It sounds like it was written by Tweety. He's so politically savvy & hot to play the race card.

Sweet Jeebus! I hate Chris Matthews! Even if he didn't come up with that little gem...he still sucks!

you mean general electric is giving scant coverage to a candidate running on a platform of confronting corporate corruption???

crazy

Fil @ 3:

Edwards, over-rated. Unelectable. John Kerry , meh

By whom? Everyone (including certain writers at this very blog) has persistently written him off despite strong numbers in Nevada and a negligible deficit in the delegate count.

Reactions like this only strengthen my desire to get out of this sinking ship of a country.

sounds like the reichwing controlled media is so afraid of all the candidates, they are doing anything and everything to divide the democratic party. look for more bullshit lies and smears from the gop and soon the bastard swiftboat bullies.

It never helps when so-called "liberals" like Ezra Klein appear on Hardball as regular guests, and instead of calling Tweety on his bullshit sit there smiling and nodding their heads like they're part of an exclusive club and don't want to have their memberships revoked. You know it's true.

Homo say whaa? @ 13:

Isn't GE running Mittens or Hillary? Or perhaps both?

Howsabout everbody else!!

henry @ 12:

It never helps when so-called "liberals" like Ezra Klein appear on Hardball as regular guests, and instead of calling Tweety on his bullshit sit there smiling and nodding their heads like they're part of an exclusive club and don't want to have their memberships revoked. You know it's true.

Ezra craves the celebrity approval that springboards him to Martha's Vineyard with the rest of the millionaire Jack Welch GE gang like Tweety, Pumpkinhead, Brian "Nascar Dad" Williams, Andrea Greenspan, etc.

Jeez, imagine if they said "Does he really want to be the black guy, playing the black candidate?", of Obama. WTF is going on?

addendum...

crazy larry @ 16:

Martha's Vineyard with the rest of the millionaire Jack Welch GE gang like Tweety, Pumpkinhead, Brian "Nascar Dad" Williams, Andrea Greenspan, etc.

Remember boys 'n girls, their concerns are your concerns. That's why they'd rather spread cocktail circuit gossip and innuendos about $400 haircuts, instead of talking about real issues like unemployment and poverty, or exposing lies that take our nation to wars and tax our children for generations.

Here is a copy of my letter, bad spelling included.

Your political discourse leaves much to be desired, as the fourth estate you have a civic responsibility to report the facts and issues, not opinions and hit pieces. You fail to cover Kucinich, except he has a hot wife, you fail to cover a very solid campaign by Edwards refering to him as a white guy running as a white guy? What the heck kind of discussion is that, oh and he's angry, well join the freaking club, I'd say a good 68% of Americans are "angry". Theres a lot to be angry about, from the medias failure during the 2000 elections, and the medias failure to report criminal news leading up to the 2004 election, wiretpping anyone, oh lets just hold that story till after the elections, we wouldn't want to influence the election with any facts or anything. Hillary is "coronated" Obama is a Bradly effect, and Edwards is the white guy, nice job MSNBC, now I know why I didn't get MSNBC on my satellite service. Hacks every one of you, are you guys seriously afraid of reporting the facts if they lean liberal? There isn't a republican that stands anywhere near Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, you keep giving us these false choices, and straw man arguments. Government isn't the problem when you have a strong fourth estate, but it is when the fourth estate is a lap dog for corporate interests and bends over backwards being "fair" to every side. If you cover a story and the fatcs say that A is better than B why even frame the story so to seem that B is even a valid choice? Lemonade or Arsenic could they both be good for you? Story at eleven.

WTF, I don't even know what that means!?

Is Romney "playing the white guy"? Or do Republicans on "do" the white guy?

Oooops...sorry...I'm wrong about that...they only do underage white guys.

motown52 @ 25:

a rich, southern, handsome, causasian ,heterosexual man is Presidential in America.
He is not just a white man......the sheer effontery of such an idea!
It is the American way.

White privilege rocks!

You betcha.

Nominate either of the two "frontrunners" and you'll end up with one of the GOP basket cases.

Insane White Privilege really rocks!!!

Mark @ News Corpse @ 19:

I have also bee documenting the atrocious treatment Edwards has been getting from the media. And I'm also doing something about it:

$7 Million Dollars In One Day For John Edwards!

"So if Edwards wants to receive the coverage to which he ought to be entitled, he could either engage in a high speed police chase with Britney’s kids on his lap and a missing white girl in the trunk, or he could set a new record by raising $7 million dollars in one day."

Help Edwards break the one-day fundraising record (set by Ron Paul fer gawds sake) by donating this Friday, January 18, 2008. Money is one of the few things the media understands and this record will force them to pay attention to Edwards' campaign.

This will also serve as a jab at blowhards like Bill O'Reilly who have written Edwards off as a phony and a loser.

I posted this yesterday. I hope I can afford to join you. I'll talk to some of my friends too.

The main reason that I’m as pissed as a pissed off patricia is reading the news today, there is hardly any mention of white democratic male candidates. I can understand how people can think it’s time for change but, I think it is time to talk about issues, not endorsements or what one or the other candidate meant about MLK. In the Wa Post Edwards name was mentioned twice, Kucinich once. In the NY Times Edwards was mentioned once. No mention of issues for republican or Democratic candidates. One full article on endorsements. “WE THE PEOPLE” deserve better. Tell the media we want better news and coverage of the white male democratic candidates and the issues. Don’t just write aa letter to Tom Donahue, get on the media’s case.

http://existentialist-corral.b.....orate.html

Say, isn't there a war going on, or something? Goodness, isn't there also an imploding domestic economy?

I wonder aloud; who benefits from this being about racial and sexual politics, exactly?

Ah, right. The GOP. SOMEHOW this became about framing wedge-issue politics again. Odd, that.

The MSM has got to stop running ads about how they're so trustworthy. They're clearly not.

My e-mail to MSNBC.

REGARDING YOUR DENOTING OF SEN. JOHN EDWARDS BID FOR PRESIDENCY:

"Does he really want to be the white guy, playing the white candidate?"

So, in effect you are capable of putting his entire candidacy into one sentence? On the other hand, other candidates require much more thought and description? I think not. You are entering into the Unfair and Unbalanced tactics of Faux news. It's a terrible waste of mental abilities to allow yourself (your "news" reporting staff) to be this lazy. Or, might I suggest, accomodating, to the powers that do not want Edwards to be heard by the public. You forget, however, that other sources are available to your viewers. When all is said and done, the "getting it wrong" diatribes of your "reporters" after New Hampshire will seem small in comparison now that the public is actually getting it. You are controlling the message you deliver. It won't be viewed at all as simply "getting it wrong".... but for what is actually is... controlling the information hoping WE will get it wrong. I'm disappointed in MSNBC. Time to find my source for accurate reporting elsewhere. Too much personal commentary and bias on your programs.

Think I'll follow-up with similar letters to advertisers. Anyone got a current list???

sassafra @ 33:

let's see you can't be a sexist and attack sweet ol' hillary oh noes she's a grrl she might get th' cryin' thingy, an' you can't attack obama he's got a turrible skin condition oh nonononono..but edwards that damned whire cracker he's fair game. how dare a white boy run anyways?

white boy whipping, from erica jong to the msm, the new approved racism

White guys are supposed to be republican. I must be an albino black.

The content of letters the MSM receives has no bearing on their agenda which is determined by their corporate handlers. They will always receive a mixture that averages slightly pro or slightly con. To them it's the amount of letters that makes them feel justified. They would only be concerned if they got no letters.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16710815/

This story (as you well know) outlines supposed leaders of the Democratic party nomination race.

The mention of John Edwards is trite, and oddly racist-flavored for being about a caucasian person... an unintentional perception maybe, but easily seen, as this commentary is only a single sentence long. The other perception is that MSNBC and its affiliates seem to want to make an issue of ethnicity (and also gender) in this primary, skewing all perceptions of each candidate into high-tension-topics for people to be divisive about, instead of covering issues that are both PRESSING and FACT-BASED.

Secondly, given polls from CNN and others, they show a very close matchup of 1-on-1 favorability ratings between any one democratic candidate and any one republican candidate... in these polls -- which are not at all broadcast on your station, or any other, for that matter -- it shows that Edwards is consistently ahead in favorability ratings versus ALL candidates, by a healthy margin... whereas the other two 'top tier candidates' consistently slide behind particular republican nominees.

I respectfully ask MSNBC why they feel inclined to ignore well-documented polls from respectable institutions, and continue to publish such callous and demeaning opines for those not slated by what many call 'big media' to be the eventual nominee. If this can be forwarded to Kieth Olbermann, I would absolutely LOVE to hear him address these polls and this article and the nature of MSNBC's stance on these issues. the Article detailing the unreported polling is listed here for your convenience and perusal. http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/14/the-polls-you-wont-hear-much-about/

Most Respectfully Yours,

{{Wise_Fool}}
Countdown Watcher and MSNBC patron

oops, forgot to mention, that's a letter I sent to letters@msnbc.com

biff diggerence @ 28:

motown52 @ 25:

a rich, southern, handsome, causasian ,heterosexual man is Presidential in America.
He is not just a white man......the sheer effontery of such an idea!
It is the American way.

White privilege rocks!

You betcha.

Nominate either of the two "frontrunners" and you'll end up with one of the GOP basket cases.

Insane White Privilege really rocks!!!

Some folks would rather nominate the most polarizing female in all of politics, or a man whose name rhymes with Osama and whose middle name is the same as the former Iraqi dictator (whose name alone is just begging for a Republican swiftboating) both of whom would be in the pockets of big corp rather than nominate the guy who polls to beat every Republican in the field and would truly change the direction of this country. But hey, when there's a Republican in the White House for the next 4-8 years futher undermining our democracy, selling out to the corporations, keeping us in Iraq indefinately they can at least say they proved their liberal credentials by supporting one of the two unelectable candidates because they were either black or a female!

I'm sure Edwards knew what he'd be up against -- that America might not be ready for a white male presidential candidate.

Chris "I've got a hard-on for Hillary - never like the bitch" Matthews should consider that John Edwards has received almost as many votes as the leading GOP candidate. An ominous sign for the Greedy Old Pricks.

Tonight's debate should be very interesting if Kucinich is allowed to participate. He will distract NBC from driving the racial wedge further into the Democratic Party. They don't want to discuss free speech, corporate censorship of the media, or impeachment.

xxx @ 1:

WTF Frist?

that about says it all....call this is outrageous!

As I have said to some of my women friends I will not hold the fact that Edwards is white and male against him. I refuse to vote for someone based on their color or gender.

I want the most serious anti-war candidate. Edwards is that person. Huge that he is not taking Pac Money. Walking the talk and the corporate biggies are really threatened

If the author of the post had read the first paragraph MSNBC places the caveat "...most likely to win the Democratic primary based on..." If you are an Edwards supporter the media isn't going to alter that. If the media IS able to alter you vote, well God Bless America. No matter what the media says or does we write the stories if we take action instead of sitting on the sidelines watching the action.

This really stinks.

It reminds me when Chris Rock described Hillary Clinton as "that white woman".

I brought this exact quote up in the Edwards thread yesterday.
And my reaction was the same as yours: WTF!!

OMG! I am sick of it being politically acceptable to be prejudice against someone because they are white, but god forbid, anyone mentions that someone is black or even references a black historical figure. Criticizing him for being white is just as racist as criticizing Obama for being black. Oh yea, wait a minute, what about Obama's other half? Maybe he is keeping himself down.

Albatross @ 37:

If Edwards is the "white guy," WTF does that make McCain? Transparent?

The chalky Albino candidate.

MargeAggedon @ 15:

Yeah. Television.

I keep reminding people it's intended for entertainment purposes only.

exactly..... the days of Walter Cronkite are gone. These are not "news" men and women.... nor journalists. The days of getting meaningful, honest, unbiased news are over. Stick a fork in it and call it done. If you are looking for meaningful information that rings of truth or fairness, you're not going to get it on MSNBC or any other major network or cable network. You're going to have to dig it up on your own.

Fil @ 3:

Edwards, over-rated. Unelectable. John Kerry , meh

Since you have brought up electability you might want to take a look at the polls that the corporate MSM don't like to talk about...

2008 Democratic Candidate Key Stats
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/elect...

Here are Rasmussen’s poll numbers:
Obama (47%) Giuliani (37%)
Obama (45%) Huckabee (43%)
Obama (43%) McCain (46%)
Obama (50%) Paul (31%)
Obama (45%) Romney (39%)
Obama (47%) Thompson (40%)
Edwards (44%) Giuliani (44%)
Edwards (49%) Huckabee (37%)
Edwards (46%) McCain (39%)
Edwards (50%) Romney (34%)
Edwards (48%) Thompson (39%)
Clinton (44%) Giuliani (45%)
Clinton (42%) Huckabee (45%)
Clinton (38%) McCain (49%)
Clinton (49%) Paul (37%)
Clinton (43%) Romney (44%)
Clinton (46%) Thompson (44%)

From Firedoglake blog:

She posts all of the polls here but there are screen shots so I couldn’t copy the data. You should check these out:

The Polls You Won’t Hear Much About
By: Phoenix Woman Monday January 14, 2008 6:00 pm

In the wake of Barack Obama's non-win over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, the punditti have been making various wailing noises over how awful it is that they were so wrong and all that. But for all the hubbub over the New Hampshire pre-primary polls and how accurate or inaccurate they were, it's rather interesting that some polls that may have more import have got comparatively minimal coverage.

I speak of the CNN and Rasmussen polls that provide national head-to-head match-ups of presidential candidates. And for months now -- at least, until CNN left off a couple of candidates this time around --both of these polls have been saying similar things about the strengths and weaknesses of the major candidates, things that aren't being told to us in the evening TV news or on the cable gabfests.

A few things should be immediately apparent:

1) McCain is by far the GOP's strongest candidate in the general election. (Rudy would be stronger, but he's not going to make it past South Carolina, much less to the nomination.) He trounces Hillary 49% to 38%, and beats Obama 46% to 43%. In fact, the only Democrat who beats him is none other than John Edwards, who decisively beats McCain 46% to 39%.

This is why it's a good idea for Michigan Democrats to engage once again in the time-honored tradition of crossover primary voting to vote for Romney and deny McCain a win in the Michigan primary: It blunts McCain's momentum, and convinces Romney to stay in the race at least through the South Carolina primary, which is a good thing as Romney will force McCain to spend money he doesn't have on him to spend. (And if Romney does win the nomination, he's much easier to beat, money or no money.)

2) John Edwards is by far the Democrats' strongest candidate in the general election. He is the only one who is not beaten outright by any Republican candidate: He ties with Giuliani at 44% each, but easily beats McCain, Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee, the latter two by double-digit margins.

3) Hillary Clinton is the weakest Democratic candidate in the general election. She loses to every single Republican except Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, and neither of those two gents is going to get the Republican nomination for president.

4) Barack Obama is in between Edwards and Hillary Clinton in strength in the general election. He does much better against Rudy Giuliani than either Edwards or Clinton, beaing Giuliani 37% to 47%, yet against every other Republican, especially McCain and Romney, Edwards is the Democrat that does the best.

Of course, this is just one pollster, and though Rasmussen is probably the best of the lot, it behooves us to look at other polls to see if similar patterns obtain. Luckily for us, CNN has been doing nationwide head-to-head polling as well, and in their December polling, the same patterns manifest:

Edwards is the strongest Dem, Hillary is the weakest, Obama is somewhere in between -- and John McCain is the GOP's strongest player. CNN's current January polling is somewhat kinder to Clinton, but it's also missing Edwards, so there's no way to see if the patterns still hold with him in the mix.

The upshot of all this: If Hillary's the Democratic nominee, we could very easily lose to any likely GOP nominee. If Obama's the nominee, he does OK so long as he doesn't face McCain. But if Edwards is the nominee, we're sitting pretty. Which, I suspect, is one reason why Big Media hates John Edwards so much and does everything it can to destroy him. (Speaking of which: KingOneEye at DailyKos pointed out this morning how the NYT is ignoring a key result of its own poll on the race -- namely, that as more people get to know him, Edwards' favorability rating keeps going up.)

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/14/the-polls-you-wont-hear-much-about/

Please cease and desist with the rhetoric depicting Hillary as a racist, when the Clintons have always fought for civil rights and human rights;

or Edwards as just a white guy when he is the only one who truly represents
the Democratic Party before it became a Corporate donor;

or Obama as the first African American Presidental hopeful when what most Americans really want are human beings who fight for us without regard to race or gender.

I'm sick of the General Electricdom of MSNBC

The White House is the Democrats to lose in '08.

It's a two-inch putt.

But there's one easy way they can blow it.

And that's the nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She is simply too divisive, nationally, to far too many people.

Witness the hostility directed at her from members of her own party, as evidenced in numerous C&L comment threads.

If Hillary is nominated, the next president will be Republican. Again.

The Right will unite, and too many on the Left will stay at home.

They won't even need Diebold.

Pancake @ 60:

Albatross @ 37:

If Edwards is the "white guy," WTF does that make McCain? Transparent?

The chalky Albino candidate.

The UN-DEAD, transparent, chalky, Albino candidate.

kate loving shenk @ 66:

Please cease and desist with the rhetoric depicting Hillary as a racist, when the Clintons have always fought for civil rights and human rights;.

I'm curious...

If my white Christian boss hates blacks and refuses to hire them, but supports human rights for Jews, does his support of Jewish human rights exempt him from being called a racist?

What about a white Christian woman, who has a photo of Martin Luther King Jr. on her office wall, but hates Arabs and Muslims. Does the photo and the U2 record mean she's not a racist?

If I am reading your comment above correctly, you seem to believe that this sort of selective pandering is acceptable.

kate loving shenk @ 66:

Please cease and desist with the rhetoric depicting Hillary as a racist, when the Clintons have always fought for civil rights and human rights;

or Edwards as just a white guy when he is the only one who truly represents
the Democratic Party before it became a Corporate donor;

or Obama as the first African American Presidental hopeful when what most Americans really want are human beings who fight for us without regard to race or gender.

"...cease and desist"?? Way too many "Law and Order" reruns there.

I think he's the best candidate out there. I don't care if he is a white guy!

sheik yerbouti @ 75:

Pancake @ 70:

The White House is the Democrats to lose in '08.

It's a two-inch putt.

But there's one easy way they can blow it.

And that's the nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She is simply too divisive, nationally, to far too many people.

Witness the hostility directed at her from members of her own party, as evidenced in numerous C&L comment threads.

If Hillary is nominated, the next president will be Republican. Again.

The Right will unite, and too many on the Left will stay at home.

They won't even need Diebold.

Billary is the Repugs fail-safe insurance policy.

(It's almost as if she actually believes the NeoCons when they tell her they're setting her up for the win.)

Billary is just the group the ensure the dems defeat if they are not the nominees. additionally, they are murdicKKK's candidate, with barack as a backup. check the donors list and it comes up fux for both of them.

but edwards can't get a moment of daylight.

CoIntelPro @ 80:

sheik yerbouti @ 75:

Pancake @ 70:

The White House is the Democrats to lose in '08.

but edwards can't get a moment of daylight.

The ONLY way John Edwards will have that moment is if he separates himself from Obama in the "let's pick on Hillary" debacle.

Edwards needs to also hit Obama hard, especially on his experience since he's spent more time running for president than he's been a US senator.

SORRY, DID THIS WRONG:

CoIntelPro @ 80:

sheik yerbouti @ 75:

Pancake @ 70:

The ONLY way John Edwards will have that moment is if he separates himself from Obama in the "let's pick on Hillary" debacle.

Edwards needs to also hit Obama hard, especially on his experience since he's spent more time running for president than he's been a US senator.

Whaddaya mean 'Just' the 'White Guy'?

White Guys rule.

And some day, in some alternate universe, they may rule again.

Rasputin - excellent post ! Thanks for laying it out so I don't have to !

Rasputin @ 64:

Fil @ 3:

Edwards, over-rated. Unelectable. John Kerry , meh

Since you have brought up electability you might want to take a look at the polls that the corporate MSM don't like to talk about...

2008 Democratic Candidate Key Stats
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/elect...

Here are Rasmussen’s poll numbers:
Obama (47%) Giuliani (37%)
Obama (45%) Huckabee (43%)
Obama (43%) McCain (46%)
Obama (50%) Paul (31%)
Obama (45%) Romney (39%)
Obama (47%) Thompson (40%)
Edwards (44%) Giuliani (44%)
Edwards (49%) Huckabee (37%)
Edwards (46%) McCain (39%)
Edwards (50%) Romney (34%)
Edwards (48%) Thompson (39%)
Clinton (44%) Giuliani (45%)
Clinton (42%) Huckabee (45%)
Clinton (38%) McCain (49%)
Clinton (49%) Paul (37%)
Clinton (43%) Romney (44%)
Clinton (46%) Thompson (44%)

From Firedoglake blog:

She posts all of the polls here but there are screen shots so I couldn’t copy the data. You should check these out:

The Polls You Won’t Hear Much About
By: Phoenix Woman Monday January 14, 2008 6:00 pm

In the wake of Barack Obama's non-win over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, the punditti have been making various wailing noises over how awful it is that they were so wrong and all that. But for all the hubbub over the New Hampshire pre-primary polls and how accurate or inaccurate they were, it's rather interesting that some polls that may have more import have got comparatively minimal coverage.

I speak of the CNN and Rasmussen polls that provide national head-to-head match-ups of presidential candidates. And for months now -- at least, until CNN left off a couple of candidates this time around --both of these polls have been saying similar things about the strengths and weaknesses of the major candidates, things that aren't being told to us in the evening TV news or on the cable gabfests.

A few things should be immediately apparent:

1) McCain is by far the GOP's strongest candidate in the general election. (Rudy would be stronger, but he's not going to make it past South Carolina, much less to the nomination.) He trounces Hillary 49% to 38%, and beats Obama 46% to 43%. In fact, the only Democrat who beats him is none other than John Edwards, who decisively beats McCain 46% to 39%.

This is why it's a good idea for Michigan Democrats to engage once again in the time-honored tradition of crossover primary voting to vote for Romney and deny McCain a win in the Michigan primary: It blunts McCain's momentum, and convinces Romney to stay in the race at least through the South Carolina primary, which is a good thing as Romney will force McCain to spend money he doesn't have on him to spend. (And if Romney does win the nomination, he's much easier to beat, money or no money.)

2) John Edwards is by far the Democrats' strongest candidate in the general election. He is the only one who is not beaten outright by any Republican candidate: He ties with Giuliani at 44% each, but easily beats McCain, Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee, the latter two by double-digit margins.

3) Hillary Clinton is the weakest Democratic candidate in the general election. She loses to every single Republican except Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, and neither of those two gents is going to get the Republican nomination for president.

4) Barack Obama is in between Edwards and Hillary Clinton in strength in the general election. He does much better against Rudy Giuliani than either Edwards or Clinton, beaing Giuliani 37% to 47%, yet against every other Republican, especially McCain and Romney, Edwards is the Democrat that does the best.

Of course, this is just one pollster, and though Rasmussen is probably the best of the lot, it behooves us to look at other polls to see if similar patterns obtain. Luckily for us, CNN has been doing nationwide head-to-head polling as well, and in their December polling, the same patterns manifest:

Edwards is the strongest Dem, Hillary is the weakest, Obama is somewhere in between -- and John McCain is the GOP's strongest player. CNN's current January polling is somewhat kinder to Clinton, but it's also missing Edwards, so there's no way to see if the patterns still hold with him in the mix.

The upshot of all this: If Hillary's the Democratic nominee, we could very easily lose to any likely GOP nominee. If Obama's the nominee, he does OK so long as he doesn't face McCain. But if Edwards is the nominee, we're sitting pretty. Which, I suspect, is one reason why Big Media hates John Edwards so much and does everything it can to destroy him. (Speaking of which: KingOneEye at DailyKos pointed out this morning how the NYT is ignoring a key result of its own poll on the race -- namely, that as more people get to know him, Edwards' favorability rating keeps going up.)

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/14/the-polls-you-wont-hear-much-about/

CappuccettoRosso @ 88:

Rasputin - excellent post ! Thanks for laying it out so I don't have to !

Rasputin @ 64:

Fil @ 3:

Edwards, over-rated. Unelectable. John Kerry , meh

Since you have brought up electability you might want to take a look at the polls that the corporate MSM don't like to talk about...

2008 Democratic Candidate Key Stats
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/elect...

Here are Rasmussen’s poll numbers:
Obama (47%) Giuliani (37%)
Obama (45%) Huckabee (43%)
Obama (43%) McCain (46%)
Obama (50%) Paul (31%)
Obama (45%) Romney (39%)
Obama (47%) Thompson (40%)
Edwards (44%) Giuliani (44%)
Edwards (49%) Huckabee (37%)
Edwards (46%) McCain (39%)
Edwards (50%) Romney (34%)
Edwards (48%) Thompson (39%)
Clinton (44%) Giuliani (45%)
Clinton (42%) Huckabee (45%)
Clinton (38%) McCain (49%)
Clinton (49%) Paul (37%)
Clinton (43%) Romney (44%)
Clinton (46%) Thompson (44%)

From Firedoglake blog:

She posts all of the polls here but there are screen shots so I couldn’t copy the data. You should check these out:

The Polls You Won’t Hear Much About
By: Phoenix Woman Monday January 14, 2008 6:00 pm

[Edited. See entire post above-Sitemonitor]

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/14/the-polls-you-wont-hear-much-about/

Thanks

GDliberal @ 81:

Every time I come to this site my monitor clouds up from all the tears from the "sensitive" edwards "fans".

The story for now is Obama vs Queen hillary.
If I were edwards I'd be happy that the M$M wasn't talking about me while all this crap is going on. He knows the clintons play dirty. Hell in 04 they sent out that dam general to run and screw things up. He can afford to just campaign for a little bit while the other two get bruised.

On these polls that show edwards can beat the other repugs, they're less than worthless for the time being. Until both sides sorta settle on one candidate there are too many unknowns like crossovers and how many people will decide not to vote because one candidate or the other wins.

Must be your toilet tank dripping, or, time to change your other product.
http://www.my-healthandsafety.com/my-staydrysupply/Depend_by_KimberlyCla...

Can't you read, what's wrong w/your comprehension..? ?
Where's all your sexpertise coming from ?

Nobody's crying here - we kick the butt for REAL CHANGE, and Edwards IS the ONLY candidate that we have a good REAL chance to get it.

EDWARDS 2008 !
For BETTER AMERICA !

Then there's Lawrence O'Donnell's outrageous rant against Edwards:

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/11/stupidest-thing-said-this-campaign-sea...

Folks, California votes for Edwards.

Check this link: Radio talk show host. Dr. Mark Martinez Political Science Professor, favors Edwards in this election. Great show!

He can sway Latino votes in California.

Every American in this country should simply be outraged by this disgusting media coverage of our election process.

This is the very reason these bastards want to control our media so they can make a dame circus out of it.

They are not interested in the issues at all and you just watch and see the bull shit they will give us at the debates

We need to all remember that the candidates cannot give us the vital information we are looking for because which ever one of these ignorant bastards they will stash as our mediator, will be hitting them with the latest bull shit of who said what about who.

We know before they get started what they will give us and oh what a dame shame they are going to make of this very important event.

These nasty bastards have all the cards in that they own, operate and control the courts that are just kicking our candidates in the ass and dismissing them.

They have no right to dismiss Kuccinich and Mike Gravel and disrespect Senator Edwards as they are doing, yet with the endorsement of these nasty corrupt bastards in the FCC, they are doing exactly what they want to do.

They want Kuccinich and Gravel out of the game so they will not cause trouble for them as Kuccinich is sure to demand re-counts in all these states that use these cheap voting machines. He knows like many of us that they will lie and cheat and play with the numbers.

We have to urge him to stay in the game anyhow and keep these bastards on notice.

EZ @ 96:

Folks, California votes for Edwards.
...............
He can sway Latino votes in California.

Thanks EZ

" Edwards rally in Los Angeles on Thursday Jan 17th is at the SEIU headquarters on Wilshire Blvd at 12:00 noon.

here's the googled address and phone number - plse CHECK and come back here/ post INFO for the others since there is another SEIU branch at 4221 Wilshire Blvd

Local 347 SEIU
1015 Wilshire Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2415
(213) 482-6660

crazy larry @ 16:

henry @ 12:

It never helps when so-called "liberals" like Ezra Klein appear on Hardball as regular guests, and instead of calling Tweety on his bullshit sit there smiling and nodding their heads like they're part of an exclusive club and don't want to have their memberships revoked. You know it's true.

Ezra craves the celebrity approval that springboards him to Martha's Vineyard with the rest of the millionaire Jack Welch GE gang like Tweety, Pumpkinhead, Brian "Nascar Dad" Williams, Andrea Greenspan, etc.

It's NANTUCKET, not Martha's Vineyard where Jack Welch and his Irish mafia hole up. I'd hate to see he Patriot Militia take the wrong Island when the revolution comes. Molotov coktails will be served promptly at 5pm. FYI, MV is has long been a summer haven for distinguished African-American's. The NBC pigs wouldn't be caught dead there .

Gee 100, thanks for the address.

Please check your local or state radio talk show host who are supporting democrats and send in a email with your concerns and demand fair elections and who should they support.

They would love to hear from you. Google and you will get their addresses.

Folks, get busy and don't cry after the election.

Bush is totally hijacked. Please consider him as a sick patient and do whatever you can so others do not follow his steps.

There seems to be this assumption in the MSM that the Democrats are all very pleased with their choice of candidates this year while the Republicans are very frustrated. I don't know where they get this idea, because all the people I know would love to have a Gore, Clark or Feingold in the mix. Right now we have 2 war candidates and an empty suit.

Please put the pressure on MSNBC, as they are supporting the same old candidates who are worn out from Bush fatigue.

Vote Edwards! Don't cry after the election because you voted stupid.

Please consider Bush as a sick patient and don't allow another member from the republican party or Hill/Bill or Obama plant, to take his post.

Call your local/state radio talk show host and demand fair elections and denounce the cheap voting machines. Demand equal time and support for your favorite candidate.

This is the moment of the WE THE PEO

My letter has already been sent to MSNBC:
"I object vehemently to the following story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16710815/

In particular, the remarks concerning Presidential candidate John Edwards:

John Edwards
Former North Carolina senator Last Ranking: 3
Does he really want to be the white guy, playing the white candidate?

I find your characterization loathsome, to both Mr. Edwards and to me. Your remarks suggest he is playing to the white man's vote for all the misogynists and racists to choose from. There are plenty of middle class working people like myself that have honest disagreements with the voting records of both Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama that have nothing to do with whether they are female or African-American.

You owe Mr. Edwards an apology. Mr. Edwards has conducted a clean campaign, has proposed important solutions to our nation's problems, and you and the mainstream press now have gone out of your way demean him and his supporters with your cavalier remarks. You should be ashamed of what you have done."

CappuccettoRosso Says:

To borrow a phrase from the Buddhist teachings... "Well said oh son of noble birth"

Wednesday, January 16, 2008
My Vote, My Voice Deadline

http://www.johnedwards.com/events/20080116-myvote/

Last day to submit your 30-second original ad describing why you support John Edwards for president.

MSNBC
"These rankings are ordered by likelihood of winning the Democratic Party primary and are based on a number of factors, including organization, money, buzz and polling."

seems they got it right.....edwards is a washington insider, and the news people know it.

Just another rich white guy saying anything and everything to captivate the electorate...press has seen and heard his ilk too many times to get excited.

if he wants the media to pay attention, he'll have to start another fight with coulter or limbaugh...

if he bombs tonight as horribly as he bombed in the last debate, he might not make it much past south carolina.

lopaloo102 @ 116:

MSNBC
"These rankings are ordered by likelihood of winning the Democratic Party primary and are based on a number of factors, including organization, money, buzz and polling."

seems they got it right.....edwards is a washington insider, and the news people know it.

Just another rich white guy saying anything and everything to captivate the electorate...press has seen and heard his ilk too many times to get excited.

if he wants the media to pay attention, he'll have to start another fight with coulter or limbaugh...

if he bombs tonight as horribly as he bombed in the last debate, he might not make it much past south carolina.

Gee, lopaloo102 - you must be one of them Boltzmann’s Brains ???!

".. “infinitely unlikely for us to be normal brains.”

"" .. Your memories and the world you think you see around you are illusions."" so, Why can’t you unscramble an egg?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?8dpc=&pagewanted=all

even the fmr Billary's lackey, Stephanopoulos, declared John Edward's the BEST and winner.. Your entropy seems to be maxed out, and your galaxy has flown away..

Do you know, where have you been lately, sweetiepie ?!

SM @ 71:

G.E. FASCISM @ 41:

NBC to appeal to keep Kucinich out of debate

So Kucinich is not "ratings gold" therefore they are going to suppress the voters right to hear every candidate????

Has nothing to do with ratings. He might raise issues the "mainstream" candidates would rather not discuss and the party bosses don't want you to hear about. That make make the "frontrunners" look bad. Don't ya just love the Democratic Party and GeneralElectricMicroSoftNationalBroadcastingCompany(R)(TM)?

Rasputin @ 112:

CappuccettoRosso Says:

To borrow a phrase from the Buddhist teachings... "Well said oh son of noble birth"

Thank you, Rasputin - the same to you ! Although, small correction: son would have to be in female gender ;) I just left you a response in the previous thread (couldn't any sooner..) - can you check it out, plse ? Thanks.

uuuugh. I need an edit key. I meant DECADES, not centuries. What a way to ruin a point. :/

[I have an edit key. FIFY-Sitemonitor]

celsius @ 124:

uuuugh. I need an edit key. I meant DECADES, not centuries. What a way to ruin a point. :/

[I have an edit key. FIFY-Sitemonitor]

Great! Thanks a lot. Delete my correction spam if you feel like it btw ;)

go celcius! also, why is your comment edited?

celsius @ 123:

This isn't just degrading to Edwards, it's degrading to Democrats, liberals and Americans in general.

Surely looks like they mean that most Democratic voters are going for Hillary and Obama simply because they are a woman and a black man. MSNBC "documents" this "trend" by telling their readers that being a plain old white guy is too uncool for Dem voters.

Either MSNBC really stand for the notion that they think a majority of people are so stupid. Or they want you to believe that about other Democrats.

Underestimate the people consistently, patronize them and present most other people as half-retarded, and soon people will start lowering their own intellectual standards to a more "comfortable" pre-adolescent level. People will not trust other people, or see the point in trying to organize. I think this is what has happened to America over the past decades.

Increasing fear and hatred and stupidity is partly organized effort all around the world. It's paramount in propaganda and mass brainwashing innit?

[Edited-Sitemonitor]

[It was edited because in a following post, celsius said s/he used the word 'centuries' when s/he meant 'decades' I made the change, and let celsius know in that later post that I'd fixed it-Sitemonitor]

CappuccettoRosso - pls, keep us posted. thanks.

To all the Obama supporters out there, I plead with you ...

Please stop drinking the Koolaid, try for a little objectivity. You people sound like cultists who worship someone with a large ego and a Messianic message to boot. Believe in Obama. Only he can show us the way (keep up that repetitive chanting and sell some flowers at airports!)

This is from an actual email that I received last week from an Obama cultist. If you don't see the Jesus symbolism or just the plain silliness, there is no hope for you. I used to read about pre teens encountering their fav. pop singers in Tiger Beat when I was a girl, so this unabashed gushing is embarrassing coming from a presumed adult.

"THE BAM"... PASS IT ON AT THE NEXT OBAMA RALLY!

Having caught "Obama fever" like so many others rallying in support of Barack, I experienced something at a Barack Obama Rally on Thursday, January 10 at the College of Charleston here in Charleston, South Carolina, which I felt was both inspirational and spontaneous!

As Barack worked the line following the close of his speech, there was a surge of people moving forward hoping to get close enough to shake Barack's hand. Since I was standing about 20 feet back from center stage in the crowd, I felt the crowd down front tighten as many of us stood on our toes, stretched our bodies forward while reaching out to Barack. I noticed that a six foot tall guy who was standing in front of me had stretched far enough above the crowd and shook hands with Barack. As the guy drew back his hand back I asked him, "You shook his hand didn't you?" Happily the guy said "Yes." I then said, "give me some of that" and the guy shook my hand with the same hand he had just clasped with Barack's. A woman friend of mine who was standing next to me saw me shake hands with the guy. I turned to her and said "He [the guy] just shook hands with Barack," to which she responded..."Hey, give it up." We then shook hands. She then turned to the person next to her and shook hands. This chain of hand shakes went on for about five or six more persons.

I did not know the tall guy in front of me; he is white, I am black. But at the moment we shook hands, I felt some solidarity with this stranger, consummated by a handshake and signifying some unspoken agreement presumably about Barack Obama and his core message of UNITY!

I call this hand-shake scenario the "BAM" because, descriptively, it takes a bit of Obama's name and it's the sound of a collision, of People Coming Together

Michael Whack

If you ask Obama supporters to name three reasons why he or she supports him, they cannot come up with anything more vague than 'he inspires me, he gives me hope.' If you ask an Edwards supporter the same question, you get a different answer. We can detail his platform, the differences in the candidates and the reasons, why we support him.

I personally don't care what color Edwards is. What I do care about is that he seems to be the only candidate in a position to bring the corporations under heel; making them subservient to our needs, as opposed to the other way around.

Hillary, I suspect, will do little to address many of the imbalances in this country; Obama seems to me to be attracting so much attention because he is a "viable" person of color (which I suspect will also doom his chances of winning the office). At this point the whole "I want a person who looks like me" meme is cool, but wears thin, especially if the issues of peoples of color aren't addressed in the name of "governing everyone."

As much a person of color being president can be inspirational for some, one has to keep in mind that there is currently an African-American on the Supreme Court, and an African-American woman as Secretary of State, yet for some reason I don't feel very inspired when I think of them.

What I feel when I think of them is primarily betrayed.