How the media plays Democrats...against Democrats.
11-26-2011, 04:03 PM (This post was last modified: 11-26-2011 04:08 PM by Drunken Irishman.)
How the media plays Democrats...against Democrats.
They're really good at this. Some Democrats, unfortunately, are not very good at catching on to their little schemes.
I am surprised at how easy it is to manipulate and create division within this party. You'd think, after the first five or six times they did it, that Democrats, at least some, would wise up to these actions. They don't. Haven't and probably won't.
The media is good at stirring the pot and they know exactly what to say and do to get the biggest reaction.
Reigniting the Clinton/Obama Wars
They've been hellbent on creating a divide between Clinton and Obama supporters ever since the primary season. Will Clinton's voters support Obama? Could the PUMAs throw the election to McCain-Palin? Will Clinton supporters vote McCain because of Palin?
It didn't work, obviously, but it didn't stop them from trying. To be sure, there are a enough anti-Obama Clinton Democrats out there to cause a stir.
Not enough to throw the election, though. Still, they'll try and try and try.
I'm sure you've heard the latest shit stirring from the Republican/media/PUMA camp - Obama should step aside and let Clinton run in '12.
Forget that the article even implies it's likely Obama wins next year, they're just sure as sure can be he won't be an effective second-term president. So we need Clinton, who, I guess will be less divisive and capable of uniting Republicans and Democrats to pass every inch of her agenda.
Forget that history does not suggest this possible - we need a change!
Well that's just ridiculous. Of course neither Clinton or Obama would ever support such a move. It's similar to that chain letter that made its way through cyberspace back in '06 and '07 when Clinton was plotting her run for the WH. In it, the letter mapped out an implausible scenario that suggested Hillary would win the nomination, announce Bill Clinton has her vice presidential candidate, win, take office, the very next day, announce her resignation, making Bill Clinton the president, who then turns around and appoints Hillary as his vice-president.
Yeah. People I'm sure bought that. Forget the constitutional ambiguity of such a stunt, or that congress, let alone the American people, would ever go along with it (congress has to approve the selection of a VP in this scenario), we're supposed to believe such an impractical act would be likely.
The whole point of the chain letter is to diminish Hillary as just Bill 2.0 - not her own person. It was supposed to strike fear into the heart's of conservatives all over this country that another Clinton, with intentions of putting Bill in office, could actually win the White House.
Oh the horrors!
It's the same textbook example here. Play up a fear or hate of an individual - division that is often part of politics - and see where it goes.
In this instance, former Clinton supporters, prodded by the right-wing, no doubt, now has a chance to once again fuel the old primary wars.
Clinton is better than Obama!
This actually has come in different forms. It's not just that Obama should step aside and let Clinton run, it's also that Biden should step aside for Clinton to be on the ticket...
This one gets a lot of traction. A lot. It's been getting a lot of traction since day one, really. I think I remember hearing about it back in 2009, shortly after Obama took office.
Even Chris Matthews is fond of talking about this one. Why? Once again, it ties back to the primary wars. From the end of the primary to when Obama eventually picked Biden, the talking heads and media made it a point to show why Obama needed Clinton - he wasn't doing well with conservative voters, or women voters, or blue collar voters...Clinton would surely shore up those votes!
Then when McCain picked Palin, everyone again started wondering if Obama screwed the pooch when he picked Biden over Clinton.
Well, come to find out, it didn't matter. Obama won.
But it's resurfaced again because it's an election period and we've got to play up those divisions.
Who gains here? It's not the Democrats. It makes Obama, once again, look weak by suggesting he can only win with Clinton on the ticket.
It diminishes everything Biden has done.
It's also, once again, a ridiculous and unfounded claim. Biden is running. It's that simple. The campaign is not going to change VP candidates a year out - it's just not going to happen and the sooner the media moves on from this, the better.
But they won't.
They won't because it gets play. It not only stirs up the PUMAs once again - I mean, how dare Obama NOT pick Clinton? - it also, as I said, makes Obama look weak.
Just like we heard in '08, Clinton being on the ticket is the only way Obama can win.
Well, I say: not this time.
_____ support for Obama declining
This is a big one. This is the one the media loves to push! Substitute any group for another and you've got a typical headline in the New York Times.
Black support for Obama declining
Hispanic support for Obama declining
Women support for Obama declining
Jewish support for Obama declining
They'll cite a poll, maybe one that's obscure, that shows Obama losing support with a specific demographic.
Forget that, a week later, a cluster of polls will disprove that one - or facts will disprove it - they keep that narrative going.
The New York Times, a few weeks ago, published an article that suggested Obama was struggling with small donors. There was really no evidence to that accusation, but it didn't stop the supposed liberal Times from stating it.
Not even a month later, Obama released his fundraising totals and it came out that small donors were giving at a higher rate than at any point in the '08 election.
Narrative dead, right? You tell me:
Obama + Small Donors
When one narrative does die, though, they move on to the next.
It wasn't that long ago, we were told Jewish support for Obama was lagging.
Except, Obama's Jewish support has remained fairly steady - especially compared to other demographics - over his first term.
That narrative should've died, right?
So they moved on to Hispanics. Hispanics were disheartened by Obama and were seriously thinking of voting Republican!
With Hispanic support for Obama waning, could Latino vote be up for grabs in 2012?
But wait a minute! Obama crushes every Republican candidate when it comes to the Hispanic vote!
But it hasn't stopped the media from claiming he has a Hispanic problem, or a black problem or a white problem or a Jewish problem.
Every demographic, apparently, hates Obama with a passion - yet he still has fairly respectable approval rating and beats the Republicans in most polls.
Why isn't the media asking if Romney has a Jewish problem or a Hispanic problem or a blue collar problem - like they do so well with Obama?
Easy. They don't play Republicans like they do Democrats.
The media has never been, and never will be, the Democrats' friend. We need to realize this and accept it and do our best to filter out the nonsense with facts.
Unfortunately, I believe a great deal of Democrats are starting to buy into what they're saying.
That's got to change.
Messages In This Thread
|How the media plays Democrats...against Democrats. #1 - Drunken Irishman - 11-26-2011, 04:03 PM|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)