standards and white male privilege in the media and blatant misogyny. We've been seeing it forever.

Beto isn't the first male given the star treatment. I certainly don't blame him.

She had that big speech in CA with thousands of people in the audience. It was all over the news.

I don't recall the other candidates complaining about the media covering her candidacy because of her gender or racial background.

Beto was more strategic in entering. He waited until the crowd entered. And he's popular and has charisma.

Harris could have waited, too.

I expect Biden will get a lot of coverage, when he enters, too. Not because of white male privilege. But because it's a strategic time to enter.

The fanfare when they enter isn't that important. What matters is the numbers, as their campaigns progress. Biden in the past has done okay in the beginning, but then goes nowhere.

To be jealous of coverage is in effect being jealous of someone else's popularity. You can't force the people to like a candidate. They decide for themselves who they are drawn to, as a candidate.

It just goes to show how difficult it is for women to get fair evenhanded coverage.

and I discount much of their reporting because it comes with agendas and rw spin. We need to ort this field out without the Republicans doing it for us.

They constantly report on imaginary infighting in our party. They want to divide us.

There is currently a story about a supposed civil war going on in the Democratic Party. Republicans have really been pushing the idea of a civil war, or the need for a in the Democratic Party. I do not see a civil war in the Democratic Party. Different people within the Democratic Party have different ideas. The same thing happens and is happening in the Republican Party, but are we hearing talk of a civil war in the Republican Party?

It seems to me that some are already deep into divisiveness.

...is unnecessarily incendiary language.

Early days yet. I hope we manage to avoid some of the stuff I saw before.

Cory Booker, Jay Inslee, Pete Buttigieg, John Hickenlooper, Andrew Yang, Julian Castro, and John Delaney.. none of them got the same coverage.

When Joe Biden finally announces, he will likely get the full, around the clock coverage as well.

It’s all driven by the public energy, and what will drive ratings for todays broadcasters. If Hillary Clinton announced, she’d definitely get the same coverage, if Nancy Pelosi decided to make a run, she’d almost definitely get that same coverage. If Michele Obama threw her hat into the race, her coverage would likely eclipse everyone.

I totally agree that it is NOT fair at all. I also totally agree that institutionalized misogyny is VERY alive and all too well in this country and MUST be a top priority to overcome. If it wasn’t we’d have Hillary Clinton for president right now. Of that I don’t have a shred of doubt in my body. This right here, though, I honestly don’t feel is driven by misogyny as much as sensationalism.

I kind of agree with you. Down the road though we'll see how things shake out. If the male candidates continue to get the press and leave the female candidates in the dark then the OP is right. For right now though, it's because Beto was such a sensation just a few months ago and this is a continuation of that excitement.

which came with concrete policy proposals, not just a bunch of hand-waving platitudes that you get with a lot of other politicians trying to sway their vote. They demand a real progressive agenda that earns their vote by addressing the 99% and THEIR needs and desires... Wall Street bankers, oil & gas interests, pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, PAC money interests BE DAMNED!!! There's a reason Bernie has received the amount of coverage he's gotten... he's EARNED it!!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

Indeed, Elizabeth is a perfect example of one of the brilliant female candidates who ABSOLUTELY deserves the same kind of coverage Bernie received. However, that shouldn't take away from Bernie's stellar campaign performance to date that has gotten him the coverage he deserves.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

It may not have been your intent, but yes, you did.

The core topic of this whole thread is that none of the female candidate running got the television/media coverage that Beto has. I point out that only 2 candidates have gotten that kind of coverage so far, that the large number of other males, many of whom are also deserving of equal coverage didn’t, and your response?

Bernie deserved it.

No acknowledging, at all, that the others in this race also were deserving. When you quantify that Bernie deserved it, and give no indication supporting that any of the very accomplished female candidates also deserved it, especially given the very subject of this entire thread, guess what that effectively says?

I thank you for finally acknowledding that at least one of the women running also earned and deserved coverage. I also eagerly look forward to watching Senator Warren’s town hall on CNN on Monday.

I also feel that Senator Kamila Harris, and Senator Amy Klobuchar have done much to earn more coverage as well at the very minimum.

that certain male candidates, but not all, DESERVED the coverage they got, like Bernie did (why I added to my statement in response to you). The same is clearly true for our female candidates... unfortunately, misogyny is alive and well in this country.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

throwing the most corrupt, traiterous, hateful, bigoted, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, worst lying piece of shit scumbag of a President out of office!!

I'll toast to that...



Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

be the previous nominee of the party, be the first speaker of the House to serve in non consecutive terms since Sam Rayburn, or be the most popular woman in the country as well as the most educated first lady we ever had. Beto, served three terms in the House minority, didn't author a single bill, and has no real accomplishments. But no, no double standard to see here.

Do you have any doubt that if she announced tomorrow that she’s running for president that she wouldn’t dominate the headlines?

Rampant misogyny exists in this country, but the news coverage isn’t the source of it, it’s a result of it. If a story gets clicks, viewers, ratings, and ultimately more expensive advertising revenue, it’s a headliner. If it doesn’t, it’s not.

but I suspect that even if where were old enough and announced the coverage would be less positive.

I can’t argue this last point of yours without being disingenuous. Your logic is without flaw, and I conceed.

I stand corrected in my assertion above.

(On edit: To make sure there is no mistake, this is NOT sarcasm.)

I love beto, and voted for him against cruz. Unfortunately, lots of people in America don't pay attention to policy proposals or accomplishments. Hell, lots of Americans don't even read. It's about what catches their eyes. Hopefully, when the debates start, people will begin to pay attention to policy. It's too early right now.

Not sure if I have to say this, but I will. I currently like what I hear from all the candidates. I'm not against anyone. Right now, i am for Kamala Harris. My dream ticket would be Kamala/Beto. I will most certainly vote for our nominee when the time comes, though.

Booker, Gov Inslee, Sherrod Brown, etc. It's because Beto has more charisma and is, at least at this stage, more popular. The people decide who is popular. Not the media.

Jealousy is unbecoming of someone who wants to be President. No matter how many are in the race, there will always be one or two who are more popular than the others. That can change from month to month, as well.

I haven't decided who to support yet. But I've said before, and I'll say it again, charisma and that "it" factor is very important in a candidate. It's undefinable, but is what a natural leader always has. When they speak in a group, people naturally listen. When they're on tv in a group, people look at them. People are interested, enthused by them.

Obama had it. Bill Clinton had it. On the right, Reagan had it.

It's not all that is needed. But it's something that most successful leaders have.

can beat Trump. Who has the most experience? Who generates immense excitement?
It is only natural for the news to think that whoever this is, despite gender or race, is who we will cover.

He waited until most of the other candidates had jumped in.

To be fair, Harris got a lot of coverage, too, because she had that big rally in CA with thousands of people. It was all over the news for a few days.

The newness wears off after a while.

I expect there will be a lot of coverage on Biden, since he will be jumping in, when all the others are already in. No one to compete with for tv time.

to provide some balance and context!

what ordinary folks are more interested in seeing and hearing about are concrete progressive policy proposals that will improve their daily lives. That's where Bernie shines and rises above all of his fellow Democrats in the race... that's why I'm supporting Bernie for President (and Elizabeth for Vice President). Go Bernie!!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

I would only differ in your characterization of Ronnie Raygun... I think his popularity was more a reflection of his being a good con artist, much like The Dotard.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

From the Repub perspective, he had charisma in aces. From a different perspective, I would agree, as well. He was the sort of person who, when with a group of other politicians, he stood out. Sense of humor, tall, confidant, command of the facts and definite in his ideology, attractive. Whatever charisma is. It's probably why he had been a movie star. That "it" factor.

I hear people saying, "Well, (insert other candidate), has such great positions on policies and great plans to solve things." But that's like saying, "Well, Paul Giamotto is such a better actor than Tom Cruise. I resent Cruise being given all those blockbuster movies, when Giamotto is a better actor. Cruise gets too much attention." It's not just about acting skills. It's that "it" factor that makes Cruise a mega-movie star. Or why John Travolta or Hugh Grant are movie stars, when other actors are better at the craft. When the mega stars are on screen, that's who people watch. Those are the ones who draw people to theaters.

It's not much different with politicians. Besides, all Democratic Party candidates hold similar positions on the issues, so IMO it comes down to force of personality and ability to get Congress to work with him/her.

I think he's a great actor, too. I didn't like him initially, but I've grown to appreciate his acting chops, as he's gotten the bigger roles to show off his talent.

(I am one, however, who doesn't care for Tom Cruise. Esp NOW...it's time for him to transition into mature roles; he's too old to be believable as an action figure, for gosh sakes! I say that as a mature person, myself. At least when Harrison Ford did it, his character on screen made reference to the fact that he was getting too old for that, and complained of aches & pains. So you see, even charisma doesn't work on everyone.)

John McCain and Bernie Sanders had cancerous growths removed, now Sanders fell and had seven stitches. I'm cranky about the fact that when women have health problems it's a big tabloid story about how they're dying, for years. The coverage is always negative. Not on topic, but it makes me grumpy.

He had cancer surgery in early 2003. His walking pneumonia was not covered because he campaigned through it and the media did not know. However, having watched his appearances on CSPAN then and later appearances, it probably indirectly affected coverage in a negative way. He is an unusually active, atheistic person. He had less energy in that important primary period than he would have had.

It also is probably why one other candidate's team started rumors that he was not over cancer. The Republican fringe obliquely used it by taking a photo from that time and contrasting it to a healthy Kerry photo from the general election arguing he had used Botox when the difference was he had gained back weight lost and was healthy.

That was seen as a joke, not that he was dying.

covered the incident. With McCain there was the constant thread that his vp choice was more important than usual given his health and age.

McCain sealed his fate choosing Palin.

could die in office than Hillary Clinton.

I KNOW that the rw fringe, amplified by the National Enquirer, had many stories that suggested that Clinton was not healthy. Some of that was because of her concussion in December 2012 -- and that died a natural death as she was out in public and healthy.

When she had pneumonia, part of the problem was how they handled it. If they would have just said that she had pneumonia and would try to keep to her schedule as much as possible, the RW would not have been able to turn a normal health issue into suggesting that her campaign was not transparent. (Imagine they said that surrogates would handle all fundraisers to maximize her being able to meet campaign commitments.) Then after she fainted, it was at least 4 hours before they put out information that she had pneumonia.

You raised the Kerry comparison and I would guess he stayed on the campaign because taking a break then would have given credence to the obnoxious rumors about his cancer. Had he fainted - like HRC - like her campaign, his would have been harmed by health rumors. In fact, given that that was the PRIMARIES, the impact would have been more. He was not then the nominee. Do you seriously think anyone voted for Trump/Pence rather than Clinton/Kaine, because they feared for her health? I think anyone who was for HRC would have been far more comfortable with Kaine than Trump.

To play up Clinton's health as a manufactured issue?

Last edited Sat Mar 16, 2019, 09:13 AM - Edit history (1)

They always seem to be young men who are phenomenons: JFK(43) WJC(46) Obama(47)

Sen Sanders 2015-16 would count.

But you only get to be a phenomenon once AFAIK.

Beto is a centrist. He was not for ObamaCare. He did not vote for Pelosi when she ran for House Minority Leader in the 115 Congress. Also he is for raising the Social Security eligibility age. Personally, I just want a Dem candidate to win.

and I can drag him/her through the mud. We would be better served here to simply be positive about the candidate/candidates we like. None of our candidates are perfect. We need a candidate tough as nails who can beat Trump.

No one should fear healthy debate and constructive criticism. That doesn’t sound very tough as nails.

Didnt get much play during the Senate race from what i remember, but i have a friend who lives in the area and she said he got a BAD name for it when it was going on. He was a councilman at the time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/us/politics/beto-orourke-el-paso-texas-senate.html

That article is only part of the story. Sure he was accused; accused of having a conflict of interest. Which obviously would be true, considering the driver of the project was his father-in-law. To think he could be anything BUT involved would be silly. Of course, it all became a moot point when the state voted to stop eminent domain from being used for deals like this. Which SHOULD be illegal everywhere, IMO. Running for president he's gonna have to deal with ALL of his past being dragged out into the national spotlight; so he should get used to it

I would vote for Biden or Beto...and by the way, it was centrist that gave us the house in 18. A big tent is the only way we ever win.

who can stand toe to toe with Trump and knock him flat on his ass. We need a candidate who will get the young voters to vote and get the suburban voters to vote Democratic, like we did in 2018.

I have 3 tough as nails candidates in mind and 2 of them are women. I am waiting until I see the debates, until I see how our candidates not so much debate among themselves, but how they speak about how they plan to beat Trump.

Elizabeth, Kamala, and Uncle Joe (when he declares) among them. I'm curious who's on you're list.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

speeches liked and supported and voted for him but felt he was too nice, not tough enough. I certainly will push hard for him if he gets the nomination but thinking that Biden may be the best choice with Warren or Harris as vp. This is because of national misogyny and voters liking the tried and true.

sensationalism and do their own research. I won't watch any of the speculation crap, just what the candidates say, debates. I won't care if they scream, dance, have a bad hair day, pick the wrong colored suit, that will be MSM's coverage.

at least it will try to play a role. They are doing a good job of getting us to fight with one another already.

myself yesterday as every other tweet on the NZ trend was a 0 to low follow new account backing the NRA or tRump.

the MSM *is* the establishment and what they push and "like" are illuminating

Politico is trying to divide us again. Harris got plenty of coverage.

There are other men running this year who got less coverage than Beto. Media likes Beto, I don't believe it's a gender issue.

That naturally helps him

what I was able to find, I really liked. I wish him luck and hope his voice gets heard more... he definitely has something to contribute to the debate.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

It sure wasn't fawning.

This story is just another example of media trying to stir up drama. It would be better to ignore it rather than to give it more publicity. IMO it's a bad decision to post this divisiveness.

Star quality, charisma, a good heart, a great message, and lots of enthusiasm!

Works for me!

BTW the coverage of Beto allowed the 24/7 cable news organizations not
to cover that we have a mentally ill Russian agent in the White House who
was installed after a coup.

But I remember many candidates getting lots of coverage on their first day. Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg all got plenty of coverage. Probably because they are better at the media game than the rest.

I read the press every day and watch tv news. I don’t know any of the new House Reps that are male. I know about at least 4 of the new Reps that are females. Why, because they are all the talk now. Must be some kind of plot. Anyway, I love the ones I see on the media and wish they were in the race for President

I like one woman's observation I heard on All In with Chris Hayes. Her name was Christina (don't remember last name) but she said isn't Beto a bit old to be taking a road trip to find himself? Shouldn't you do that sometime after high school?

Women are the other, the lesser, the also rans while the guys are the ones "you" really want to pay attention to and follow. It's just fucking disgusting how the world is still so deeply misogynistic, even media that doesn't self-identify as right wing has this bias.

I love Joe because I love who he is as a person and I love his pro worker and anti-war bonafides. I also love Elizabeth Warren's fabulous idea of a wealth tax, smartest thing I've heard in maybe forever? Why am I not hearing more about her robust and transformative ideas?

Sigh.

Not quite Kneecapping, since everyone knows already that Beto is not a woman.

We'll be arguing about who did what to whom over which one of our myriad internal issues while trump and pootin steal another election. This should work out very well. Just like 2016.

How about we concentrate on winning? Because it sure as hell looks like nothing is going to be done to stop the traitor from running again and nothing is being done about securing our electoral system from another attack. So, let's keep arguing among ourselves over every bit of minutiae we can come up with. What the hell, the stakes aren't that high and after another repubican win in 2020 none of this will matter anyway.

It's 2020 and trump "wins" again - does anyone think the huge issue of who got the most coverage will matter then?

We Democrats never seem to have understood that, internal issues aside, we have to win on that one day. Election day.

I missed it. Thanks.

Hillary, John McCain AND Mitt Romney suffered from low charisma vs Obama. It happens. Elizabeth Warren has -0- charisma. She’s highly qualified, however. She is likely to ascend once the debates start. Her intellect will shine through. If she had 10% of Beto’s or Harris’s charisma, she would get more press.

and an election is on some level is a popularity contest. JFK, Reagan, Bill, W, Obama, Trump - were all more 'popular' than their political opponents, especially in the age of 24/7 media.

Kamala, who is warm and telegenic, got alot of coverage compared to the other female candidates.

None of the other male candidates got much coverage compared to Beto, who became a national sensation due to his unusually strong showing for a Dem in red Texas.

He is doing that so the problem does not lay at the feet of Beto. He is not the one creating the double standard.

But a double standard does exist - and it has since the beginning of time. Just look at the boardrooms in America. They are dominated by white males. That includes media boardrooms. It is frequently called a glass ceiling. It does exist. That culture will give star treatment to the most exciting male. In the 2016 general election cycle that star treatment went to Donald Trump. He received about 3 times the coverage that Hillary Clinton received. Yes, that included the Access Hollywood video but that just seemed to enhance the star quality and helped build momentum for Trumps campaign.


Yes, it is easy to see how this clear double standard frustrates and even angers the women candidates. It is crap that it exists and it will continue to exist until the boardrooms embrace diversity. Pointing out the double standard and calling out the media is the available tool so by all means use it. Blaming Beto, however, is a distraction and makes it look like whining. Keep banging on the media until they change their ways.

I don’t even care about Beto, it’s between Warren and Inslee for me right now, but Harris got plenty of attention in her first week, more than any number of male candidates. It’s not complicated; all things being relatively equal, attractive people get more camera time.

but in both cases, the media is simply CONTINUING THE NARRATIVE that built up around these candidates during their last campaign. In the case of Beto, that narrative is but a few months old.

The media is usually a dozen steps behind the story, and this case is no different, IMHO.

Many been waiting to see/hear from Beto, he announced, he's on the road, and gets coverage; it's natural.

What's NOT natural or desirable: 'Many Democrats see a double standard,' which is DIVIDE and CONQUER, which repugs and russkies do so well.

Drop it, and watch our candidates.

It's not just Beto. I for one am getting tired of Inslee and Hickenlooper getting the star treatment while Kamala Harris continues to be ignored. It's not fair!

I think Senator Kamala Harris deservedly got this kind of coverage. Just about everyone in political news was talking about her during the time of her Presidential announcement. She had a town hall on CNN, she appeared on ABC Good Morning America to announce that she was running for President, and her campaign kickoff was given live coverage. Elizabeth Warren has been getting large amounts of coverage over her presidential asperations for years and she has been given a good amount of coverage since she announced her run. Kirsten Gillibrand has not received that much coverage, but she has not announced an actual campaign run. However, she was interviewed on CBS This Morning no more than two weeks ago. During that interview she was asked about running for President. Amy Kloubchar has not gotten a large amount of television coverage, but she did have a CNN town hall. I believe Tulsi Gabbard was given a CNN town hall.

As someone else said, most of the men have not received the type of treatment Beto O' Rourke has gotten. How many of the men have gotten a spread in any magazine? How many of the men have had the media following them everywhere they go?

Now, I will say Oprah Winfrey should give all of the candidates running for President the same type of interview. I wish CBS, a company that employs Winfrey, would host several prime-time shows focusing on interviewing all of the candidates. That would likely be good for CBS, Oprah Winfrey, the candidates, and the American people. CBS would likely get decent to high ratings, Winfrey would be bringing in those ratings, the candidates would be able to talk about their ideas, and the American people would have a chance to be informed.

I think the Beto craze is more explained by the idea that the media has a big shiny things problem. O'Rourke is the new big shiny thing. As a result, he is getting a large amount of attention. O'Rourke likely also gets large amounts of attention because he lost in deep red Texas. All of the women might have won, but they won in fairly blue areas.

when she announced and got great coverage. Warren has gotten pretty good coverage. Let's face it, the vast majority of the people in the race are not terribly exciting and a few are downright forgettable. It's a shame we live during such shallow times that we need a rock star in order to win, but that's where we are - mired in Don's reality show.

Yes, I can definitely see the lack of correlation

My prediction was one paragraph on page 12

Beto looks like Kennedy, he came from nowhere like Carter, he's got charm like Clinton and he speaks like Obama.

But you know what...I wish he was more to the point like Johnson.

Platitudes and wishy-washy feel good rhetoric can only take you so far. It almost unseated a widely unliked incumbent senator, but it didn't.

It will not win him a national election.