Before I begin, I'd like to ask that readers take my comments in earnest. I'm not being snarky or subversive. I'm really curious and concerned. I'd like to get and idea of what is going on in the minds of Clinton supporters. I recently read AngryMouse's diary entry Coming to Obama and I was deeply touched. I can relate to her pain. (Obama wasn't my first pick either.) AngryMouse's honesty and awareness come though in every word. I urge everyone to read her diary entry if they've not yet done so.
To be brief: I'm concerned that Hillary supporters and the Democratic party are being set up by the right-wing, corporate media. I'm not sure why. We can all guess. But no one is sure. But the set-up looks obvious to me and I wonder, with Hillary's grip on the nomination so tenuous, should this be a consideration? Should we take a hint? Are Hillary supporters being snookered into supporting a candidate that the right-wing media is just going to steam-roll if she gets the nomination?
I've been watching the ups and downs of this campaign and I see that, in some ways, it mirrors the ups and downs of the run-up to the war. There is a lot of disinformation. Purposely spun propaganda to confuse the voters. Mind-numbing polls, opinion spun as fact and a disregard for the record on the ground.
Many of these "news" sources for War propaganda were key purveyors of disinformation during the last Clinton administration. Part of the hunting of Bill Clinton. Gossip mongers that kept the country's attention on Monica and White Water when those stories were of little importance to the governance of this country.
It seems to me that these sources have no interest in what's good for the country. They have an agenda -- a neocon and big business agenda -- and they are not ashamed to selling it at any cost.
Many of those same voices are now supporting Hillary Clinton. Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" is an attempt to get Republicans to vote for Hillary in various state primaries.
From the looks of things, those crossover voters are having some effect. Enough reporting and examination of data leads an open-minded person to realize that Clinton is making some gains that she would otherwise not have made without these crossover Republican votes. Regardless of how you feel about this, you can't argue with the fact that, at the very least, they are TRYING to influence the outcome of the election towards Hillary.
If you are familiar with these stories, you can skip to my questions at the end. I'm not reiterating them here to anger Clinton supporters. Or to give Obama supporters something to gloat over. Gloating doesn't do anything to help the situation. Anger just shuts people down. I'm including them so you'll know where I am coming from and how I see this--so we are all on the same page.
From the Boston Globe
For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.
A few paragraphs down comes this anecdotal bit:
"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."
Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.
More investigative journalism examining statistical evidence on this subject appears here.
It is surprising and disconcerting to find Ann Coltuer is "claiming" that she prefers Clinton to McCain. I might add -- at this time. To hear other voices in the media, voices that have bashed the Clintons to no end in the past, Voices I've defended the Clintons from -- now supporting Hillary's candidacy...well... it gives me pause. These people aren't above lying. So what gives?
Recently Hillary sat down with a Pittsburgh paper. But not just any paper...
It was the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the money-losing, vanity, fringe sheet of Richard Mellon Scaife, funder of the Arkansas Project, the American Spectator during its prime Clinton-hunting years and virtually every right-wing operation of note at one point or another over the last twenty years or more.
...
not only was it Scaife's paper. Scaife himself was there sitting just to Clinton's right apparently taking part in the questioning.
Incredible photo of these two sitting together and more story here.
To me, that's mind blowing. Hillary Clinton sitting next to Richard Mellon Schaife?!
Then there the support for her from Rupert Murdoch and Fox News.
Murdoch is the symbol of media conglomeration and the owner of Republican mouthpieces like Fox News, Weekly Standard and the New York Post. ... Last month, Hillary attended the 10th anniversary party for Fox News in Washington, where the presidential contender schmoozed Murdoch and Fox chair Roger Ailes. According to the Financial Times, Bill Clinton will address the summer conference of Murdoch's media colossus, News Corp.
It's actually quite fitting that President Clinton address News Corp, since he helped build that conglomerate -- through his Telecommunications "Reform" Act of 1996, a corrupt measure largely drafted by lobbyists for the media industry as they lavished campaign cash on politicians of both parties. The law loosened regulations constraining News Corp's growth and raised caps on how many TV stations Murdoch and others could own. Murdoch immediately bought up new stations. Clear Channel expanded from 40 radio stations to 1,200; rightwing Sinclair Broadcasting expanded from 11 TV stations to 60.
(I'm leaving out the negative conclusions drawn by the authors of this story about what they think this means.)
The above is pulled from here.
SO MY QUESTIONS ARE:
Does it give Clinton supporters pause to realize that she is aligned with those media outlets who most vociferously sold us the war?
Do you wonder if Media Consolidation will remain a problem if Clinton is elected?
Can you give me any reality-based reasons for believing that Fox is going to support her, as they are now, if she is running against McCain?
MOST IMPORTANTLY: Considering all of the above, do you think you might be falling into a trap that is being laid by Murdoch, Ailes and Schaife? A trap further designed to ensure 4 more years of Republican control of the White House.
To me, this looks like a trap: Use neo-con media influence to help Hillary win the Democratic Nomination... then flatten her once she is running against McCain. (Who more closely aligns with their interests.)
Even if you think the neo-con media is being genuine and you think that Coltuer, Limbaugh, Murdoch, Ailes and Schaife all really truly want Clinton to be the next president -- what does THAT mean? Is there something we are missing in her candidacy that doesn't really align with what we believe or what direction we think this country should go?
I'd be interested in honest, thoughtful answers from Clinton supporters. With her campaign just holding on... and this neo-con support so important to her campaign, I think this is a important consideration that needs to be discussed.
Upon consideration of this neo-con support, do you feel it might be time to consider Obama's candidacy?
Thanks,
Ruscle
PS: I'm adding a poll below because... well... this is my first diary entry on DKos and I want to see how it works. Don't take it too seriously