The conservative Media Research Center (MRC) has released a study purporting to show “media bias” in favor of the current crop of Democrat candidates as opposed to short shrift given to the Republicans. I’m stunned, simply stunned, that this would be so:
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2007/Riseandshine/report0829_p1.asp
Regards,
T.
“Navy and Marine Corps … the WINNING Team”
Me too. I mean, a right wing organization created to justify claims of media bias issues a report that claims media bias.
Shocked I tell you. Shocked.
HA! That was spot on.
I find it hard to believe that stories about the first serious black and female candidates for President of the US might lead to more coverage than, say, McCain’s 15th run for that office. I need to see their data.
Patsy Schroeder and Elizabeth Dole weren’t serious?
Jesse Jackson wasn’t serious? He was the last man standing against Dukakis for many weeks in 1988 as they slogged through the Midwest primaries. Dukakis had to cut a deal with him or kiss the election good bye.
Patsy Schroeder and Elizabeth Dole weren’t serious?
Jesse Jackson wasn’t serious? He was the last man standing against Dukakis for many weeks in 1988 as they slogged through the Midwest primaries. Dukakis had to cut a deal with him or kiss the election good bye.
Why, no, they weren’t.
Sorry Ken, but I have to ask, were you a sentient human being back in 1988? I am guessing not, since Jackson was a major player, much more threatening than Obama.
In what sense is Obama a serious candidate? Is it his four years as a back bencher in the IL Senate? His two years in the US Senate?
In terms of interest, the Democratic nomination battle is essentially over. Intrade has Clinton at 67%, Obama at 17%. Hmm, I am going to have place a bet there before the market completely collapses.
The Republican race is wide open with Giuliani at 38, Romney at 23 and Thompson at 21.
It is typical of a liberal to look at individuals and note their group membership based upon sex or race or whatever. Liberals, of course, are the most open minded of us.
**Jackson was a major player, much more threatening than Obama. **
No way. And allow me to beat you to it: Show me your evidence.
Could it be that the Democrats have a more defined group of candidates than the Republicans? Hmmmm. Has Thompson even officially announced yet? Let’s see, a black candidate, the first real woman candidate, and about 17 others, and a group of what for the Republican party? It’s no wonder the Dems are getting more press. They are working the press harder, there’s more of them, more clearly defined as candidates, and they have some press friendly issues with a woman and a black, both of whom already got enough press on their own aside from any candidacy.
From wikipedia:
1988 election
Four years later, in 1988, Jackson once again offered himself as a candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. This time, his successes in the past made him a more credible candidate, and he was both better financed and better organized. Although most people did not seem to believe that he had a serious chance at winning, Jackson once again exceeded expectations as he more than doubled his previous results, capturing 6.9 million votes and winning eleven primaries. Briefly, after he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democrat caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates.
That is eleven more primaries than Obama is going to win.
Most people’s knowledge of history really does begin with their own sentient lifetimes.
Was Jackson elected? Nope. And that makes any other viable black candidate a legitimate news story, which, surprisingly lends it to more media coverage.
Hmmm. Is this true? I wouldn’t know because I watch Fox and Friends every morning (no joke) and they don’t seem to like the Deocratic candidates too much.
My statement was that Obama was not the first serious black candidate, as Ken said. Unless he wants to argue otherwise, I consider him smoked.
I further said Jackson was much more threatening than Obama. It will take until February if you don’t want to believe the polls or Intrade futures, but my point will be proven there as well.
His candidacy is a joke. Had he been a good little boy and not sounded like an idiot on all things to do with foreign policy, he might have been a strong VP choice, but I think he has blown that now too. I am betting on Richardson, though Intrade has he and Obama just about even.
Why is a black candidate a news story? He isn’t even polling ahead of Hillary in the black community. This is so 20 years ago.
“This is so 20 years ago.”
Have we had a black President in the last 20 years? Nope. So I guess it isn’t such an old news story.
We have had multiple failed black candidates in the past 20 years. Jackson, Sharpton, Keyes and now Obama. Yawn.
It won’t kill you to admit I proved all my comments to be correct. Try it some time. You can even call me stupid afterwards anyway, if it helps with the pain.
Yes Art, you were correct that Jesse Jackson made a significant campaign effort, and was probably the first black candidate to do so. Unfortunately, that doesn’t change the point that the Democrats are getting media attention, in part, because they have a black candidate this year who is, at least somewhat, legitimate. As opposed to say, Al Sharpton.
You got me Art. I forgot Jesse won 11 primaries. I still think Obama is a more viable candidate and although he may not win 12 primaries he has a better chance of being VP.
It pays to be old, sometimes.
Just not very often.