|
January 8, 2008
– It's like deja vu all over again.
If you want to read the actual news of
what is now occurring, you might as well read this article from
four years ago.
It detailed the media ignoring and
smearing Wesley Clark while, yes, praising a man named John Kerry
and another named John Edwards. Yes, the right-wing was
praising Kerry - at that point.
It was all part of the standard game,
the one that is being played now.
Heck, now that right-wing propaganda
company ClearChannel owns many of the stations that carry
"progressive" talk, even the fake "liberals," like Ed Schultz, have,
oddly, been Clinton bashing. Yes, the new main staple of many
stations that claim to be "progressive" talk - and which also carry
Air America - the "gun-toting liberal" who gets lots of TV time, Ed
Schultz, has been bashing Clinton. Yes, not bashing
Republicans. In fact, this "liberal" likes Mike Huckabee,
calls him affectionately "the Huckster." And, of course, he
praises Obama - while, oddly enough, starting to set up the
right-wings coming smears by saying, repeatedly, that Obama has "the
most liberal voting record in the Senate." Funny, exactly how
they described John Kerry.
Yes, Ed Schultz, during a recent show
first talked about his appearance on the Tucker Carlson show, on
which he bashed Hillary Clinton. Then, Schultz quoted Bill
Bennet. He called Huckabee, several times, "the Huckster" and
said he likes the guy. He used the phrase "those lefties."
And, oh yeah, Schultz' show is produced now by - get ready - Rush
Limbaugh's producer.
Folks, this is the biggest name on
"liberal" Air America radio carrying stations.
The pattern is obvious and familiar.
The only reservation people have about Clinton is they fear if she
is the candidate the nastiness of the Gore, Kerry, Clinton days will
continue. As during last election... well, let's just quote
from
another article from four years ago - in fact, four years ago at
exactly this juncture:
" The issue that
will decide this election is the media, and so far Kerry, through
a combination of good fortune and clearly experienced savvy, has
been able to use the spin machine greatly to his advantage.
"However, this
won’t last. Just as the press never used to mention Kerry without
the words "aloof" or "liberal" before they decided to push his
campaign, they will start to do again. The smears will come, the
ignoring, the twisting. And now that Clark is out, the all out
assault on Kerry will begin.
"The Republicans
plan to make what appears to be Kerry’s strength, his Vietnam
Veteran status, into his weakness, talking about how he sewed the
American flag to the bottom of his pants while protesting, how he
betrayed true veterans by protesting against them while they were
still overseas."
It didn't last, now
did it? They did stop playing nice and step to level of ugly
beyond anything previous, leading to the coining of the term Swift
Boating, doing exactly as we had said they would, turning his the
very thing they were praising about him, his service in Vietnam,
against him.
If you read further
in that article we detailed how all of this was not only planned,
but funded by the right-wing as part of their plan - yes, the
right-wing gave signficant finanical support, and votes in Iowa and
New Hampshire, to Kerry. They played nice in the press.
They used the Iowa surge built of their coverage to ride Wesley
Clark, the man they feared, out of the race.
Ok, now back to now.
Well, the New Hampshire debates came and
went, and what happened during the debate is not as important as the
coverage.
Hillary Clinton again gave a solid,
presidential performance, but all ABC News chose to focus on was her
getting "angry" at one or two points. Yes, the same game Gore
faced, the same nonsense Clinton has been facing all election cycle.
She was hit with, of course, the question about supposedly not be
likeable, again.
In the end, all of her positive traits
and moments were given no play whatsoever anywhere.
The question then remains, what will it
take for Clinton to stand up to the press' game? And if she
won't - and, really, if she hasn't thus far - what good is she?
Her main selling point is that she is
best equipped to deal with right-wing smears and attacks since she
is so used to them. But she has shown no response, or even
awareness, of what is occurring thus far.
And her campaign has gone bizarre.
Since when is Hillary running as the candidate of "change"?
Yes, she'd be a change from Bush, but her main selling point is, or
at least should be, "Remember the good old days, when America had a
surplus of money and respect around the world?" Gore-like, she
seems to be running from her husband's legacy, fighting so hard to
seem her own person, as Gore did, that she is missing the easiest
argument: Last time she lived in the White House, America was
at it's peak - put her back there, and she knows exactly how to set
back up shop and get us back to the good old days.
Her argument should be, "We've had
enough change already from the good ol' Clinton days these last 8
years. The last thing we need is one more inexperienced former
drug addict who thinks he has the solution but doesn't have the
experience to know for sure." She should be asking the nation,
"Can we risk more change under the guidance of the inexperienced?"
Forget change, let's go with what we know works: Clinton.
That is her entire selling point.
Yet somehow she is now fighting to say she is change.
All this - the tears, the not standing
up to the media's constant negativity toward her. Someone,
please, give her an aspirin and send her to bed.
In reality, sure Obama can do well in
Iowa and New Hampshire, where Republicans and unregistereds, by
Obama's own admission, have put him ahead of Clinton.
And just to make clear this point, let's
do a reality check and look at what really happened in Iowa.
According to
American
Research Group, the top polling company out of New Hampshire:
"Contrary to what the results of the
Register's poll suggest, Barack Obama did not exclusively
energize and turn out a wave of new caucus participants.
"If the results from the Register's
poll are adjusted based on party composition of the entrance
poll, the Register's final poll results would be Obama 30%,
Clinton 29%, and Edwards 24%. Using the
final caucus results
that include only the viable candidates, Obama picked up 8
percentage points of second choices (thanks in large part to the
Richardson campaign), Clinton picked up about 1 percentage
point, and Edwards picked up 6 percentage points.
"Obama's margin of victory in the
final delegate tally had more to do with the energy generated by
the non-viable candidates than it did with his own campaign."
Weird, huh? This whole Obama
bounce came from votes from Republicans and the weird setup of Iowa
where, after a first round of caucusing, the sore losers' people can
team up on the front runner. And so shifting people who had
wanted Richardson and Kucinich, etc., voted a second time, this time
against the frontrunner, not as much to support Obama but to help
their candidate out against Clinton.
As with last election, when we reported
how the Republicans, with Bush unopposed, crossed over to pick the
weakest Democratic candidates in Iowa, as told by right-wing
operatives, the nonsensical result of the Iowa caucuses is again
then used by the right-wing owned-and-operated media to sway the New
Hampshire vote; another state where people can cross party lines to
vote for the weaker candidate of the other party if, say, their
favorite, Rudy Guiliani, isn't in the state contesting.
South Carolina shouldn't really be a
test for Obama either. It is another abnormal state.
As we've been reporting, the primary
setup allows rural conservatives in a handful of small states to
have more say, thanks to the media coverage, over who will be
President than the other 275 million Americans combined. By
the time things get to the part of America that is responsible for
Americas wealth and strength, and which represents mainstream
America, it is already decided - usually.
But this year will be different, due to
Obama's abnormal surge. He may roll in New Hampshire, and he
may roll in South Carolina. But Obama's first real test will
be when the vote comes down to New York and California, because in
those states this cycle, regardless of what Iowa and New Hampshire
say, there are massive fears and reservations about nominating an
inexperienced black candidate. Sorry to be so blunt, but that
is the reality.
New Yorkers, Californians, and many
other Americans still remember the reality of how adding the
orthodox Jew, Lieberman, to Gore's ticket sunk his ship just enough
to allow the Bush rats to storm over the deck. Gore lost his
home state of Tennessee. Enough said.
And a big difference this year is that
New York and California are not waiting until things are over to get
their say. They will be on February 5 instead of March
2.
And it is very important to note this
change was made exactly for this reason - because last election
cycle, New Yorkers and Californians felt they had no say.
Candidates like Dean and Clark were long gone before the vote ever
headed their way. So this year, anticipating the exact
Iowa/New Hampshire nonsense we are once again seeing, these two
monster states moved up closer to the front of the line.
Yes, everyone knew this was coming -
except seemingly Hillary Clinton's camp.
And so unlike last time, a candidate
like Clinton could lose both and still jump into front-runner status
less than a month down the road - a time period that can be
realistically endured. Yes, this time New York and California
will actually get a say. They never had a chance to vote for
Dean. They never had Clark to choose from. Both
candidates had massive support in these states.
This time, whichever way they go, they
will be heard.
The Iowa and New Hampshire setups allow
for odd things to happen. But with the true desperation of the
national situation at the moment, it will take more than charisma
and a few early wins to get over the hump this election cycle and to
convince mainstream Americans to put their trust in someone so
inexperienced.
However, what we are seeing at the
moment is a more formidable Obama and a less stoic Clinton,
seemingly. Rudy the rock she is not seeming.
And the reality has been, support of
Hillary has been everywhere peppered with begrudingness. The
right-wing hit on her likeability dominates, and I have yet to hear
a person discuss her candidacy without mentioning it, the fear of
ensuing right-wing negativity.
Clinton has had all of this time to
point out the regular cycle, as with last election. Last
election, the right-wing savaged Wesley Clark while, yes, praising
John Kerry and John Edwards. They called Kerry Lincolnesque in
stature, are good soldier who served his nation.
That is, until he became the candidate.
Then he was so savaged - Swift Boated, as the term came to be coined
- that it made Hillary Clinton's baggage seem minimal.
And so will be the case with Obama.
The media, as the right-wing dictates, will blow him up. Nothing but
nice, complimentary. The nation will feel, "Yes, this is what
we want - not more right-wing smears versus Clinton response.
This is nicer. It can unite us."
And then, as soon as Clinton is out, if
that were to happen, the nation would never hear a nice word about
Obama again. He would be the inexperienced Muslim former
drug-addict with no experience and an Osama-like name who flip flops
so badly on foreign policy he makes Bush look savvy. Can you
really picture his wife as first-lady, they will ask. It will
get ugly, racist, smearing.
They made Gore "unlikable." They
made Kerry "unlikable." In California, they made Gray Davis
"unlikable" to get Schwarzenegger in. And yes, they made
Hillary Clinton "unlikable," by label at least.
And so they will with Obama.
Gladly.
Clinton knows this. And she should
be and should have been educating the country on this game.
It's obvious, it happens every time.
We said this four years ago with Clark,
and we'll say it again now: if Hillary Clinton doesn't make
the right-wing domination of the media and its absurd, obviously
biased coverage of her a central, upfront issue, she doesn't deserve
to be president - and she won't be. She will be out after
February 5th.
Unfortunately, it may already be too
late to make that case, as it will seem sour grapes. Before
Gore could speak a word, Bush/Cheney said, "He is vicious - he will
attack." And so Gore was put off his game. Hillary
didn't call out the negative coverage. And now it may be too
late. But she has to at least try, if only to show she is
someone who will fight instead of whine and cry.
For crying out loud, if these candidates
would only read The Moderate Independent, they wouldn't overlook the
obvious, and the nation might not have to sit back and watch the
same mess over and over and over as the Bush-wing of the GOP
continues to control the nation with its every increasing - yes,
still increasing - control and domination of the entire non-Moderate
Independent media.
Don't know what we mean? You must
have missed
this article a few weeks back.
Welcome to your real world education.
Welcome to The Moderate Independent.
. | 
