Comments on: What Is The ‘Change We Can Believe In?’ http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/02/08/what-is-the-change-we-can-believe-in/ As The Media Watches The World, We Watch The Media Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:54:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Bev http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/02/08/what-is-the-change-we-can-believe-in/#comment-11783 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:16:42 +0000 http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/02/08/what-is-the-change-we-can-believe-in/#comment-11783 Rachel, just wanted to add this. I've heard so many folks - in media and out of media - hammer Clinton for her vote on the Iraq invasion and subsequent funding. Two things - do you recall how this country howled for bloodlust and revenge following 9/11? To my very feeble recollection, about the only voice that came out strongly against the invasion was Paul Wellstone. (ah the should have beens. . .) Given the time, the place, and the rampant sense of grief, anger, and helplessness, it makes sense to me that the entire NY congressional contingent voted for the war. . . Mr. Obama was in Illinois and his "I would have voted against the war" comments are nothing more than sophistry. Given his voting record in the Illinois house, I suspect he might have voted "present" so as not to anger his pro-war constituents who may have been directly affected by the 9/11 attacks. I think if we hammer anyone for their vote on that issue, we must first look to ourselves - and honestly face the feelings conjured in us by those attacks. every time I see the footage from the day, I feel that flare of anger. . .then deep grief - not just for the loss of life that day, but for how we squandered even more lives for nothing more than petty useless revenge. Rachel, just wanted to add this. I’ve heard so many folks - in media and out of media - hammer Clinton for her vote on the Iraq invasion and subsequent funding. Two things - do you recall how this country howled for bloodlust and revenge following 9/11? To my very feeble recollection, about the only voice that came out strongly against the invasion was Paul Wellstone. (ah the should have beens. . .) Given the time, the place, and the rampant sense of grief, anger, and helplessness, it makes sense to me that the entire NY congressional contingent voted for the war. . . Mr. Obama was in Illinois and his “I would have voted against the war” comments are nothing more than sophistry. Given his voting record in the Illinois house, I suspect he might have voted “present” so as not to anger his pro-war constituents who may have been directly affected by the 9/11 attacks. I think if we hammer anyone for their vote on that issue, we must first look to ourselves - and honestly face the feelings conjured in us by those attacks. every time I see the footage from the day, I feel that flare of anger. . .then deep grief - not just for the loss of life that day, but for how we squandered even more lives for nothing more than petty useless revenge.

]]> by: Bev http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/02/08/what-is-the-change-we-can-believe-in/#comment-11782 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:08:22 +0000 http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/02/08/what-is-the-change-we-can-believe-in/#comment-11782 As a democrat, I was very excited as the potential field of candidates emerged. . . and became quickly disillusioned as the media focused only on the role of gender vs race - and in my opinion, redirected the democratic race away from issues. Now with the coronation of Obama edging closer each day, I find myself without any sort of political curiousity about any of the candidates. I feel as if the tactic of embedding and controlling the media during the Iraq invasion has moved the 4th estate from the gatehouse to the scullery. Still not sure what the change is that Obama bleats about (aren't most presidential elections about some aspect of change?); I'm tired of watching HRC having to defend herself against charges that she's too feminine, not feminine enough, too smart, not smart enough, too fashionable, not fashionable enough. . .and McCain continues to rattle his saber and slash out against whatever enemy his handlers point out to him. Issues? The way the candidates are running, there are no issues - so that makes me wonder, why do we need a change? As a democrat, I was very excited as the potential field of candidates emerged. . . and became quickly disillusioned as the media focused only on the role of gender vs race - and in my opinion, redirected the democratic race away from issues. Now with the coronation of Obama edging closer each day, I find myself without any sort of political curiousity about any of the candidates. I feel as if the tactic of embedding and controlling the media during the Iraq invasion has moved the 4th estate from the gatehouse to the scullery. Still not sure what the change is that Obama bleats about (aren’t most presidential elections about some aspect of change?); I’m tired of watching HRC having to defend herself against charges that she’s too feminine, not feminine enough, too smart, not smart enough, too fashionable, not fashionable enough. . .and McCain continues to rattle his saber and slash out against whatever enemy his handlers point out to him. Issues? The way the candidates are running, there are no issues - so that makes me wonder, why do we need a change?

]]> by: Rachele E. Levy http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/02/08/what-is-the-change-we-can-believe-in/#comment-11204 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:25:57 +0000 http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/02/08/what-is-the-change-we-can-believe-in/#comment-11204 What makes me angriest is that the msm has essentially chosen the candidates. Because of the need to drum up drama, the only two candidates that they concentrated on were Clinton and Obama. Yes, it is a wonderful thing that we have the first woman and the first African-American to run for President. However, as Paul Krugman so eloquently wrote about Monday in the NYT op-ed, Clinton is judged far more harshly than she deserves, with Democrats who support Obama slamming her even more than the GOP. In the meantime Obama is given rock star treatment and has huge screaming crowds sort of reminiscent of Beatlemania back in the 60's and probably not far from that in hysterical devotion to his personality. Obama is threatening to split the Democratic Party in two if he looses the nomination--saying that his supporters will probably not support Senator Clinton. He also wants to change the rules regarding the super delegates. The MSM has basically given him a pass and have not really dug into his history--especially re Rezko, Excelon and the back door money he does receive from lobbyists through a manipulation of the definition--far worse, I think, than the definition of what "is" is. Mean, plain old hypocrisy. On the other hand, I can't say I'm totally thrilled about Clinton--still can't get my head around her vote to authorize Bush on Iraq. But I do have to hand it to her on toughness and on experience. I do believe she will be a strong negotiator when it comes to getting policies done the way we would like to see. Now, if only the Democrats can get more than 60 Senators in the next election! We have the House. But having the WH and the House is not good enough to undo all the damage the GOP has done to this country. I especially want to see that smirk wiped off Lieberman's face and would love to see him grovel to the Democrats, the little rat. If I see him one more time standing behind McCain I think I'll scream. Anyway, enough of this rant. What makes me angriest is that the msm has essentially chosen the candidates. Because of the need to drum up drama, the only two candidates that they concentrated on were Clinton and Obama. Yes, it is a wonderful thing that we have the first woman and the first African-American to run for President. However, as Paul Krugman so eloquently wrote about Monday in the NYT op-ed, Clinton is judged far more harshly than she deserves, with Democrats who support Obama slamming her even more than the GOP. In the meantime Obama is given rock star treatment and has huge screaming crowds sort of reminiscent of Beatlemania back in the 60’s and probably not far from that in hysterical devotion to his personality. Obama is threatening to split the Democratic Party in two if he looses the nomination–saying that his supporters will probably not support Senator Clinton. He also wants to change the rules regarding the super delegates. The MSM has basically given him a pass and have not really dug into his history–especially re Rezko, Excelon and the back door money he does receive from lobbyists through a manipulation of the definition–far worse, I think, than the definition of what “is” is. Mean, plain old hypocrisy. On the other hand, I can’t say I’m totally thrilled about Clinton–still can’t get my head around her vote to authorize Bush on Iraq. But I do have to hand it to her on toughness and on experience. I do believe she will be a strong negotiator when it comes to getting policies done the way we would like to see. Now, if only the Democrats can get more than 60 Senators in the next election! We have the House. But having the WH and the House is not good enough to undo all the damage the GOP has done to this country. I especially want to see that smirk wiped off Lieberman’s face and would love to see him grovel to the Democrats, the little rat. If I see him one more time standing behind McCain I think I’ll scream.
Anyway, enough of this rant.

]]> by: Barbara Kaplan http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/02/08/what-is-the-change-we-can-believe-in/#comment-11102 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:18:56 +0000 http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/02/08/what-is-the-change-we-can-believe-in/#comment-11102 The question is how to get the media to address the problem of no one saying how they are going to achieve what they promise. We all would like to have some info about approach and about the challenges inherent in addressing the candidate's goals. The media doesn't even mention outlandish ideas proposed - like Mike Huckabee declaring he is going to eliminate the IRS. Ya - and then what??? We need to organize to fight the endless prattle and repetition of clips, sound bites and useless predictions of the self-identified "best teams". Who declared that the media's role is to predict outcomes. I don't get it. I just don't get it. Also, don't The question is how to get the media to address the problem of no one saying how they are going to achieve what they promise. We all would like to have some info about approach and about the challenges inherent in addressing the candidate’s goals. The media doesn’t even mention outlandish ideas proposed - like Mike Huckabee declaring he is going to eliminate the IRS. Ya - and then what??? We need to organize to fight the endless prattle and repetition of clips, sound bites and useless predictions of the self-identified “best teams”. Who declared that the media’s role is to predict outcomes. I don’t get it. I just don’t get it.

Also, don’t

]]> by: Cord;ey Coit http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/02/08/what-is-the-change-we-can-believe-in/#comment-11098 Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:37:49 +0000 http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/02/08/what-is-the-change-we-can-believe-in/#comment-11098 The problem is that there is no real debate. Paul Goodman put it correctly that America was governed Like a Conquered Province. The Clinton attempt at dynasty is frightening more so than the Bush attempt. If you think George the Second is bad look at his brothers. But the voters look past criminality of the Clintons. Talk tough to the candidates and your criticism is pulled. "Pimping Chelsea"is mild compared to what they have done to the electorate. Obama has come up with a very vague and disturbing economic policy if we can call it a program. On immigration he comes up with Fast Feddy Pena one of the most corrupt hacks to ever hold public office , He was a Democratic Party union buster and kisser of the behind of every developer and enriched them while beating up working people. He installed a yuppy, tick like collation of real estate and banking interests in front of the needs of his constituents and allow the infrastructure of the city to crumble while bridges, highways, and schools crumbled into rubble. He encouraged the people importing illegals as slaves and created "Sanctuary City" to cover up his criminallity. This creature now speaks for Obama on race relations. Sort of having Simon Legree for an expert on race issues. Latinos are his people like Al Sharpton owns all Blacks. Saul Alinski would recognize the up hill fight just to get an economic program out of the contenders. I fear they all are falling into Kline's Shock Doctrine. The problem is that there is no real debate. Paul Goodman put it correctly that America was governed Like a Conquered Province.
The Clinton attempt at dynasty is frightening more so than the Bush attempt. If you think George the Second is bad look at his brothers. But the voters look past criminality of the Clintons.
Talk tough to the candidates and your criticism is pulled. “Pimping Chelsea”is mild compared to what they have done to the electorate.
Obama has come up with a very vague and disturbing economic policy if we can call it a program. On immigration he comes up with Fast Feddy Pena one of the most corrupt hacks to ever hold public office , He was a Democratic Party union buster and kisser of the behind of every developer and enriched them while beating up working people. He installed a yuppy, tick like collation of real estate and banking interests in front of the needs of his constituents and allow the infrastructure of the city to crumble while bridges, highways, and schools crumbled into rubble. He encouraged the people importing illegals as slaves and created “Sanctuary City” to cover up his criminallity.
This creature now speaks for Obama on race relations. Sort of having Simon Legree for an expert on race issues. Latinos are his people like Al Sharpton owns all Blacks.
Saul Alinski would recognize the up hill fight just to get an economic program out of the contenders. I fear they all are falling into Kline’s Shock Doctrine.

]]>