Which candidate, if any, has been hurt the most by the media?

[antiimperialist]

Poll question: Which candidate, if any, has been hurt the most by the media?

Please state the name of the candidate who has been hurt the most by unfair media criticism ahead of the Democratic and Republican primaries.

[Colobo]

1. Edwards.

[flvegan]

2. Kucinich, due to unfair media coverage (noncoverage)

Best for the job, largely overlooked as we once again let the MSM and right choose our candidates for us.

[antiimperialist]

3. You have a good point

I didn't even included him at first. I just put him in, due to his great support in DU.

[wyldwolf]

4. oh, two answers: Kucinich for lack of coverage, Clinton for 15 years of negative coverage

[Colobo]

6. So the coverage Hillary has recieved during this campaign is negative?

[wyldwolf]

16. much of it, yes

[antiimperialist]

7. I didn't really mean Hil criticism from the 90's

Try to focus on this campaign.

[napi21]

5. I'd say Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul. They were demonized from the start!

They either received NO COVERAGE or negative coverage.

[CTD]

8. Edwards has been unfairly attacked and Hillary has received a huge (undeserved) pass

How anyone can honestly say they think the media has hurt Hillary is beyond me. Without the "inevitable" meme, she's be mid-pack at best.

However, any shot the media can take at Edwards they do. Haircut...house...exploiting his wife's cancer...bullshit... bullshit... bullshit...

[jillan]

9. Michelle Obama. ouch

[Vincardog]

10. Dennis Kucinich because of unfair media labeling and Non coverage

[BenDavid]

11. HRC, because the media

does not stick to the facts, and they would have no angle to write about. So the MSM invents shit, creates nouns and verbs that don't exist, then they demand that HRC explain their fabrications, lies and distortions. If a liberal in MS. knows the MSM is lying, doesn't everybody? You all want an example then remember back earlier this week when the MSN reported that HRC said "the surge is working" The New York (whore) Times, Washington Times, CNN, MSNBC, Fox just a few stated that HRC was quoted as saying "the surge is working". TRUTH is, she did not say that. HRC said, "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working." And the MSM inserted their own take by writing or saying HRC said "the surge is working"....HRC didn't say Monday to the Vets that the troop buildup is "working" any more than she said seven months ago "that the surge 'cannot be successful.'" What she said was "I hope that we can start having a discussion in the Congress among ourselves ... and with the administration that will lead to a change of course, and not adding more troops, pursuing a strategy that, under present circumstances, cannot be successful." The AP which usually gets it wrong reported it and as I said many times, you can tell a lie about HRC and it will be reported as truth a 1000 times within the hour. AND IF ANYONE USES THE WEBSITE WEHATECLINTONS, that is like getting news from Fox News.....

BTW, the title to this horseshit column that has made me mad and am thankful that someone posted this poll is "Hillary's War,". As if Edwards, Biden, Kerry and the majority of the senate Democrats tried to stop her, but Hillary's well-documented blood lust would not be sated until all the little children were dead.

Is this all they have? They invent lies and demand that she explain them? Trust me, you can't beat a Clinton with lies and stupidity. You'll have to do a lot better than this if you plan to stop her. Arianna, and the Huffinton Post and their screwball writers will do everything in their power to stop the Democratic front-runner. IF Hillary falters( doubt it) and, say, Obama becomes the nominee, will Arianna and the HP then give us her litany of lies about Obama? About Edwards?

If you notice in the artice by Mike Gravel, (WHY I HATE HILLARY) he doesn't quote her as saying that, he quotes others quoting her. That's a damn cowardly way to run a losing campaign. Where are ya, Mike? Have you reached one percent yet? If Hillary is the anti-Christ that Gravel and Arianna and the HP and right wingers claim she is, why do they have to fabricate quotes to make her look bad? If she's so wrong for America, why not quote her correctly instead of making shit up? If you can't beat her with the truth, go ahead and lie. After all, it's politics, right?

I do thank you
Ben David

[rinsd]

12. Edwards. The haircut crap put him in a hole he has yet to climb out of.

[FrenchieCat]

13. 1. Kucinich......because even bad press is better than no press.

2. Biden/Dodd/Gravel - Media is not giving them enough information for the electorate to go by. They have been cast as 2nd tier Washingtonian old timers. The press will continue on that road.

3. Richardson - too soon to tell. He could be a late bloomer, but his debate appearances are not helping him at this point. The immigration issue really has hurt him in a personal way, in that many are not interested in an Hispanic President (they are interested in a woman or an African-American candidate much more) from a border state, and the media is complying by not reporting on him very much, while the border/immigration issue and its complexities continues on.

4. Obama has been defined as an inexperienced "rock star"--This has helped in a short run by increasing the curiosity quotient and his fundraising ability, but it has also cornered him as a one dimensional candidate with the inexperienced label looming over him. His appeal is to the youth and to minorities who believe that change in a big way is required and is the key to their future. However, his rock star status will not help him in a long run due to the expectation game giving him nowhere to go but down and possibly back up and then maybe back down. In other words, the media can make or break him if he doesn't respond well each time they hit him to drive his numbers down. The fact that he is still much of a blank slate and lack specifities on domestic issues is a double edge sword that could play badly during the primary, but could play well during a general election; no flip flops to attack and the ability to roll out something new and make headlines.

5. Hillary has been defined as polarizing but experienced. She has gotten beaucoup media forever, lots good, much bad. This attention has helped her name recognition factor, but has hurt in the favorability area, as folks have an opinion of her one way or another. The non-activists who listen to her and enjoyed the 90s are easily converted to her. She's been consistent in her views, and that will hurt her in the primaries...because of what those views are, but would help her in the General, as she takes moderate views and will not have to "adjust" or "rephrase" her primary pronouncements for the general electorate. The media will make the attacks personal, and will most likely go after Bill's record and call it Hillary's record, but that won't work (see Bill's approval rating during impeachment). the Dynasty issue will become more and more talked about, but it has been neutralized by the fact that many liked Bill Clinton as President.


6. Edwards is getting mixed press. On the one hand he has been labeled as a "populist who cares about poverty" while on the other hand he's been accused of Hypocracy for his wealth and how he has made it and used it (the 3 Hs). However, in truth, nationally, he is positioned just below the radar (bottom of the top tier) in terms of roaring headline type press which is good for the time being....because he is not being overexposed nor has he been totally ignored (hence his top tier status). Positive stories about his wife's health helped him because that was a widely covered national story done on a positive note for the most part. Because his press from the time he placed in Iowa in '04 till right prior his announcement have been largely positive, he is actually getting the best of all worlds; enough press to have kept his name viable, but not enough press to position him for demolition. Being the status quo candidate in appearance and geography is a plus for voters who feel that this country is not ready for change and this will become a bigger and bigger positive for him as the primaries get closer (for voters wanting to "play it safe"), even if he doesn't talk about this advantage (which I recommend be his approach) as it is already evident. Edwards' adjustment from a moderate to a liberal platform between the two campaigns ('04 vs. '08) that he has run will become a liability during a general election, and he will be forced to "Clarify" some his his pronouncements and runs the risk of being labeled a flip/flopper by the press if he gets the nom (but the press will save this labeling for the GE).

That is all, and of course simply my opinion! :)

[penguin7]

14. Your title is right on.

The rest of your post is pretty good also.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Clinton and Obama's flip-flops will also be GE liabilities

To think the right-wing will ignore their numerous flip-flops is not realistic, although many Obama supporters seem to think BO is immune from being called on his flip-flops.

[FrenchieCat]

22. You should list these "flip-flops" that would become liabilities

during the GE. I'm curious as to what they are.

Thanks!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. The fact this question even has to be asked is very telling

Clinton's have often been brought up here, mostly by BO fans, so there is no need to rehash that. I have to go soon so here is a short list for Obama:

1) Sponsored an $8 billion bill when going to bat for the coal industry on liquid coal (very anti-environment) in the summer of 2006. 6 months later he votes against the same bill when he is running for prez and under pressure from environmental groups. Later in the same week votes for another pro-coal bill with a token mention in the bill of reducing carbon emissions. He then apparently returned to his pro-coal position in the YouTube debate.

2) Changed his position on meeting with foreign leaders of hostile states 5 times in 6 days. Not only is this flip-flopping, it strongly reinforces the perception that he is not ready to be president.

3) Was against a timetable for withdrawal before he was for it (when he began running for president). Six months prior he had voted against a bill advocating his new position.

4) Skirted an ethics law in Illinois that he takes credit for by sending out a de facto campaign mailing at taxpayer expense ($17,000) just days before the law would take effect and ban such mailings. This goes to his "principle" on ethics as well.

5) For funding the war before he was against it. He used to claim it was to support the troops. Perversely, using his own past logic, that means his last vote (again when running for prez and under pressure from liberal primary voters) was against the troops.

6) Was for "paygo" (until he began running for prez) and at YearlyKos switched to "he's not going to sacrifice his domestic priorities for deficit reduction. Universal health care, renewable energy, and all he rest won't be sacrificed on the altar of PAYGO."

This is just a short list and 5 of them occurred in the last 12 months. This is quite a solid record of flip-flops for someone with such a brief record. Obama smartly opted to run now and on his personality instead of waiting until 2012 or 2016 when he would have a fairly lengthy record that could be attacked.

There is also his 20+ years proclivity to straddle both sides of issues, which would surely be attacked (i.e. he is afraid to take a stand on things and wants to be everything to everyone) . For instance, the Pentagon budget "may" need to be increased.

[FrenchieCat]

29. In my opinion, your list is immaterial

and meager to say the least. All can be mitigated accordingly. The 20+ year proclivity to straddle both sides of the issues is a phrase that sounds to be of your own making. But good try anyways! :)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. Our opinions don't matter on this. What the Republicans will use does

Immaterial? He was whoring for the coal industry (at the expense of the environment) to the tune of $8 billion and then flip-flopped when he began to run for prez? No big deal? I guess if you think corporate whoring and the climate crisis mean nothing. He was for funding the war and then against it (when he began to run for prez). No big deal? Against a timetable for withdrawal before he was for it (when he began to run for prez). Immaterial? He changed positions 5 times on 6 days on meeting without preconditions for foreign leaders. No big deal? The right-wing will not cite this as something that shows he cannot be trusted to run the country? For ethics--a signature issue for him--he violated the spirit of the law he takes credit for, all the while taking the taxpayers to the cleaners to further his campaign for senate. Do you think that won't be an issue? He is running to a significant extent on "changing the ways of Washington" and cites his ethics record to support it. This is kind of a big hole in his ethics record, especially given the hype surrounding that Illinois bill. Paygo is no biggie? He is willing to play politics with the budget?

==The 20+ year proclivity to straddle both sides of the issues is a phrase that sounds to be of your own making.==

You never heard of it because it is packaged as a plus by his slick marketing team and the corporate media never questions it. They present it as his ability to see all sides of the issue. Republicans can easily paint it as him having no principles and trying to be everything to everyone. This is further bolstered by him ducking taking a stand on issues repeatedly. He voted "present" half the time on abortion-related bills in the state legislature, he dodged answering a question about whether homosexuality is immoral three times and then issued a weak statement after a fury of rage from the netroots and GLBT community, he did not take a stand during the weeks after *'s veto of Reid-Feingold and voted at the last second to name a few classics. Obama's biggest weakness is his inexperience. If the Republicans can successfully paint him as someone who is also not a leader that would severely damage his candidacy.

With respect to flip-flops in general, the lists on the netroots hardly have the same effect in the other 98% of the country. You don't even hear of some of the sacred bills on the netroots elsewhere. There is no magic list of relevant issues. The Republicans will do whatever they can to push a narrative of our nominee being a flip-flopper, since it worked so well in 2004 and a lesser extent in 2000, unless they nominate Romney.

Obama supporters tend to have trouble recognizing that not everyone looks at things through Camp Obama certified glasses. If it meets Axlerod's narrative, there is no contrary view that can be legitimate. If Obama wins the nomination his supporters--and the rest of us--are in for a rude awakening.

[FrenchieCat]

33. I disagree with you on this.......

and your making moutains out of molehills is not going to be effective. Republicans will certainly have ammunition to use against Obama, but unfortunately for you, I highly doubt that it will be the "flip-flopper" tag......too much to have to twist in order to get it done. With Edwards on the other hand it will be an elementary task that will be kept simple in a way that the general populace will understand.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. We'll see. The point is the "flip-flopper" card can easily be used against any politican

The biggest thing they can use that card against Edwards on is Iraq (which they can--and will--use against everyone aside from Kucinich, the only consistently anti-war candidate). The reality is no one outside of the netroots knows or cares about the other 2-3 votes cherry-picked out of the hundreds of votes he cast in 6 years. Iraq, though, can be used against him. The problem? Roughly 40% of the country once supported the war and now opposes it. This isn't 2004. If anything, those who call the 40% who supported the war at various points and now oppose it and the 30% that still supports it "naive and irresponsible" are shooting themselves in the electoral foot, especially since the small slice of the population that, like Dennis Kucinich, has always opposed the war is going to vote heavily Democratic anyway.

You seem to have forgotten about 2004. One thing they used against Kerry to paint him as a flip-flopper was an otherwise obscure issue, his comments on Israel's wall/fence. If they used that surely they will use Obama flip-flopping on a fundamental issue relating to the climate crisis and Mr. "the ways of washington must change" whoring for the coal industry to the tune of $8 billion while they are at it. Everyone agrees Iraq flip-flops will be used. You will probably invoke the IWR to claim that makes him immune from criticism on Iraq but you should be well are of the damage that can be done to a candidate who makes contradictory statements on Iraq even if he opposed the war in 2002. If this were not the case perhaps we would not be sitting here talking about this right now...

They don't need the flip-flopper card as much against Obama. The main theme against him will be that he is not up to the job (all they would have to do is compare his 2 years of experience to every other prez. Lincoln is an exception but if BO surrogates compare him to Lincoln in the GE that will be more of a joke than Quayle comparing himself to JFK. I doubt BO's camp would even try it in the GE.), and him changing his position 5 times in 6 days on meeting without preconditions with leaders of hostile states is going to be exhibit A in that argument. His reluctance to take a stand on issues and trying to give something to everyone on an issue will also be used to paint him as not ready to guide the ship of state. We learned this in 2004 when Kerry was falsely painted that way. Unfortunately, Obama actually is like this. All they would have to do is quote his book where he repeatedly does this.

They can also use the hypocrisy issue against him. Look at what he did on ethics that I mentioned earlier. He also talks before the cameras about an "empathy deficit" and the need for compassion for others but he gave less than 1/5 the national average to charity (he gave 0.4%, the average is 2.2%, even Cheney gives more) until 2005 when he became a senator with eyes on the White House. This will definitely be used, because, as former Chris Lehane said they "lead to a 'naked moment' for those politicians by giving voters a glimpse of what they're like outside the limelight." Fortunately for you and other BO fans, the national media has buried this along with other not-so-great things about their darling. However, they will be sure to surface in the GE, though.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. Who's voting for Hillary?

It's obvious to me that the media is pushing her candidacy hard. That doesn't mean they LIKE her but I don't think they LIKE any Dem candidate. The net effect of the media on HRC's campaign has been positive by far - she wouldn't BE the frontrunner without the media treating her as if she's one of two candidates who actually matters.

I voted for Edwards because ALL of his attention has been negative and petty, but Kucinich is a very close second because the media wants to pretend that he and his viewpoints are so extreme and unpopular when that is NOT the case. More importantly, they fail utterly to categorize extreme right-wing sentiments as "radical" or "unelectable," and most of the Republican candidates are further right than Kucinich is left.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Actually, Edwards got quite a bit of favorable press

when he announced that his wife had cancer. Those reports were neither negative(except for a couple from some extremist RW) nor petty. I realize that this is a tragedy, but it did help his image more than anything else that I can think of, and was covered more than everything else about that campaign except for the haircut.

Just check googles mentions on this topic and see.....: http://www.google.com/search?q=john+edwards%2C+cancer%2C+wife&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. Which says it all. The only time he has gotten widespread positive press was when it...

...had zero to do with his platform.

[saracat]

21. But they also "victimized" Elisabeth and painted John as a crass opportunist

who "used" his wife's illness.Not favorable press by MY definition.

[WildEyedLiberal]

23. He didn't get the favorable coverage - Elizabeth did

In fact, he was criticized for continuing his campaign in the face of her diagnosis by the media, who did the usual rightwing talking points "SOME people say John Edwards should drop out of the race to concentrate on his wife's health" or "SOME people say Edwards is being an opportunist about this..." ignoring that those SOME people are evil Limbaugh and RNC bots.

[illinoisprogressive]

27. Edwards was our vp nominee in 04, so why wasn't he the frontrunner at the start

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. HRC has the name ID of an incumbent prez and the corporate media hyped Obama for 3 years...

...while Edwards essentially disappeared from the news during 2005-2006. Has Edwards ever been on the cover of Newsweek, for instance? Obama was--before he achieved a single thing in the Senate (Jan. of 2005). On his first day in the Senate the CMSM asked him what his legacy would be. :wtf: He just got there!

[saracat]

19. I absolutely agree. Hillary has been "anointed " nominee by the media and is

given a pass on everything. I have not seen ANY negative coverage of Hillary.Even the recent concealment of her records has been buried. And they have been dismissive and nasty to Kucinich,The only candidates they have given any real coverage to are Obama and Hillary.

[illinoisprogressive]

28. Don;'t forget how she was called majestic when she was boo'd at that debate.

[Progressive Friend]

25. Dennis Kucinich is bashed the most by the corporate media

Because he is the biggest threat to their wealthy owners' economic interests.

[illinoisprogressive]

26. Can;t decide between Edwards and obama. Only Hillary is getting a free pass

[Look My Way]

32. This is the stupidest poll I ever saw, you omitted Joe Biden and others.

Biden was crucified when he called Obama "clean", which in my world is simply a synonym for honest! Hillary, Obama and Edwards have received a free ride and numerous boosts from the Media. Lets be honest.