What Has The Media Come To?

Last Night on Anderson Cooper 360, CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin seemingly admitted that those higher up in the media put tremendous pressure on the press corps to report favorably on the President in the run up to the war. Here's the video via HuffingtonPost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/29/cnns-yellin-on-run-up-to_n_104058.html

And a direct quote from Jessica Yellin:
"And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives -- and I was not at this network at the time -- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president."

In my last blog post I accused the media of not doing their job, as in not acting as the "government watchdog". This is just another perfect example of the media not doing its job. Like in the Scott McClellan issue, Jessica Yellin just said what a lot of people (or those on the left) have been thinking: corporate executives had put tremendous pressure on reporters and the press corps to report the President in a positive light. Granted this was when the government was making the case for the war and when his favorability rating was at a high. The execs were more concerned about their image (and money of course) and did not want to be seen us unpatriotic and such.

A concern about image should not be a problem. The media should not be a mouthpiece for the Whitehouse. This is not a Communist or Fascist nation. The five major networks, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Fox News (they're barely a news organization) needs to report to the American people, no to government elites. Hopefully that will change in the future. At least now the internet has become vitally important in how news is reported.



And in lighter news, Rupert Murdoch, the unassuming conservative mogul of Fox, has just said Obama will win in the general and called McCain "unpredictable." Here's video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/rupert-murdoch-says-obama_b_104018.html

Rules Are Rules

The rules are the rules, whether the Clinton campaign likes it or not. Before the primary season started, the DNC, made up of Clinton loyalist and supporters, created the rules that the Clinton campaign is now currently in dispute about. Both candidates signed pledges not to campaign in Michigan and Florida because of them breaking the rules in jumping forward before the 4 approved states. Michigan knowingly broke the law, while Florida had no choice because the Republican-controlled government moved up the primary date. The result was that both states were stripped of all their delegates. No one complained about this (unless you were either Michigan or Florida) and the ruling stood...until Clinton started losing.

Clinton was on record in saying that the Michigan primary "was not going to count for anything." And what happen when she failed to knock Obama out of the race on Feb. 5th (where she thought she would lock up the nomination)? All of a sudden she wanted Michigan and Florida to be seated, knowing full well that that was going to be her best chance to win the nomination.

The most annoying thing about this was that the rules was written by people who now support Clinton. Why then has she done a total 360? Because she is a sore loser. They tried to pit the blame on Obama for this debacle, saying that he disenfranchising millions of voters. That allegation was totally absurd. The ones the Clinton campaign should be blaming should be the respective state governments. What in the world were they thinking in knowingly breaking the law? Would the DNC have just turned a blind eye? That did not happen, and now the Clinton cmap is crying foul.

Pit the Blame on the Michigan and Florida governments. They were the ones who broke the laws, they were the ones who disenfranchised millions of voters. Kind of ironic that the race has gone on for this long that the two states would still relevant and extremely important in picking a nominee. See, sometimes just waiting could bring good things. And what happens when you do not wait? Clinton camp whines like a baby...

Thrown Under The Bus

Scott McClellan, former Whitehouse spokesmen for Bush from 2003 to 2006, has just thrown President Bush (and Cheney, Rice, Rove, the whole Administration) under the bus, or more frankly, a freight train. In a new book coming today, McClellan details his time as press secretary, and has some scathing words and accusations towards the Bush Administration. From various news sites (Washington Post, Politico), McClellan described Bush as "out-of-touch", used "propoganda" to sell the war to the American people, among other things.

Of course the Whitehouse fired back, calling him "disgruntled". Rove called him a "left wing blogger" while Ari Fleischer was heartbroken.

And the most amazing thing, the MSM was shocked by this revelation, a "bombshell" of sorts.

Is it just now that the media FINALLY found out that the government was using propaganda to create support for the war? Isn't the job of the media is to be a watchdog to the government? The media is finally reporting what bloggers have been reporting for a while already. What made this story more powerful (or compelled the media to report it) was that it was from someone inside the Administration, someone who knew (for the most part) the inside dealings of the Administration. Apparently McClellan was more credible than a couple of speculating bloggers.

Sadly though, this is a case of "too little, too late." If he had misgivings, I mean ANY, he should have confided to someone. Then again, he might have been fired. If the latter, then he could've gone to the media to express his case and blow the whistle on the Administration. The damage has already been done with the disaster of a war going on 5 years already and the Administration still not held accountable by the media (Scooter Libby case and the Valerie Plame case). If the media is accussed to be "liberal" by conservatives, why then hasn't the media hold the Bush Administration accountable. We can't have a media that is scared of the government when the media is suppose to "police" what the government does. This Scott MCClellan issue should have been a big issue couple of years agao, not now.

On To The General Election

Now that Barack Obama seems like the likely presidential nominee for the Democratic Party (as if there was any doubt), much of the media has focused on the growing battle between Obama and McCain. In most of his speeches, Obama has attacked McCain for not supporting the New G.I. Bill put forward by Senate colleague (and potential V.P.) Jim Webb of Virginia, the ongoing war in Iraq, and of course, the economy. Obama, to the best of his campaign, has tried to link McCain to Bush, in hopes of trying to make McCain seems like another Bush term if he were elected. McCain, has fired back calling Obama "naive" and "inexperienced". These back and forth attacks have been going on for almost a month now, as the media has begun to focus on these two candidates, rendering Hillary Clinton as just another news story.

In one of my earlier blog post, I noted how Obama could win the general election in a variety of ways. Recently, there have been posts out regarding several key battleground states. Here are some of the states.

From SurveyUSA: http://surveyusa.com/

Iowa (5/21-22)
O: 47
M: 38

Ohio (5/16-18)
O: 48
M: 39

Virginia (5/16-18)
O: 49
M: 42

Pennsylvania (5/16-18)
O: 48
M: 40

As seen by the above polls, Obama will have a somewhat easy time in getting the nomination. If Obama wins all the Kerry states, he can manage to lose Ohio and Florida by winning Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado, all states in which polling show Obama is currently winning. So far, it looks like the long primary fight is not hurting Obama too much just yet. Obama should do a lot better in polls when Obama finally becomes the clear nominee.

Now It's Obama's Fault?

Found this on the Washington Post's blog site:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2008/05/clinton_camp_stokes_rfk_flap_b.html?nav=rss_email/components

Clinton Camp Stokes RFK Flap by Blaming Obama

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama's campaign of fanning a controversy over her describing the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy late in the 1968 Democratic primary as one reason she is continuing to run for the presidency.

"The Obama campaign ... tried to take these words out of context," Clinton campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said on "Fox News Sunday." "She was making a point merely about the time line."


That small excerpt there shows a desperate campaign gasping for its last breath. So their spin machine is now trying to put the blame on Obama for her RFK remarks. Terry McAuliffe and Howard Wolfson have been the laughing stock of her campaign. Their spins are getting so ridiculous that it is on the verge of outrageous and comedic. Obama had already made a statement saying that he will take her word, and that he believed that it was just a case of someone choosing some unfortunate words (take for example his "bitter" remarks, which the Clinton campaign gladly fanned to the media). It is the Clinton campaign flailing wildly, hoping to land a blow to Obama, or hoping he commits a major gaffe in the near future.

It is not Obama's fault that Hillary committed the increible gaffe. Trying to pit the blame on Obama just sunk and already sinking campaign into further oblivion.

Clinton Makes Reference To Obama Assassination

What in the world is Hillary Clinton trying to say? Yes it is fine to make a reference to Bill Clinton's nomination not being final until June in 1992, but why on earth would she bring up Robert Kennedy's assassination? What was the point?

I think it is clear what she was trying to say. Technically, she's trying to say that she will stay in the race just in case Obama gets assassinated. I don't know what other point she is trying to make. She should know full well how sensitive this issue is, especially when there's an African American and Woman running for president. This is a major gaffe on her part. Or maybe she knew full well what she was saying. But whatever the implication, this has to be one of the dumbest things ever said in American politics.

The "White Working Class"

By now we have heard all of the MSM claiming that Obama has trouble with the "white working class". The more I hear them saying this, I had to ask myself: Does Obama really have a problem with this group? The simple answer: NO. Saying that he has a problem with this group is a grave oversimplification. Instead, Obama's trouble is more geographic than demographic.

Perfect example of this would be the Oregon and Kentucky primaries. As expected, Obama won Oregon easily, Clinton winning Kentucky easily. What is worth noting is that Obama won every age demographic except those over 60. And how about those white working class voters that the MSM love to talk about? He won those also. Here's the link to the exit polls:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#ORDEM

Where Obama does have a problem is in the Appalachia region. If you look at the CNN website...

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

The states (and counties) in the Appalachia region went heavily for Clinton. However, outside this region Obama has done relatively well among this group (Wisconsin is a perfect example).

So MSM, stop with all this BS. Obama does not have a problem with the white working class. He has a problem with people in the Appalachia region.