digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

"The Daily Show" Reports From "Anti-Hillary HQ"

huffingtonpost.com — Last night on "The Daily Show," Samantha Bee satirized the media's grand "plan" to destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. "We're at debate 20, and I think everyone here is a bit disappointed that it took Senator Clinton this long to catch on to our plan," Bee said, reporting from "the media's Anti-Hillary War Room in the Paula Jones Conf. Ctr.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bethlagarrison, on 02/29/2008, -5/+160And in one minute, the Daily Show is able to sum up what other journalists have been struggling to sum up for the past two days.

    How is this "fake news," again?
    • reuscel, on 02/29/2008, -2/+90Agreed. The Daily Show's critical eye puts the rest of the mainstream media to shame. It's sad that I trust Jon Stewart more than any other news anchor on television. At least he has the cojones to call it like he sees it.
      • Akaji, on 02/29/2008, -6/+38To be fair, Bill O'Reilly also "calls it like he sees it." Not that I'm condoning the bigotry that he spits out day in and day out...
        • Shiftyeyedgoat, on 02/29/2008, -2/+20I think it's less "bigotry" and more "general hatred for/distrust in all things". At least it's genuine hate, though.
        • brufleth, on 02/29/2008, -1/+23Very true but when you're stark raving mad you see things very oddly.
        • FlagrantDrugUse, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3I heard something awhile back about how BillO has said numerous times that he's an "entertainer" and doesn't really believe a lot of the ***** he spouts. That being said, he's still a *****' *****.
      • tomee, on 02/29/2008, -1/+8I think there is a good reason though that satirical shows like the daily show is a better news source than any main stream media. All shows on TV have to get good ratings or they would not be shown. The main stream shows use sensationalism and exaggeration to get viewers, which distorts the actual news content. Satirical shows use humor, which just adds to the news, even offering perspectives on the news, but not really distorting it very much. In other words, they actually have the opportunity to deliver real news, because they already get the ratings through humor.
        • notque, on 02/29/2008, -6/+3It distorts it. The Daily Show has propaganda on it as well.

          The thing is, they just take the news from what others have done, and then make humor. If the AP wire and Reuters are sending propaganda as news across the wires, and then all the other stations pick that up, and then the Daily Show takes that same news and makes fun of it.

          Ok. That's funny. It's useful. But it doesn't make them a good news source. Democracynow.org is a good news source. The Real News Network is a good news source.

          The Daily Show is just damn funny.
    • Joshuarr, on 02/29/2008, -2/+39Who said it was "fake news"? Satire is always based on truth.
      • narcofiche, on 02/29/2008, -2/+8I believe it was John Stewart himself.
        • sgoogle, on 02/29/2008, -9/+2Who's that? The host's brother?

          (Hint: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart)
    • rentmitchum, on 02/29/2008, -3/+17Some day we'll have a 24/7 daily show goin on with anchors satiring the news around the clock.
      • CarStan, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2But we already have! Haven't you noticed that Fox News is a 24/7 spin-off of the Colbert-Report. It's the greatest comedy show of all time.
        • rentmitchum, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1I think you got your parody sources mixed up.
    • LeeSoong, on 02/29/2008, -10/+2Is it just my connection - or does the daily show video player crawl ?

      ... buffering ... hi sam! ... buffering ...

      Zzzzz . . .
    • mal1964, on 02/29/2008, -16/+1How is this "fake news," again?
      Because you need writers, If you watch obama is the joke, "as president we are hunting them down " that sounds like war, why use that edit?

    • grgt1994, on 02/29/2008, -1/+11It's fake news BECAUSE it's satire! Ya ya, satire has to have a shred of truth to be funny. But what's funny and true here is that Hillary IS paranoid about media bias. And that's what Stewart is lambasting here. Notice how ridiculous they made the "Anti-Hillary War Room" look in that skit? He doesn't care whether there's a shred of truth to it - it's just plain funny to pick on Hillary's paranoid flounderings.

      Incidentally, what makes Stewart's satire so successful is that, at his best, he's funny to people on all sides of the issues he satires. You've got O'Bama and McCain supporters laughing at how pathetic Hillary's rants about media bias appear when the "main stream media" actually were her and her husband's secondary spin captains for the last 15 or so years. Then you have the Hillary supporters laughing because they believe the tongue-in-cheek skit to be a sincere indictment. And then you have neutrals and undecided folks laughing because it's just plain funny to watch.

      Weird thing is, no body notices they are all laughing together (about different things).
      • transitive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3i was going to write the same post but then i read this one. you are 100% correct.

        edit: have to nitpick this one point, cuz its kinda funny. His name is Obama not O'bama. He's not irish.
    • Duffeh, on 02/29/2008, -4/+7She brought this on herself with her campaign's endless spigot of rubbish and negativity. Invariably she would become associated with negative press and negativity in general.

      IT'S HER OWN DAMNED FAULT for acting like a royal coont.
    • mrood, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1And then on March 3, The Daily Show gives Hillary half the show. How politic of them.
  • steelersfan7roe, on 02/29/2008, -11/+48Hillary's whining and weak politics have been exposed.

    • Swift2, on 02/29/2008, -21/+4Well, the ObamaPost IS the nerve center of the "Get Hillary" movement. And MSNBC is its other nerve center.
      • 1of42, on 02/29/2008, -9/+2Yes. Normally I'm onboard with a lot of what Keith Olbermann says, for example, but so far I think his coverage in the last few weeks has been lousy at best.
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 02/29/2008, -6/+2Yep, KO might as well be wearing an Obama button during his broadcasts...
    • diggerdong, on 02/29/2008, -7/+14Seriously, she whines like a little bitch to Bryan Williams. Her voice is an uncomfortable shriek-like sound and you can see it on Bryan's face!!
  • saska, on 02/29/2008, -35/+24The great thing about the Daily Show is that you can take it to mean whatever you agree with.

    Person who supports Hillary and thinks that the media is biased against her: "Look! They're exposing the truth!"

    Person who doesn't support Hillary and thinks that the media is not biased against her: "Look! They're exposing the ridiculousness!"

    I love the Daily Show as much as any other news junkie. Just don't ascribe your opinion to them. They're playing both sides and that's what makes it brilliant.
    • bethlagarrison, on 02/29/2008, -3/+42While I agree that the Daily Show is great because they play all sides..

      How delusional do you have to be to think that this clip wasn't poking fun at Hillary's accusations of media bias? Jon Stewart says "so you've been stringing her along all these years."
      • saska, on 02/29/2008, -16/+6I don't have to be delusional. I just have to see what the Hillary message boards are saying about it.
        • Swift2, on 02/29/2008, -5/+3And the ObamaPost, whose motto for a year has been, "What unflattering picture can we publish? How can we make fun of her and ignore her accomplishments today?"
      • grgt1994, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3As delusional as many posting here in her support. Delusion happens. These people have been convinced of this "media bias" for a long, long time. Anything that agrees with that delusion must be right (to them).

        Stop digging Saska down. He has it right. Stewart makes satire great because he has found a way, on many issues, to be funny not just to "left" and "right" but to all viewers, on many different levels. And oddly enough, everyone comes away from the show thinking, "wow, maybe Stewart really is (liberal/conservative/moderate/green/libertarian/athiest/religious/etc)."
        • saska, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2It's okay, the Hillary "SOMEBODY IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET" task force came out overnight and took issue with my post. I don't mind. It's fun to see what they've done come morning.

          (I don't hate Hillary supporters. And I have faith that the radical portion of them on the Internet is no more indicative of the behavior of the majority of her supporters than Obama's is of his.)
    • JigoroKano, on 02/29/2008, -7/+21That would only work if all Hillary supporters were idiots... oh wait.
      • daxsymbiont, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahaha
        • Fxer, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3That's right. I don't see how anyone could look at that and think that they're exposing the truth.
    • Swift2, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2What they say is true, you just think, "Okay," or "Not good," depending on whether you support Hillary. The fact is, is has been a very important nerve center of the "Hillary is gay" movement.
  • theeddyadams, on 02/29/2008, -3/+114Daily Show > News
    • Akaji, on 02/29/2008, -5/+14Daily Show = News
      • dsmx, on 02/29/2008, -0/+9A parody show that tells the news more accurately than the news, how on earth did we get to that point?
        • neognostic, on 02/29/2008, -2/+3The military/industrial complex buys all of the advertising for the news shows.
    • Anzat, on 02/29/2008, -1/+40Daily Show >&= News
      That's right, Jon Stewart demands the invention of a new boolean operator.
      • nullx42, on 02/29/2008, -1/+5But Jon.. you ARE the demons!
        And then Stewart was a zombie.
      • sgoogle, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4Normally a witty response would be appropiate here, but all I can think of is: WIN!
    • Tyrghast, on 02/29/2008, -2/+6I get more honest news reports from Stewart's show than even CNN.
    • mapkinase, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1I usually do not use spaces in the names of my directories or computers. Nice alias for "Xnews". Saves one letter..
  • flessa, on 02/29/2008, -0/+130"i dont kick down sandcastles till the flag is just about to go on top"

    this is why the daily show is great writing.
    • rentmitchum, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5The TV doesn't stop.. awesome.
    • blackmage439, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4Stewart and Colbert proved you don't NEED writers. I'm sure at some point their rants would become nonsensical as they got bored, but it was great TV for those couple of months.
    • flashfry, on 02/29/2008, -3/+0Actually the first thing I thought of was that if that line were true then they wouldn't attack until she wins the Democratic nomination. Could have been a little more consistent.
  • shadoturtl, on 02/29/2008, -0/+54The daily show makes fun of the media more than anything else. The comedy is in the fact that these networks and anchors take themselves so seriously and can't see their own flaws. Ridiculous is not regulated to one party or channel.
  • jordansampson, on 02/29/2008, -7/+35can someone post a link us candians can watch.... we hate Hillary too.
    • unusualbob, on 02/29/2008, -2/+11Is Canadian internet filtered?

      heres a link to the actual page if that helps in any way:
      http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?vide ...
      • jordansampson, on 02/29/2008, -2/+11thank you for trying... but we cant use those sites... they block them out outside of the US.
        • jj101, on 02/29/2008, -0/+3Works fine from London.
        • sgoogle, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Always works for me. I'm in the UK and have used it from a number of locations.
        • tmo72, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4It's probably broken because in canada comedycentral.com seems to be redirected to the (useless) thecomedynetwork.ca site. I've noticed this the past couple of months and it sucks.
      • donsherio, on 02/29/2008, -1/+12Canadian internet isn't filtered, its the US filtering non US users... in this case... Canadians. This blows :p
        • Joshuarr, on 02/29/2008, -0/+6But whatever you call it, it is NOT torture.
        • backintheday, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Take us off that damn "torture watch list" and we'll talk about this whole "filter canada" thing. We are a nation of peace.
          Cheney/Satan '08
      • yelnatz, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1yea man, you got it backwards. your link doesnt work either.
      • neko6, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Burying a direct link in a blogspam submission? How did we reach this low?
        http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?vide ...
        • notque, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1By people not reading the thread to realize why something got buried?
    • MagicCrayon, on 02/29/2008, -0/+0Go to the Comedy Network site and watch the episode from the 27th
    • Tyrghast, on 02/29/2008, -2/+11Damn Canada, on one hand the free healthcare and decriminalization of mary jane make the place sound great, but blocking the daily show and Demonoid torrents? I dunno man...
      • 1of42, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5And yet filesharing is legal.... I don't know why Demonoid is blocked (it sure as hell wasn't last time I tried using it, but I have been at college in America since September, so who knows).

        Anyways, the Daily Show probably isn't blocked by anything Canada-specific, I bet the website only allows US-based IPs to view the video, probably due to licensing agreements.
        • Tyrghast, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4About a month before demonoid vanished due to legal pressure, the Demonoid website began blocking all canadian traffic.
        • jj101, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Nope. Is fine from the UK.
        • TweakNF, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2American TV is not allowed to be streamed directly from american network websites into Canada due to licensing agreements.
    • chilipeppers4u, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Here's the link to the episode, the anti Hilary war room bit is towards the end:
      http://broadband.thecomedynetwork.ca/?vid=34751
      And no, the Canadian Internet isn't filtered. Comedy Central (US) has just signed a content licensing deal with Comedy Network (CAN) for the Daily show and Colbert Report. They don't sell the rights to networks from any other country, so the daily show website just selectively blocks Canadian IP addresses from viewing the videos. If you want to get around it download GoTrused from http://www.gotrusted.com/ It costs $6 a month for the subscription, but it works perfectly and it's worth it to get access to episodes back to 1999 for the Daily Show (comedy network just has the last 30 days) as well as Conan from NBC, and any other websites that block Canadian IP addresses. And yes, I know I'm a late night comedy addict :)
  • donsherio, on 02/29/2008, -2/+10Can someone post the video (from YouTube or some non restrictive source) so that the rest of the world outside the USA can watch too?
  • yelnatz, on 02/29/2008, -3/+2youtube link?
  • Poetheunclothed, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1Links down, I assume comedy central will have it up in a day or so anyway. It made me giggle.
  • zerosaber8, on 02/29/2008, -1/+26To Canadians:
    http://broadband.thecomedynetwork.ca/comedy/
  • RRJackson, on 02/29/2008, -54/+4The Ron Paulization of Obama

    Published On Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:03 AM
    By JACOB M. VICTOR

    This primary season has seen an unprecedented rise in Democratic voter turnout and the man to thank seems to be Barack Obama, whose charisma and message of political change has prompted a surge in grassroots political activism. But as gratifying as it is to see otherwise apathetic voters—especially students—getting excited about politics, much of the Obama grassroots has focused not on substantive policy-based support, but on mindless hero-worship. To see this phenomenon firsthand, there’s no better place to turn that than that ubiquitous record of the modern zeitgeist: Youtube.com.

    It all began last June when Amber Lee Ettinger—also known as “Obama Girl”—captured America’s hearts and minds with her music video, “I’ve Got a Crush on Obama.” The video, which features Ettinger lip-syncing and dancing next to photos of Obama, is noticeably lacking in any real political message, but nonetheless became an overnight internet sensation. This was followed by range of similarly inane videos. Some, like the “Babies for Obama” series—in which parents goad their confused children into saying things like “I love Obama”—took Obama obsession to a new level.

    Recently, members of mainstream entertainment industry also seem to have drank the Obama Kool-Aid. The “Yes We Can” video, which features the Black Eyed Peas’ Will.I.Am, Scarlett Johansson, and other celebrities chanting Obama’s New Hampshire primary speech, has popped up all over the internet. From the feigned emotion on these celebrities’ faces, one would think they were reading from the Bible or Shakespeare, not from a relatively well written but somewhat politically banal stump speech. Nonetheless, this nauseating video has now become the new symbol for Obama’s grassroots support.

    All this may constitute what some pundits have labeled a “cult of personality.” Unlike a traditional cult, however, the rise in Obama worship seems to have emerged as a groundswell from among the general public, not as the product of a planned campaign strategy. Indeed, Obama seems to be the latest victim of a political trend that most recently subsumed Republican candidate Ron Paul. A staunch Libertarian, Paul is certainly one of the more eclectic politicians running for president—his opposition to the Iraq War and free trade made him a pariah in most of the Republican debates.

    Despite how unusual Paul’s political views may be for a Republican candidate, the intensity, persistence, and downright craziness of his grassroots support overshadowed his official campaign through primary season. Paul’s supporters, including many members of the “9/11 Truth” movement—those who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in 9/11—released a range of unofficial videos and pamphlets idolizing Paul as a kind of Messianic figure. The conspiracy theories and cult-like behavior of Paul’s grassroots supporters has alienated many voters and forced Paul to repeatedly distance himself from much of his unofficial support.

    The problem with the mindless, cult-like behavior that sunk the Paul campaign and is now beginning to take hold of Obama backers, is that this kind of support often takes on a life of its own and becomes unmanageable by politicians or official campaigners. Although Obama probably doesn’t have to worry about his supporters embracing conspiracy theories, there are other potential political liabilities to the rise in Obama worship.

    What has recently become clear is that an obsessive love of Barack Obama seems to go hand-in-hand with an obsessive hatred of Hillary Clinton. The more Obama’s supporters idolize him as a Messianic, transformative figure, rather than simply supporting him because of his political position or qualifications, the more they attempt to demonize Hillary Clinton as the anti-Obama—the calculating, deceptive anti-Christ out to sabotage Obama’s chances of becoming president. While Clinton-bashing was once solely the domain of the Right, Obama supporters have recently entered the fray with a barrage of anti-Hillary videos and blog posts.

    Though Obama may now be leading slightly in the delegate count, it is by no means certain that he will take the party’s nomination. If Hillary Clinton were to win, the Democratic Party would be faced with a large number of obsessive Obama supporters not at all interested in supporting the woman who shot down their beloved champion. This scenario would surely mean victory for John McCain.

    Although much of this Obama-obsession has been a grassroots phenomenon, out of Obama’s control—as in the case of Ron Paul—the Obama campaign has done little to quell the tide of Obama hero-worship and Hillary bashing. Indeed, they have at times encouraged it. For example, Michelle Obama recently said that she would “have to think about” supporting Hillary, if she emerged as the Democratic candidate, a statement which bordered on treason from the perspective of the Democratic Party. The campaign also sent out the Black Eyed Peas’ “Yes We Can” video in their official e-mails, thus promoting the hype. Finally, the campaign has consistently portrayed Obama as the idealized “candidate of change” far more than they have highlighted his impressive policy proposals. While “change” is indeed a fundamental part of Obama’s platform, failing to adequately link this message to genuine political issues laid the groundwork for the kind of character-over-substance mentality of many Obama supporters.

    If the Obama campaign wants to demonstrate that they care about the future of the Democratic Party as much as they care about Obama’s own political aspirations, they need to tone down the more sensationalistic aspects of Obama’s political persona. It’s time to see more concrete ideas and less flowery oratory in his speeches. But more importantly, he needs to distance his official campaign from Obama Girl, Black Eyed Peas, and the rest of the grassroots, Obama-obsessed rabble. Cult-like behavior should be left to Ron Paul’s campaign, where it belongs.
    • neognostic, on 02/29/2008, -1/+19Stay on topic jackass.
    • anillop, on 02/29/2008, -1/+6Just because you can get people to read your articles doesn't mean you should come in here and spam that crap to try and make people read it.
    • ArmandoM, on 02/29/2008, -1/+5Wall of text crits you for 31532353

      ....you die.
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/29/2008, -2/+4How to be popular on digg:

      1. Rip on Ron Paul
      2. Rip on Barack Obama
      3. Post really long and plagiarized article

      Good work, dude. You are a real hero.
      • RRJackson, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1"Plagiarized" would indicate that the author wasn't credited. His credit clearly appears at the beginning of the article. This is from the Harvard Crimson.
    • audioobsessed, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1Michelle Obama said she would have to think about supporting Hillary as the Vice presidential nominee if she were the presidential nominee. She did not say she would have to think about supporting Hillary should she win in the Primaries.
    • CarStan, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1tl; dr: BAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW
  • funkyjunk3, on 02/29/2008, -6/+4direct video links are preferred.
  • chkdg8, on 02/29/2008, -1/+2Ahh, just before it ripens and until the flag's just about to go in the top.
  • bat-21, on 02/29/2008, -1/+8Hillary doesn't need any help destroying her campaign.
  • ColonelJessup, on 02/29/2008, -2/+9Personally, I don't think that the media is actively trying to sabotage Hillary's campaign, but they definitely have focused their attention from her, to Obama.

    6 months ago the media had their panties wet for Hillary, now they are throwing them at Obama. This thing is over, Hillary is toast. Obama will be the nest president of the United States of America.
    • TheBogie, on 02/29/2008, -1/+6Hilliary is just making a fool of herself now. She should step down to save whatever scraps of dignity she has left. Of course she won't, stepping down takes humility and her gigantic ego won't allow it.

      The way Obama owned her ass at the last debate, she should have just quit right then and there. She got roasted like a thanksgiving turkey.
    • Fxer, on 02/29/2008, -2/+2The media follows the public. If public attention shifts to Obama, so will the media's atention.
    • CarStan, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Yeah, dont we all wanna be the NEST president of the USA
    • dxgg, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1"Personally, I don't think that the media is actively trying to sabotage Hillary's campaign, but they definitely have focused their attention from her, to Obama."
      I believe it's called "follow the money". Obama is the front-runner, so he's more newsworthy, meaning more money for the media covering it.
  • wickedwikas, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3Epic. Obama doesn't even need too great a strategy to outwit her! She is ruining her chances to the best of her abilities. Now just sit back and watch the next SNL!!! That should be even more fun.
  • Ell3, on 02/29/2008, -15/+1How ironic that the Democrats fielded a candidate that's so far left, their main stream candidate is finding out what it's like to be a Republican. This is rich! And the best part is that their chosen one, Obama, has little chance of winning the general election.
    • catachip, on 02/29/2008, -0/+10This post seems consistent with your other conservative, right-wing nut job posts. And why is it then, that Obama is significantly ahead in polls putting him up against McCain? The fact that the Republican Party is so demoralized with its moderate candidate that democratic turnout in the primaries is 3:2 over republicans, and that put up against Obama, McCain will seem like an old relic of the past, not an agent of change, I think we'll safely be watching President-Elect Obama being inaugurated in about 11 months or so.
      • yellowsnowcone, on 02/29/2008, -3/+1hmm, I wouldn't be citing polls given both Hilary and Rudy were leading the polls last summer. Things could quickly change.

        Also, McCain is a very mainstream candidate who would draw a lot of independent and democratic voters. He should have gotten the GOP nod in 2000, not GW. But thanks to the conversative right he didn't.

        But if you look at his positions he's very liberal and has worked with a lot of leading Dems in the Senate eg John Kerry. I would very much vote for him over Hilary or Obama. But if Rudy or someone else had gotten the nod, I wouldn't even be considering the GOP.
    • funmerlin, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Where is the evidence that he is the most Liberal?
      Are transparency and accountability liberal positions? Checks on government could be argued to be conservative.
      What about Hillary's plan to force everyone to buy health care, or dock your pay? Obama's plan to seems more moderate.
      You may want to take this point up with http://www.republicansforobama.org if you really think Obama is far left.
  • yankeecdn, on 02/29/2008, -8/+1This is NOT a high school popularity contest folks. We tend to forget (at our peril) that running for and electing a president is deadly serious business. Hillary Clinton understands this, and knows when to keep her powder dry - even in the most trying of circumstances. Is this not what is needed in a president - especially the next one? Democrat or Republican?
    • FlagrantDrugUse, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1"Hillary Clinton understands this, and knows when to keep her powder dry -"

      do you mean all the ***** COCAINE?
  • buhbyebot, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2That was absolutely perfect. I also like this video from Comedy Central. Very funny.
    I love how Obama responds.

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?vide ...
  • HellDonut, on 02/29/2008, -2/+22For anyone who thinks the press is giving Obama a free ride, consider this: Hillary Clinton has lost 11 primaries in a row. In fact, if you count all the primaries and caucuses they've had, Obama hasn't lost ONE DAY in total delegates summed up, just if you count separate primaries.

    If it was the other way around, the press would be giving Hillary a much better ride than that they're giving Obama now, and they'd be debating when/how would Obama drop out of the race. Just the fact that the media isn't talking about this right now is proof enough that they're giving her the benefit of the doubt and are unwilling to touch her.

    The fact that she's trying to burn them while she goes down - and her campaign's absurd doublespeak - isn't going to do her good in the future.
    • brad3378, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Of course the media is giving Obama a Free ride.
      They have also been known to give Hilary a free ride in the past as well............
      The problem I have is how they blatantly forgot about John Edwards and Mike Gravel (who happens to still be in the running).
      Let's face it - political elections are a self fulfilling prophesy where you need to be famous to become famous.
      Paris Hilton comes to mind as the perfect example.

      Hillary had her husband to make her Famous.
      Obama had fellow Chicagolander Oprah to make him famous.
      Who did John Edwards have? Who does Mike Gravel have?

      The election process is driven by sheep that would rather vote for the face they see on television than the candidate that more closely supports their views but requires 10 minutes of research from a newspaper. Can you honestly tell me what makes a Frontrunner's platform so much better than somebody's like Mike Gravel? Or are you another sheep that didn't bother to research his platform at all?
  • CannedMango, on 02/29/2008, -6/+14Hilary's got it right. Once she wins over the democratic base by whining her way to the party nomitation, she's going to crush McCain in November by begging for votes.

    Hillary '08. Please vote for her, she REALLLLLY wants to be president! So don't be a friggin' dick.
  • caponumen, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3The DS simply brilliant, yet again......
  • RC212V, on 02/29/2008, -2/+6Maybe the reason the press is negative on Hillary is because Hillary's strategy is based almost entirely on negativity. When your campaign is constantly trying to twist, distort, and insult the other candidate while the other candidate largely refrains from using such tactics you aren't going to come out smelling like roses.
  • teh_techie, on 02/29/2008, -1/+3Canadian Link: http://broadband.thecomedynetwork.ca/comedy/?vid=3 ...
    Go to 7:56 in the video for the Samantha Bee bit.
  • roho76, on 02/29/2008, -10/+1I can't stand Stewart/Colbert after the strike. I used to love them but now I just don't know. I got rid of my cable and now only use the internet for entertainment and information. Stewart/Colbert, while fair most of the time are not much better than the MSM. And also Stewarts had John McCain on more times than any other guest. Not that that means anything but that guy needs less air time and he just keeps shoving him in front of the camera. If Stewart had any morals he would not bring that guy back on his show.
    I know a lot of you are going to go:
    "He brings him on so he can make fun of him"
    But what you have to understand is that no publicity is bad publicity.
    And he helps advertise him.
    • ileftfark, on 02/29/2008, -0/+4Jon Stewart doesn't "advertise" his guests. He brings them on for a public discussion and more often than not, Mr. Stewart will play devil's advocate (even if he agrees with the interviewee) to get perspective. If you can't handle watching a public discourse with differing ideas, living in a democracy is probably not a good place for you.
    • ShinRaTDR, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2I can see why people are just digging you down instead of rebutting you. There's just so many faulty conclusions and ignorant statements I don't know where to start.
    • roho76, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1You guys are so smart. That's why I dugg your comments cuz your so smart.
  • isaactwito, on 02/29/2008, -2/+5I'm glad that the media is doing something helpful after all these years.
  • nakani, on 02/29/2008, -3/+10Luckily for Hillary, she spoke out against the media blackout of Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel, who will no doubt return the favor.
    *holds hand up to ear*
    Sorry... I'm being told that Hillary did NOT in fact speak out against the media blackout of Paul, Kucinich and Gravel.
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2To be honest I think Obama would gain a ton of instant support from those who feel disenfranchised in the general election if he just gave those dudes even a brief shout out.
      • brad3378, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1He'd certainly earn more respect from me if he was willing to include Mike Gravel in another debate.........unless he feels threatened by a 1% candidate.
        It really ***** irritates me when the media gives unbalanced coverage of the candidates. Maybe Obama is classy enough to allow him a chance to speak even if he has different views. He is the candidate for change........Right?
  • jaytek13, on 02/29/2008, -4/+6Diggers are funny... 3 months ago everyone here was complaining that the media was choosing the candidate for the people when they supported Hillary... Then the media switches sides and now everyone here is trying to justify it. So ridiculous.
    • r3negadeX, on 08/11/2008, -2/+1Back then Hillary actually had a chance.
  • bunk, on 02/29/2008, -4/+1SNL already made this joke.
    • transitive, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2no, they made a different joke that was less funny. you missed the actual punchline of the Daily Show's joke though.
  • deweather, on 02/29/2008, -5/+3I'm a fan of all three candidates, but it's quite obvious the media is a bias towards obama. The reasons I think they support him is he is the "new guy," the "underdog." It also helps that he is the most personable on stage and on camera. The media these days is all about entertainment over substance, and Obama fits that description perfectly. Again, I like all the candidates and am very optimistic about the direction of the country with any of them elected.

    Oh, and just a funny note (for myself)...I think it's hilarious that Digg is now Obama central. It used to be Ron Paul, but now it's Obama. It wouldn't be as funny if the same digg didn't hate Hillary so much. Obama and Hillary have about 98% the same platform. It's ironic to attack hillary.
    • dinot, on 02/29/2008, -0/+2Ironic to attack Hillary? Media bias towards Obama? The media, superficial as they are, go on the attack because of what the candidates say / how they act on television. So, if public display of douchebaggery results in positive/negative coverage, then of course Hillary is gonna complain of bias.

      Name one ***** thing Obama's done in public lately. Him, not his wife, that's another story.
  • republicker, on 02/29/2008, -0/+5Its just sad that we have to "expose the truth" about every ***** little thing in politics. The truth is apparent and should be reported like it is. Amerika bought and paid for.
    • transitive, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1we don't spell it with a K buddy.
  • Dasmitch, on 02/29/2008, -8/+0Obamatards are the new Paultards
    • dinot, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1... and Hillary is the new alliwantforxmasisapsp
    • Dasmitch, on 03/01/2008, -2/+0seems i touched a nerve...
      • zspade, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2Or you're just ill informed/trolling. Paul never stood a chance whereas Obama does. Hillary will lose to McCain should she win. Frankly I wouldn't be happy to have either Hillary or McCain in office, so I'm going to root for Obama as much as possible. I'd like to know who you're voting for... Oh what's that? you can't vote because you're 10 years old? Too bad.
  • NVB26, on 02/29/2008, -1/+1MSNBC supports Obama pretty obviously. Clinton News Network on the other hand has been surrounding her & keeping her alive longer than she deserves. Almost every story on the Dem race is about her from CNN. Her saying that the media is against her because of MSNBC is only a half-truth at best.
  • Verdspear, on 03/01/2008, -0/+0The media is now some how biased? If you report the true about her you are some how unfair? The media is just over the "Hill." That's all.

    Have you noticed that since the last debate Hillary has adopted the Obama strut and the speaking cadence. She even pauses, shakes her head and has that stiff legged kind stutter step. It's uncanny. If you listen to any old of her speeches and appearances on YouTube she is clearly not doing that.
    She has be secretly admiring the Obama style and is using his style to try and shake her cackle and caw and waddle. It won't work.


  • arajan, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1This is amazing!!
  • lolo2007, on 06/23/2008, -0/+06 months ago the media had their panties wet for Hillary, now they are throwing them at Obama. This thing is over, Hillary is toast. Obama will be the nest president of the United States of America.

    http://game.paramegsoft.com/993.html
    http://game.paramegsoft.com/992.html
    http://game.paramegsoft.com/990.html
    http://game.paramegsoft.com/986.html


    http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12620.html
    http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12616.html
    http://vb.paramegsoft.com/12615.html
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.