Comments on: The new “liberal bias” http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2008/02/27/the-new-%e2%80%9cliberal-bias%e2%80%9d/ Serving California State University, Fresno since 1922. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:56:28 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Benjamin Baxter http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2008/02/27/the-new-%e2%80%9cliberal-bias%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-27605 Benjamin Baxter Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:54:23 +0000 http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2008/02/27/the-new-%e2%80%9cliberal-bias%e2%80%9d/#comment-27605 <i>The Collegian Staff Comment Future Squirrel Stuffer</i> It'd be more correct to say that the GOP is more Democratic than ever, what with its embrace of <a href="http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2008/02/15/ron-pauls-one-good-idea/" rel="nofollow">big government ideologies</a> . The Collegian Staff Comment
Future Squirrel Stuffer

It’d be more correct to say that the GOP is more Democratic than ever, what with its embrace of big government ideologies .

]]> By: Kimbo Slyce http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2008/02/27/the-new-%e2%80%9cliberal-bias%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-27367 Kimbo Slyce Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:01:06 +0000 http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2008/02/27/the-new-%e2%80%9cliberal-bias%e2%80%9d/#comment-27367 Clinton is not a woman and O(s)bama is not black!!! These are Republicrats just like McCain, Romney, Dodd, Edwards, Kerry, Giuliani and the rest of the elitist field of current and former candidates. Clinton is not a woman and O(s)bama is not black!!!

These are Republicrats just like McCain, Romney, Dodd, Edwards, Kerry, Giuliani and the rest of the elitist field of current and former candidates.

]]> By: gm http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2008/02/27/the-new-%e2%80%9cliberal-bias%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-27356 gm Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:45:33 +0000 http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2008/02/27/the-new-%e2%80%9cliberal-bias%e2%80%9d/#comment-27356 I agree it is pretty remarkable how much things have changed in just a few weeks. What is not new is Bill and Hillary playing the victims. I laughed out loud when Hillary whined that she keeps getting asked questions first in the debates. Keep up the good work Benjamin. I agree it is pretty remarkable how much things have changed in just a few weeks. What is not new is Bill and Hillary playing the victims. I laughed out loud when Hillary whined that she keeps getting asked questions first in the debates. Keep up the good work Benjamin.

]]> By: Benjamin Baxter http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2008/02/27/the-new-%e2%80%9cliberal-bias%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-27355 Benjamin Baxter Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:33:05 +0000 http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2008/02/27/the-new-%e2%80%9cliberal-bias%e2%80%9d/#comment-27355 <em>The Collegian Staff Comment Future Squirrel Stuffer</em> ... seeks to *cast* Obama ... The Collegian Staff Comment
Future Squirrel Stuffer

… seeks to *cast* Obama …

]]> By: Benjamin Baxter http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2008/02/27/the-new-%e2%80%9cliberal-bias%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-27354 Benjamin Baxter Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:32:15 +0000 http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2008/02/27/the-new-%e2%80%9cliberal-bias%e2%80%9d/#comment-27354 <em>The Collegian Staff Comment Future Squirrel Stuffer</em> I don't disagree with anything you wrote. Naturally, of course, that doesn't mean that the media hasn't been biased against her <i>recently</i>. I took the liberty of signing up for her e-mail mailers, and today woke to find a message from Bill Clinton in my inbox. It mentioned something along the lines of a "spending gap" on advertising compared to the Obama camp. The Clinton campaign --- rightly or not --- seeks to cas Obama in the light of a "golden boy" who wrongly tries to outspend Clinton, the rightful heir of the nomination. Roles reversed, much? The Collegian Staff Comment
Future Squirrel Stuffer

I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. Naturally, of course, that doesn’t mean that the media hasn’t been biased against her recently.

I took the liberty of signing up for her e-mail mailers, and today woke to find a message from Bill Clinton in my inbox. It mentioned something along the lines of a “spending gap” on advertising compared to the Obama camp.

The Clinton campaign — rightly or not — seeks to cas Obama in the light of a “golden boy” who wrongly tries to outspend Clinton, the rightful heir of the nomination.

Roles reversed, much?

]]> By: gm http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2008/02/27/the-new-%e2%80%9cliberal-bias%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-27347 gm Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:41:08 +0000 http://collegian.csufresno.edu/2008/02/27/the-new-%e2%80%9cliberal-bias%e2%80%9d/#comment-27347 I find the notion of media bias against Hillary rather amusing. While I agree that Obama has been the focus of coverage in the past couple of months, it is important to remember 2 things. First he is the new entity. There haven't been years of stories and numerous books written about Obama. People and the media want to learn more about him. Furthermore, this is a very recent phenomenon. In November and December, the press was concluding a 2 year long coronation of Hillary as the Democratic nominee and probable winner in November. Obama's press clippings overwhelmingly focused on the fact that he had no chance to win. If 3 or 4 weeks of reporting telling Hillary she can't win when it is true (unless the super delegates take the nomination out of the hands of voters), then what do you call a year of being told you can't win, when not a single vote had been cast? I do agree that there are certain members of the media who have it in for Hillary. Maureen Down and Chris Mathews come to mind as examples of people in the press who have little use for her. Yet, there are also those who are clearly on the Clinton train and have made attacking and ridiculing Obama their mission. Just check out Paul Krugman in the New York Times. Finally, it is important to note all the negative things about Hillary the press has failed to report on. She has made much ado about the Obama campaign mischaracterizing her position on NAFTA which, when she is in Ohio she claims to have always been against (She is far less emphatic when in Texas where it is more popular). Where is the story detailing the dozens of statements made by her and Bill in support of it? The press has allowed her to explain away her handling or mishandling of the health care issue while first lady, with the simple statement that she made mistakes and learned from them. What were the mistakes and what would she do differently? How many millions of uninsured people would have had coverage in the past 15 years if Hillary had been willing to compromise? Have you seen a single reporter ask her about travelgate, whitewater or her husband's infedelity which she helped cover up? When the Lewinsky affair became public, Hillary said it was a lie that was part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. More significantly, she attacked the press for being duped by the right and getting caught up in the moment. Sound familiar? I find the notion of media bias against Hillary rather amusing. While I agree that Obama has been the focus of coverage in the past couple of months, it is important to remember 2 things. First he is the new entity. There haven’t been years of stories and numerous books written about Obama. People and the media want to learn more about him. Furthermore, this is a very recent phenomenon. In November and December, the press was concluding a 2 year long coronation of Hillary as the Democratic nominee and probable winner in November. Obama’s press clippings overwhelmingly focused on the fact that he had no chance to win. If 3 or 4 weeks of reporting telling Hillary she can’t win when it is true (unless the super delegates take the nomination out of the hands of voters), then what do you call a year of being told you can’t win, when not a single vote had been cast?
I do agree that there are certain members of the media who have it in for Hillary. Maureen Down and Chris Mathews come to mind as examples of people in the press who have little use for her. Yet, there are also those who are clearly on the Clinton train and have made attacking and ridiculing Obama their mission. Just check out Paul Krugman in the New York Times.
Finally, it is important to note all the negative things about Hillary the press has failed to report on. She has made much ado about the Obama campaign mischaracterizing her position on NAFTA which, when she is in Ohio she claims to have always been against (She is far less emphatic when in Texas where it is more popular). Where is the story detailing the dozens of statements made by her and Bill in support of it? The press has allowed her to explain away her handling or mishandling of the health care issue while first lady, with the simple statement that she made mistakes and learned from them. What were the mistakes and what would she do differently? How many millions of uninsured people would have had coverage in the past 15 years if Hillary had been willing to compromise? Have you seen a single reporter ask her about travelgate, whitewater or her husband’s infedelity which she helped cover up? When the Lewinsky affair became public, Hillary said it was a lie that was part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. More significantly, she attacked the press for being duped by the right and getting caught up in the moment. Sound familiar?

]]>