Why is the corporate news media pushing Obama for 2008?

Particularly when we haven't finished the 2006 election.

They've studiously ignored any Dem candidate for president as long as possible. Why are they suddenly covering him? The media fawning is about to make me :puke:

On edit, no offense to Obama, its just gag inducing when the talking heads give this treatment to any candidate. Its so insincere and smarmy.

Notice they are pushing the in-experience he has to scare up the base.

:eyes:

I'm surprised they're talking about any Dem running for president. Ignoring Dem candidates has worked so well for them. Guess the old strategy doesn't work as well since the GOP is losing ground. Guess they're not ready to roll out McCain yet.

Same old tired senators that make a decision on which way the wind blows. and people are tired of that

...him, seems to me.


>>>>>Same old tired senators that make a decision on which way the wind blows. and people are tired of that>>>>

Ok... he's not "old". And he's not the "same".

and their covert dealings all over the world.

And I just LOVED the Withdrawal plan for Iraq that he crafted.

Now THAT is exciting and THEN some.

then tear him to shreds. It's the media's way.

washington, jefferson, clinton, OBAMA LoL

they're not gonna hang a portrait of him alongside the other presidents in the whitehouse. come on!!

maybe if he sports a blond wig and changes his name to obamaton he might get an electoral vote

...although considerably more charismatic.

My theory is they are pushing him in the hope he will get it and that America isn't quite ready for an African American president.

Just my theory... I've noticed the push too.

I always liked watching her at the Dem conventions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm

she's got my vote (except i was only 7 or 8 at the time) but my 3 olders sisters were behind her all the way :)

She was such a strong and dignified woman.

Was she nominated? I'm talking serious bid for nomination here. Nothing against Chisholm, she was clearly before her time.

and garnered a respectable number of delegate votes, with support from the Black Caucus and feminists. But she didn't make the final cut. She used her delegate votes to get a lot of issues into the party platform and focused the party on minority and women's issues.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm

I was nine at the time.

he`d blow a big hole through their junior high chit-chat:

Democrats have no message.
Democrats are weak on defense.
Democrats don`t have a plan.
Democrats aren`t tough on terrorism.

ignore the crack they're trying to sell us (it's drywall!) but let's look right at THEM! strip em naked and see what they're hiding! who are they, what's their record? why are they pushing dope in public when criminals run the white house?
please please don't let the pigmedia continue to play us like a one note fiddle!
please...

at staying relevant in the Democratic party.

After Dean has remade the party and is on the verge to leading to to massive success, the last gasp of the DLC is going to be an attempt to maintain its relevance in the party.

By having one of their own as the sexy 08 candidate, they achieve that goal.

Obama got, I'd ask why the media is pusing Biden. In fact, if Biden got any press, I'd ask that question.

But why, with Obama, is anyone questioning the coverage? If you ask me, Democrats like Obama don't get anywhere near the coverage they deserve.

political topic right now. I suspect all this talk will slow down in a short time.

Obama has implied he MIGHT run. The man is truly exciting and inspirational, maybe not on this forum, but to mainstream Democrats, and the media is jumping all over it. Stop complaining.

It's preferable they focus on 2006 then cover the Dems fairly for 2008. You and I both know that's not going to happen.

It's wall-to-wall coverage. The Obama coverage adds some spice to the stew - and any positive coverage of a Dem makes all of the Democrats look good - especially when most of the coverage of Republicans involves them being dragged before the Ethics Committee, sentencing judges and rehab intake desks.

Its the DU way! :crazy:

How dare they postively cover an interesting, popular, charismatic Democrat with a bright future.

It's a plot, I tell ya, a plot!

Whatever one thinks of Obama, he's a charismatic guy who represents the party in a positive fashion. He'll make the "D" after the name of other candidates look better when voters arrive at the polls in a couple of weeks. (And I'm saying this as a Feingoldista.)

But to get back to the original question in this thread: it's my understanding that Obama has been hitting the talk show circuit to plug his new book. The media is causing this hoopla to snowball a bit, because it's a compelling story that doesn't require their lazy butts to do much investigative work.

The media is all about the stories that capture the hearts/minds/attention spans of Americans in some fashion, thereby pulling in sponsors enough to reap the largest possible financial rewards.

The danged press is trying to do us in by giving favorable coverage to a Black Democrat. If only they didn't let us keep them out of sight and out of mind so we can win the next election!

:sarcasm:

A big section of their base in the deep south is openly racist. It is the same thing they do with Hillary and Nancy. They want to try rallying conservative sexist voters. As Ripley said, "believe it or not!"

scare the right.

of the House. She's news.

Just like Gingrich got lots of play in the weeks leading up to the 1994 election when it looked like he had a chance to become Speaker.

When the MSM DOESN'T cover our leaders, we whine. When they DO cover our leaders, we accuse them of trying to scare the other side.

Jeez!

But she is newsworthy right now and it makes sense for the media to cover her. And if they weren't covering her, we'd be bitching to high heaven.

She's poised to be the next Speaker of the House and the first woman to serve in that position.

And it's not like there's been a news blackout on her for the past four years. She's gotten plenty of coverage since becoming Minority Leader. She's getting more coverage now because she may not be the Minority Leader much longer but in a couple of weeks might become the highest ranking and most powerful legislator in the country - and arguably, the highest ranking and powerful woman in American history.

I see no evil plot here. Nancy Pelosi is news. She's getting lots of news coverage. That's the way it's SUPPOSED to work.

This is what a good, winning candidate looks like. Winning means getting good press and impressing people.

I hope no one who buys the "good media coverage = sell-out" argument is a Deaniac. Remember that the media fawned over Dean for months before they turned on him after Iowa. Dean gets credit for having a good media team that was the main reason his campaign got any traction.

The new push for Obama is a refreshing change from the constant drumbeat that Hillary is the presumptive Dem nominee. Here on the west coast, my blue friends and I are perplexed at the spinners who are constantly putting Hillary first. I know not one Dem voter who wants her as Pres in 2008??? Maybe Secretary of State? Of course, most of us will vote for the Democratic nominee anyway; but we need a vigorous debate along the primaries road to 08. Now I'm not an Obama operative, but frankly anybody else that gets some share of the spotlight (OTHER than Ms. Rodham Clinton) be it Obama ,Clark, or Feingold is a welcome shift :thumbsup: So give me a break from Hillary already! Good on ya press to be giving some other Dem some attention.

Or because the MSM's coverage of politics is absolutely brainless and irresponsible?

If I were Czarina of DU, I'd declare a moratorium on saying "How about Jo()e Blow in 2008?" and urge people to ask instead, "What vision (not set of disjointed policies, but an overarching vision of linked policies) can we present to the American people in 2008, and once we've decided that, who is the best standard bearer for it?"

Let's leave discussion of candidates for 2008 UNTIL 2008, or at least late 2007. :-)

But what you are asking for is for people to think, and from what I have seen from most Du'ers recently is a profound lack of thinking. I figure the thinking folks are off working campaigns, looking for e-voting theft, or otherwise responsibly enjoined?

Of course, you do know that eventually any czarina would have to be hung, don't you?

:-)

I'm sure we will try to comply with your last wishes, but I won't guarantee that.

and avoid putting money, reporters, equipment and thought into examining the issues. It's much easier if all political races are just about who is ahead this week and if the other person notices it yet. Much cheaper to produce, write and edit as well, because it's just a bunch of talking heads, no big graphics or film expense.