Media Bias Against Clinton and What Obama Doesn't Want You to Know

by BrandingIron | February 6, 2008 at 11:12 am
12526 views | 12 Recommendations | 12 comments

Photos

I see your Kennedy and raise you a Reagan

I see your Kennedy and raise you a Reagan

see larger image

uploaded by access2justice

I had a hard time believing it when my friends on a different blogging site told me that the only news station that wasn't biased against Hillary Clinton was Fox News (dubbed "Faux" News by the progressive bloggers);  I despised Fox News and its role in the 2000 Presidential Elections.  However, the more I read online and the more I watched CNN and MSNBC--the larger cable news networks--the more I saw that Clinton victories were downplayed and Obama losses were shrugged off.  Dan Abrams was the only one to acknowledge this, and even then I was still skeptical about Fox...until the day wee hours before the first polls opened on Super Tuesday.

I'd turned on CNN just to see if there was anything politically worth watching during the first few hours of Super Tuesday, and just about every minute someone said "Barack Obama".  It was "Barack Obama this, Barack Obama that, Barack Obama in a few minutes to talk about--"  Click.  I switched the channel over to Fox News and lo and behold, Hillary Clinton was in the midst of an interview with "Fox and Friends".  

I've watched Fox News for over 24 hours now.  I'm feeling a bit dirty (perhaps as dirty as I felt when Anne Coulter said that she would campaign for Clinton if McCain is the Republican nominee).  They've sofar lived up to my friends' suggestions about being the only television news source (aside from the smatterings of Dan Abrams on MSNBC) to be giving fair coverage of Clinton's campaign progress.

 

Rezko Money and Favors 

The Obama campaign hasn't exactly felt the heat of skeletons tumbling out of any of its closets thanks to said media bias.  When Clinton mentioned Rezko during the South Carolina debate, her "attack" was met with little applause and a murmur of boos;  Obama wrote off Rezko as "about five hours' worth of work" with something Rezko-related (the What, who me? defense) in the California debate.  However, that's not what Obama's own Chicago Sun-Times wrote about in a thorough investigation of Rezko/Obama last spring.  "Rezko" is among one of a handful of things that gets underplayed and underreported in favor of keeping Obama's media image polished and Presidential.  Read the original article here.  Most telling are these paragraphs:

    Obama has been friends with Rezko for 17 years. Rezko has been a
    political patron to Obama and many others, helping to raise millions of
    dollars for them through his own contributions and by hosting
    fund-raisers in his home.

    Obama, who has worked as a lawyer and a legislator to improve
    living conditions for the poor, took campaign donations from Rezko even
    as Rezko's low-income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many
    African-American families in buildings riddled with problems --
    including squalid living conditions, vacant apartments, lack of heat,
    squatters and drug dealers.

    The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a
    series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project
    ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a
    Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.


Exelon Money

Exelon is another example of something that Obama doesn't want the general masses of his following to know the whole truth about.  When Exelon's Braidwood facility leaked radioactive tritium into the groundwater, Obama swooped in with legislation mandating disclosure of radioactive leaks.  He even touted the legislation in Iowa;  except that the legislation didn't pass because he watered it down for Exelon and it eventually got shelved.  Oh, and he somehow failed to mention that he's received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Exelon for his Senate and Presidential campaigns.  Apparently it doesn't matter when white folk drink nuclear tainted water, but when it comes to helping disadvantaged people of color, Obama's your man.

And yet he talks about Clinton and special interest groups. 

 

Wal-Mart Spouses 

Speaking of "special interests", Clinton's Wal-Mart tenure has also been a dead horse that sometimes hauntingly gets trotted out by Obama and his supporters.  However, the Clinton's Wal-Mart tenure has already been examined by the New York Times and dismissed (Clinton served on the board as counsel to ensure womens' rights and environmental efficiency within the company);  Michelle Obama's ties to Wal-Mart, however, had not until last spring when it was eminent that her husband would be running for president.  So unfair, you say, as she's merely the wife of the candidate;  well, so was Clinton at the time the Wal-Mart "scandal" was dug up by her husband's foes.  In fact, there's not much difference between Hillary and Michelle, and reading about her is almost like reading a parallel life to that of Hillary's.  Smart woman.  Well-liked in her circle/profession.

And I guarantee you that she will be ripped to shreds just as bad as Hillary was.

 

A Million Little Angsty Black Kids

But enough about Michelle--back to the man himself.  It seems as though Oprah Winfrey is making a habit of canonizing "writers" who like to exaggerate their lives in their memoirs for dramatic effect. 

    In his memoir, Dreams From My Father:  A Story of Race and Inheritance, published 10 years ago, Sen Obama, 46, freely admitted to smoking marijuana and makes an oblique reference to hard drugs.

    "I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years," he wrote. "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though." "Blow" is street slang for cocaine, "smack" is heroin.

    In the book, Sen Obama recalls that he had "been headed" to the status of "junkie" or "pothead", which he describes as "the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man". He recalls smoking "reefer" in the backs
    of his friends' vans, dorm rooms and "on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school".

    That is not what Bryon Leong, a former classmate at the elite Punahou School where Sen Obama won a scholarship aged 10, remembers.

    "He was known as a partier, as a guy looking for a good time, but not much more," Mr Leong said. "There was pot in Hawaii in the 1970s, but it wasn't a big deal."

    "It wasn't like guys were smoking dope on campus and coming to school high," said Eric Kusunoki, 57, Sen Obama's teacher from age 15 to 18. "If they did, it would have been pretty obvious. If he did dabble with drugs or alcohol, I didn't
    see it."

It's not exactly hard to see why someone in his position would want to exaggerate.  He wants to reach "his people", which would turn out to be his core voting block; the "inner city" folk who've "been there, done that".  But another word for that kind of exagerration is "lies" (and pandering, I suppose, in context), something that Oprah breathed fire all over the very fey James Frey for with his memoir.

 

Not a Friend of the Friends of Dorothy 

If lying about things that happened in his memoir is merely a minor faux pas of a young, determined-to-be-somebody artist, consider this even greater faux pas:    Despite proliferating the idea that he's a champion of civil rights for gays, Obama refused to have his photo taken with "the Gay Marriage Mayor". Oh, wait: "Civil rights" as it applies only to people of color, not sexual orientation/gay marriage. Gotcha. But I suppose that's the only thing that matters in a homophobic world.

 

Oops, He Did it Again...and Again...and Again...and Then Not at All

Everyone makes mistakes;  that's a given.  But you have to wonder about your state Senator if he claims to've pushed the wrong button on a half a dozen votes on issues affecting his constituents.

On June 11, 2002, Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined
Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov.
George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child
welfare office.


Shortly afterward, Obama chastised Republicans for their "sanctimony"
in claiming that only they had the mettle to make tough choices in a
tight budget year. And he called for "responsible budgeting."


A fellow Democrat suddenly seethed with anger. "You got a lot of nerve
to talk about being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing
Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.


Obama replied right away. "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger. . . . I
was not aware that I had voted no on that last -- last piece of
legislation," he said.


Obama asked that the record reflect that he meant to vote yes. Then he
requested that Hendon "ask me about a vote before he names me on the
floor."

That's not to say anything about his U.S. Senate voting record, where he's missed more votes, or voted "NV", than his opponent, particularly on key issues as a political strategy

Sutherland said Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by
Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather
than voting for the legislation. "They were worried about direct mail
pieces against them. The more senators voted present, the harder it was
to mount an issues campaign against the senator."

Yes, you read that right:  Because Obama didn't want to leave himself vulnerable to "direct mail attacks", he refused to vote "yea" or "nay".  That's some definitive decision making for you right there.

 

(Blasphemy That Even) Jesus Can't Save 

As the race between the top two Democratic candidates heats up, bloggers are just now taking note (nothing in the mainstream media, as they seem to be shielding Obama from any and all negativity) of how inspirational but empty Obama's sermons really are, and how glassy-eyed the most fanatical of his followers are.  The "c" word is coming up frequently;  from "cult of personality" to just plain cult.  Perhaps the best judge of who Barack Obama thinks he is comes from Barack Obama himself, from Men's Vogue:

When Morgan Freeman comes over to greet Obama, the
senator begins bowing down both hands in worship. "This guy was
president before I was," says Obama, referring to Freeman's turn in Deep Impact and, clearly, getting a little ahead of his own bio. Next, a nod to Bruce Almighty: "This guy was God before I was." (Okay, more than a little ahead.) But Freeman is eating it up. 

That kind of hubris won't sit well with the church-going base of his support, particularly in the South (What?  Faith-based campaigning, the same stuff Bush campaigned on?  You didn't know?  It's because the media doesn't want you to know;  if they did, they'd report it).

 

True, these are all things that have been quietly--or in the case of Rezko, not-so-quietly--ignored by the media in favor of focusing on Obama's hypnotic Martin Luther King-like eloquence.  Perhaps that's the real issue here;  African Americans have been waiting for that kind of hope again, the same kind of hope that MLK gave them years ago before it was shot down coldly and abruptly.  However, while Obama and King share a similar type of eloquence and presence, there is a fundamental difference between the two:  One of them is a cocky political opportunist, his mind stuck in a utopian bubble, seizing on his gift of speech to keep all eyes off of the man behind the curtain.

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
SimplyTrue

You raise some valid points and I will agree
that the majority of news media gives Hillary a much harder time than
Obama.  Amount Democrats, I generally
discount a lot of the banter between the two as cheerleading for our candidates
of choice. Both offer positive paths
from were we currently are. 

0
BrandingIron

True enough.  I don't outright dislike Obama;  I dislike him for the position of Commander-in-Chief now.  He's way too cocky;  he was asked again yesterday about pulling troops out of Iraq and he answered that he wouldn't not consult anyone but the decisions to be made are ultimately the Commander-in-Chief's.  Which is also true enough, but he's been insistent that he knows exactly how to get things done when he hasn't even been briefed by the same military strategists Clinton has.  It makes him come off as horrendously vulnerable to tragic missteps (and one would think that he would've learned before about missteps/mistakes, given all of the above article).

I'd rather the media truly dissect everything that I've mentioned in this article now before the Republicans get their hands on it (if he's the nominee) and then spin it into Swiftboating Obama 2008.  The general American public do not know any of this (I guarantee you that the woman I saw in McD's yesterday who was wearing a homemade Obama t-shirt and screamed "OHBAMMAH" when she saw my Clinton pins is completely unaware of any of the information contain in this article...save for maybe Rezko, but I want to say that she might not've seen that debate, either).

0
BrandingIron

(I'd added it already, I just didn't realize there was no "delete comment" function here.)

0
gary winslow

blame it on the one eye, one arm one and one leg bandit!

Jordan Yerman
Jordan Yerman
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 14:04 on February 6th, 2008

BrandingIron, I like this story. It's good stuff- I'm also glad that it's a work in progress, so we can see it develop. I agree that, right or wrong, Clinton does not enjoy the same public image as Obama- the media keeps dragging out the "shrill" pics that one suspects they keep on a huge share drive somewhere.

0
BrandingIron

Thank you! 

The people who're for Obama who're "against" Clinton because of that "shrillness" you mentioned are only making the people who cultivated that image of her in the media happy:  The foes of her husband/the Republicans who've done this since Bill was in office.  Subscribing to the image of Hillary Clinton as cold/shrill/a "bitch" is merely caving into Republican manipulation and outright (and apparently sanctioned, since it's still okay to say these things about her because she's a woman, but not at all okay to say anything about Obama's race) sexism.  I just hope that the image painted of her won't kill the dream of the first First Lady-turned-President, because Americans have a real opportunity to smash the Glass Ceiling (that's keeping women from this position of power) to bits.

I think most of my work here will be like this, seeing that I don't really have multimedia connections (I don't even have a cell phone) to do real "news reporting".  Thanks again. 

0
hea

I like them both as a president so actually feel this is an exciting time to be a democrat. 


I just want to point you to the articel on the Media Matters website re: the Planned Parenthood strategy for voting "Present"  http://mediamatters.org/items/200712140004.


"....while Obama voted "present," he reportedly did not "decline[]" to take a position on the legislation -- rather, his "present" votes were part of a strategy he had worked out with the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council in an effort to defeat the bill, according to the Council's CEO, Pam Sutherland. As ABCNews.com reported on July 17, Obama voted "present" on the two parental notification bills in 2001 "with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council." The Chicago Sun-Times further reported on December 4 that the "goal" of the strategy was "to entice moderate Republicans and Democrats to also vote present, helping to defeat the bills." The article quoted Sutherland saying of Obama, "The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did."


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html


See Tuesday, February 5, 2008 Setting the record straight: Illinois NOW's story on Obama has changed over time on Planned Parenthood Action Illinois Blog (http://ppaurora.blogspot.com/)


As a strong pro-choice advocate  for the past 30 years I wanted to set the recored straight.  Hope this helps.

sport7558
sport7558
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 16:42 on February 19th, 2008

BrandingIron, I like this story. It's good stuff.


How can we get this in the forefront, my wife have the same issues with CNN and MSNBC who have sugar coated Obama and shined him like a shiny new apple. 

0
Anonymous

There is something going on in the media......all of the network.....that is beyond the typical rhetoric. Lets not give Fox approval for being "fair and balanced" quite yet. For the past, I don't know, 15 years they've proven time and time again their conservative bias unabashed and unapologetically. Yet, a couple of months ago I happened to be flipping through and caught one of their shows where they threw their own candidate, McCain, under the proverbial bus. I don't know which show it was but, it occurred right after a speech from McCain in response to an Obama speech. The show had an anchor and their of their regular pundits. All three stated that McCain's speech was lack luster and that he looked old. Even as late as the 2004 and 2006 elections they never would have thrown a Republican candidate under the bus in direct contrast to a Democratic candidate. It strikes me very odd that they would choose now, along with every other network, to give Obama such a boost as if to "fair and balanced" which everyone knows they are not and never have been. Now there is the ED Hill "terrorist fist" comment that resulted in her removal from the airwaves. The Obama bias is complete throughout the media networks. That bias is insidious bordering on the realm of conspiracy. Yes, you heard me correct. Call me a conspiracy theory nut. I'm not, of course. But, I can't ignore the obvious lack of opinions in opposition to Obama within the media as a whole. We are being sold a candidate.

0
BrandingIron

Anon, you said:


Lets [sic] not give Fox approval for being "fair and balanced" quite yet.

You've taken me out of context.  I said

They've sofar lived up to my friends' suggestions about being the only television news source (aside from the smatterings of Dan Abrams on MSNBC) to be giving fair coverage of Clinton's campaign progress.

But as for the rest, I believe you.  The mainstream media is most definitely biased towards Obama, as are the "polls".  They aren't reporting the dissent that can be found anywhere online via the PUMA people and their outlets (NoQuarter, Riverdaughter, Just Say No Deal etc.).

I really, really need to write a follow up, considering everything that's happened since late January and considering the rest of what's not being reported by the mainstream media (like how the Great and Powerful Brazilla is attempting psychological warfare on CNN by eschewing the "idea" of Senator Clinton putting in her name for the nomination at the convention, and how the DNC (Brazilla, Dean et al) are running scared now with Obama constantly sticking his foot in his mouth, not raking in the money like he said he would and shifting policies--not to mention the super delegates breaking from Obama back towards Clinton).

0
beachdiva

PUMA...Clinton voters for McCain Palin 2008 is the way to go!

0
carolineramos

Hello, I am working on a papaer where I am trying to prove that the media bias swayed the votes of American citizens in favor of Barak Obama. Any feedback or suggestions/examples anyone would like to share with me?

 

thnaks!

Caroline

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from