Originally Posted By friendofdd Bill Clinton has spent a lifetime being a friend to black people. He was called "The First Black President". He set up his retirement office in Harlem. Yet he finds himself having to defend against being called a racist. The weirdos on the far right can't do any better at eating their own than the weirdos on the far left. I've never been a Clinton supporter, but it is ridiculous he feels he has to make this defense. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/04/politics/main4318795.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...95.shtml</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux I read the article at the link, and nowhere do I see anyone calling clinton a racist, or even inferring it. In fact, he's in africa right now with his AIDS work. That said, he did make some unfortunate comments during the primary campaign. Rehashing it now seems pointless - like rev. wright and flag pins - these are stories that came and went a long time ago. The context of this story is the clinton's complaining about perceived disparities between the press coverage of obama and hillary. The clinton's were not shy about making their case, but that's a long way from "racism". Further, I don't know of any responsible representative of the 'vicious left' who honestly believes that either clinton is racist.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Thanks, gadzuux. I heard about this on an hourly radio newscast today, so when I googled I picked CBS as being a report that would be on top of things. If you are right and it is old stuff, I now have to wonder what he is doing referencing "old stuff". Perhaps you can tell me if it was the right or left that accused him of racism.
Originally Posted By friendofdd I've been reading some of the other reports. Apparently during the primaries, a black accused him of racism and this is a follow up of that to ABC during an interview. Guess it is fairly easy for reporters to get him riled these days.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I don't think anyone is accusing him of racism. Apparently he granted an interview to the morning show on ABC, and they asked him about earlier comments - From your link above >> Clinton ... charged that news organizations applied "a different standard" to his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. But when asked about it an interview broadcast Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America," the former president said that spending time on such recriminations "interferes with the issue, which is who should be elected in November." << >> Asked in the interview whether he blames himself for his wife's loss, Clinton replied, "I've heard it from the press and I will not comment on it. ... There are things I wished I said. Things I wished I hadn't said, but I am not a racist. I never made a racist comment and I didn't attack him personally." Nevertheless, Clinton did say he thought news organizations covered his wife more harshly than Obama. "A different standard was applied to the finest candidate I ever supported," he said. << You'd have to extrapolate his comments about the differences in press treatment and ascribe them to racism. There WERE some comments during the SC primary, when bill clinton infamously dismissed obama's win against hillary by saying that jesse jackson had won the state previously - implying that SC will fold for any ol' black candidate.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Nevertheless, Clinton did say he thought news organizations covered his wife more harshly than Obama. "A different standard was applied to the finest candidate I ever supported," he said.*** So many years later and still paying the price. Poor Bill.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <***Nevertheless, Clinton did say he thought news organizations covered his wife more harshly than Obama. "A different standard was applied to the finest candidate I ever supported," he said.*** So many years later and still paying the price. Poor Bill. < it doesn't matter whois running against Obamathey will get less coverage same was true of Hillary - Bill rightly complained about it but it did them nogood either. Of course I know - the coverage is fair and it's just peoples perception of the coverage. Chicago Sun Times one day last week- 7 stories on Obama, 1 on Mc Cain.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < Chicago Sun Times one day last week- 7 stories on Obama, 1 on Mc Cain.> I wonder what the count was in the Arizona Republic. In the paper I tend to read on the subway, the policy is very clear; for every story on McCain, there's one for Obama, even if one of them didn't do much that day.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Obama went on an international tour, McCain stayed home and jeered everything he did or said. I'm all for equal coverage IF there is merit for it.
Originally Posted By Mr X Excellent point, Dabob. Has anyone done any "official" measurements? Oh yeah. Someone did. That was SuperDry. He pointed out some VERY interesting facts about how it was the right wingers who were harping on all this "Obamamania" stuff, while the regular media was rather quiet as Drudge, Fox, and others still had Obama as "top story du jour". Seems everyone missed SuperDrys (typically) unbiased observations.
Originally Posted By friendofdd An analysis from just before Obama's trip as reported on NPR. However it covers the three big networks only. <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92642064" target="_blank">http://www.npr.org/templates/s...92642064</a>
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Also, lately, even if I see a story about Obama, they are not alwasy positive. Take this one on AOL this morning... It linked to an interview at a site called "Humanevents.com". It's an interview with the auther of a new "anti-Obama" book, and it's interesing, but definately NOT a glowing endorsement. Here's the link. <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27865&s=rcme" target="_blank">http://www.humanevents.com/art...5&s=rcme</a>
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 You know, something struck me in the article friendofdd linked to. I do wonder if some of the reason Obama gets more coverage (positive or negative) is because he's new. McCain has been around and has also run for president before, so people are familiar with him. So maybe the newness is not there for McCain, but since many had not heard about Obama before, they are trying to find out just who he is and what he's about. I hadn't thought about that before, but it could explain why people feel coverage is so lopsided.
Originally Posted By planodisney Are you guys serious? Realy? You honestly watch cable and network news as well as pop culture programming and you have noticed the love affair for obama, NOT AT ALL? Are you kidding me. They don't even attempt tp hide it anymore. MSNBC doesnt just tilt a little left, they have become defenders of every little charge against obama, and do nothing but question McCain. The Obamapalooza tour was unbelievable. The liberal media, which make up the VAST majority, are head over heels for the guy and for the idea of the first black president. They don't care if he is qualified or not, but many of them think that just being the most liberal candidate to ever represent one of the two major parties is enough to please them. Experience or no experience, deep character or not.
Originally Posted By hopemax I posted this in another thread, but since there was only a little response to it. So did anyone else see the results of the study by The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University. This is the same group that reported the "liberal media-bias," a few years ago. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/po...99.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/po...99.story</a> "During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative. Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center." Also from the article: "That was a reversal of the trend during the primaries, when the same researchers found that 64% of statements about Obama -- new to the political spotlight -- were positive, but just 43% of statements about McCain were positive." Now, there is the other study from the Tyndall Report, that showed Obama has been receiving twice the amount of air time as McCain. But it doesn't seem to be that Obama is the one benefiting from "positive press," certainly not anymore.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn I bet Obama, Clinton or McCain would have trouble even defining racism
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The Obamapalooza tour was unbelievable. The liberal media, which make up the VAST majority, are head over heels for the guy and for the idea of the first black president. They don't care if he is qualified or not, but many of them think that just being the most liberal candidate to ever represent one of the two major parties is enough to please them.<< I keep hearing these kinds of vast accusations by people on the right without a single shred of evidence to back it up. Again, truthiness at its best. But when hopemax posts actual data from an actual research firm that completely obliterates this right-wing fantasy of the "Obama Lovefest" it's completely ignored. At best, all the right has offered is anecdotal stories about how "I was watching the news the other night..." (which is about as helpful as "It was cold here today - so much for global warming, huh!). Usually, they're like plano's posts with lots of accusations and no evidence.
