Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-20-2008, 04:35 PM
 
1,004 posts, read 2,692,216 times
Reputation: 669

Advertisements

There are those that believe that, from the beginning MSNBC and CNN and others, were so biased toward Obama that it really was not objective news reporting. From the outset, the media brutally attacked anything and everything Hillary Clinton did. Some believe Obama has not "earned" his spot as the democratic nominee. reporting was so bias (severe) it was almost reminiscent of the old Soviet Union propaganda subjecting its public to what they wanted their citizens to "read", and "see" on television. Many, including myself, believe Hillary as the rightful candidate for the democratic party.

Do you think Obama attending an anti-white, anti-semetic church for 20+ years and donating 50K dollars to it makes a difference? What about ties with domestic terrorist William Aires. What about Obama refusing to wear an American flag pin on his lapel. Isn't it interesting that so much of this information came out after he won so many of his states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-20-2008, 04:41 PM
 
1,736 posts, read 4,728,817 times
Reputation: 1445
After two years of campaigning against Hillary it’s hard to make your argument stick.
McCain on the other hand is clearly the MSM’s pick. I don’t know any real republican or conservative that likes him, much less picked him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 04:44 PM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,591,926 times
Reputation: 3028
According to the actions of the DNC, yes he does. The argument with Michigan and Florida primary voting though is something that is very debatable, but it doesn't matter any more. Dems are okay with disenfrancisment of voters when it works the way they want it to. The rest of the time they go nuts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 04:46 PM
 
2,776 posts, read 3,954,902 times
Reputation: 3049
To the OP - None of he stuff in your second paragraph is true, and it's a shame you haven't deduced that on your own. Even if you are too lazy to research the facts on Obama yourself... think about it... if any of your accusations were actually true politicians and media would not support him.

Nonetheless Hillary Clinton would have been a great choice and more powerful opponent to McCain in my opinion. Alas her greatest asset was also her greatest weakness; Bill. The concept of a Clinton political dynasty freaks out a lot of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 04:47 PM
 
3,758 posts, read 8,417,819 times
Reputation: 873
Does it really matter at this point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 04:48 PM
 
2,857 posts, read 6,702,579 times
Reputation: 1747
I was a Hillary supporter during the primary season, and I thought the media was fairly balanced in its reporting. Obama got hammered for a few things and so did Hillary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 05:05 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,317 posts, read 22,296,928 times
Reputation: 18436
Utter nonsense. As a black man, Obama got LESS consideration and don't you believe otherwise. He has fought this his entire life and prevailed. He has not enjoyed the same considerations as Hillary or McCain or Palin. The media from the beginning was all for Hillary. The nomination was practically hers from the moment she announced her intention to run. She was so sure that she was going to win that her strategy was designed to go only until Super Tuesday. Not the decision-making skills of someone talented enough to be president. As she floundered, the media favored her and propped her up. She won a state she was supposed to win (Ohio), they said she was the "comeback kid." Long after it was evident that Obama was going to prevail, the media kept perpetuating the notion that Hillary had a chance with expected wins in West Virginia and PA. She was called a "fighter." During debates, she was favored, especially the final one where Obama was hammered. She engaged Obama in 22 debates and didn't make her case despite initially having the most money, the biggest and baddest political machine, despite being the wife of a popular former 2-term president. Spare us this crap about Hillary being beter suited. She lost to a candidate far her superior, someone who ran a superior campaign.

Don't blame the media for naturally gravitating towards the most dynamic candidate. They have been screaming for such an individual, especially after 8 years of Bush. This was not Hillary. She has never been a dynamic speaker, not on the scale of Obama. Neither was McCain.

About the anti-white nonsense, Obama is part white, and he has never expressed racist sentiments. He is not embraced by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. What a reach to suggest that he has an ulterior motive that is somehow anti-white and anti-American. Whether you care to recognize this or not, Obama was far superior to every person who ran for the office this year and the best candidate in recent memory. Get over the sour grapes and recognize that. You're in New England, you should know better for God's sake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 05:08 PM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,591,926 times
Reputation: 3028
Less consideration my ass. Barry has been promoted by the MSM 24/7 for 18 months now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 05:10 PM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,591,926 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus View Post
Don't blame the media for naturally gravitating towards the most dynamic candidate.
Thank you for at least being honest and admitting the media has supported Obama.

But in a fair and balanced media, they should not gravitate towards anyone. That is not their job and they are hacks for being agenda driven rather than truth driven.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Wilmington, NC
8,577 posts, read 7,798,803 times
Reputation: 835
lmao. democrats only have a problem with the system when it is 2000. gore won the popular vote, hillary won the popular vote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus View Post
Utter nonsense. As a black man, Obama got LESS consideration and don't you believe otherwise. He has fought this his entire life and prevailed. He has not enjoyed the same considerations as Hillary or McCain or Palin. The media from the beginning was all for Hillary. The nomination was practically hers from the moment she announced her intention to run. She was so sure that she was going to win that her strategy was designed to go only until Super Tuesday. Not the decision-making skills of someone talented enough to be president. As she floundered, the media favored her and propped her up. She won a state she was supposed to win (Ohio), they said she was the "comeback kid." Long after it was evident that Obama was going to prevail, the media kept perpetuating the notion that Hillary had a chance with expected wins in West Virginia and PA. She was called a "fighter." During debates, she was favored, especially the final one where Obama was hammered. She engaged Obama in 22 debates and didn't make her case despite initially having the most money, the biggest and baddest political machine, despite being the wife of a popular former 2-term president. Spare us this crap about Hillary being beter suited. She lost to a candidate far her superior, someone who ran a superior campaign.

Don't blame the media for naturally gravitating towards the most dynamic candidate. They have been screaming for such an individual, especially after 8 years of Bush. This was not Hillary. She has never been a dynamic speaker, not on the scale of Obama. Neither was McCain.

About the anti-white nonsense, Obama is part white, and he has never expressed racist sentiments. He is not embraced by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. What a reach to suggest that he has an ulterior motive that is somehow anti-white and anti-American. Whether you care to recognize this or not, Obama was far superior to every person who ran for the office this year and the best candidate in recent memory. Get over the sour grapes and recognize that. You're in New England, you should know better for God's sake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top