Never Forget the Media Bias in the 2008 democratic election against Hillary Clinton.

This is just a brief recap of the tip of the huge iceberg of media bias against Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. Huffington Post basically assaulted the Clinton's on an almost a daily basis, and MSNBC, CNN, Time and Newsweek all chipped in as well.

Reason? Try the amount of media buys the Barack Obama side made. By spending double and triple what Hillary Clinton was able to spend in advertising, it appears that Barack Obama won the hearts and pocket books of the media.

Keith (I can't believe I used to like that guy) Olbermann, looked right into the camera and delivered one of the all time bodacious lies every committed by a "newscaster". Olbermann states that he NEVER advocated that Hillary Clinton get out of the race!

Yet here is the proof that Keith Olbermann did indeed want Hillary Clinton out of the 2008 democratic presidential race. There are earlier examples as well of Olbermann having a meltdown because Hillary Clinton wanted to stay in the race until the final primary was completed.

Back in January and early February of 2008, Dan Abrams floated the idea that the super delegates should not determine the outcome of the democratic race. Lol, it takes 88% less voters in a caucus contest to determine the delegates for the states that use caucuses.

So while Abrams is suggesting that super delegates should not determine the outcome of the democratic presidential race, a tiny minority of caucus voters who wrote their name on notebook paper and "voted" (sometimes more than once) in the caucus contests are more qualified???

Less than a million total caucus voters, many in strongly republican areas of the country (such as the Great Plains States) completely overrode the will of 35 million primary voters who actually gave Hillary Clinton more delegates than Barack Obama, even when Florida and Michigan were not counted!

The above Huffington post headline is a pretty horrible example. even by Huffington Post "standards". Huffington Post first exaggerated how much Hillary Clinton was supposed to win in West Virginia, then when her totals were slightly lower than the exaggerated estimate, Huffington Post accused Hillary Clinton of losing her "racist" base. Did Barack Obama have a racist base?

Huffington Post helps ambush Hillary Clinton with the Jimmy Carter "inevitability" headline. This is the newest and most toxic form of news headlines actually manipulating events that have not yet happened. It so lowers the bar for what good journalism is that I wonder if these types of media outlets should even be called news.

What if the headline had been "Hillary Clinton sees a spike in pledged delegates as she continues winning over the final 10 weeks of the campaign". Do you see how easy it would have been to swing the nomination to Hillary Clinton?

According to the media the Colorado Caucus is "too close to call" just before the caucus vote was held, yet Barack Obama would win by a 2-1 margin. Yep, those caucus contests fairly reflect the popularity of each candidate (sarcasm alert).

MSNBC anchors and pundits condescendingly discuss whether or not Hillary Clinton should be V.P. "Does Hillary Clinton count as a southerner in that she of course spent all that time in Arkansas, Lynn, in Arkansas? She has that southern twang."

Hillary Clinton as VP? Another laugh fest at MSNBC over this proposal.

Chris Kofinis is probably one of the most obnoxious, snarky, blowhard, laugh harder, presumably paid off pundit I can ever recall. Formerly in the John Edwards camp, Kofinis was "shocked" to learn that John Edwards had had an affair.

Kofinis claims that he didn't know anything about the Edwards affair even though he worked as communications director for Edwards for a year and a half!

After Edwards quit the race, Kofinis appeared on MSNBC as some kind of "expert pundit" and he would bash Hillary Clinton every time he was put on the air. I can't stand this kind of behavior, losers who got a second chance from Barack Obama to attack Hillary Clinton at every turn.

Jonathan Alter joins Keith Olbermann in what might be one of the most bizarre segments ever for a "news" show. Olbermann and Alter ridiculed John McCain after McCain gave an eloquent tribute to Hillary Clinton and her campaign. Newsweek and Time are so in the tank for Obama it is embarrassing to watch these "pundits" such as Alter whore themselves just to get on Keith's Playhouse.

MSNBC anchors and pundits alike make fun of Bill Clinton and how he should be "used" to help get Barack Obama elected. Is that Hillary Rosen from Arianna Huffington who claimed to still be a Hillary Clinton fan laughing it up at Hillary Clinton's expense?

Jay Leno, looking uncomfortably a lot like the Joker, ridicules the notion that Hillary Clinton was forced to suspend her campaign because of NBC. A couple of male audience members laugh loudly in what looks like an effort to support Jay's joke and get the audience to laugh along as well. This is really creepy stuff.

Well Jay, it was actually MSNBC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, Huffington Post, The Atlantic Monthly and a slew of paid off politicians and pundits that demanded Hillary Clinton quit well before the democratic convention.

Barack Obama BELLY FLOPS on Florida and Michigan delegates.

Here is the link to the newspaper that might be breaking the story first. Palm Beach Post

UNACCEPTABLE! A real man would have accepted having Michigan and Florida counting early on, when it could have hurt his chances at becoming the democratic nominee. Doing it now, on August 3rd, 2008, just shows a level of arrogance against Hillary Clinton supporters that is just beyond comprehension, almost.

Sure Barack Obama supporters can now whine, "well, no matter what we do, we just can't make Hillary Clinton Supporters happy". WRONG. That ship sailed as time dragged on and on any scenario that could help Hillary win, even if it was the ETHICAL AND CORRECT thing to do, was dumped overboard with virtually no possibility of a lifeline by the Barack Obama strategy crew.

You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to cheat in the caucus states, cheat in the delegate count race, use the media to brow beat super delegates into CHANGING their vote from Hillary to Barack, you don't get to IGNORE that Hillary Clinton won 40 more congressional district contests than Barack Obama, and then try and rewrap Florida and Michigan and present it as a gift to Hillary Clinton supporters.

Every step that the Barack Obama camp takes lately is turning into huge missteps. That's what happens when you truly don't have the consensus of the majority, but you continue to pretend that you do.

Barack Obama's Error In Judgement Swept Under the Rug During Florida Michigan Discussions.

Never before has a democratic candidate received assistance in the acquisition of delegates in the manner in which Barack Obama received them this past weekend. Barack Obama was given Michigan delegates even though his name was not even on the Michigan ballot!

Several years ago Barack Obama challenged the petition names of those running against him for senate. Barack was able to get the top three competitors removed from the ballot by disqualifying their supporters signatures. I don't really think that is that controversial actually. It seems like Obama was able to ridicule old school style of politicking by being a bit slick. It was Barack's way of saying "I'm educated and above you now, I know your tricks, and I'll one up you".

In Michigan, Barack Obama took his name off of the Michigan ballot. Almost the entire media seems to accept this as being some kind of normal procedure. But in retrospect, it really makes very little sense. Isn't something better than nothing?

It turns out that Barack had just made another "slick" move. When Barack took his name off of the Michigan ballot, he did so as a way to endear himself to Iowa voters. It was Barack's way of telling Iowa that nobody better ever try and move their primary date up, Iowa is King! Knowing that by taking his name off of the Michigan ballot, Barack Obama would not only win the Iowa vote, but once again he could trick his own party members into the notion that, "How could the votes in Michigan count, I wasn't even on the ballot".

Dig a little further and we see that Richardson and Edwards took their names off of the Michigan ballots as well, how about that! Edwards and Richardson were in cahoots with Barack and articles have been written about how these three shared caucus voters. Edwards, Richardson, and Obama agreed to help prop each other in the caucus states votes by sharing their excess caucus voters! The top four finishers are eligible for government funding, so it ended up being a sleazy deal that helped them all out.

Is this the kind of change Barack Obama is bringing to the democratic party? Back room deals and shenanigans in which the media always presents the sleazy backroom deals in the best light possible? Barack Obama takes his name off of the ballot in Michigan to gain favor with Iowa voters, then turns around and looks like a victim because his name was off of the ballot in Michigan. As if that wasn't enough, the DNC turn actually took 4 delegates away from Hillary Clinton in the process! But not to be outdone, the DNC also gave Barack a whole slew of MIchigan delegates THAT WERE NOT HIS!

Wow, I'm almost impressed. NOT!

David Bonior Makes no Sense

Because Barack Obama avoided putting his name on the ballot in Michigan, he is entitled to as many delegates as someone who put their name on the ballot and actually received votes. Barack Obama is all bout risk free winning, he did it in the Caucus states where his people cheated, and he is doing it in Florida and Michigan.

"More Sir", Why Michigan Moved their Primary Date Forward Only to be Beaten Down by the Democratic Party.

Once again the entire US media fails to address issues that actually matter. Lost in all the drama about Florida and Michigan is why did Michigan move their Primary date forward?

Have you ever witnessed or been in a desperate situation and all the rules of civilized society that you have agreed to abide by, while still relevant, suddenly don't seem to apply to your particular situation?

A kitten is frolicking in a normally busy intersection, but no cars are coming by at that moment. Do you skip out against the light, grab the oblivious kitten, or do you wait until the light has changed and then try to save the kitten? Of course the obvious answer is that if no cars are anywhere near the vicinity and it is safe to go and get the kitten, you get the kitten.

The case can be made that with record job losses in the automotive industry Michigan is witnessing the erosion of their own state's workforce. Michigan's act of moving their election date toward the front of the primary schedule was an act of desperation.

The higher ups in the democratic party simply point to their red light rules and regulations and in the process completely ignore the reality of the plight of Michigan. I view Michigan as Lousiana just before the levees broke. In an effort to try and convey the importance of losing auto industry jobs and the cascading devastation that follows, Michigan took a step forward and basically said, "More Sir" ala Oliver in Oliver Twist when Oliver asks for a second helping of soup.

So how did the democratic party react to the act of desperation by Michigan? They responded in a manner similar to the head master in the Oliver Twist Story and immediately punished Oliver, er Michigan, for asking for more. Fiction repeats itself in real life, courtesy of the democratic national party as they slap Michigan on the wrist, face and arms really, really hard, and say "no soup for you."

Hillary Never Waffled on Florida and Michigan Delegates Counting

On Jan 25, 2008, Senator Clinton stated the following in a press release:

“I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.

“I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.

“I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

“I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well.”

She has stated this very same position on numerous occasions:

February 22, 2008:
March 12, 2008:
March 12, 2008:
March 17, 2008:
March 20, 2008:
March 26, 2008:
April 2, 2008:
April 4, 2008:

Is fairness in the media too much to ask for?

Debunking the Reasons Given for Not Counting Michigan and Florida votes.

There are several reasons that nullify the "but Hillary agreed" position.

The first argument against the "But Hillary Agreed" position is, Barack Obama was losing in both Florida and Michigan and had nothing to gain by not agreeing to the DNC proposal. This is very important to note because all everyone wants to do is focus on what Hillary said or did.

Barack Obama seems to get too much credit for doing things that involved nothing more than political expediency. Barack Obama's "no" vote for the war in Iraq had more to do with mirroring the position other candidates campaigning for the Senate seat Barack would eventually win had already publicly taken. Barack Obama had NOTHING TO LOSE (other than delegates to Hillary Clinton if he voted no) by voting to sanction Florida and Michigan, so why does he get so much credit?

Hillary Clinton did have something to lose by saying no to the "agreement" to not count Florida and Michigan. Hillary Clinton would have been made to look greedy and afraid by the biased media that had already coagulated around Barack Obama. "Why is Hillary afraid to lose Florida and Michigan?" the media would ask. Barack Obama would have called not agreeing to not count Florida and Michigan more "old school politics", sticking to the same old Washington style politics even when a wrong has been committed.

To argue "but Hillary agreed" as a reason to not count Florida and Michigan should then mean that the votes from those two states MUST NEVER EVER EVER COUNT in this election cycle. If the Florida and Michigan votes are only made to count when they favor Barack Obama, as in putting Barack over the top in the delegate race, then that will mean Hillary Clinton was twice penalized after going along with the DNC committee every step of the way. Hillary Clinton has already received a several month penalty because the Florida and Michigan delegates have not been counted. A penalty HAS ALREADY OCCURRED. This is a fact that seems to be obscured by the media.

There are more reasons. If the situation had been reversed, and Barack Obama had won the states of Florida and Michigan and needed those delegate votes to win or stay in the race, Hillary Clinton would have been portrayed as not being able to win on a fair, 50 state landscape, but in typical old school style of politicking, had shortened the goal posts to ensure victory.

"What about Michigan, Barack Obama didn't even have his name on the ballot, how can it be fair to count Michigan?"

Isn't it kind of stupid to take your name off of a ballot if you're one of the two favored candidates? If Hillary Clinton had taken her name off of the Michigan Ballot and Barack Obama had not, the media would have had a field day making fun of her and her naivete. The Barack Obama people would have flung hyperbole so far and wide it wouldn't matter where the goal posts were. "Of course she took her name off the ballot, she was going to lose!" they would have chortled. Another rant I am sure we would have heard would be, "I can't see how someone naive enough to take their name off of the Michigan ballot can run our country".

Shouldn't Barack Obama have asked Hillary Clinton to also take her name off of the ballot as well, and if Hillary said no, then he does so at his own risk. Clearly Barack Obama made a huge mistake and the media has not once questioned his judgement in making such a colossal blunder. Barack Obama ERRED in taking his name off of the Michigan Ballot, but the biased media is SOOOO biased nobody is confident enough to state the truth.

Lets say it now for the first time, by not getting Hillary Clinton to also agree to take her name off of the Michigan Ballot, Barack Obama acted foolishly and impulsively in a manner I would not expect from a presidential candidate. It follows a pattern of behavior that Hillary Clinton has already pointed out several months ago, a earnestness to move to quickly and idealistically without having demonstrating enough caution.

As if all the above is not enough, did you know that North Carolina was given 28 extra bonus delegates to NOT move their election contest forward! A pro Obama state gets 28 extra delegates to not move their contest forward, meanwhile two pro Hillary states don't get offered any extra delegates for not moving their election date, and instead get penalized and denied their right to count. That doesn't sound very fair, does it? I expect fairness from the democratic party if they want my vote.

Denying Hillary Clinton her Florida win is like denying Barrack Obama his Illinois win. The demographics in Florida heavily favor Hillary Clinton no matter when the contest would have been held. Since Florida has already been suspended for this long and Hillary Clinton was denied fair access to a state she would have won, giving her a Florida Win immediately would be the fair and proper thing to do.