Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt might sound counterintuitive to say this, given how much flack the press has caught for its coverage of Hillary Clinton. But the media may have been one of her greatest allies Tuesday night.
After all, it was the pundits and scribes who bought the Clinton campaign's spin that it could lose and lose and lose in February as long as Clinton "won" on March 4. Clinton has lost twelve states in the past month and won three. Does that sound like a winning campaign to you? Probably not, but that's the way the media is currently portraying the race. Clinton up, Obama down, past contests and delegate counts be damned.
When Clinton threw the "kitchen sink" at Obama in the weeks preceding March 4, the press eagerly amplified the attacks, endlessly replaying the "red phone" ad, digging into his ties to indicted developer Tony Rezko, pouncing on who said what when to the Canadians about NAFTA. The scrutiny that Clinton had been receiving for months altered course and slammed right into Obama. He should have been anticipating it, but either way, it's difficult to argue that the press went soft on Obama toward the end. The media was always more anti-frontrunner than anti-Clinton, and when the roles reversed, they were happy to try and take down the new guy.
Said a report from the Pew Research Center, spotlighted in the New York Times today: "The media scrutinized everything from [Obama's] legislative record to his connections to Louis Farrakhan, and frequently addressed the question of whether journalists have been too soft on the front-runner for the Democratic nomination."
Take one example: the press relentlessly covered details of a conversation between Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and the Canadian government, suggesting that Obama was telling Ohioans that he would re-negotiate NAFTA while privately assuring the Canadians otherwise. Yet on Monday the architect of the surge in Iraq and an informal adviser to Clinton, retired General Jack Keane, told the New York Sun: "I have no doubts whatsoever that if she were president in January '09 she would not act irresponsibly and issue orders to conduct an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, and squander the gains that have been made." Keane's comments made one wonder if Clinton was telling voters one thing and the armed brass another about her stated plans to withdraw from Iraq? Yet few in the press asked the question, even after the Obama campaign sent Keane's quotes around.
My guess is the press is too insecure to be firmly against or for anyone, with the exception of media darling John McCain. For months they bought into Obama's hype and then labeled his campaign a "cult." They spent the better part of the campaign scrutinizing Clinton and then flipped when the Clinton campaign accused them of media bias and SNL poked fun at their coverage.
Every campaign needs a punching bag. And aside from Barack Obama, Clinton has found hers.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Great, now everybody has a common Enemy, the Media.....more precisely, the MSM!
What Timing!
Posted by Happy at 03/05/2008 @ 12:15pm
Well, Mr Berman, blaming the Media is the RIGHT's old bag....remember the old Bush-41 bumper sticker "Confound the Media: Vote Bush!"
Truth is, if Obama can't "beat the MS Media"...he'll have little chance against McCain in the fall, and so should learn to play the game BETTER than Her Majesty.
BTW..."pouncing on who said what when to the Canadians about NAFTA"
Actually I blame those damn Canadians!
. ..
. .
..
(Just kidding, FROSTY!...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 12:18pm
True, except they have NEVER scrutinized Hillary, and I don't think there is any evidence to back such a claim up. One easy example is her "experience" (or near complete lackthereof). Her entire campaign is based on having such exceptional experience, yet no one in the media has so much as glanced at what her "35 years" actually is, and how at best it is about equal to Obama's experience. Even after her own top advisors couldn't answer a simple obvious question about when has she been tested, the media drops it. The media has given her campaign a free pass this whole time. They may have not been too critical about Obama, but there is also not much there (as we have seen, they have to resort to distortions and conjecture to say anything bad about him), while there is a ton of dirt ripe for the picking from the Clinton campaign. The media has always been worthless, the only difference now is that Clinton attacked them for not being worthless enough, so they started regurgitating her talking points even faster in the last week or so.
Posted by bridoc at 03/05/2008 @ 12:34pm
The mainstream press has bought into to Hillary's talking points, and continues to fall victim to Penn's effort to change the subject and put Obama on the defensive, usually right before a primary election.
There is no doubt that a long continuation of the contest is good for the mainstream media business, as ratings are going through the roof with a protracted fight. Now we know why Hillary went after the media in the debate - it was a ploy to get them to assist them in putting Barack on the defensive instead of explaining her much more serious association problem with convicted felon Norman Hsu, or why the Saudi family is donating so much money to the Clinton library. This also enabled her to get off the hook concerning her promised disclosure of her joint tax return, as Americans will learn where the Clinton money is coming from, who they owe, and whether the personal favors they will have to give in exchange for this income are in the best interest of America.
Mark Penn has proven to be a master manipulator of the mainstream press, but when is the press going to take notice of this and push back so that Hillary and Bill's questionable business dealings and associations can be vetted and the public informed?
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 12:42pm
The other thing being missed here is that the mainstream media WANTS this contest to continue, as this has been a welcome boost to their ratings.
This is why they favored talking about Obama's economic advisers rather than Clinton's economic advisers who were the "architects" of NAFTA, and favored Rezko stories over convicted felon and Hillary fundraiser, Norman Hsu.
The Clinton camp has done an excellent job of getting the mainstream press to help them put Obama on the defensive. The question is whether the mainstream press will "ever" force Hillary to play defense in the same areas that she raises questions about Obama?
What ever happened to her tax returns being released BEFORE the Ohio primary? Why hasn't the mainstream press pushed her on this issue? What about the donors to the Clinton library? These are legitimate issues, as it is suspected that Saudi donors are bankrolling the Clintons, which would put a big hole in her claim to want to be independent from foreign oil.
What about pushing Hillary on "her actions not being consistent with her words"? She votes "for" No Child Left Behind, but says on the campaign trail that she is "against" it; she votes for the bankruptcy bill favored by credit card companies and banks, but claims she is against policies that abuse the poor; she claims she wants to end the war in Iraq, but was one of the enablers of the invasion - the list goes on and on, and it is time that voters consider whether voting for someone who "talks the talk" but doesn't "walk the walk" is what they want as president.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 12:46pm
And the math proves that Hillary would have to convince the party establishment to IGNORE the popular vote of the Democratic voter AND ignore who won the most delegates and the most states! What possibly could be (d)emocratic about that?
BETWEEN THE LINES Jonathan Alter Hillary's Math Problem
Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose. Mar 4, 2008 | Updated: 11:23 a.m. ET Mar 4, 2008
Hillary Clinton may be poised for a big night tonight, with wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.
I'm no good at math either, but with the help of Slate's Delegate Calculator I've scoped out the rest of the primaries, and even if you assume huge Hillary wins from here on out, the numbers don't look good for Clinton. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week for the rest of the primaries.
So here we go: Let's assume Hillary beats expectations and wins Ohio tonight 55-45, Rhode Island 55-45, Texas, 53-47 and (this is highly improbable), ties in Vermont, 50-50.
Then it's on to Wyoming on Saturday, where, let's say, the momentum of today helps her win 53-47. Next Tuesday in Mississippi--where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary--she shocks the political world by winning 52-48.
Then on April 22, the big one, Pennsylvania--and it's a Hillary blowout, 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 30, and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6, with the Hoosiers going for Hillary 55-45. The same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state: enough North Carolina blacks desert Obama to give the state to Hillary 52-48, netting her five more delegates.
Suppose May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. The identical 55-45 result on May 20 in Kentucky nets her five more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Oops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, and primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates. She has enjoyed a string of 16 victories in a row over three months.
So at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 58-delegate lead.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 12:50pm
At the start of the last debate Russert threw out his opening question to no one. Hillary took it but first complained about always having to 'go first.' A lie, but never mind.
Russert has only twice - and never when it would make a difference - reminded listeners that he did not direct the first question at her so her complaint was nonsense. Why not? Because he would put a damper on the controversy and media persons never put dampers on controversies. They're their bread-and-butter. Their bias is not for or against (candidates) their biases are high ratings.
Posted by felicity at 03/05/2008 @ 12:54pm
There is no question that the media was seeringly biased toward Clinton in the days before this primary round. Consider Monday and Tuesday of this week. On CNN, we were offered a live feed to the Rezko trial, and a glowing, nostalgic piece on Hillary community activism in Texas, which lasted less than a summer. It doesn't mention the citizen campaigning she did for Nixon or Goldwater or that the primary source for the article was someone working for the Clinton campaign. From the LA Times, we got "citizen comments" all day - all favorable to Hillary. On Slate, we got the "Chicago memo" on NAFTA - several days after it was big news - printed in full - with no corresponding entry for the Canadian rebuttal. The Washington Post ran a piece on media bias - and noted that the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that most of the media coverage was on Obama, but neglected to tell the reader that the study found that the coverage was overwhelmingly negative toward Obama. But the really odd thing is the Nation - which I have trusted as the only neutral source left (neutral between the candidates). Right before the primaries, the Nation ran a piece on the front page called "Obama's Mercenary Position" (which remains on the front page today). The Nation didn't give us a comparable piece of investigative journalism on Clinton, although there are endless possibilities. But what is more disturbing is that the article did not mention the obvious: that Mark Penn, Hillary's chief strategist, is CEO of the firm which PREPPED Blackwater for the congressional hearings last year, and is still both CEO of that firm and is still receiving millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign - for his valuable strategy - which seems to serve Hillary as well as it does Blackwater: do whatever it takes to win - at any cost.
Posted by lucie at 03/05/2008 @ 1:04pm
Posted by FELICITY 03/05/2008 @ 12:54pm
Complainig about Hillary and her tactics, is not the job of the Media....
it's Obama's....if he wants to.
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 1:04pm
The Nation didn't give us a comparable piece of investigative journalism on Clinton, although there are endless possibilities.-----Posted by LUCIE 03/05/2008 @ 1:04pm
Just so you know you're right on that...how about going to The Nation Search engine (above) and type in "Hillary Clinton"?
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 1:07pm
Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 1:07pm
It is also the TIMING of when these pieces appear. Penn has been successful at doing this right before an election to take advantage of the normal 48-72 hour new cycle where HIS talking point about Obama is hashed out to influence undecided and soft supporters.
No comparable "timed" releases are occurring to put Hillary on the defensive - I wonder why?
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 1:14pm
Actually I blame those damn Canadians!
. ..
. .
..
(Just kidding, FROSTY!...heheh)
Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 12:18pm
i am sooooooooooooooooooooooooo pissed!
http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/823895,CST-NWS-camp04.article
It turned out that the Canadian consulate in Chicago contacted one of my advisers, Austan Goolsbee, on their initiative. Invited him down to meet with them. He went down there as a courtesy and at some point they started talking about trade and NAFTA."
i smell a set up.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 1:15pm
HONEST CANADIAN: Mr. Goolsbee, given the current rhetoric in the U.S. election, some people in Canada are worried the U.S. will impose new restrictions on cross-border trade? How will Mr. Obama, if elected, approach trade with Canada?
THE MARK: Mr. Obama will work closely to strengthen our mutual relationship, providing jobs and business opportunities for both countries................
HONEST CANADIAN: Thank you.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 1:23pm
NEWSFLASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SECRET CANADIAN MEMO "LEAKED" BY "SOURCES" TELLS OF OBAMA MEETING TO DESTROY AMERICA'S ECONOMY BY EXPORTING YOUR JOB TO THE HEATHENS ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
details "later"..................
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 1:24pm
it is ALL about electability now.
Must read for those into American politics!!!! I found some brilliant/awesome analysis on Obama's current happenings on the campaign trail. I haven't seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM. Check out the article "Super Tuesday 2: Revenge of the Clintons" on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=177, "Follow the Money" on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165, "Bush's Twin and the G.O.P." http://savagepolitics.com/?p=172 and "Barack Obama's Apotasy" http://savagepolitics.com/?p=101 Check their "Political Analysis" and "Humor" sections for other striking perspectives and comedic analysis on both parties.
Posted by elsylee at 03/05/2008 @ 1:32pm
Posted by METTEYYA 03/05/2008 @ 1:14pm
METTE, why is it that Obama could "overcome the pro-Hillary Media" two weeks ago....but CAN'T last night?!?!??!?
Bats the Media aside 11 in a row...but can't handle them when it REALLY counts?!?!?!
That doesn't bode well against McCain the fall!
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 1:47pm
Posted by ELSYLEE 03/05/2008 @ 1:32pm
Sorry, lost count...how many times have you spammed this on every thread?
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 1:47pm
Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 1:47pm
Stay tuned!
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 1:48pm
i smell a set up.........
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/05/2008 @ 1:15pm
Yeah, you Canucks are tricky bastards....heheh
Seriously, don't fret it. It was the play for Ohio....She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed has OTHER stuff for Pennsylvania and beyond, probably none of it Canadian!...heheh
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 1:49pm
Posted by ELSYLEE 03/05/2008 @ 1:32pm
And the determination of electability is made by VOTERS, not party insiders trading favors with the Clintons!
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 1:50pm
Posted by METTEYYA 03/05/2008 @ 1:48pm
Actually, METTE, if Obama pulled one of his "it was a bonehead move" answers, instead of sending out guys like you to say "It's the Media's fault!!!!", to explain last night...
I'd be a little more impressed!
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 1:50pm
Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 1:50pm
What exactly was the "boneheaded move" you are referring to?
And no one from the Obama campaign has sent me out to say anything, my words and opinions are my own.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 2:22pm
Posted by METTEYYA 03/05/2008 @ 2:22pm
Referring to Obama's own words concerning his dealing with Rezko.
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 2:30pm
The "polls", if you believe in them...say that 6% of Americans would not vote for a black candidate...while 12% say they will not vote for a woman... In the mean time...for well over a year, the MSM has been touting, frothing at the bit, grinning from ear to ear..about a McCain, Clinton matchup...the MSM has been so very nice to McCain...while they skewer Clinton (and Obama) with political nonsense and irrelevant rumors...remember the uproar over John Edwards 400 dollar haircut..? And the American sheople go right along with it...I guess if the MSM has chosen to annoint McCain...the consolation is...economists are starting to agree that there is a another great depression on the horizon, unstoppable..if McCain wins the White House..the GOP will take the blame they deserve, for it, this time
Posted by Chabuka at 03/05/2008 @ 2:40pm
Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 2:30pm
The ISSUE is why are we talking about Rezko and not Norman Hsu?
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 2:43pm
Blaming the media is sad. I like Obama, but in the end, there's not a lot to him. We need a clearer idea of what he's up to, before he's going to win these big states.
Posted by Stubine at 03/05/2008 @ 2:58pm
How dare the media challengen Obama on ANYTHING.
The media must be racist!
Damn media.
Posted by bleedingheart at 03/05/2008 @ 2:59pm
How dare the media challenge Obama on ANYTHING.
The media must be racist!
Damn media.
Posted by bleedingheart at 03/05/2008 @ 3:05pm
I have been having this argument with friends for months now. The media is at the beck and call of the Clintons. The media buys the Mark Penn spin, no matter what it is. The media has not called her out on her experience (35 years? She was 25 out of law school and is 60 now, you do the math). The media has not questioned how health care failed so awesomely under her while Bill was President. The media has instead focused on calling Obama eloquent and questioning his substance. The media has called his supporters and his campaign cultish (what bullshit!). The media bought into this line that it is naive to talk to all foreign leaders.
True, there has been negative coverage of Hillary in this campaign. But most of it has revolved around Bill race baiting, wagging his finger at people or otherwise getting into it with the media.
The media has held her out as a viable candidate from the beginning. And for what? What experience? When has she answered a phone at 3am? The media has not once pointed out that Obama has been an elected official longer than her. The media has never run a story on what she did as first lady (maybe she did have real experience from that time, but there has been no story as to what she actually did).
Its crap. I knew her SNL and John Stewart appearances were trouble. She is trying to up her likability now so she can poach superdelegates. The media has been marching to her tune throughout this whole campaign.
Posted by rasalula at 03/05/2008 @ 3:05pm
Posted by METTEYYA 03/05/2008 @ 2:43pm
Because the Clintons either got lucky or were smart enough to get the "Hsu" stuff out EARLY (well before Iowa)....
Rezko's trial started this week.
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 3:06pm
Posted by STUBINE 03/05/2008 @ 2:58pm
The BIG STATE thing is also a myth.
Hillary does well in big states because they know her and it is difficult for them to get to know Obama because of the sheer size of the state. If Obama can spend as much time with each voter as he did in Iowa with voters in a "big" state, he would do just as well.
The more voters know about Obama and the more intimate this contact, the better he does.
You take away the last name of Hillary, and this race is not even close, even in the "big" states. Without the Clinton name, she would have to spend a lot of energy and money like Obama, educating voters on who she really is. This is why Obama has to outraise and outspend her - he is fighting the Clinton "brand" that has been on the national political scene for 15 years!
But unlike Hillary's talking point, voters really do NOT know who Hillary is, and are simply "projecting" qualities that they think she has based on their familiarity with her husband. Therefore, the media should continue to vett out the "true Hillary", and not go for the Mark Penn one-sided approach of only trying to vet Obama.
A good start would be her tax returns and the donor list to the library!
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 3:09pm
Rezko's trial started this week.
Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 3:06pm
And whose decision was it to start the trial this week, and is there any connection to the decision maker to Hillary or the Republicans?
After the US Attorney scandal with Karl Rove pushing US Attorneys who would do his dirty political work, the mainstream press should be more skeptical of these "political" prosecutors and attempt to make the political connection that is not being made.
There is no question that the Republicans are much more afraid of facing Obama than Hillary, so let's find out whether this was a factor in the "timing" of the Rezko trial?
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 3:14pm
METTEYYA, good point on the big state and Clinton brand name. This is a huge issue that gets lost in the media. That Hillary is voting on a name. Some idiots on these media panels are also pointing to Obama outspending Hillary as a sign of his weakness. As if he is trying to buy votes. The fact is, no one knows him like they know her. She gets a free ride on experience and economics. Why? Because of the name and the weak media we have.
General point: forgetting about the issue of bias, why is it that these so called experts cant spend an hour talking about their economic plans or healthcare plans point by point? Instead they talk endlessly about momentum and tone and other red herring issues. The media is a disgrace and honestly it makes me wonder if our "free" press is good for democracy. I am starting to believe things would be better if everyone would just shut up.
Posted by rasalula at 03/05/2008 @ 3:16pm
And whose decision was it to start the trial this week, and is there any connection to the decision maker to Hillary or the Republicans?----Posted by METTEYYA 03/05/2008 @ 3:14pm
Okay, see THIS....is the expected point where some of us figured you'd slip into full blown paranoia.
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 3:36pm
MASK 03/05/2008 @ 3:36pm
lots of strings are pullable...
even "conservative" ones...
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 3:44pm
Another thing about the big state myth is that these states wouldn't go to Obama in the general election. NY, MA and CA would likely go to either, so it doesn't have to be Hillary or the state is lost to Dems. Also, in both Ohio and TX she won the rural areas and Obama won the larger population centers by significant margins. The rural areas of Texas and Ohio won't make those states go blue. They might vote for Hillary or Obama, but I am guessing TX and Ohio have a better chance of going red in Nov. So, we're back to the smaller purple states making the differnce, states where Obama has done better.
Posted by loria at 03/05/2008 @ 4:13pm
Posted by RASALULA 03/05/2008 @ 3:16pm
I think if our "free" press was not corporate owned and didn't have to chase higher ratings so they could make more money off advertisers, it would free them up to pursue the truth regardless of where it takes them.
If the truth takes them to some dark secret Hillary is hiding about her finances that would end her candidacy, then so be it.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 4:18pm
Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 3:36pm
MASK,
Amy St. Eve is a VERY POLITICAL Republican judge who was a prosecutor in the Whitewater investigation.
This judge does what she is told by the Republican political establishment, and it is therefore not far-fetched or "paranoid" to think she was told by Rove to "hurry up and try Rezko" so Republicans can benefit.
St. Eve, Amy J.
Born 1965 in Belleville, IL
Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois Nominated by George W. Bush on March 21, 2002, to a seat vacated by George W. Lindberg; Confirmed by the Senate on August 1, 2002, and received commission on August 2, 2002.
Education: Cornell University, B.A., 1987
Cornell Law School, J.D., 1990
Professional Career: Private practice, New York City, 1990-1994 Associate independent counsel, Whitewater Independent Counsel's Office, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1994-1996 Assistant U.S. attorney, Northern District of Illinois, 1996-2001 Senior counsel, Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Illinois, 2001-2002
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Female
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 4:26pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/05/2008 @ 3:44pm
Man, do NOT get sucked into the conspiracy line of thinking by which EVERYTHING bad that happens to Barack Obama is a Clinton machination....some?...sure. But Rezko's trial could have occurred back in January and METTEYYA would blame it on "Hillary pulling strings to resurrect herself after Iowa!".
It was bad luck...it happens, even in politics. Plus, it's not that big a factor...the Canada/NAFTA thing was in Ohio and the "3 am phone call" ad was in Texas.
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 4:27pm
Posted by METTEYYA 03/05/2008 @ 4:26pm
Okay, so everybody gets this clear...
A prosecutor OF THE CLINTONS...moved up the Rezko trial...to HELP THE CLINTONS?
That's the line of thinking you're prepared to start?
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 4:29pm
Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 3:36pm
And the prosecutor in Rezko, is the same one who investigated the Valerie Plame CIA leak, so we know he "plays ball" and refused to indict Rove or Hadley despite the evidence against them.
Why hasn't ANYONE in the mainstream press focused on this Republican political connection of the prosecutor and judge in the Rezko case? Maybe they should be more "paranoid" (skeptical) given the break he gave Rove?
Patrick J. Fitzgerald (born December 22, 1960) is an American attorney and the current United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. On December 30, 2003, after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the CIA leak grand jury investigation of the Plame affair due to conflicts of interest, Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, acting as Attorney General in Ashcroft's place, appointed Fitzgerald to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel in charge of the investigation.[1][2]
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 4:41pm
Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 4:29pm
It's BOTH the prosecutor AND the Judge in Rezko - they are both Republican dirty politics operatives.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 4:42pm
Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 4:29pm
You are also missing WHY the Republicans went after the Clintons. It was not based on some hatred of the Clintons, they were simply trying to hurt the Democrats because they think Bill stole the election from HW because of Perot!
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 4:49pm
Posted by METTEYYA 03/05/2008 @ 4:42pm
Again, they are "Republican operatives" (including PATRICK FITZGERALD...the man who TRIED to bring us "Fitz-mas"!?!?!?)...
and they're helping Hillary with a "blatent" partisan move up of a trial of a guy that Obama had connections to YEARS ago...
which has apparently had NO effect....since most analysis says that Obama lost Texas on Latinos and the "3am phone call" thing...and lost Ohio due to unions and the "Canada/NAFTA" thing?
Is this along the same lines of your thinking that "the Jews that control the Media got Arsenio, the most popular and funniest man in America, fired because he had on Farrakhan"?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 4:51pm
Posted by METTEYYA 03/05/2008 @ 4:49pm
But now they want to HELP Hillary keep a shot at the Dem nomination?!?!?!?!?!?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 4:52pm
Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 4:52pm
Are you saying that you agree that Fitzgerald should have NOT indicted Karl Rove in the Plame ordeal?
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 4:58pm
Posted by MASK 03/05/2008 @ 4:27pm
You are missing the point MASK - the mainstream's press coverage of the Rezko thing focuses "entirely" on the guilt-by-association aspect and doesn't dig a little deeper to see if they are being set up to cover this at the "appropriate and convenient" time for the Republicans!
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 5:02pm
It's interesting to observe the `evolution' of METT! He's now licking Obama's balls as hard as FRANKG ever did w/Hillary!
The reason Hillary wins BIG STATES is because, duh, BIG STATES are not nearly as provincial or narrowly focused! What do Iowa care about NAFTA or Corn prices through the roof? or Does Vermont in anyway, represent America? Lily white Idaho?
Get real, BIG STATES MATTER....if Clinton proves the winner in just about all of the BIG STATES and Obama ends up the Nominee, I'll be licking my chops for November.....Let's see Obamanics try to attack NAFTA in Ohio and Texas at the same time!
Posted by Happy at 03/05/2008 @ 5:24pm
Barrack Milhouse Obami must quit the race NOW before its too late......Hillary Rotten will have the long knives that have grown over the many years poised to stab the new Messiah and he and his "Proud to be an American....NOW" wife will be ripped to total shreads
God Bless the USA
Posted by Frankshitsz at 03/05/2008 @ 5:33pm
Posted by HAPPY 03/05/2008 @ 5:24pm
Sorry, HAPPY, but I am a pussy eater not a ball licker!
BIG STATES favor BIG MEDIA, and favor the known over the unknown. In smaller states where life is a little slower, people have time to pay attention and get to know candidates.
Besides, given how close the race was in Texas, how can anyone with any sense say that Obama can't win a big state?
You and I both know the deal in Texas, especially in the rural areas there where whats-his-name was dragged from a truck and literally skinned alive.
Only in Texas!
Posted by Metteyya at 03/05/2008 @ 6:23pm
"It's interesting to observe the `evolution' of METT! He's now licking Obama's balls as hard as FRANKG ever did w/Hillary!"
Not even close. I read you guys every day (rarely commenting myself) and I have to disagree. Metteya makes good arguments & supports them with references. Frank is a loose cannon armed with tasteless, unimaginative, racist rhetoric.
Posted by nicR at 03/05/2008 @ 7:12pm
Posted by METTEYYA 03/05/2008 @ 5:02pm
METTE, again, bitchin about the Media is a kid's game...or a right-winger's game, since they started it. Form Obama News if you want it "fair and balanced".
You think HALF the stuff Hillary (or "the Media") is doing will compare to what the Repubs will do this fall?
Quit whining and fight it.
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 7:20pm
Posted by NICR 03/05/2008 @ 7:12pm
In defense of METTE....that's true. FRANK and his girlfriend HELENDAO sunk low and fast when Her Nibs lost Iowa and then South Carolina.
METTE just as slavishly devoted to Obama...isn't on part with FG and HD on crude, even self-defeating attacks. (For instance, HELEN's new thing of calling Obama "Oba-Macaca"...which is stupid because using that term is what COST George Allen his Senate race in 2006!)
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2008 @ 7:22pm
I don't know why anyone is surprised by the behavior of mainstream journalists.
Anything for a story. Particularly a juicy, tabloidish one. The O-train just happened to stumble into their gunsights at an inconvenient moment. When it comes to scoops, there are no favorites.
Clinton, of course, is playing those stories for all they are worth. That's politics. It's the same the world over.
Last night was a big disappointment, but the race is not over yet by any means.
Posted by jackwells at 03/05/2008 @ 7:42pm
HILLARY: STAND BY SOME OTHER MAN
The mainstream media said she was finished, but our brave Hillary soldiered on to wallop B. Hussein Obama in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island Tuesday night. I don't know what the MSM is so upset about-- we let them pick the Republican nominee. Did they want to pick the Democratic nominee, too?
Not only that, but after some toothsome appearances on various madcap comedy shows this past week -- "Saturday Night Live," "Late Night With David Letterman," "Hardball With Chris Matthews" -- Hillary's "likability" quotient is soaring! According to the latest CNN/CBS News poll, she's just been upgraded from "Utterly Loathsome" to "Execrable."
The percentage of registered voters who would rather disembowel themselves with a wooden spoon than vote for Hillary has just slipped below the magical 50 percent mark. We're surging, Hillary! If you want to be even more likable, you should go on "The View." Next to those four harpies, you seem almost agreeable.
Now that Hillary has won three primaries in a row, it's time for Obama to do the classy thing and withdraw from the race. (Obama won Vermont, but that was earlier in the day. Exit polls indicate he took the black vote. Literally. There was just the one.)
Imagine how proud Michelle Obama would be of her country if that happened! But Obama probably won't do the classy thing, despite claiming to be a "new" kind of politician and rejecting the politics of division.
If Hillary is serious about becoming president, she's got to make some changes. I say this as a Hillary supporter and strong opponent of divorce. Hillary: You've got to divorce Bill. You've already fired one campaign manager. Now it's time to get rid of your No. 1 buzz-killer.
Not only is the media's group-lie about Bill Clinton being a "rock star" over, but -- one can hope -- the use of the excruciatingly stupid phrase "rock star" to refer to wonky politicians is over. It's become such a cliche that music critics have begun referring to actual rock stars as "leading Democratic contenders."
Liberals believe, often accurately, that if they say the same thing over and over again 1 billion times, people will believe it: "Bush lied, kids died," "We've lost in Iraq," "Reagan is stupid," "Bush is stupid," "Republicans are stupid," "Global warming is destroying the planet," "Gloria Steinem is good-looking" and -- their most provably false assertion -- "Bill Clinton is the most talented politician of his generation."
In a period of just a few short months last year, "news" articles in The New York Times cooed -- I mean "said" -- the following about Bill Clinton:
-- "Elvis is here, Clinton version. Having Bill Clinton campaign for you, as Mr. Ford learns, is a mixed blessing. You are bolstered standing next to this outsized Democrat, but still seem puny by comparison."
-- "Mr. Clinton is one Oscar-worthy supporting actor who can sometimes upstage his leading lady simply by breathing."
-- "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been trying to capture Bill Clinton's old political magic and lay claim to his legacy and popularity."
Not to be a stickler, but Bill Clinton is the guy who could never get as much as 50 percent of the country to vote for him. And that was in two presidential elections that the Republicans basically sat out (as they are doing this year).
It was also in elections held before the country realized "Elvis" Clinton was molesting the help. If Bill Clinton is the Democrats' idea of Elvis, somebody should tell them he's playing to half-empty houses.
Besides the joy liberals take in lying generally, they have massive Reagan envy. Despite having informed us the requisite 1 billion times that Reagan was a dunce, Americans adored him, and still do.
Democrats wanted one of their presidents to be adored, too -- and not just for being assassinated. But they only seemed able to produce laughable incompetents like Jimmy Carter.
So no matter how preposterous it was, liberals just kept telling us that the chubby kid with the big red nose whose greatest moment on the football field involved a wind instrument was "Elvis." According to Nexis, that appellation has been applied to Clinton approximately 1,000 times. In print, that is. There's no telling how many drunken cocktail waitresses have whispered it in Clinton's ear during late-night elevator assignations.
You can stop lying for the voters now, Hillary. This is me, Ann Coulter, your supporter.
This charade of a marriage has gone on long enough. Even if you were stupid enough to marry him back in the '70s, Bill is just so over, girlfriend. He can't even get Holiday Inn cocktail waitresses anymore. Last I heard, he was hitting on the Motel 6 housekeeping staff.
You're too good for him, Hillary. Obama has now denounced and rejected Louis Farrakhan. It's time for you to denounce and reject Bill Clinton.
Obama excites voters by offering to be the first black president. You've got a chance to make history by becoming the first divorcee to win the White House.
Ann
Posted by Frankshitsz at 03/05/2008 @ 8:40pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/05/2008 @ 3:44pm
Man, do NOT get sucked into the conspiracy................
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
i know nothing. i don't necessarily think it's hillary. or anybody.
just saying "ya' never know"
and we never do.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 9:18pm
oops,
by MASK (above)
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2008 @ 9:19pm
You and I both know the deal in Texas, especially in the rural areas there where whats-his-name was dragged from a truck and literally skinned alive.....Only in Texas!
Posted by METTEYYA 03/05/2008 @ 6:23pm
Metteya makes good arguments & supports them with references....
Posted by NICR 03/05/2008 @ 7:12pm
This is one big reason I like coming to TN.....a real challenge!
METT has a defender, not much surprised since I am in the Dungeon of Obamanics!
OK, METT, you slimed Texas, but here are some cold hard facts on some Big States' results FOR Clinton, excluding the home states of both:
Massachusetts 56% vs. 41%
California 52% vs. 43%
Florida 50% vs. 33%
Ohio 54% vs. 44%
and Texas 51% vs. 48%
Now, tell us, given that the margin of Clinton's BIG wins is smallest in the Draggin-James-Byrd-to-Death state of Texas, does this mean the other Big States are more racist?
Show us you've got real "arguments & supports them with references"!
Posted by Happy at 03/05/2008 @ 10:12pm
Re: How the Media Help ...
Well, the media wouldn't help anyone, save the reporters themselves. In the last several days, what media did is to start vesting Mr. Obama. They should have done it two or three months back. And as expected they've found holes in every of Mr. Obama's story. Let's just say more will come out of his closet.
Posted by HelenDAO at 03/05/2008 @ 10:27pm
Probably more than the political process itself, I'm disgusted with the MSM. I, perhaps naively, thought that the news media was supposed to remain as unbiased as possible. Instead they spout off anything that comes to their minds with no real concern about accuracy, only ratings. Don't they have a code of ethics to uphold? I'm a physician, and as a profession we have very stringent ethical guidelines that we attempt to live by. I'm sure the journalism profession has something similar. What's happened to them?
Posted by adl at 03/05/2008 @ 10:33pm
Obama's initial denial was in response to a CTV story about talks with Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson in Washington. The Canadian Embassy ALSO denied any conversation took place.
Later and post-memo this was corrected to a casual 40 min meeting with Canada's consul general in Chicago. Bear in mind this meeting has never been a secret.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, "leaked" this memo to the US media, and in turn Obama's campaign. Again Obama was forced to defend his position.
Obama needs only to reiterate. He knows not to feed our media with answers for them attack for attack sake, which is the only thing this is about.
Duck Soup, a recipe for mis-charictarization.
Goolsbee was indisputably clear, "A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA. And B: In no possible way was I inferring that he was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting. Those are both completely crazy."
We are not alone in this. NDP foreign affairs critic Bob Rae said, "This is Republican International in action."
"I'm stunned that the Harper government would insert itself into the U.S. election," said Leslie Swartman, director of communications for Liberal Leader Stephane Dion.
I have read + heard that the current admin in Canada may currently be under investigations for an unrelated scandal involving the bribing of and Independent Party Legislator for votes. There may be motives of their own to Wag the Dog. Since this will be just yet another case for the prosecutors to handle, slowing them down.
Dont' be fooled!
Posted by Silverlark at 03/06/2008 @ 05:24am
They've always been her greatest ally. She manipulates them blame them and they turn around like seals and do what she says. They attack her in NH and made women feel sorry for her and decided overwhelmingly for her at the last minute. They've always been her ally because they let her get away with saying that Obama is all talk while she is all action when Obama has been more ACTIVE in his 3 years in the Senate passing bills than the average 3 year senator. He has ALWAYS been in the solution business trying to help people whether its by going to law school and working as a Civil Rights Attorney or going to the state Senate and the US Senate. IN fact thats one of the reason he has moved up so fast his drive to help people. He couldnt help them enough as a community organizer so he went to law school. He couldnt help enough as a Civil Rights lawyer so he went to the state senate. He couldnt help enough as a State senator so he went to the US Senate. They let her get away with this idea that he is all talk no action and she is all action. Her 35 years of experience is another prime example of this. What they've neglected is the fact that Obama has more elected office than Hillary. In fact Hillary is only one of a few Senators who became US Senator WITHOUT having prior elected office. But that you dont hear that being talked about. She has this vast experience that a lot think it mostly elected office when its NOT.
So all this bias in the media for Obama is just Hillary SPINNING and manipulating the media and they fall for it hook line and sinker.
Carol
Posted by harriscrl3 at 03/06/2008 @ 08:30am
When the NAFTA story first broke I distictly recall that both campaigns were implicated, but that news was quickly buried and it became Hillary's NAFTA battering ram in Ohio (despite the trade policy was a signature of the Clinton years she boasts of as her experience). If anyone were to reveal this info on a politainment talk show, they would be shouted down, dismissed, or the quick cut to commercial would block it out:
Report: NAFTA-Gate Leaker Said Hillary's People Were Reassuring Canada, Too By Eric Kleefeld - March 5, 2008, 11:33PM
The NAFTA-Gate controversy has taken another turn, one that could potentially boomerang back on Hillary Clinton after initially damaging Barack Obama.
The Canadian Press -- Canada's domestic equivalent of the AP -- is reporting that the original source of the leak was Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. And as it turns out, Brodie's original conversation with reporters focused much more on Hillary as the candidate whose people were reassuring Canada that the anti-trade rhetoric was all just campaign talk.
"He said someone from Clinton's campaign is telling the Embassy to take it with a grain of salt," said one participant in the conversation. The source added, "someone called us and told us not to worry."
Hillary's people were able to use NAFTA-Gate very effectively in questioning Obama's honesty in the Ohio and Texas campaigns, ultimately pulling off some decent wins. But if this thing doesn't die down, and the focus turns from Obama over to Hillary, they could very well see the story come back to bite them.
Link: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03...
From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.2008...
In addition she now claims she brokered peace in Ireland as well--but who is calling her out on that loud and clear? Please, the media succumbed to her "poor me" whining that she wasn't getting fair media treatment after her plans of waltzing to the throne were stalled. Media fairness in the cynical Clinton worldview is the same way they view the Democratic party as their personal vehicle, if the media isn't engaging in character assassination of their opponents, their threats, their enemies, it isn't doing their job.
Posted by Lil at 03/06/2008 @ 09:46am
In addition she now claims she brokered peace in Ireland as well--but who is calling her out on that loud and clear?----Posted by LIL 03/06/2008 @ 09:46am
Yeah, I heard that one too. Wonder what George Mitchell thinks of the fact that he was "just along for the ride"?
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2008 @ 09:49am
The media for Hillary? After all the relentless miscegenous bashing, including the Chelsea pimping comments by MSNBC? I loved their sour grape faces last Tuesday when Hillary won 2 big states: Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, GQ'd John King. The truth is, despite you internet competent types, the people have spoken for our Evita...
Posted by nursevic at 03/06/2008 @ 10:51am
Yesterday, CNN's homepage had the headline "Is Cindy McCain really that perfect?"
Gag me with a spoon!
Posted by lofi at 03/06/2008 @ 11:33am
the people have spoken for our Evita...
Posted by NURSEVIC 03/06/2008 @ 10:51am
"Evita"?...that supposed to be a GOOD comparison?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2008 @ 12:21pm
don't cry for me cincinnati......
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2008 @ 1:08pm
Posted by LIL 03/06/2008 @ 09:46am
harper's trying to skewer both.....
ctv just went after obama.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2008 @ 1:10pm
Posted by HAPPY 03/05/2008 @ 10:12pm
I already covered this, HAPPY!
Hillary wins Big states because it is more difficult for voters in these large states to get to know Obama, and they already "think" they know Hillary because the Clinton brand has been on the national stage for nearly 15 years!
You take away Hillary's last name, and she is just another two-bit legislator with practically no accomplishments. She just doesn't have the political skill or the ability to inspire the American people to get the job done as president. This is why her healthcare initiative failed. The more voters zero in on Hillary's lack of political skill at getting things done in Washington, the more Obama rises.
Posted by Metteyya at 03/06/2008 @ 1:46pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/06/2008 @ 1:08pm
"Don't cry for me, Cincinnati! The truth is, I never liked you!
All through my primary days, my NAFTA assistance, I kept no promise!
Now keep your distance!"
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2008 @ 2:29pm
METT, don't run & MisDirect w/BS!!! I'm calling you on your sliming of Texas as Racist...yet Clinton had her smallest win margin! Put up or apologize to the great state of Texas!!
-----------------------------------
You and I both know the deal in Texas, especially in the rural areas there where whats-his-name was dragged from a truck and literally skinned alive.....Only in Texas!
Posted by METTEYYA 03/05/2008 @ 6:23pm
Metteya makes good arguments & supports them with references....
Posted by NICR 03/05/2008 @ 7:12pm
This is one big reason I like coming to TN.....a real challenge!
METT has a defender, not much surprised since I am in the Dungeon of Obamanics!
OK, METT, you slimed Texas, but here are some cold hard facts on some Big States' results FOR Clinton, excluding the home states of both:
Massachusetts 56% vs. 41%
California 52% vs. 43%
Florida 50% vs. 33%
Ohio 54% vs. 44%
and Texas 51% vs. 48%
Now, tell us, given that the margin of Clinton's BIG wins is smallest in the Draggin-James-Byrd-to-Death state of Texas, does this mean the other Big States are more racist?
Show us you've got real "arguments & supports them with references"!
Posted by Happy at 03/06/2008 @ 2:35pm
MASK 03/06/2008 @ 2:29pm
that's one for the archive!
you can archive yourself, ¿no?
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2008 @ 2:38pm
You take away Hillary's last name, and she is just another two-bit legislator with practically no accomplishments.----Posted by METTEYYA 03/06/2008 @ 1:46pm
Seriously...METTE....you don't think THAT could be turned around on you and Mr Obama?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2008 @ 2:38pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/06/2008 @ 2:38pm |
Nawww....only line I've kept of myself was
"The Typical RIO BRAVO Post" that I did for WOLFGANG yesterday---
"Grrrrr....arrrghhh.... "Demoncrats"....mnnnhhharr...rrrarllrgarl.... "secular regressives".....mmarrrrrh....grrrrrrrrrr...... slather...drool...."Hillary Rotten (Satan's favorite daughter).....grrrrrrrrr.....arrrggghhhh.... "I'm an independent!"?"----Posted by RIO BRAVO @ almost every opportunity | ignore this person
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2008 @ 2:40pm
Seriously...METTE....you don't think THAT could be turned around on you and Mr Obama?!?!??!?
Posted by MASK 03/06/2008 @ 2:38pm
Let's also ask him, IF Magic is a white boy with 8 yrs. as a state legislator, no private sector experience, 2 (working) yrs. in the Senate, 18-yr ties with a very shady Rezko, never shown he can work across the aisle to dare to espouse post-partisanship, where would his campaign be TODAY?
Posted by Happy at 03/06/2008 @ 3:23pm
Posted by HAPPY 03/06/2008 @ 3:23pm
I'd say he'd have given Edwards a run for his money, but JE would be the one sticking it out to Super Tuesday, not Obama.
The strong undercurrent of "anti-Hillary/Clintonism" out there can't be discounted.
It merely would have split evenly between Edwards and a "white but just as charismatic Obama" and She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed would now be the nominee, period.
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2008 @ 3:54pm
Posted by HAPPY 03/06/2008 @ 3:23pm
If Obama were white, we would be saying he is the re-incarnation of Jack Kennedy!
He came to the state senate and worked across party lines to get death penalty reform because Illinois was in REAL danger of killing innocent people. He worked across the aisle, showing "extraordinary" political skill in getting the first campaign finance disclosure law passed in Illinois, which was no small task considering the totally corrupt political system that was in place when Obama showed up. He also worded across party lines to get healthcare for women and children in Illinois, and now women can get breast cancer screening for free.
He LED the fight in each of these areas, and was not some "me too" co-sponsor like Hillary who just put her "name" on a piece of legislation while others did the heavy lifting.
Hillary poo-poos his speaking ability, but inspiring a nation is something that has been missing from the presidential scene for quite some time, and it is Obama's ability to inspire along with his political skill that will translate solutions into legislation, whereas Hillary couldn't inspire a bullfrog, let alone the American people. This is why Hillary's healthcare initiative failed when she was First Lady - she just doesn't have the political skill or the inspiration skills to turn her solutions into reality!
Posted by Metteyya at 03/06/2008 @ 3:55pm
Posted by METTEYYA 03/06/2008 @ 3:55pm ' METTE, if Obama had been white...he wouldn't have had people walking on eggshells not to criticize him and risk being called a "racist" for it.
There'd be no "white guilt liberals" voting for him to try to assuage "300 years of slavery and oppression".
It'd be a straight-up "experience" fight...and not with Hillary. It would have been with Edwards, with Edwards EASILY showing how his SIX in the Senate beat Obama's TWO in the Senate.
And, if you could, in a moment of pure honesty, ADMIT it....you wouldn't be that supportive of a white guy from the IL State House named "Barrett Hubbert O'Bannion" with a charismatic style and a lotta talk about "hope"....anymore than you'd think Leno or Letterman was as funny as Arsenio.
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2008 @ 4:28pm
if Obama had been white...he wouldn't have had people walking on eggshells not to criticize him and risk being called a "racist" for it.
Posted by MASK 03/06/2008 @ 4:28pm
I'd go as far as to say, "Barrett Hubbert O'Bannion" wouldn't have been the Keynote Speaker in the 2004 Demo Convention....further, "Barrett Hubbert O'Bannion" wouldn't even be a Senator TODAY!
Posted by Happy at 03/06/2008 @ 4:45pm
Posted by MASK 03/06/2008 @ 4:28pm Posted by HAPPY 03/06/2008 @ 4:45pm
Both of you guys are way off base.
Edwards is a phony, and this would not have changed if Obama were white. People are voting for Obama BECAUSE HE INSPIRES THEM, not because he is bi-racial. Sharpton DOES NOT inspire them, so he wasn't even able to carry the BLACK vote!
ANY white candidate with Obama's oratory skills would be front and center in American politics. We have not had ANYONE with this kind of ability since RFK, MLK, and JFK, and that includes whites and blacks!
This "experience" thing is bullshit (excuse my French), as most voters do not care how long your resume is; they care about your ability to lead this nation!
Posted by Metteyya at 03/06/2008 @ 4:59pm
The simple truth is that Hillary had not a single gripe about the media until she started losing. Then she had to blame someone, anyone. It wasn't voters that were going out to the polls to support Obama, it was someone all a "media creation". It is really apalling how much overcompensation occurred at the behest of Camp Clinton.
Posted by katefranklin at 03/06/2008 @ 5:38pm
As I have predicted for years you stupid LIBZ are cracking up at the seams.....A totally enjoyable experience by the way....
But better yet you stupid fucking nitwits cant even run your own party without major train wrecks and crisis....You think the Real Americans in this country will elect such a pack of Marxist fools to run our military and health care???....Dont make me laugh!!!
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Posted by Frankshitsz at 03/06/2008 @ 6:14pm
Posted by METTEYYA 03/06/2008 @ 4:59pm
METTE, I know I can't convince you...of course HAPP can't either.
You're in the cult or the Big O, same as FRANKGRITS was for Her Nibs.
But most of us know the truth...Obama draws 80% of the African-American vote and that wouldn't NECESSARILY be true if he was Caucasian.
And I'm pretty sure you'd be a bit less supportive of him...maybe still a suppoter, but not a "Obama walks on water" type.
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2008 @ 7:56pm
What METT refuses to recognize also........
The Kennedys were very well known......No sudden `American Idol'.....Joseph Kennedy wasn't making dough in Kenya......JFK was a WWII war hero.......
Win or lose, Obama is where he is precisely because he is black! His `charm/Magic' & oratory skill are vital elements in his success to date, but, without his `blackness' and foreign names, he would be no better than a young, uber Liberal Ralph Nader at his peak!
Some folks say racism cost Obama some votes,....I say, racism is the overwhelming reason he is running neck-and-neck w/HRC!
Posted by Happy at 03/06/2008 @ 9:07pm
"Obama walks on water"
Posted by MASK 03/06/2008 @ 7:56pm
actually, i think that's ethanol..........
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2008 @ 11:39pm
Let's also ask him, IF Magic is a white boy with 8 yrs. as a state legislator, no private sector experience, 2 (working) yrs. in the Senate, 18-yr ties with a very shady Rezko, never shown he can work across the aisle to dare to espouse post-partisanship, where would his campaign be TODAY?
Posted by HAPPY 03/06/2008 @ 3:23pm
HAPPY,
if mccain (or hucks or giuliani or romney or whatever they were called) were BLACK,
where would HIS campaign be today?
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2008 @ 11:41pm
if mccain (or hucks or giuliani or romney or whatever they were called) were BLACK,....where would HIS campaign be today?
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/06/2008 @ 11:41pm
Interesting Q.....but, apples & oranges....mainly, McCain is 71....there are no prominent black conservatives of that age...it simply wasn't possible, not allowed by the Demos nor the MSM, for blacks to `break out' of the Plantation Party. You really should read Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks" book for how convoluted the blacks' `progress' in America got so messed up.....by Gov't `help' and the way they became, again `enslaved' via the destruction of the black family & initiatives, by the Demo Party!
Most black Repubs w/national name recognitions, are Bush Cabinet members.......we know who they are. There are some Repub elected officials...we'll see if McCain would be a `Maverick' in picking a VP! So far, just white boys' names are out there.
Posted by Happy at 03/07/2008 @ 12:08am
.but, apples & oranges....
Posted by HAPPY 03/07/2008 @ 12:08am
not really,
both are humans (i think).
mccain would be a state senator, maybe................
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/07/2008 @ 12:12am
Yeah they helped her break the Nafta story on Obama but failed to learn that SHE was the one that called the Canadians to reassure them about Nafta. Nice reporting got to love our media what would we do without them.
Carol
Posted by harriscrl3 at 03/07/2008 @ 05:12am
Aside from the usual bread & circuses MSM politainment coverage intended to pump up ratings with Pat Buchanan authority babble and except for Keith Obermann (The bone thrown to keep the pack quiet?), the pimping for Hillary the hawk has begun in earnest.(Interestingly, I noticed that one of the programs on the stock market network was pushing weapons as a good investment under a McCain presidency) Surrounded by a cadre of military brass she again, for the third time, yesterday publically declared that she and McCain were unquestionably qualified while Obama had "a speech". One of Obama's advisors apparently appologized for referring to Hillary the hawk as a "monster" but why apologize–she is a monster. It boggles the mind, that at a time when the majority of Americans oppose the war and the world hates us for our war machine, there she is flexing her brute muscle and playing the fear card right out of the Bush playbook. No wonder Bush did his little happy dance waiting for McCain to show–his legacy is starting to look rosy for the upcoming election. And what of these feminists standing behind Hillary the hawk because she has a vagina? Do they advocate Clinton's war mongering and sabre-rattling for which women and children are the greatest victims? And who is questioning what her experience and qualifications are? Journalist Margaret Carlson said last night she attended many overseas functions with Clinton as first lady to attend tea parties. Then Hillary the hawk criticized Obama for focusing on the delegate math–but then why is no one asking her why she wants to seat Fla and Michigan, and is willing to cheat to do so? Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and the folks in those states understood their votes didn't count–so how many didn't even bother? Aside from that why should the Democratic party be bullied to pay millions to let Clinton have her way when it won't even alter the delegate tally?
My guess is she will try to steal this election because she believes it is her right–her turn and she doesn't care what damage it does to the country in the process. How is she NOT a monster?
Posted by Lil at 03/07/2008 @ 07:25am
if mccain (or hucks or giuliani or romney or whatever they were called) were BLACK,....where would HIS campaign be today?
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/06/2008 @ 11:41pm
Ask Alan Keyes.
Posted by Mask at 03/07/2008 @ 10:19am
Ask Alan Keyes.
Posted by MASK 03/07/2008 @ 10:19am
Member #9,999 at the White Birch Golf and Country Club in Johnston, Maryland.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/07/2008 @ 10:30am