she think the American public is ignorant?? Hilliary and BIll have always seen themselves as being above the law and above the citizenry, we just saw much more of it during the campaign. We diid not, and do not. like what we saw and continue to see!! An egomaniac who thinks she rules the world and who thinks she can dictate our thoughts. Not all of us are gullible, uninformed, and uneducated white hardworking Americans like in the majority of people in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia....the great majority of Americans are not racists and bigots like the majority of people in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Has anyone ever wondered why the racists and bigots have flocked to Hilliary?? Because they recognize and like the fact that Hilliary and Bill are racists and bigots themselves, afterall, they kept playing the race card throughout her campaign. And they call themselves leaders of democracy??? Yeah, right!!!
Cindy!!! Damn you are so right!!
I'd strongly endorse the comment by Richard Hed re: the study as entertainment rather than science. It has more holes in its methodology than my jeans did in the 60s. Somehow the MSM decided a while back the Pew folks are authoritative and unbiased, when any serious look at the large majority of their research over the last several years shows weak attention to detail as well as few controls for assumption bias, among other problems. Shame on the Globe for continuing this facade. Is there no one on staff with a sociology background ?
As for fair.org, certainly they have a particular focus and point of view. It is far easier imho to accommodate this when trying to discern real info from their work than it is to parse Pew's sloppy and self-blind "studies".
She is absolutely right. At first Obama got good coverage, but starting with the Rev. Wright stuff and Hillary's complaints, his coverage went way downhill. Even though Clinton was playing dirty politics, that was glossed over by the press. The press takes up her talking points too. When Hillary didn't her coverage, she complained about the media, when Obama complained after the ABC ambush disguised as a debate, she said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Talk about double standards. And there's more. Even though he explained his bitter comment, the news kept hammering him with it for many, many weeks. Her Bosnia comment only had legs for a couple of weeks, and was excused as her being "tired." He praises her, and she spends way more time criticizing him. Don't tell me that sexism is the problem. Hillary is the problem. And anybody who looks at this objectively can see that.
The media seems to be terrified of the Clintons at this point. Too bad.
I AM voting for OBAMA, ! i would never ever vote for Mc Cain, he would be worst than BUSH! americans would have to be NUTS to vote for another republican after what bush has done to this economy, and this war!!! don't make another mistake people! i will blame u....!! VOTE DEMOCRATIC!
DON'T BE DUPED AGAIN AMERICA !!!
IT'S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!
Large numbers of BUSH_McCain Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on with the backing and help of the medical and insurance industry. Under the direction of the George Bush, and Karl Rove vote fraud, and vote manipulation machine. Because they feel Barack Obama would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And they want to stop Hillary Clinton from fixing the HUGE! American, and Global mess they have created. shocking!!! isn't it. Just gotta love those good old draft dodging, silver spoon Texas boys. Not! :-(
You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves off of you, and your children's suffering.
With Hillary Clinton you are almost 100% certain to get quality affordable universal health care for everyone very soon. And you are also certain to see major improvements in the economy for everyone.
The American people face even worse catastrophes ahead than the ones you are living through now. It will take all of the skills, and experience of Hillary Clinton to pull the American people out of this mess we are in. Fortunately fixing up, and cleaning up others incompetence, immoral degeneracy, and mess is what the Clinton's do very well.
Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!
Just look at Oregon for example. Obama won Oregon by about 70,000 votes. But approximately 79,000 Bush republicans switched party's back in January to vote for Obama in the democratic primary. They are not going to vote for, or support any Democrat in November. Are you DEMOCRATS going to put up with that. Are you that stupid, and weak. The Bush republicans think you are that stupid, and weak.
As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses, and open primaries where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help. Except North Carolina where 35% of the population is African American, and approximately 90% of them block voted for him. African Americans are only approximately 17% of the general population.
Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton. This is even more phenomenal when you consider she has been also fighting against the George Bush, Karl Rove vote fraud machine in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Hillary Clinton is STUNNING!.
If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. That is crystal clear now. Because all of the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. And the demographics, and experience are completely against him. All of this vote fraud and Bush republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is.
You will have another McGovern catastrophe where George McGovern lost 49 of 50 states. And was the reason the super-delegates were created to keep that from happening again. Don't let that happen to the party and America again super-delegates. You have the power to prevent it. The only important question now is who can best win in November. And the answer is HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. That fact is also now crystal clear.
And YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose. As do African Americans. Support Hillary Clinton. She will do her best for all of you. And she will know how to best get it done on day one.
The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.
The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.
Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic, and heroic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen. Probably the best there has ever been. :-)
“This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)
Sincerely
jacksmith... Working Class :-)
p.s. Cynthia Ruccia - I'm with ya baby. All the way. "Clinton Supporters Count Too."
This is such an irrelevant topic. We are talking about the primaries here. Why should it matter how much press coverage McCain got?
And I have been hearing disparaging comments about Mrs Clinton on the radio, on internet, but I haven't heard anyone call McCain names? If you don't know why Hillary fans are complaining, then don't write about it. After all, what are you trying to do here? Give her more negative publicity?
And why should we not think DNC and media are biased. When it comes to popularity, she is leading. When it comes to Delegate count, Obama leads. Why? the super delegates. Also, not counting Florida and Michigan, as should be rightfully done, what does it shoe?
nice try. Next time post something more relevant.
Clinton has few compunctions about doing whatever she thinks will advance her ambitions."
Yea, and this we don't want in a president. Our president should be A) a guy B) passive aggressive C) person sitting under a huge tree with rose petals dropping on him from above.
Lack of Scrutiny of Obama?
Obama got a pass?
Obama "seems" likable?
How about Naftagate, Reverend Wright, Bitter Voters, flag pins and the lack of anything more tangible than slander to report?
The same people who complain that the media didn't go after a guy who hasn't shown weakness on real issues and hasn't shown a willingness to throw mud are giving a pass to the BUSH administration on every level of accountability.
Some of these, I'm voting for McCain Hillary di-hards don't seem to get it. Do you know that the republican scum has spent all the money in the social security fund. This is not a, " I'm going to get you back cause Hillary didn't win game". Between the washington BS and NAFTA, our country is being flushed down the toilet. I don't think I have ever seen a message posted that said we shouldn't have a woman president. The fact is, Hillary Clinton is a liar and got what she deserves.
I find it interesting that we just blame the President, as if he is all powerful, for all of the problems we face today. Other than talking about the problems, what are those campaigning Senators actually DOING about it? What bills have been introduced?
What happened to all of the promises by a certain party last year that, if elected as a majority, everything would change?
The fact is, the President cannot do anything if a majority to 2/3 of the house and senate are opposed to it.
Wake up people! You are being sold a bunch of empty promises, just like last year. How soon we forget.
So, "62-year old woman," if the candidates bring it on themselves, why does the following gaffe of mammoth proportions hardly get any attention? "Because some folks were willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama, Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama." Selma was 1965. Obama was born in 1961. So he was the product of a miraculous conception that occurred four years before an historic event he wants to own to authenticate his blackness (what does Selma have to do with a American marrying an African she met in Hawaii any way)? His uncle (er, great uncle) liberated Auschwitz (er, a subcamp at Buchenwald). There's more, a lot more, but I have to eat a wonderful dinner my sweetie prepared for me. She picks up my dirty socks, too.
It's disturbing to read these comments from Barack Obama's supporters. I can't believe people are so hungry for change or are just plain blind that they are willing to allow Barack Obama to get on-the-job-training as President of the United States. None of you Obama supporters could persuade me to vote for him because of your attitude and attacks against any Hillary and McCain's supporters.
I agree with everything Cindy wrote. I too will vote for McCain because at least he did not sit in the pews at Trinity Church for 20 years, where the pastors are racist, hateful, crazy lunatics who spewed and are still spewing their rhetoric while a bunch of parishioners cheer! If Obama motivates and inspires you so much, why don't you have him start his own church so that all of you Obama supporters can follow him. Talk about change, hope and unity?
As for Ed Miller, 06:09 p.m.. you got issues with women. Is that the way you feel about your mother, wife, daughters, sisters and women in general? The answer is most likely so, you come across as one sick unloved, angry, bitter, sexist pig. I'll cook you something to eat, a pile of shi_t. If Obama is elected, we're gonna wish President Bush back. I'm a military retiree, republican who voted for Gore and Kerry, and was against going into Iraq, but I will never vote for a democrat again!
Obama is a much weaker canidate when put up against McCain. In a national Race, the dems should have put up Hillary, but either way there will be another republican in the white house come January 09.
In the end, america will not vote for Obama, a few select ads will start running in September, that will kill any chances of america electing him to anything.....
Jose,
Your a cut and run kind of guy i see. Lets show our allies how we run away from them in the middle of a fight. Lets just raise the French flag here.
How about a shake to go with your fries sir.....
hillary people need to realize she is losing not because of media bias of anti feminism or whatever shes losing because barack obama is a better leader. black or white, so what, a leader is a leader
WHY!!!!!!!!!! is everyone, afraid of the futurer??????
If Hillary steals it, expect McCain to be President. The black population will stay at home or vote for McCain or Nader, while Republicans will come out in droves to keep another Clinton out of the White House. Obama has a chance, she’d get McGoverned.
McCain is picking up neoconspeak:
Support our troops: Send them to die in a needless war.
Family Values: Second and third trophy wives and for the more adventurous ones, restroom toe tapping.
Fiscal conservatism: Borrow and Spend and Print more money and Spend!
Where are you Newt when we needed you! No but really....whats going on with McCain? What happened with the GI bill? Jim Webb, many Democrats and many Republicans support that bill. CAN'T DENY THAT RIGHT? Why, when Congress finally comes together to agree on something, McCain wants to stand with the Neo-con Republican tragedians of our country to stop the bill? I don't get it.
McCain has lost his way. He supports bringing the troops home, in body bags for a hundred years.
He wasn’t tortured in Viet Nam, according to his own republican standards; he received advanced interrogation techniques, of which he approves of nowadays.
Of course, any attempt to glean meaningful results from this sort of study is a bit ludicrous, but maybe, just maybe Obama gets favorable press because he is, in fact a more favorable canidate. I mean, doesn't it stand to reason that if one of the canidates is indeed a person of better character that they would receive better coverage from (I know this may be a long shot) an informed and perceptive press??
...... and this is the system of Democracy that we want the rest of the world to adopt ? Eighteen months of campaigning, one BILLION dollars spent, and an electorate becoming more fractured each week.
I think our "product" may need a little image makeover.
Nina K and Diana,
Ditto here.
Someone described all the voters in the major states Hillary won as "racist pigs" in loud, ugly ranting raves. Interesting. I hope you are not expecting their votes in Nov?
I think all of these people who are injecting all of these accusations of racism and focusing on racism in the press is from people who have their own unresolved issues with racism, that's what I think.....
I will say it again: you can dislike her for whatever reasons you wish and you can vote against her for whatever reasons you wish, but there is something very, very wrong with YOU for resorting to such personal diatribes agains her person. Do you not think others could do the same with the other 2 candidates? Hillary does not invite these comments. You are in charge of your mind, your thoughts, your mouth, and your behavior....and, unless you are being fed this stuff and encouraged to do this by your inspirational leader, in which case you are not in control of yourself, then, YOU are still responsible for YOU. and YOU are why I will not vote for Obama. I look at his long term associations, his empty record, his supporters, and I am totally turned OFF. You people are scary! I don't know what you are FOR, only what you are AGAINST. I believe there is now a new "norm". From now on, we can ask questions about the size of the male candidate's penis, about their erections or lack of, about the number of women--or men--they sleep with; we can call them bastards, and we can do all these things instead of have to study their boring policies and position papers. In fact, we can start now, since we will have 2 specimens as of probably tomorrow.
John McCain is my man. I'm a lifelong Democrat, a sixties radical. But I now understand that out-of-control government spending and regulation plus tax increases will not eliminate poverty or create opportunities for the average American. Look at the people Barack Obama has hung out with in Chicago for the past twenty years. His associations suggest a set of policies that will increase the federal deficit and dissipate our ability to compete in the world economy. I pray that John McCain will pick Colin Powell as his VP candidate. Then our first Afro-American president could be Powell after one term for McCain.
Note the source of this research. It's from Harvard University. The people there are for Obama!!!!!!!!!
To all you Cindy's out there, I cannot disagree with you more. This time, the election is not about a battle of the sexes. It is more than that. Our country is going down the drain because of GWB. The next president will have to right many of the wrongs that GWB has wrought for us. From the economy to the environment to our standing in the world, GWB (and the Republican congress) has ruined everything. Remember before he came to the office, we had a surplus, now we are trillions pf dollars in debt. The economy is in the tank. The war in Iraq is the biggest boondoggle there is and now we find out evidently he dragged us into the war under false pretense. The refusal to join the Kyoto treaty, the deviant ways they used to deregulate the energy sector that resulted in blackouts and Enron?? I can continue.... but the point is, do you think John McCain will be any better off?
On economy, he said is going give you more tax-cuts. But guess what, the tax cut he will give you nothing more than in lip service, unless you are rich of course. Remember GWB and the Republican Congress tax breaks? They let us increase the contribution to the IRA! Think about it, do you have extra money every month after paying for the high gas and other fees to put that savings away? The so-call tax cut is designed for the rich people. McCain will continue this policy... a fool’s promise. And with Iraq, McCain promise to stay the course. This war costs TRILLIONS of dollars to fight every year, and millions of people died or injured as a result... and no end insight?? Need I say more?? To based who you vote for on whether a woman was unfairly bashed by the media is utterly irresponsible, short sighted at best and self serving at worse. Remember the 2000 election? Ralph Nader came out and said it didn't matter who you vote for, vote your conviction.... And we got GWB. Don't fall into the same trap again.
Hillary has gotten very far and I admired her for that. However, it is time to put bickering away and focus on the real thing. Like it or not, Obama is our last hope. He didn't cheat to get to where he is today. He didn’t pay the media to get better press. He won the fight fair and square. The media might have been unfair to Hillary, but the issue is not about that, it is about the presidency. We cannot afford another Bush-like president. We cannot let this country be the laughing stock of the world. We cannot let our environment to be trampled for another four years by the greedy corporate barons. We cannot continue on the current war path. We need rethink our foreign policies. We need to revive our economy. We need a change of direction in this country. We need Obama.
What? Unfair news coverage by the mainstream media? I'm shocked! Shocked!
Come on. Who doesn't know that the MSM has a love affair of Obama? They don't even try to hide it (what with Chris Matthews and his tingly leg (when Obama speaks) and Oberman with his over the top, highly selective commentary.
MSM is pro-liberal and there's no hiding it!
Has the media been nasty to Hillary....lets see..........
The public and media were outrage over "monkey" tee shirt that portrayed Obama as a monkey. But nothing was said or reported on the tees that say "Too bad Hillary didn't marry O.J. instead" or "Don't vote for the B*tch", or the one that pictured Hillary with horns and was entitled "Mad Cow" (would you want your daughter, mother, sister called a b*tch or a cow, or better yet...do you think someone should suggest that Hillary would be better off with her throat slit by abusive "husband" O.J. Simpson!!!)
Lets not forgot Iowa's Obama rally after he won. Over the speakers when he approached the stage, (rapper) Jay-Z song played: "I got 99 problems but the b*tch ain't one".
What if some heckler appeared at an Obama rally with a sign that said "Go pick some cotton" or "Shine my shoes". People would be OUTRAGED!!!!! But no one really said much of anything when hecklers held up signs at a Hillary rally that said "Iron my Shirt".
How about when a contributor on one of the major news stations said "Can't someone just take her behind the barn".
Lets not forget the ranting about her "cleavage" or poking fun of her "pant suits" or when a man said a few months ago that the only reason he came to hear her speak was to "see how much makeup she had on".
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com