"CLINTON NOT GETTING A FAIR SHAKE, IN MEDIA"

Prime time Sunday night, one hour before the "biggest night in Hollywood" ("The Oscars"), there was a three piece story on the remaining two Democratic candidates (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama). The media coverage, increasingly over the last two months, has been heavily slanted towards Obama's rise in the party. There is no wonder why the media has been taken in by such a figure, Obama is suave, charismatic, and possibly one of the best speakers of a generation. However, the public, cable and print media news outlets (unless by an opinion/editorial piece, or writer), should be a down the middle venue. Obviously, they have not received the memo, on this, because Hillary Clinton is the latest in a line of people to take a fall, from their lack of ethics and standards.

The first lead in, of the democratic election coverage, was how Ralph Nader has thrown his hat into the race for president. He announced his candidacy, today on "Meet the Press." The CBS News reporter (Nancy Cortis) showed several clips, of Nader, including his actual announcement. Then she commented about Nader's "spoiler factor." Nader has always been viewed, taking away votes from the democratic side of the ticket (each time he has ran for president, the Democratic side of the ticket has howled). CBS then switched to commentary and stock footage of Al Gore, commenting on how he was perceived to have won the election, against now president Bush, if Nader would not have been in the picture. Here is where the presentation and slant of CBS' story starts, picturing Hillary Clinton, as a "woman complaining." Where Obama's coverage, when he states almost the exact same thing, is portrayed in a completely different light, in charge, calm, and most important statesmanlike.

Without any introduction, the story immediately goes to Hillary Clinton, standing in the middle of a private jet (reporters all around), saying, "Obviously it is not helpful to whoever our Democratic nominee is."

Without any introduction, or words about Clinton after the quote, she was off of the screen. CBS switched to Obama, with this segway, "but Nader's support has slipped since then (2000), and Nader has only garnered one half, of one percent of the vote (since '04)." Immediately showing Obama, on the stump in Ohio, CBS introduces him by saying, "Senator Obama said today, he is not that concerned."

Then Obama is shown, left of a podium, "Keeping America's Promise" banner on it, booming, "He thought that there was no difference (raising his voice) between Al Gore and George Bush, and eight years later I think people realize, that Ralph did not know what he was talking about." That statement does not say, "I am not concerned." It just shows Obama in a more confident and flattering light, overall. Immediately after this blatant manipulation of the airwaves and the American voters, CBS piles on more. The reporter states, "meanwhile the quarrel {Senator Clinton} started yesterday, over Obama's mailers, flared up today" (on screen, behind this statement, Mrs. Clinton is shown holding up and shaking fliers/mailers, saying the "Shame on you Obama" line). The story goes on to show Barack standing onstage again (perfectly calm and collected answering a reporters question):

"The notion that you can selectively pick what you take credit for and then run away from what you find to be politically inconvenient, doesn't make sense," (after being asked by the reporter, what he thinks about Senator Clinton's anger about the NAFTA mailer).

To top off the three piece story, CBS and Nancy go on to show Obama in front of (what appears to be a huge crowd) voters and Mrs. Clinton face to face on a fence line, holding her hands out to potential voters. The words over the top of the two scenes, "While Obama campaigned in Ohio today, Clinton focused on fundraising. She was outspent by Obama, five to one, on ads in Wisconsin. Today, she is up to "GIN UP" more cash, in Rhode Island and Boston."

The story ends with Hillary Clinton on stage, in front of supporters saying, "I need your help, to talk to your friends, and your neighbors."

In a race, dubbed "one of the most significant in history," it is appalling to see such a stark contrast in how two candidates from the same party are being shown. When a candidate is either shown shaking hands with voters, and the next thing out of a reporters mouth is "the candidate is 'GIN UP MORE CASH," it does not matter what the next picture and/or line is going to be in the story, or news piece. It leads the public to believe that the candidate is completely desperate and destitute. The words and clips shown on the public, cable and print media news, should all go hand in hand. The words should be said in a straight and forward matter, to a public that is starved for the truth and honesty. Until that happens, why even ask for the status quo, when all that the public will keep getting is the same set of "status woes."

"CLINTON/OBAMA TO "INSTITUTE" CHANGE, NOT WORDS"

The things democrats seem not able to focus on, are where the actual change and hope is going to come from and how it will be instituted, not to mention who can institute it. There are points throughout the stump speeches, the constant radio and television talk shows, and finally the debate on Thursday where the actual differences of the democrats bleed thru. In the debate Thursday, the moderator asks about the economy and "how to keep the economy from going into a recession, if it is not already in a slight one, right now?"

Both Obama and Clinton had answers to the question, like they always do, but the answers were quite different. Clinton spoke of creating "green" jobs, revitalizing America's infrastructure, and finally "stopping Bush's war on science." However, Obama's answers were more vague and opaque, stating that he would stop the "Bush Tax Cuts," quite spending $9 billion a month in Iraq, and thru change. When Clinton and Obama's answers, to a direct question are analyzed, they are very different.

Clinton's answers to the economy did not give any specifics on how she would pay for the "green jobs," building of infrastructure (to create jobs), or enhance and rebuild "Bush's" war on science (whatever that means, since we have had countless successful NASA projects, multiple satellite feeds coming, the building/starting of military defense pads 'in Croatia,' and also this week's shooting down of a negated satellite, with an intercontinental ballistic missile, in space). The billions of dollars needed to do all of these thing, that are needed very badly, will only be attained thru the raising of taxes of "all" people in the United States (especially, since Hillary wants an amnesty project for illegals, which will not bring any monetary stimulus into the economy.). Although, Clinton's answer to the economy question was not complete and eluded an actual way to pay for the items she wants to fix the economy with, she did give specifics in how she wants to accomplish her stimulus package, if elected.

On the complete flip side, Obama did not have any specific answers, on how to stimulate the economy and create jobs for American people. Saying that he would, "cut the $9 billion a month in Iraq," does not give a specific way he will do that. Will he bring all of the troops home in a three month period? Will have one base open, bringing in all of the American equipment, soldiers, and overall treasure (in the form of hardware) there? There was not any explanation in this avenue, of revenue, for the country. Stopping all of the "Bush Tax Cuts/Bush's stimulus package," in order for the rich to pay more taxes (or that is the general idea, the rich pay more for the lower tax brackets (illegal immigrants who use the emergency rooms across America for primary care physicians, people who bank off shore and big business, and others like drug dealers, felons, and others off of the tax grid). Other than the two above solutions, Obama has nothing concrete in his policy solution for the economy. Faith, change, and hope are huge slogans for the Obama camp and the Obama supporters seem to be enthralled with the message, as hollow as it may be.

With the two above contradictory ways to fix the economy (as only one of the main topics, for the American people to worry about), their is one thing that Americans can rest easy about, with both Obama and Clinton. The nominees, with hands clasped together at the debate, both agreed to this comment from Hillary Clinton, "At the end of all of this, we're going to be fine!" It is a good thing that the two democratic candidates, will be finem regardless of who wins the nomination. However, it is the American people that may not "be fine," if they do not get some absolutes, from each candidate.

If the voters, the media outlets, and anyone else with access to the candidates does not insist on answers, not a set of opaque and "pie in the sky" answers, then the United States will be forced to have one side of the ticket to be voted in, by faith. After having President Bush in the White House for seven years, which the democrats have made out to be the end of the world, they are putting out one of two candidates that has experience, but is not being "genuine," or else they will elect a candidate that has no experience, but a lot of "ideas" with no way to institute them. Change is only valid, if there is a way to institute it. The American people are not electing "The Beatles, Elvis, or The Rolling Stones," but a President. Fainting, buying into the words and speeches is all right, but the only way to change the country is thru ideas and ways to put those ideas into action.

CLINTON & OBAMA DEBATE, A WASH?

Thursday was supposed to be a day of news and action, for the democratic candidates, in the Texas debate. However, neither candidate actually made news, or came out swinging. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are in a "dead heat," for the democratic nomination and the final voters approval, had a mediocre performance, at best. Although, Thursday night had to be a "sparking night" (as pundits, media outlets, and radio talk shows bloviated all day), for Hillary Clinton, in order to stop the momentum of Obama. Simply, because Obama cannot seem to be faded. Even after his wife's comments earlier in the week and his gaffs using three exact quotes, on several stump speeches (from Deval Patrick's Governor's stump speeches, a mere two years ago).

In Thursday's debate, carried on CNN prime-time, neither Clinton, nor Obama could actually separate themselves on the exact issues. Both pandered to the predominately Latino crowd, on the issues of immigration and health care. The CNN moderator's did not question either candidate, in enough detail, on any issue. In actuality, as per their answers, it was no different from any of the other 18 debates before. Hillary Clinton could not get any traction, to separate herself on issues and actual personages. She resulted in taking a cheap shot at Obama, on the copying of his stump speeches (from Patrick), saying "that words of change are important, but what you had done was comparable to Xeroxing change."

With the exception of the very last question and answer from senator Clinton, she did not gain any ground. However, that last comment she made (from the question, "What was the thing that most shaped your life?") was eloquent and made her evening. She commented on how her life was not even close to being tough, by comparison, but rather life was for the women working two jobs, the people who were losing their homes, and finally she recounted a visit to a Walter Reed Benefit. She vividly described the Walter Reed moment, "the men and women who drug themselves onto the stage in wheelchairs, crutches, gernies and hobbling onto that stage, they all were in the best of spirits and accepting their awards, made me realize how great our country is." It was a huge statement, being that she spoke last and it was a really poignant moment in time, making her seem connected with America and real (which she desperately needs). After the Walter Reed moment, in her closing she spoke saying, "I am honored to be here with Barack Obama [shaking his hand], no matter what happens we will be fine."

With a flurry, they were both away from each other and onto the signing of autographs. The night as a whole was dull and not full of anything that the media wanted it to be. For that alone, only God knows who will win the next "Super Tuesday." However, even if Clinton, or Obama, sweeps the Tuesday Primaries, neither will actually win the democratic nomination. It will have to go to the democratic convention and the "Super Delegates" who will choose the representative. Once again, the people may not be served (as Michigan and Florida will still not be in play, as they were punished for "not walking lock step," with the Democratic National Committee), and the elites will pick for the people. Maybe they will vote, or choose Obama/Clinton, based on: who they feel is worthy of the nomination, choose based on politically forced reasons, or choose based on who their congressional and other voters think should be the candidate. Once again, only God knows what will happen. One thing is for sure, the next "Super Tuesday" will not choose the candidate, but the five days leading up to the Tuesday, could be exciting. Seeing what people say, what the candidates will do, and what lengths people will go to get a nominee into position. Politics is a contact sport, and there will be plenty of contact (ask the New York Times, and there hit piece on McCain, over the last two days), over the next five days.

HILLARY/OBAMA DUKING IT OUT, WHAT ABOUT VOTERS?

Both sides of the democratic elite, pleading their cases to the news outlets, media, and anyone else that will listen, about where the "Super Delegates" will go and will the Democratic National Committee allow Michigan and Florida votes (and "Super Delegates") to count. The storm troopers, in formation and lock step for their meal tickets, are going head to head to make sure that things go "their way."In an election, where more people have voted in the primaries than ever before, the democrats (both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) are already squaring up for a fight. Obama and his surrogates are making the scenario sound like Hillary is crying over spilt milk, because he is the "front runner" (even though, there is plenty of room for him to lose, with Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin and others left to vote) and there should be no change in the process. Obama stating, "This is the 'politics as usual' that we are trying to overcome, and some want to change the rules to suit them." While the Sunday talk shows had Hillary's bandwagoners out, speaking about how "the people should get their due" and "if the votes are not counted in Michigan and Florida, than the people will not have been represented." Statements that are actually true, but when Ms. Clinton was the only one on the ticket in Florida, one can hardly count that "the people spoke."An election, or primary of a lifetime, for the United States and things are boiling down to a "Florida mistake," or whomever has the most juice, come the democratic convention, will have the most pull. The American people are supposed pick both candidates and then a president. However, the democratic nomination is setting up to be whomever has the best smear ads (whether it is Barack Obama "claming" he is being disenfranchised, thru his people, because he is black, or Hillary Clinton using her pull and "machine" to get the rules changed overall, to fit her) and a set of campaigns that is far beyond most people. When most people are working (trying to pay for gas, milk and health insurance), are not able to focus on the twenty-four hour cycle of news, and what candidate tricks are being pulled over their eyes, one person will emerge as the democratic candidate. However, will it really be the "people's choice," or will it be the same old attorneys, schills, and elites that are going to put whom they wish, into the spot?The next two weeks will speak volumes, as the words and back biting, over "Super Delegates," attorneys being rolled out (Al Gore style) in rows, and the media is salivating over what they already know to be (not to mention are partially causing, thru there lackluster coverage) a dog versus dog fight. Instead of rejoicing, voting our minds, and having either the first woman, or the first black man (minority) candidate on the democratic side, the American people will end up weeping at the process, the things they never knew, and what went on behind the scenes. Is this what JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., or anyone else that the pundits and media elites have compared these philanderers to, would do? I hardly think so.

AMAROSA, OR MICHELLE OBAMA?

It is no secret, the ever suave, Barack Obama had a bad week with his double speak, in his stump speeches. His "good friend," Deval Patrick, supposedly gave the authorization to give a word for word speech, given two years prior. Hillary Clinton and minions have been hammering Obama, before the Wisconsin, Texas, and Ohio primaries on how he is "all words, with no policies." In an attempt to silence those and other comments like them, Obama gave a stump speech on how words do matter. He boomed at the microphone, in his most elegant voice, "Words don't matter? You have nothing to fear, but fear itself........ just words. I have a dream.....just words. All men are created equal.....just words." It just happens, that Patrick Deval did give, "word for word" (no pun intended), that exact speech when working on the stump for governor.

In the Obama camp, that was not the worst thing in this week's press cycle. Michelle Obama, out on her own for her husband's bid at president, was doing some of her own booming away at the podium. A very charismatic and articulate orator, with the best speech writers, and an attitude to back it up, Mrs. Obama came across poised and the first part of the speech was a picture of perfection (like most of her husband's speeches). However, there was one group of words, maybe two sentences, caused a ripple across all media outlets. "In all of my adult life, this if the first time I have really been proud of my country," she said. A statement that may have been over looked (due to this being her first time out, context, or a various set of reasons), except for maybe what the "right/conservatives" may have said. There was a slight buzz about the comment, which was made live, on CSPAN, in Wisconsin (while Barack is in Texas). A full twelve hours went by, with no explanation, and maybe none was needed. Although, Michelle came back to the podium, in yet another Wisconsin stump speech, she came across the microphone with almost the exact same comment. She said without any citation, explanation, or remorse, "For the first time in my adult life, I feel as though hope is attainable in America."

Now there is an excuse for anyone, speaking live and/or from a speech card, if they make a mistake. If there is a mistake made, then there is always a chance to give a small press conference, a statement thru a public relations person, and/or a letter to the press. Evidently, Michelle Obama (coming across, more like Amarosa Obama) did not feel the need to give any kind of explanation. Now there is not a ripple, across the media world, but a tsunami of waves across the media world. Obviously reading a prepared speech, not giving those two stump speeches off the cuff, the Harvard graduate new that the remarks could be taken in a sour light. When the actual sentence is broken down, it sounds like she is a disenfranchised woman, who has never seen anything in America qualifying as "real hope," and now that her husband is running for president there is? Maybe she meant, in my adult life (she is forty-five years old), that she has not ever felt anything to be proud of in America, or in anything that America has done? There is not any way of knowing, what she meant by those two statements, than maybe she has never seen/felt hope in America and she has never felt/been proud of America?

The bad thing about this, is the media is in love with Barack Obama. Proverbially, he walks on water, brings both looks and is a spectacular orator, and he has a shiny coat of armor on at all times (repelling all comers, including the media, who could attack him with any kind of the "usual" political rhetoric). There is not really any way most media outlets have been able to criticize him on not having one piece of legislation in his name from the senate (or even a cosponsored bill in the senate), the fact that he does not have but three and a half years experience (now he wants to lead the free world, or lead the biggest "super power country" in the world), and he has not laid out very many actual policy ideas (in detail) on how he will lead the country into the "hope and change," in which he so freely speaks on. There is only two really good reasons for this, either the media is just caught up in the "Hope and Change" vibe and "Barack-O-Mania" (where they are in the eye of he hurricane, and can't see out), or else they are afraid of being blasted on the "race card" (being as most of the correspondence, pundits, and media friendly are white).

Now there is a legitimate way to actually attack Obama, it is before Texas, Ohio, and the debate on Thursday, so Hillary should be on the war path and the media is all over him, for his wife's statements. However this pans out, Michelle Obama is a strong black woman. Oprah and Amarosa are also strong black women, as well. In the "60 Minutes" interview and in the "Holiday Commercial" for the Obama family, Michelle Obama came off as both rigid and outright "in your face" (in the "60 Minutes") and then came off soft and sweet (in the "Holiday Commercial"). Therefore, now is when she will define herself, in the campaign, as a running mate, possible first lady, and a plus, or a minus for Barack the next eight months (assuming he wins the democratic nomination). Will Michelle Obama be perceived as an Oprah like person, or will she come off as the "new Amarosa Obama," only time will tell? However, that watch is ticking faster, each day that the Obama campaign does not come out and give some kind of explanation to her remarks.