O'Malley announces presidential candidacy

[All Along The Watchtower]

O'Malley is trying to out-Sanders Sanders:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

snip:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/martin-omalley-announces-2016-bid/

[King]

The media felatting of O'Malley has already reached unbearable levels and it hasn't even been 12 hours.

[WVdemocrat]

The media felatting of O'Malley has already reached unbearable levels and it hasn't even been 12 hours.

What? I've been watching news all day, and all they've done is bash him and talk about him like he's a joke.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

I haven't heard that much about him in the headlines. Only when searching for him do I find a lot more articles.

[Samantha]

According to O'Malley's website, he supports raising the minimum wage to 15$/hr. That makes two with Sanders, I'm assuming Webb does not.

[WVdemocrat]

According to O'Malley's website, he supports raising the minimum wage to 15$/hr. That makes two with Sanders, I'm assuming Webb does not.

Why wouldn't he? He seems to be in the conservadem mold. Conservative/moderate on social issues, that is. I'm pretty sure he's populist on the economy though.

[WVdemocrat]

The media felatting of O'Malley has already reached unbearable levels and it hasn't even been 12 hours.

What? I've been watching news all day, and all they've done is bash him and talk about him like he's a joke.

Well, Hillary supporters have a different perception of the media. They also think that Martin O'Malley is an alien brought to earth by the evil media in order to create a "FAUX opposition" to Hillary and bring her down.

Yeah, that gets annoying. Because they literally use it to handwave everything as "directed by the anti-Hillary media."

[RANT]

Who is the mythical media, anyhow? People from both parties always talk about the lamestream media being in the bag for the other guy. Who is the media? Fox News? MSNBC? CNN?

Well, we can be sure that it's not C-SPAN at least.

I hear this all the time from Hillary supporters, and from hyper-conservatives. Both groups feel like they're victimized by the media. If Hillary supporters are talking about certain specific anchors, or certain specific news organizations (I hear them talk about the NYT a lot ), then let me tell you, one news organization disliking your candidate =/= a mass media conspiracy to destroy them. Behind these organizations are individuals. Individuals with their own political views. They're not all directed by someone trying to create a Democratic primary that doesn't exist or trying to destroy Hillary Clinton, or for that matter, trying to destroy "God-fearing family values Christian conservative crusaders like Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee."

[/RANT]

I honestly have no idea what they're talking about though. I was watching MSNBC. MSNBC. MSNBC. And they were berating O'Malley. They were saying he has no chance, going on and on about Baltimore and one group of protesters who showed up, and generally just throwing everything at him. And they say Hillary is despised.

The media isn't out to get Hillary. Do they focus too much on sensationalist nonsense stories? Yes, but not out of some irrational hatred for Hillary Clinton. They do it because they're typical slimy media organizations who just want clicks/views/ratings.

Sorry for the long post, haha.

[CountryClassSF]

He is on Twitter trashing Sarah Palin. 

[Samantha]

DimpledChad, how much is the anti-Hillary media paying you for telling those FAUX lies? We all know that your secret goal is to destroy Hillary Clinton. You're no O'Malley supporter, you're a HILLARY HATER!!!111! Go back to the NYT plz.
...

Nah, just kidding. Great post, of course you're 100% right.

Wouldn't "faux lies" be truths?

[Beet]

So is DimpledChad going to be pro-O'Malley or anti-Hillary? I could have sworn he said he liked Hillary but simply preferred O'Malley more.

You can't deny the media are less favorable towards Hillary than they were towards Obama '08, for instance. Sure, the media re made up of individuals, but so are all group of people. Saudi Arabia is a country made up of individuals, yet would it be unreasonable to characterize Saudi Arabia as a "conservative society"? I don't think so. Yes, there are liberal, progressive people in Saudi Arabia. And the conservatism of Saudi Arabia exists in individuals, not in the actual sand or trees or buildings in that country. Yet it is still meaningful to talk about the country as a whole as "conservative", and it doesn't deny any of those things. There is no conspiracy. Everything is quite out in the open. Don't take my word for it, listen to the analysis published by the media itself:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/the-medias-real-role-in-206766.html

There are many, many more articles where that came from, spanning years. In fact, according to Byers, the media's negativity towards Clinton is the main barrier to her election.

And for the record, conservatives who argue that certain media outlets are biased against them have a point, too. You don't have to be an actual conservative to see a basic truth. When's the last time the New York Times endorsed a Republican candidate in a general election? What about the Washington Post? Even if you agree with these newspapers' endorsements (and I do), you cannot deny that from a national conservative's standpoint, they have rarely been friendly to them.

[IceSpear]

Republicans tend to be mistaken in assuming the media is biased against them in general. What they're really biased against is hardcore SoCons that base their entire political career on "moral issues" such as Huckabee, Santorum, Bachmann, etc. The mainstream media hates SoCons almost as much as they hate Hillary Clinton, she gets it worse since she gets pounded from all sides of the media (left, right, and center) whereas at least the right wing media outlets tend to defend their SoCons. Overall, the media has no problem with "mainstream" (real or perceived) Republicans. Just look at the constant media adoration that Cory Gardner received in 2014 or that Marco Rubio has been getting the past few years for proof of that.

Of course, the betrayal and villainization of John McCain would seem to be a counter example, but that was only because he went up against the media's golden boy. If Hillary was the nominee in 08, I bet they would've been in the tank for "the maverick."

[WVdemocrat]

IceSpear's above post is spot on. The media attacks Hillary unfairly, I just think it's because they have the attention span of a squirrel. Marco Rubio, the Hispanic Republican version of Obama, and John McCain, the war hero maverick senator are very appealing things to the media who want interesting stories and articles. Hillary is easy to attack with all of those "scandals" at their disposal to make some interesting headlines.

So is DimpledChad going to be pro-O'Malley or anti-Hillary? I could have sworn he said he liked Hillary but simply preferred O'Malley more.

I am pro-O'Malley and pro-Hillary. I don't dislike her, I just get annoyed when any criticism of her or anything that looks bad on her is handwaved as a media attack on Hillary. I've said it before, I'll say it again, Hillary would make a great president. I just happen to believe that Martin O'Malley has a very good progressive record in Maryland. He legalized gay marriage, his state was the first state in the country to pass the DREAM Act, he enacted stricter gun control standards, he invested in education and gave Maryland the best public schools in the nation, Maryland was one of just eight states to maintain a AAA credit rating throughout the recession, and because of his policies, Maryland has the highest median income rate in the country.

I just think we as Democrats have a perfect opportunity right now to nominate a progressive. When the Republicans had that long winning streak in the 70s and 80s, they took advantage of it. They nominated Ronald Reagan, they went for the win. They didn't nominate Bob Dole and self-compromise. We need to go for the win.

You can't deny the media are less favorable towards Hillary than they were towards Obama '08, for instance.

They're typical opportunists that you would expect in the media. They're looking for a headline. They did the same thing with Obama. Why do you think that Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, birther nonsense gained any traction? The media is simply being its typical slimy media self. It's exactly what you would expect, and Hillary is an easy target. I don't endorse those phony scandals, but are you really surprised? They do that to everyone. Hillary is just a very easy target because the right keeps bringing up phony scandals which are easy to exploit.

And for the record, conservatives who argue that certain media outlets are biased against them have a point, too. You don't have to be an actual conservative to see a basic truth. When's the last time the New York Times endorsed a Republican candidate in a general election? What about the Washington Post? Even if you agree with these newspapers' endorsements (and I do), you cannot deny that from a national conservative's standpoint, they have rarely been friendly to them.

That was sort of a random example. I guess not a very good one, haha. But, my point stands despite that, I think.

[Maxwell]

Prediction: Sanders will get 10x the support O'Malley gets in any state.

[Beet]

I just get annoyed when any criticism of her or anything that looks bad on her is handwaved as a media attack on Hillary.

Well sure, I agree that criticisms of her (or anyone else) shouldn't be handwaved, regardless of who they're coming from. I think they all have to be addressed substantively. I think you can do that and still think the media is unusually anti-Hillary, as I think IceSpear would agree.