Oh man, the headline on this one is going to cause RNC Bruce's head to explode. This should be entertaining.

"MEDIA SPEAKS" ALL SEVEN OF THEM.

WOMEN ARE HERE TO SERVE
WOMEN ARE HERE TO COOK
WOMEN MUST BE SUBMISSIVE
WOMEN MUST NOT CHOOSE
WOMEN MUST NOT VOTE
WOMEN MUST NOT THINK
WOMEN MUST NOT PROCREATE

DID WE SAY THAT, ANYWAYS PLEASE KEEP YOUR WIFE, DAUGHTER, MOTHER UNDER LOCK AND KEY, PRIOR TO ANY FUTURE VOTES IF AMERICA IS TO BE THE BEACON OF EVERY NATION THAT CONDEMNS WOMEN AND PROVIDES GREAT SUFFERING AND A NO WIN SITUATION.

OTHERWISE WE WILL TAKE AWAY PBS AND BIG BIRD, AND ELMO & DOROTHY THE FISH.

OTHERWISE WE WILL TAKE OPRAH OF THE TELEVISION, BUY HER OUT AND SEND HER ON A BARRACK OBAMAS NEXT FRIED CHICKEN SALE.

BUT WE WILL NOT LET YOU SEE ANY NEWS ON THE WAR ON TERROR, AKA BUSH OIL RECONCILIATION SAND BOWLING TOURNAMENT IN IRAQ.

GO IN THE HOUSE HILLARY, AND I BETTER NOT CATCH YOU LOOKING OUT THE KITCHEN WINDOW EITHER.

MANKIND 2007 A.D.

Something Bruce might like...

As a matter of fact I can't wait for the stats Obama v. Clinton. (And no Clinton v. hey look at the Poor Republicans is a cop out.)

"...I have never heard a print or broadcast reporter in the trenches express a preference for Obama, overt, thinly or thickly disguised or otherwise."

Could you possibly be more disingenuous, Glenn? I doubt it; shades of Claude Reins' famous indignation scene in Casablanca. ("I'm SHOCKED.")

No, there's usually not an openly expressed preference, but the daily tsunami of Obama posts here certainly lack substance. They never address the man's flaws, his misstatements, contradictions and self evident hypocrisies. The focus is usually on the latest celebrity endorsements, polling blips and fluffy nothings about his family life.

To the objective observer it seems that there is an agenda here: to keep Obama in the public eye and to studiously avoid embarrassing him.

The bias for Obama (certainly among the Swamp hacks) is palpable. Only an imbecile or a shameless liar would deny it.

Admittedly, the Clinton campaign is in a more difficult position in selling its candidate to the media. Convincing the media that Senator Clinton can bring the country together is a hard sell.

Despite that, it had been very difficult to get the media to look beyond Clinton's seemingly insurmountable lead in the national polls and focus on the issues and the chances of other candidates to change the entire race by doing well in the early states. Now that Barack Obama is gaining traction, the idea that the media is somehow all of the sudden against Senator Clinton is laughable.

"Kurtz glosses over the self-fulfilling prophecy angle , hammered by TNR’s Michael Crowley, who claims Clinton’s decades-old paranoia about the press creates animus that boomerangs on the candidate."

Welcome to Bush/Clinton dynasty 101!!!

Does Clinton receive far more scrutiny in the press than Obama? That's beyond a doubt. Obama has generally gotten a pass since 2004. That will change, though.

In a way Hillary is right about this, there are so many Republic Party members out there who have spent the last 15 years being trained by their overlords (Rush, Fox Noise Channel etc) to bark everytime they hear the Clinton name mentioned. The funny thing about this is that Hillary is actually more of a Republican than any of their top GOP Presidential candidates are.

Kurtz is right Thrush, no matter how many contorted, nonsensical, dismissive arguments you try to throw at his thesis. Thank goodness someone has at least confronted that truth and put it out for all to read.

A prominent supporter of Obama introduces him while referring to Hillary as "that white lady". No banner headline. A prominent supporter of Hillary in saying we need someone experienced says this is no time for a "rookie". Banner headline "Magic says this no time for a rookie". Some guy in Texas gets indicted from something unrelated to a campaign, but who has contributed to Hillary in the past. National headline "Clinton supporter indicted!" Two Illinois Obama supporters are indicted last week for corruption. No national headline whatsoever.

Obama gets a pass where Hillary doesn't. There is a glaring media bias against her. End of story.

Gee, Glenn, since YOU bring up reporters and their political preferences, how about fessing up on who you voted for in 2004? And 2000.

MJ,
That's funny. Bruce likes to use that same quote from Casablanca. Seems you are nothing more than another alter-ego of Bruce. How pathetic.

This is from the thread called 'Fear and Loathing'; Literally the first entry in The Swamp by Frank James and this is RNC Brucie's VERY FIRST Swamp post.....no kidding...it doesn't get any better than this...Bruce is crying about a possible perceived "liberal media bias" on his very first post.

"In the interests of full disclosure, will the Tribune contributors to "the Swamp" (Frank James, Mark Silva et al.) reveal their political biases by disclosing who they voted for in 2000 and 2004 (and other years) for president? How can the readers fully or accurately assess their postings, the "take" they have on current events, or even what they consider "newsworthy", without this information?

Posted by: Bruce | January 5, 2006 9:55 AM"

Brucie, you need to come in from the field and pick up your new talking points, that is all.

For the sheeple out there who insist that Hillary Clinton is a "liberal," please specify which Democrat is to the right of her. (Note: Joe Lieberman is not a Democrati.)

It's time we get back to issues rather than personalities. If the media would quit with the "popularity contests" and address those issues of crucial interest as presented by each candidate, then there would be no bias, no accusations of preferential treatment, and in doing "OBJECTIVE" reporting of substance rather than fluff, then maybe the American public can make the right call, or at least get a clear understanding of the candidates views rather than focusing on the superficial.

Let's try bypassing all the nonsensical posts about both Obama, Clinton and others and focus on the issues and the reasons for "change" and who best addresses them.

The litmus test would be:
1) Voting record while in public office
2) Speeches with solutions to address healthcare, immigration, Iraq war, global issues,
the market (housing dilemma), social security, etc.
3) Political associations - persons, organizations, lobbyists, etc.

Reporters need to ignore the "crap".

Clinton is to the media
as
New York Yankees is to the media.

Get the analogy?

Whatever the Yankees do you hear about it. If they win, if they lose, if a player breaks a shoestring, if Steinbrenner eats deep dish pizza, if A-Rod eats sushi at the local diner. Whatever they do gets to be sickening. Same with Hillary/Bill. So who doesn't get media coverage?

"Bruce likes to use that same quote from Casablanca. Seems you are nothing more than another alter-ego of Bruce. How pathetic."

Posted by: jethro | December 19, 2007 2:56 PM

That's your retort Jetro? Now that's pathetic!

To the truth | December 19, 2007 3:19 PM:

Spot on.

Media spelled backwards is liberal.If anything can be said the media is Hillary's sugar daddy.

I match up the least with Hillary Clinton based on her positions on many key issues. I am a conservative. However, my feeling is that she is more right than any of the others democrats that are running. The truth lies somewhere inbetween I guess. I do feel strongly that Hillary is getting treated harshly by the media compared to Barack. He is currently the darling. Edwards has had to eat crumbs thrown at him which just shows how bias the media really is.

To quote Bruce Willis from Diehard: Hillary "Welcome to the party". The media is bashing her a compared to Obama - look no futher than the Tribunes stormtroopers in the SWAMP. I wonder if she thinks this is another right-wing conspiracy.

However, if you don't think Hillary doesno't know how to play hardball. Look at the following articles in the National Enquire, which happens to have Hillary's future Treasury Secretary(?) on the board - Roger Altman

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_love_child/celebrity/64426

http://allwomenstalk.com/category/tag/national-enquirer/

The first question is, "Who is Glenn Thrush?" Other than being infatuated with Clinton, is he a reporter? Hillary's PR agent? A Wheaties box author? Whatever, any journalistic standards for impartiality fled out the windows of the Hillocopter on this one.

Something I just noticed -- there isn't a single post authored by Bruce in this thread and yet several people are "responding" to him.

Is Bruce some kind of a spirit? Or a legend? Or do these people need to get a life? Hmmm...

Gee, Glenn, since YOU bring up reporters and their political preferences, how about fessing up on who you voted for in 2004? And 2000.

Posted by: Bruce | December 19, 2007 2:26 PM

Something I just noticed -- there isn't a single post authored by Bruce in this thread and yet several people are "responding" to him.
Is Bruce some kind of a spirit? Or a legend? Or do these people need to get a life? Hmmm...

Posted by: MJ | December 19, 2007 10:18 PM

-----------------
Republicans aren't stupid people but the people who vote for them are.

"Republicans aren't stupid people but the people who vote for them are.

Posted by: Loser at the cruise control | December 19, 2007 11:08 PM

You got me inasmuch as I missed the Bruce post. However, Loser (and you chose you post name very well) I'm not a Republican.

And my point is that you people are obsessed about personalities, about trading one-line "zingers" (usually poor ones) among each other. Or you're arguing about the trivial slogans and symbols typically spewed by the candidates.

Meanwhile the nation and the world is in serious trouble as you blithely ignore the real issues. More importantly, you refuse to seriously test the people would govern.

And you're calling somebody stupid?

"Republicans aren't stupid people but the people who vote for them are.

Posted by: Loser at the cruise control | December 19, 2007 11:08 PM

You got me inasmuch as I missed the Bruce post. However, Loser (and you chose you post name very well) I'm not a Republican.

And my point is that you people are obsessed about personalities, about trading one-line "zingers" (usually poor ones) among each other. Or you're arguing about the trivial slogans and symbols typically spewed by the candidates.

Meanwhile the nation and the world is in serious trouble as you blithely ignore the real issues. More importantly, you refuse to seriously test the people would govern.

And you're calling somebody stupid?

Is Hillary Clinton getting money from the LTTE, a designated terrorist organization? If this is true isn't it a critical issue that needs to be investigated? I really want to know the truth on this one.

The CFP news report on the issue:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/980

Sri Lankan government Ministry of Defense reports their investigation:
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20071213_05

What LTTE does in the US? Department of Justice:
http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/MANPADS/2006/dojpr21aug06.htm

The media bias against Senator Clinton is quite palpable. While the bobbing heads at CNN and CNBC have to reach pretty far to find some miniscule footnote to hang a "That Woman" story on,
--the so-called 'man' (a wolf in men's clothes, actually) who is in the Oval Office now, can kill thousands of young American G.I.'s, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, bankrupt the U.S treasury, and swallow his tongue trying to "talk Texan" (..and he IS the only man from Connecticut I've ever known to prentend he's some sort of 'average Bo Tex' cow-poke), gets a FREE RIDE in the media from the republican CEO & board at the monolithic Time-Warner, AND by the neo-nazi Murdoch, self-proclaimed 'Owner-of-All-Media' and high-n-mighty king-maker.

While Mr. Bush, the Appointed & Annointed "holy man", spends 40% of HIS time in office vacationing while American boys die in a hostile desert fiefdom, have their limbs blown off, and are blinded and impoverished.

--- STILL the media giants, with their multi-tentacled octopus networks try to see who can find 'headline-worthy' fault with Senator Clinton's 4th cousin on her late Uncle Harry's side of the family.

Hey, guys, there's a lost war bankrupting our country and killing our youth, while THE MAN fiddles......

...Now,
Britain has had one,
India has had one,
Argentina has had one,
The Philippines has had one,
AND
Germany has one, NOW---

Now, WE NEED ONE--
a WOMAN to be our President, and to END THE WAR, and help our children, our elderly, and our neediest citizens.

When she is elected (in spite of billionaire CEOs already having the voting machines rigged), I will write to ask her to BAN ALL FOX personnel from the White House Press Corps, and to make sure that White House guards have standing orders to physically eject any FOX people who may wander in the front gate at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The last thing a new president needs is Murdoch's neo-nazi propaganda agents on the property.

Lastly, I want to publicly THANK two other Democratic candidates...

KUDOS to Senators Obama & Edwards, for refusing to go to FOX's studios, PLUS their refusal to talk with any of FOX's anti-American split-tongued war mongers.

One senator is polarizing and one is not. As a reporter who offers the more tantalizing write up, interview and analysis? Come readers this is not rocket science. He gets a pass because his last name is not Clinton. If Obama did not run Edwards would be in the same position as him. The fact is that Edwards does not make for a compelling unique and interesting story... Think of the election coverage as the the Big 3 networks trying to pick the next big show. Who would you pick?

For many its very difficult to mention Hilary with out being angry. All those years of scandles, sexual problems, and impeachment leaves many with no affection for the former ... lady? Its also hard to over look the scandles still coming out of AK, which hang around her neck like a rattlesnake, making her hated by half the population. As for me, I have better prospects to vote for as a comander-in-chief of a pending WWIII combat comander.

I wasn't a great Hillary fan, but after seeing how the liberal media bias against Hillary made me so upset that I volunteered for her campaign as so many others.I went to Hillary's event in San Antonio and there were 10000 people who couldn't get to the arena after three hours waiting in line that was streach for over a mile.I ve seen many old women in their 80's waiting in line for 3 hours to see her and little girls carrying(I support Hillary) signs with there small hands. I was touched, and if that is not inspirational what is?! but the only thing you hear in the media about inspiration is about Obama, like the media is painting him like a prophet just with no miracle to show for who hasn't done any significant national or international accomplishment.I came to this country as a young immigrant, and I served in the military and I am an Iraq war Veteran. Hillary came to Iraq when I was there,Obama has never done anything significant related to the military, hasn't served in the military and never been to Iraq or Afghanistan, as Hillary has been multiple times,but you never hear about that in the Media.I will do everything I could to support hillary to show that the media in this country shouldn't elect a candidate but people. The main streem media is so biased now that I m watching FOX news, and they sound more FAIR and BALANCE than CNN, and other new organization

I totally agree how bias the media has been to Clinton. I have written CNN and MSNBC and complained to no avail. This race is also gender and race motivated. Men do not want a woman to be president, young 18 yrs. old do not consider the issues, only personality. If Obama can bring people together why has he not accomplished this in the senate? The Clintons are critized for anything they say. Obama is 1/2 white and 1/2 black so why is he considered african american? Pres. Clinton spoke the truth when he mentioned Jesse Jackson winning SC and i did not consider that racist. The Clintons have neen civil rights activist and the african community has forgotten that.

Yes, the media including my preferred (to Fox) CNN is biased to Obama. You are under-estimating Texas Women and Women in general. I am a business woman who has spent a lifetime in a sexist business world. Hillary Clinton was a trailblazer in this same world. I hope Texas does not disappoint me tomorrow. I am a native, lifelong Texan and I am for Hillary Clinton for President.

I'm an asian and closely watching this election of yours. I can sense it too from most of the news in CNN and others that they easily bash Hillary than Obama. Well I guess they don't want a strong willed woman leading your country. And to top it all, your media dont want to bash Obama hard afraid of being branded as racist. Poor thing they manipulated the primaries making trending for Obama. Nobama noway. Go Hillary!!!