When Pundits Decide
The NY Times caught the same thing that I noticed the night of the Indiana/NC primary and front paged this story about their absolute hubris.
The moment came shortly after midnight Eastern time, captured in a devastatingly declarative statement from Tim Russert of NBC News: “We now know who the Democratic nominee’s going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it,” he said on MSNBC. “Those closest to her will give her a hard-headed analysis, and if they lay it all out, they’ll say: ‘What is the rationale? What do we say to the undeclared super delegates tomorrow? Why do we tell them you’re staying in the race?’ And tonight, there’s no good answer for that.”
It was not exactly Walter Cronkite declaring that the Vietnam War would end in stalemate. But the impact was apparent almost immediately, starting with The Drudge Report, the online news billboard that is the home page to many political reporters in Washington and news producers in New York. It had as its lead story a link to a YouTube clip of Mr. Russert’s comments, accompanied by a photograph of a beaming Mr. Obama with his wife, Michelle, and the headline, “The Nominee.”
We've all been talking about how pompous and lousy our punditry class is and how they want to choose our candidates and select the issues (or controversies---phony or not) that should be covered while ignoring policies that have a real impact on all Americans. It's been pretty sickening all around. Eric Boehlert wrote this great column weeks before Tuesday's primary called "So now the press tells candidates when to quit?"
History continues to unfold on many levels as the protracted Democratic Party primary race marches on, featuring the first woman and the first African-American with a real shot at winning the White House. Here's another first: the press's unique push to get a competitive White House hopeful to drop out of the race. It's unprecedented.
Looking back through modern U.S. campaigns, there's simply no media model for so many members of the press to try to drive a competitive candidate from the field while the primary season is still unfolding...read on
The Russerts are not supposed to declare outcomes before it actually happens. That's the job of opinion pundits, but not for the head of a major news department.
Since they were unsuccessful in their efforts, Howard Kurtz explains the media's new role for Hillary Clinton in his article called: The Ultimate Punishment
The media have figured out how to end the Democratic race. Declaring it over doesn't work. Urging Hillary Clinton to drop out doesn't work. Putting Barack Obama on the cover of Time as the nominee doesn't work.
What does work--ah, this is fiendishly clever--is to simply ignore the race. Many journalists are just moving on. What will become a tsunami of speculation about whom Obama will pick as his running mate is already under way. That's not to say the MSM isn't reporting on Hillary's campaign stops, her $6-million loan to her struggling operation, the trickle of superdelegates toward Obama and similar developments. But we are now treating Obama as The Man.
Nice media, good media, abandon your function. My point on this is not about delegates or the popular vote or any one candidate or who has won or lost. It's about the media's behavior and the role they are playing during the process. Just think about this. Why is the polling data saying that a greater percentage of Hillary voters will not vote for Obama? Check out this Gallop poll.
Clinton supporters appear to be somewhat more reactive than Obama supporters. Twenty-eight percent of the former indicate that if Clinton is not the nominee -- and Obama is -- they would support McCain. That compares to 19% of Obama supporters who would support McCain if Obama is not the nominee -- and Clinton is...read on
The on-line community is solidly behind Obama and I've read many posts and comments saying Obama voters would never, ever vote for Hillary so when I first heard these statistics on teevee I was quite surprised. Then I realized what is happening here. The media is fueling their anger. It's that simple. And there are a lot of rank and file Democratic voters who are very upset. I might add that a few bloggers have had their bodies snatched away too. And on CNN Sunday, this notion was validated by Roger Simon:
SIMON: ...I find that if you go into Hillary crowds, the anger you find on the part of her supporters, especially women supporters, is directed not against Barack Obama, but against the media.ZERNIKE: Yes. I mean, I think what people were reacting to this week wasn't so much the media declaring the race over, as it was this kind of "Ding dong the witch is dead" quality about that tone to the comments. And I do think people are angry.
And I think when you look at, you know, the percentages of Hillary Clinton supporters who say they won't support Obama, I think Roger is right. They're mad at -- they're mad at the media. They're not necessarily mad at Obama.
They talk about it like it was somebody else who did it instead of themselves.
They showed they can give Barack the treatment too during the Wright business and they'll be doing it with gusto going forward, I'm sure.
I do believe no matter who wins the nomination, (It looks like Obama) the Democratic party will unite in the end, but this information is very important to me and should be to you I would hope.
I say again, it doesn't matter what candidate we're talking about or who you are supporting---the media has never acted like this before. That's astounding to me, but after the way they covered the Bush administration all these years I guess I shouldn't be. That's why I'm highlighting this to you. We always have to hold the media accountable for their behavior. I've been focusing on the horrendous Military Analysts story for this reason. Have you seen the networks cover this major story much at all? I haven't. It's partially responsible for the disaster known as the Iraq war. Glenn Greenwald had an email conversation with Rumsfeld's man, Di Rita over his role in the scandal. I realized Di Rita was probably lying to Howard Kurtz over the weekend and asked Glenn to check it out.
But before the DoD released these emails to the public, Di Rita -- on April 27, 2008 -- appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources, was questioned by Howard Kurtz about the program's purposes, and made statements that, as we now know from those documents, were completely false (h/t John Amato via email):
KURTZ: I talked to retired Colonel Bill Cowan, who was a Fox military analyst. He said that three years ago, after he criticized the war effort on "The O'Reilly Factor," he was booted off the group, was never invited to another briefing, never got another telephone call, never got another e-mail. So it sounds like access was provided to those who weren't too critical.
DI RITA: I don't know anything. I heard -- I saw that in the story. I've heard other assertions to that effect. It was certainly not the intent.
What Di Rita denied knowing about -- that "access was provided to those who weren't too critical" -- was exactly what the plan he endorsed provided.
Thank you, Glenn. He did an outstanding job of exposing Di Rita's role in the scam of the American people. I emailed Howard Kurtz to ask his opinion on this matter also. I'll let you know what he says.
To wrap this up, I do hope that everybody keeps an eye on the Villagers. I know C&Lers are because they email me their letters to editors about their blatant disregard for their role every day. Remember, how quick were they to jump on the Rev. Wright saga and how did they handle John McCain's---Catholic hating Pastor John Hagee? Were their endless loops of Hagee's rants on teevee? O'Reilly mentioned it, but let him skate easily away like most pundits do on every issue. Did he ask why McCain sought out his endorsement? Nope, he allowed him to spin it that Hagee just happened to endorse him which is a partial truth. Or the fact that his wife will not release her tax information. (The 'Cindy McCain Watch' continues) Why not? Who knows, the media doesn't care so they won't bother to ask. I'm sure we'll see much more of this behavior as November roles around. Stay tuned and sound off...
I always thought Russerts was a potato. (head)
Now I know.
By the way, which military "advisor" was he in bed with?
just another unmoral gop pundit taking orders
from the reichwingneocons. he talks and gets anal itch.
The media over sensationalizes the news. In a effort to "scoop" or get the story first, the stick their feet in their mouths.
Wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last.
I always thought Russert was a potato (head).
Now I know.
BTW, which ex-military advisor was he in bed with when Russert decided for the country that Iraq was a threat and must be attacked?
Tim, do us a favor and shut your pie-hole.
JoGoBamma(formerly Jo) @ 4:
Didn't I just say that upstream? Or somthing similar? Damned machine acting up again.
The only reason Hillary Clinton is still in the race is because she needs to raise more money to cover her losses rather than paying out of her own packet!
so Hillary's not toast and hasn't been for months?
it is over though. if you still think hillary can win you either don't understand math or don't understand the democratic primary system. and it's not true that the media has never acted like this before. they ALWAYS compete to be the first to call elections.
While I do agree that it is over and Obama is the nominee, I totally agree that Russert was completely out of line. Was floored when I saw him say this.
I think this video says it all at this point
only the msm and "the russerites"? our own bloggersphere had its own too as i recall huffpost also had the headline “The Nominee.” proudly plastered up.
hillary hatred abounds and is very enticing bandwagon when a better approach might be, what might be best after she *finally* gives (or is forced to give) up?
we don't *have* to follow the msm's lead you know.
It's "almost" enough to make me wish Hillary could pull a rabbit out of her hat and win this sucker.
Just to mode Tim Russert and the rest of the asshats in the MSM.
This cycle was a disgusting spectacle like the Iraq occupation with the corporate media.
Instead of pimping war, they pimped Obama.
They will turn on Obama and continue to give McCain a free pass.
Know how to shut Russert up? Put a Boston Cream Pie in front of him and tell him you stole it from a food bank in New Orleans where iot was headed to a starving family.
Russert was right. His only fault was not explaining the media should have called an end to this ridiculousness months ago, they were the ones keeping her narrative relevant. Clinton has been mathematically finished for quite a while now.
lafin gas @ 7:
Bada Bing, give that poster a CEEEGAR.
Also, Give plenty and give often to the Presidential Candidacy of "Former GOP Rep" Bill Barr on the Libertarian ticket.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90K4OUG0&show_article=1
You go Bill. Spout your Conservo crap and steal votes from McFlip-flop, by the thousands. And talk about CHAOS THEORY, HEY RUSH, SUCK ON THIS.
Go Bill Racer, Go Bill Racer, go Bill Racer...gooooo.
I fu(king LOVE IT!!!! I hope another wingnut muddfugger comes out on the Conservative ticket and totally blows McCrazy out of the FU(KING water.
WOOOO HOOOO.
Yes, McDonalds, "I AM LOVING IT!"
I think this is overblown. People hate the media for using pundits instead of reporting the facts. Instead of telling us the facts and realities of political situations, pundits from each side of the debate try to spin the truth to represent their interests. Sometimes the facts of the issues are exposed, but too often the spin obscures it.
Now we have a media figure stating what plenty of people have known for a month - mathematically Clinton can't win unless something politically suicidal happens to Obama. Yes it could happen, but so could both Clinton and Obama meltdown - and then wouldn't John Edwards hate himself for not staying in!
Well Clinton and Obama aren't likely to meltdown, so Edwards was right to drop out. Obama isn't likely to meltdown, so Clinton should have dropped out after Pennsylvania.
The media is on all day, every day. I doubt Wolf Blitzer has a home he is on so much. Now just think, there are about maybe 20 talking heads we are all familiar with: Tim, Chris Matthews, David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, David Shuster, KO, Rachel Maddow, Richard Wolffe, Jonathan Alter, Howard Fineman, O'Reilly, Dan Abrams, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Mika B, Hannity, Colmes, Brit Hume, Wolf, Jack Cafferty. And they are paid big bucks to do what? Talk. That's all they do. Talk, talk, talk. So pick a candidate and let's see if we can show our corporate bosses how important we are by slanting the race between one candidate or another. This shows our collective paymasters how good we are in picking a winner and the ordinary guy out there watching will be so impressed. To hell with democracy, decency, or fair play. We are the Big Guys to watch. So when we declare the race is over, the race is over. End of story. Now let's get on to better things like the latest blonde disappearance.
Hats off to C&L for having the cajones to call the MSM et all out on this..
But it's about 4 months overdue.
Now that the MSM and HuffPo have run all the headlines about 'their candidate", someone, perhaps actual journalists, are starting to take notice about how the majority of voters feel about this coronation.
Before I'm labeled as racist, I've supported Hillary because, as a resident of Michigan (where my vote
has not been counted) we have waited a loooooong time for a turn in the economy. The recession for Michigan started not long after the monkey boy came to power.
Don't expect too many voters in Michigan jump at the chance to put another inexperienced guy at the helm.
Been there, didn't work.
Don't care what Timmy, Matthews and Olbermann are telling us. But they'll figure it out eventually.
There are millions of us who have turned off MSNBC.
FBush @ 20:
It was not just MSNBC and the progressive blogs.
Jack Cafferty did a hit piece on the Clintons every single day.
He quoted Peggy Noonan and other RW pundits to attack President Clinton.
It was beyond pathetic.
CNN attacked her shamelessly.
Well, all fine and good, the MSM are going to do to drive the better headline.
But I'll say this as I've said before. As a FL voter, I'm mad as hell that my vote doesn't count and the millions that feel the way I do won't change just because the Blogger Boyz and the MSM say so.
"The Russerts are not supposed to declare outcomes before it actually happens. That’s the job of opinion pundits, but not for the head of a major news department."
BULLSHIT. Everybody here already knows that Diebold has that job locked up. ;)
I'm usually with you guys on this stuff, but c'mon he was just stating fact here.
I agree with everyone else that says that this is being overblown. Did he have to say it? No. But did he somehow change the facts but stating the obvious? No.
I think it was a bigger crime for the MSM to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt and carry her after 11 straight losses that she could somehow win by ignoring the pledged delegates which are party rules, then to admit the obvious when she was clearly defeated.
And it's far worse that Obama had to deal with Wright for a month or more, and McCain gets a free ride on Hagee and the other evangelical extremists. The ultimate crime is how the media sold the American public this war. Only PBS, Helen Thomas, Keith Olbermann, Jack Cafferty, and a couple of war correspondents were giving the facts.
I can't fake outrage for Russert stating the obvious. By not stating the obvious, he would be enabling the Clinton campaign to stick to their mission or circumventing the rules.
FBush - I'm one who turned off MSNBC. After being a hardcore viewer for at least six years. Chrissy lost me first after the Ann Coulter/Liz Edwards display. And sadly, Keith lost me with his bias.
I'm sure MSNBC could give a shit about me as a viewer. They can put on another episode of "Lockdown" for all I care.
*by stating the obvious
FBush @ 20:
oh excellent! so bush has been good for you and you'll be voting for mccain then?
We do not expect the media to be neutral. We expect the media to be disinterested and report the facts as clearly as they can be stated. In this case, Russert is asserting something passes muster and has passed muster for a few months now. He is very late to the ball, and his commentary has been riddled with inconsistencies and bluster for this entire primary season, but he is right in this particular instance nonetheless.
Reporting both sides as if they hold equal merit is a core problem with the press. Oftentimes both sides of an argument do not hold equal merit. The press almost seemed to realize this on the gas tax holiday issue. However, when George Bush says the sky is green, and the press report reads "Bush declares sky green; some Democrats voice opposition," we are justifiably pissed. So I don't understand how you're upset when the press tells Hillary Clinton that the sky isn't green.
After Russert's news career ends, hopefully soon, he can have the job of the Kool Aid Pitcher dude.
John, thanks for pointing out what has been obvious to a lot of feminist during this entire primary season. Anyone who thinks Sen. Clinton has NOT been in a race against her opponents AND the media, simply hasn't been paying attention.
I do place some of the blame on Obama. He could have spoken out about the sexism, but didn't. One would think a father of two daughters would be more concerned about how women are viewed. And make no mistake, a sexist remark directed at Hillary Clinton harms ALL women.
As others have said, if Clinton is the nominee I will work my heart out for her to win in November. If Obama is the nominee, I will work against John McSame. And in Nov I will hold my nose and vote.
BAC
I wonder what McBush's pastor Hagee would say about this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/12/the-angry-earth_n_101423.html
Must be a lot of "homersexul purades" going on across the globe!
FBush @ 20:
Oh, please, I'm, a racist too, and I probably have as much African DNA as Obama does.
Millions of people have caught on the fascist frat-pack mentality going on. That's why Hillary's still in the race, because WE, the other 50% that's "invisible," aren't down with the "Hope & Unity, Everybody gets a Pony" candidate" - and KEEP voting for her.
Why? She's like the Kanye West/Daft Punk song, Bigger, better, faster, stronger. Smarter, with a plan.
But whatever, flame away, it ain't gonna change my mind.
abarts @ 26:
I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. MSNBC is more representative of the netroots and blogosphere than any other network in my opinion. You guys can hate Russert and Matthews, but who are the real alternatives on network TV? The netroots and blogosphere are largely made up of political outsiders. The Clintons are the ULTIMATE INSIDERS. I remember a lot of you on the message boards were TRASHING them a few years ago because of their involvement in the DLC. So why would someone like Olberman, the ultimate outsider, have a un-bias opinion about Hillary, the ultimate insider?
If you want fair Clinton coverage then watch CNN because they're all nothing but a bunch of Insiders.
Boy, and here I am cursing at the media for artificially keeping this race alive. Wasn't that what we were all complaining about just last month?
If one tried one could not create better set of comments to demonstrate just how big a set of delusional fools the Obamacans are.
Tim Russert goes overtly Fascist and declares the Democratic Primary over, when it is not, and that's a good, great and just okay thing because it means....
The Precious One 'wins'.
I'll be back, unless banned, to laugh long and loudly in your faces as Ol' PumpkinHaid broadcasts a Obama hit piece featuring one of the Tres Amigos, Wright, Rezko, and Auchi, every night from the day Obama is actually declared the winner, if that happens, of the Dem primary until McSame pounds The Precious One into mush in the GE with the help of PH here and his buddies.
Just think back to your complacency here as PumpkinHead repeatedly highlight's Obama's record, character and yes, marriage night after night as you sit there glassy-eyed from one too many Bud's angry and impotent as PH does Barry like he's done The Hill. Dirt, lies, facts in the end PH will twist it into a masterpiece of political assassination. And....yeah, it will be easy for him...he's got so much great dirt to smear Senator 'Hopey' with...much of it true. And who will speak out against him. You....hahahahhah....if any Obamcan opens their yap Russert will shut them up with, 'We're only treating Obama as we did Hillary what's the problem...We are fair and ballanced....'
This campaign has opened my eyes. I used to think all the mentally challenged and low-info idiots hung at RedState of LGF...
Was I ever wrong.
BAC @ 31:
If Obama was really interested in "Unity" - he would have put a stop to the hate game as Hillary as in many recorded occasions. C'mon, he know that being a guy benefits him completely. It's the "Bros before Hos" pledge.
So is this C&L finally coming out fully for Clinton? Seriously, this is Taylor Marsh level denial here.
Spoiler: the race has been over for a while now, and Indiana pretty much sewed it up statistically. Come on Crooks and Liars, let's move past this kind of finger wagging and get to the real business of exposing the conservative agenda for what it is.
The bad guys lost, a new day is upon us.
sassafra @ 28:
Re-read Sassafras.
Nowhere does it state that.
What's with you Obama supporters? Try discussing, not attacking.
You get your point across a little more convincingly.
If you can't do that, hang with Huffpo. You get to attack all you want on that blog without
being anchored with reasonable discussion.
I thought I read somewhere about a month ago or so (maybe at TalkingPointsMemo or possibly even here) a post that claimed it was virtually impossible for Clinton to win because the 'numbers didn't add up.' I'm a bit confused with the whole superdelegate phenomenon, and who's pledged to support whom and what not. So, basically I don't know what to think regarding Clinton's actual ability to become the Democratic presidential candidate. When pundits say things like Russert said I find myself asking if it's either the media catching up to the reality or creating the reality.
A.Citizen @ 36:
lol
Travis @ 38:
Hey, let me say this. C&L have been acting like TRUE DEMOCRATS SHOULD HAVE, in all this election. They never picked sides, they never incited one way or another.
In fact, one day, I complained to Nicole & John becase of all the Obama ads on their site, yet none for Hillary. I was educated on the Google Ad Magic and of course, Obama's campaign had paid tons more money for that.
So I'm here to kick you down, sir/madam. Don't mess with C&L - it's been the ONLY place on the web where both Democratic sides can converge and have dialogue.
A.Citizen @ 36:
Totally agree with you!
BAC @ 31:
THIS IS HILARIOUS!!!
Why does Obama have to be EVERYTHING to EVERYONE? Everywhere I go on these message boards, another person is crying that Obama needs to give a speech on Israel, that Obama needs to give a speech on sexism, that Obama needs to give a speech on Saving the Whales.
How many speeches have Hillary given her entire career about anything important? Who can best speak to the issues facing women than a actual woman? If Hillary is so strong, then she woulda, coulda, shoulda given that speech herself. Just like Hillary would have ZERO credibility giving a speech on race, Obama would have ZERO credibility giving a speech on sexism and most people would say he was pandering for the women's vote.
Obama NEVER said anything negative about Hillary being a woman. Unfortunately, she couldn't return the favor about her, Bill and Ferraro shutting up about his race to her own demise.
At the end of the day, if the media was so sexist and anti-Hillary, then please explain to me how in the hell was she able to get this far in the election? Up until North Carolina, the media was calling it a TIE even though she was down on every scorecard with little chance to come back. Please explain to me how Obama wouldn't been given the same courtesy if the roles were reversed.
The guy ran a brilliant campaign and won fair and square. At the end of the day, it's Hillary's own fault. Obama didn't cast her vote for Iraq. Obama didn't tell her to run on experience and as the inevitable candidate in Iowa when the nation wanted change. Obama didn't tell Bill to try to marginalize him in South Carolina. Obama didn't tell them not to compete in caucus states. Obama didn't tell them not to have a post-Super Tuesday strategy. And Obama didn't tell her to pander on the gas tax holiday. And Obama didn't drive her campaign $20 million in debt by booking suites in Vegas among other things.
Give the guy a break...
Travis @ 38:
Yeah man. This race would have been over how long ago had the media not covered things like Wright and Hillary's tears like their lives depended on it. To me, the media has kept this race going where it should have been over long ago. I've never said a good word about Mitt Romney in my life, but man, at least he knew when he'd thrown enough of his own money into a losing cause.
So I'm here to kick you down, sir/madam. Don't mess with C&L - it's been the ONLY place on the web where both Democratic sides can converge and have dialogue.
So true.
I don't know why all these pundits keep saying it's over for HRC, it's not.
Obama is leading her by 170 delegates, and by 4 super delegates.
There are still states in play here. I'm not sure of the delegates per state right now, But it's not an Extreme stretch for her to
bounce in the next few weeks.
Oregon has a registered 34% Independant voters. That "could' spell a little trouble for Obama, but probably not.
But I do see HRC taking Montana and South Dakota. And Yes, West Virginia as well.
I'll bet Sen Obama wishes he would of sealed up this nomination weeks ago.
And for those who said she should of gotten out, Yeah , Right, fuck the people who haven't had a chance to vote yet.
That's real Democratic of ya.
Whoa... the MSM reports a fact for once, and the majority of posters here rip their heads off!!! Unbelievable... Well, see if I care.
Personally I'm torn. On one hand I don't think Hillary should quit until Obama gets the rest of the 150 delegates he needs to secure the nomination... (it would look bad for the nominee to lose a state like West Virginia when there is only one candidate) and on the other I wish she would just go away before she irreparably damages the democratic nominee.
Travis @ 38:
I'm talking about the media only. I made that as clear as possible. I'm not sure how you could say I'm supporting a candidate. I've written many posts defending Obama from the media too.
getalife @ 21:
That is ridiculous.
I have a question. What to you say to millions of women who only bothered paying attention to politics because they were excited about voting for the first female president? Do you just say, i'm sorry that your candidate was tossed out to the curb like yesterdays garbage,but for the good of the country you should vote for the man most responsible for it?
Steve @ 40:
See, this is the point worth making and thank you. THIS AIN'T OVER. The math isn't over or done for both of them. So what's the push for Hillary to quit? Isn't the US a democracy, whre leaders are voted not appointed?
Oh wait...
"Stating it more bluntly, Bob Franken, the political analyst, told the MSNBC host Dan Abrams shortly after 2 a.m. Eastern time, “Let’s put it right on the table: It’s over. It’s over.”
And it picked up again on the major morning news programs in a devastating cascade of sound bites for Mrs. Clinton and her campaign."
simply death knells for the Clinton campaign, long overdue. what's the story here? the media facing facts?
FBush @ 46:
So I'm here to kick you down, sir/madam. Don't mess with C&L - it's been the ONLY place on the web where both Democratic sides can converge and have dialogue.
So true.
FBush @ 46:
So I'm here to kick you down, sir/madam. Don't mess with C&L - it's been the ONLY place on the web where both Democratic sides can converge and have dialogue.
So true.
That's been my goal all along so thanks. I think we've done that pretty well and made sure to focus on McCain.
John Amato @ 49:
Criminey the #'s don't lie. Period.
Hillary's chance is spinning the hard working white voters, thus painting Obama as blackest candidate, and doing a democratic coup.
I say kudos to the media for finally telling the truth. Good for them. It was overdue.
Ahaha. See what happens when you post something that doesn't follow the carefully given narrative?
People are too embarrassed to admit that this time the media is biased in favor of their candidate.
Don't worry, they'll go back to assaulting your beloved messiah as soon as they do their best to convince people that Hillary's lost before she really has.
John Amato @ 54:
So true.
That's been my goal all along so thanks. I think we've done that pretty well and made sure to focus on McCain.
mudshark @ 47:
Oregon has a closed Primary. The 34% of Oregonians that are registered as Independents can't vote in the Democratic Primary.
FBush @ 46:
So I'm here to kick you down, sir/madam. Don't mess with C&L - it's been the ONLY place on the web where both Democratic sides can converge and have dialogue.
So true.
For real, not to be a total kiss azz, but it really is nice to still have a webspace/blog, whatever, to hear both views out. C&L have done a great job at keeping the balance and I personally love them because of it. I should know. I'm a Hillary supporter, and even I got kicked out of my own party thanks to Donna Brazile and her infamous comment on CNN.
April @ 50:
Again—another reasoned argument from an Obama supporter.
Not knocking any Obama supporters here. Just looking for the MSM to cover the concerns
of a lot of voters with regard to Obama's experience.
Instead of specific policy issues, they want to talk Vegas odds.
Steve @ 40:
Super delegates are not pledged to support anyone. They can publicly switch support for either candidate every day up until the convention if they choose too.
The issue was that pledged delegates, those who actually represent the will of the voters in each state. They are primarily locked to each candidate (they can actually switch too up until a certain point, but it rarely happens and too confusing to explain) and Obama mathematically had insurmountable lead after winning 11 straight contests and his margins of victory. Technically, there were a lot of contests left that could go either way. But based on the demographics, you could pretty much figure out who would win each state and by how much which led everyone to the conclusion that the race was over. Because the only way for Hillary to win was to have a majority of the Super delegates to vote for her which would put them in the difficult position of going against the pledged delegates, those who represented the actual voters.
The media had NOTHING to do with the outcome because this race was pretty much decided after Obama got through Super Tuesday and Hillary all but forfeited 11 straight contests afterwards because of her BIG STATE strategy. During that time, Obama collected a LARGE amount of pledged delegates to basically lock of the nomination.
truth be told @ 51:
most female voters i know that supported Clinton agree that she has completely squandered any respect she had as the woman candidate by turning into an insane racist/republican monster. after i said, "i kinda feel sorry for hillary" one of my feminist friends said, "why do you feel sorry for hillary? she deserves it. she did this all to herself."
I Like Pie @ 58:
Thanks for the info, but as I said. "probably not"
Oh, I do see her taking Puerto Rico as well. But I have one question, How the hell does a country get to vote in this nations elections? Even if it's only delegates? I know PR is in the Commonweath but , how does that work?
truth be told @ 51:
THANK YOU. Inspiration doesn't only come from Barack!
morning @ 62:
funny, all the women I know still like her, except my mom( she likes Obama)
morning @ 62:
How? She's the only one who's actually insisting on healthcare for /everybody/ and she's hardcore about supporting the unions, both of which Obama's rather spectacularly ignored as an issue.
John Amato @ 54:
So true.
FBush @ 46:
So I'm here to kick you down, sir/madam. Don't mess with C&L - it's been the ONLY place on the web where both Democratic sides can converge and have dialogue.
So true.
That's been my goal all along so thanks. I think we've done that pretty well and made sure to focus on McCain.
Hey, I said that, not FBush! (Kidding!)
SM @ 67:
yes, you did...
I deleted the blockquote when I was quoting you.
Spot on!
FBush @ 46:
So I'm here to kick you down, sir/madam. Don't mess with C&L - it's been the ONLY place on the web where both Democratic sides can converge and have dialogue.
So true.
That's been my goal all along so thanks. I think we've done that pretty well and made sure to focus on McCain.
Hey, I said that, not FBush! (Kidding!)
You know, I think the true sign of advancement against sexism is the fact that we (some of we) can say, sure, a woman, but not this woman this time. No big whoop.
Also: Waaay upthread someone used the term "coronation" re: Obama derogatorily. I remember QUITE well when Clinton was the candidate being "coronated" prematurely- like last Fall and Winter.
morning @ 62:
So your answer is to accuse Hillary of racism? That's brilliant. President McCain says thank you.
mudshark @ 63:
The US territories were part of the Dean 50-state and then-some strategy. Even if US territories cannot vote in the GE, they can in this primary.
Merle @ 66:
hardcore about supporting Unions when she was a major player for NAFTA? no, sorry. Hillary is no Edwards with regard to Unions (and you're talking to a UBC here) but she's worse than Obama and only wins with racist whites.
Merle @ 65:
I'm still suspicious that requiring all of us to be on the program means $$$ for big Pharma and no other changes to our current system.
Nister Anderson
Perhaps you should pull your head out of somewhere and go back and look at some of the outright lies Obama's campaign and supporters have been quoting and promoting smearing the entire Clinton campaign as a bunch of racists. HuffPo ran articles on a daily basis claiming Bill, Hillary or one of her campaign advisors had made some racist comment or another, even promoting well known video clips from 16 years ago trying to say it was a racist comment when they knew it wasn't.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said in an interview with ABC.
Another fine lie manufactured by HuffPo bloggers masquerading as reporters then spread all over the country even though they knew it was false! If Sen Obama had any of the high morals he espouses to, he would have spoken out against the blatant race baiting smear campaign against someone who has spent 35yrs doing volunteer work for children, workers and minorities. Instead he sat back and smiled adding his occasional lie about her gas tax holiday costing $9 billion from the road fund and thousands of jobs. He knew it was a lie, but he also knew the press wouldn't call him on it since they haven't even asked for a better explanation over the Rezko land deal than "it was a boneheaded thing to do" As his dear close friend and spiritual advisor (before he went under the bus) Rev Wright said. Obama is a politician and he will say anything he needs to if it will get him votes.
FBush @ 68:
So true.
That's been my goal all along so thanks. I think we've done that pretty well and made sure to focus on McCain.
Hey, I said that, not FBush! (Kidding!)
It's cool! See? C&L bringing Democrats together. Even if it's to disagree. Or agree. But yeah, Kudos to the C&l team.
PLEASE KEEP IT THAT WAY! PLEASE?
truth be told @ 70:
No, but I am accusing Hillary's Campaign of racism on a political level to get racist votes. And there's no way you can deny that.
In other words, yes, I accuse Hillary of racism.
FBush @ 39:
so, if hillary isn't the nominee, and obama is you'll go for the experienced candidate? mccain?
or do you intend to argumentum ad hominem again?
SM @ 71:
So that must include Guam , American Samoa, and a number of other South Pacific island nations as well ( their name escape me right now.)
jane from hell @ 69:
Back at you, you can say the same for racism. I've been DYING for the day that someone with my skintone can become President, but, eh, NOT THIS ONE.
jane from hell @ 73:
your suspicion is correct.
FBush @ 60:
Oh, they will attack the one term Senator on his experience and any gop smear they come up with in the general.
McCain is the corporate candidate with lobbyists running his show.
A.Citizen @ 36:
Boy are you full of sh!t!
mudshark @ 78:
Duuude! you totally missed the Guam Primary drinking game?
Gotugye @ 30:
Oh
YEAHHHNOOOO!!Timmeh can't crash through a bluff by a marginally-skilled interviewee, let alone a block wall.
sassafra @ 12:
There's a difference between a "journalist" on a new station and a blog.
SM @ 79:
More power to ya SM. Vote based on what the candidate says, not what color or chromosomes they got unsolicited at birth.
morning @ 76:
By stating she was looking for blue collar white voters to vote for her is hardly racist.
They are a large block of voters,aren't they? And this is an election, isn't it?
So how do you deduce that as being racist?
No, I think someone is playing the race card here.
morning @ 76:
If you truly believe that Hillary Clinton is racist, you should seriously consider psychiatric counseling.
mudshark @ 63:
Puerto Rico isn't a country. Puerto Rico is an Island that is just as much a part of the United States as Hawaii, American Somoa, Guam, Alaska or Texas. It's a U.S. Territory just like the city of Washington D.C.
jane from hell @ 83:
I was in Mexico for three weeks, must missed that one. But trust me, I made up for it.
morning @ 62:
Exactly where do you get your misinformation? This garbage about HRC being constantly repeated here and I mean the accusation of racism and the idea that she is some sort of Republican mole. Do you ever check your facts. As far as the Republican thing goes you might consider this site: http://www.progressivepunch.org/ If you check the rating of the two candidates you will find the Clinton is left of Obama based on their voting records. I challenge you to find a quote from Hillary Clinton that is racist. And I do not mean someone's spin on something she said but an actual quote.
Leslie [Hussein] @ 85:
qft
I Like Pie @ 89:
sorry, not going to touch this one.
jane from hell @ 73:
I'm sorry, but not true. When you make a product available to all people, a company's competitor will drive their prices down, and everyone will follow suit.
Other than the oil companies, Pharma & Health Ins. comps. are making out like bandits. How fair is it for me, a single mom with one child,to pay $700.00 a MONTH for insurance that I'm not using (thank God, but DAMN) ? I can't afford it anymore, so I only left my child. I'm without insurance right now, in my mid-thirties, paying out of pocket for my medical needs because it's cheaper. What if, God forbid, an accident, a life threatening illness takes over my ability to work? I'm screwed, and there are millions of people in that situation. You have to think of them too when voting.
At least, that's in the Democratic party that I grew up in.
Find me a former Clinton voter who changed because he thought she was racist, and I'll find you a former Obama supporter who stopped supporting him because he's the Hamas candidate.
morning @ 72:
Explain the Latino Vote? Hello, ME? And African Americans were voting for her until the dogwhistle blew in SC.
So? It's been known for ages that Hillary won't be a good little girl and roll over. It's about time the democratic party and the MSM make that stupid girl roll over. Fact is that women are not fit to be President, period. Even most women agree with this, as majority of them voted for a male candidate in this primary season. Americans would rather have Osama Bin Ladin as President than a goddamn women, and that is the cold, harsh truth.
I thought she was done, because she ran out of rationales and wouldn't want to cause a nuclear meltdown in Denver. I guess I was only wrong about the latter part.
A.Citizen @ 36:
And you still are wrong! It all emanates from in between your ears. And it just keep a given...to you, that is!
POdVet @ 74:
Add a Hallelujiah and an Amen to that!
mudshark @ 87:
I never said she was looking for 'blue collar white voters'. Obama has gotten a lot of those, and so has Hillary. Edwards was doing best in that category until the celebrities took over. I'm saying she went for the racist blue collar white voters. And she's been doing pretty well so far. If anyone wanted to narrow down her wins by regions, well, Clinton is winning Appalachia and the Ozarks, and the White south. If you're denying that American is a racist country, then obviously I can't argue with you.
SM @ 94:
She's not "making a product available to all people," she's making it a requirement for everyone to pay Pharmas and HMOs. There is NO inherent guarantee about prices going down. "Covered" or not, I can still be denied claims (if they turn out to be unprofitable).
obamayeswecan @ 97:
Thanks, Rush.
obamayeswecan @ 97:
Oh my. I sincerely hope that was snark.
It appears that the HRC folks aren't ready to give up yet.
obamayeswecan @ 97:
YES! Yet another reasoned argument from an Obama supporter!
Hate abounds. You're kind of reasoning is exactly why the red-staters will never vote for Obama—its
called ignorance.
mudshark @ 78:
Exactly. Maybe that's why Obama said "57 States" the other day.
morning @ 101:
Some people are F*cked up no matter what happens, But the same could be said about the percentage of African American Voters for Obama. So your point is moot at best. and outright bullshit at worst.
jane from hell @ 95:
QFT
mudshark @ 93:
it's a little more complicated than that
Top 10 Reasons Obama Defeated Clinton for the Democratic Nomination
Posted May 12, 2008 | 10:18 AM (EST)
Now that the outcome of the battle for the Democratic nomination has been settled beyond a reasonable doubt, it's worth looking systematically at the major factors that gave victory to Obama. After all, fifteen months ago, conventional wisdom viewed Obama as an audacious long shot. The very idea of a first-term African American senator with a name like Barack Obama defeating the vaunted Clinton machine seemed preposterous.
Here are my Top Ten reasons why lightning struck in the contest for the 2008 Democratic nomination (apologies to David Letterman ):
#10. Great Team. Obama assembled a great team that could work together.
#9. All-State Strategy. Mark Penn was convinced that Clinton could sew up the nomination by Super Tuesday focusing only on the big states.
#8. No Plan B.
#7. Excellence in Execution: Great Field. Obama ran the best field operation in American political history.
#6. Explosive Obama Fundraising.
#5. Obama Out-Communicated Clinton Using One Consistent Message.
#4. Hope and Inspiration trumped Fear and Anger.
#3. Unity Trumped Division.
#2. Change Trumped Experience.
#1. Obama is an Extraordinary Candidate.
In the end, people vote for people. Campaigns are ultimately about the qualities of candidates --about whether or not people want them to be their leaders. Potentially, Barack Obama could become an historic, transformational leader. But John McCain has many qualities that are attractive to swing voters as well. Nothing is preordained. Now it will be up to every Democrat, every Progressive, to take advantage of this historic opportunity to make Barack Obama the American President who leads the world into a new progressive era of unprecedented possibility.
Nicole Belle @ 104:
I don't think so Nicole. That's the real McCoy there.
In Timmeh's defense, you'd have to pull off some mind-bending math in order to come up with a scenerio in which Clinton becomes the winner. In all honesty, I'm convinced she's pushing on in case Obama dies. I mean, she's a smart woman... she can't NOT know that it's over.
I voted for Hillary but yeah, she's done.
mudshark @ 108:
yes, those idiotic African Americans, voting for a candidate who doesn't pretend to be one of them. what are those radicals thinking?
I had no idea Russert could talk without Cheney's hand up his butt.
jane from hell @ 86:
Not just what the candidates "say," it's about what their plan is, what they have outlined to change & fix. And unfornately, Obama is not what I want in a president, EVER. Too vague & not enough meat for people in my situation (as are hundreds of milliions of Americans are in today) need.
I'm an old school Democrat. Brazile kicked us out. Oh well. Guess I'm writing in Hillary's name in when November comes around.
mudshark @ 112:
Name=snark then? Or sock puppetry?
obamayeswecan @ 97:
OBL has been effectively running the White House through his surrogates, Darth and Chimpy, for the past seven years.
The Myth Of The Black Racist Voter
By Ta-Nehisi Coates - May 12, 2008, 3:34PM
One very foolish meme that's made it's way into the primary is this notion that black people voting for Barack in large margins is the equivalent (or on the scale of racism, arguably worse) of white people breaking for Hillary in similar margins. I doubt that anyone who reads this blog thinks like that, and truthfully, I haven't seen it in any of the blogs I read. It's one of those notions that you hear from beefheads like Joe Scarborough or in the Huffington Post comment section. I know, I know, those sources are roughly equal in credibility, but I just want to venture a quick response.
Blacks have been voting for whites for president since they've gotten the vote. There is no question about black people's ability to vote for a white man for president. Even in cases when blacks have a so-called black leader in the actual race, they still--in crucial times--have voted for the white guy. This is why it was patently foolish to infer that Latinos voting for Hillary were racist, when in fact Latinos had supported black candidates on several occasions.
Whites enjoy no such record. Whereas we have several anecdotal reports of folks categorically voting against Obama because he's black, I've yet to hear a black voter say she couldn't vote for Hillary--under any circumstance--because she's white. Part of that is function of numbers--there have been way more white candidates than black. But white Democrats rarely have to worry about being able to attract the black vote when running for national or state-wide office, it's black Dems who have to worry about the white vote. The lone exceptions are in mayoral races in big cities where whites are a minority. I imagine a white Democrat running for mayor of Atlanta or D.C. would be at something of a disadvantage. But nationally, white Democrats haven't worried about the black vote in probably half a century.
...more...
CoIntelPro against Repug DoucheBaggery @ 111:
omg you sexist/racist/republican/elitist/bigot clearly Hillary is the choice of the people lol
It's amazing how much bile the "Unity" people can spew at the mere SUGGESTION that Hillary isn't an evil GOP-planted bitch.
CoIntelPro against Repug DoucheBaggery @ 120:
Yes yes! Thank you for being reasonable and sensible.
Tim, the enchanter @ 113:
Two big reasons why its not over—
Michigan and Florida.
Even the most rabid Clinton hater takes on a warm, glowing smile when reminded about the Clinton economy of the 90's. Many michiganders, in this suckfest of an economy, would do anything to get that back.
Instead, we're told we get to choose between Grandpa and the inexperienced youngster.
We're pretty p.o'd about that.
SM @ 117:
It's ALL in what they say until they get the job...by definition.
morning @ 115:
That's not what I said, and if you think I'm going to buy that bullshit you 're sadly mistaken.
By your reasoning, a certain percentage of blue collar white voters are racist, and you'd be correct on that. Only a fool would say other wise. But again, by the same reasoning , if you assume that, then you must assume that a certain percentage of black voters are racist as well. It just stands to reason .
Merle @ 122:
and how do you explain the '$30 Gas Tax Holiday! ?'
Furthermore, the black support of Obama hasn't been knee-jerk. Whereas Obama would likely never have competed for the white vote in West Virginia, Hillary actually was competing for the black vote in several states. This Time story, beginning with the phrase "There is no doubt Barack Obama can appeal to white audiences," (Oh how things--or media narratives--quickly change), goes on to note the reverence black women hold for Hillary Clinton, and shows Clinton's support among blacks as nearly DOUBLE Barack Obama's. Some of this was unfair. In that piece, you'll see a lot of weak, opportunistic, short-sighted machine pols talking smack. Furthermore, the support for Hillary really reflected a sense that Obama wasn't serious. Listen to this laughable bit of defeatism:
That isn't the statement of a loyal Clintonite, as much as the foolish musings of political hack. Ford is the wise-guy who claimed Obama's candidacy would cause everybody else to loose. Obama, of course, responded not by talking, but by beating Clinton in Ford's district. Anyway, Hillary's problems began as soon as Obama won Iowa. It was basically a wrap after Bill Clinton's made that foolish Jesse Jackson remark.
Nicole Belle @ 104:
Nicole, I'd love to be wrong, but it sure don't sound like it.
Let that thing die out on it's own.
mudshark @ 126:
Nope. Not assuming that at all. And it doesn't stand to 'reason'. Unless you're talking 'Clinton Reason.' If that's the case, then, after all, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, therefore..............................
bullshit. hillary's been toast for a couple of months. i'm glad one of the gutless msm 'pundits' finally had the balls to call it straight.
SM @ 117:
bullshit. standing with russ on this one C&L. "a competitive White House hopeful to drop out of the race. It’s unprecedented."
a competitive" White House hopeful. how, minus the lead in supers, pledged, and popular vote going into the last leg of the primary is she competitive? russert was calling it like it is. its over.
and to you people who say he doesn't have substance. i'd remind you that he was once a professor of the constitution. you are just accepting this "where's the beef" argument because it falls in line with your prejuidices. there's no way that high information, well educated people in this country are overwhelmingly for the insubstantive candidate, that doesn't make any sense. it's a pill trotted out by the clintons and you swallow.
old school democrat my ass, if you are prove it and unite behind the mathmatically guaranteed nominee of the Democratic Party. I'd do it for Hillary!
Obama/Clark 08!!
Now, all of that said, I want to say something in defense of white folks. I know I don't do this much, so guys gather around. White voters are not all the same. It's really been enlightening for me to watch Obama's share of the white vote change state by state. It's really obliterated this idea that all white people everywhere think the same about blacks. It's even obliterated the only slightly more nuanced idea that white voters in the South are somehow more racist than white voters in the North. What does it mean that Ohio and Wisconsin whites voted so differently? What do we take from the idea that Obama lost the white vote in Pennsylvania but won it Virginia?
Well, quite a bit as my super-intelligent commenters have pointed out. It seems that it isn't even a matter of poor whites versus rich whites, or educated whites versus non-educated whites, although all of that factors in. We've seen that the percentage of black folks doesn't really make a difference either. There is something beautiful in this, because you see a complexity in the great monolith that is often simply labeled White America. It's a complexity that, as a black person, I often miss. Even the one simple fact buried inside is beautiful--the biggest predictor of the white vote seems to be age. The point? The racists aren't the future. We are.
FBush @ 124:
Hey!
I live in Florida, why you think I'm so damn PISSED!!!
I'm mad as hell, and I can't take it anymore!
POdVet @ 74:
Hate to break up the Clintonistas love fest here, but it's time for a reality check:
www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/04/8702
www.paulloeb.org/articles/HillarySleaze.html
How odd that you have such a problem with "outright lies" POd. You just made up a whole lot of them about Obama.
morning @ 130:
are you telling me that 90-97 % of the black vote (That's what he's been pulling in from African Americans) that none of those folks are racist?
The truth is racism has reared it's ugly head from both campaigns. But I'm done here. The truth is what it is. and there ain't no changin that.
John Amato @ 49:
Right, but you're missing the point. In this case, the scolding of Tim Russert is misdirected, because he was stating what many people have known for a few months now- Hillary cannot win the majority of votes in this primary. Outside of an unforseen reversal of just about every single superdelegate vote and the seating of both rouge primaries (including the one where Obama was off the ballot...in accordance with party rules), there is no way on this planet Earth that she can win the nomination.
Barack Obama DID become the presumptive nominee that night, and to continue on with this charade that "both sides are valid" when clearly one candidate has [b]won the majority of votes and delegates[/b] is ridiculous.
Putting that aside, Hillary Clinton's comments and behavior during this race have been beyond the pale, from race baiting to threatening a sovereign nation with genocide. And how did C&L cover the Clinton campaign? By running her New Hampshire victory speech, without critical comment, under the heading "Hillary Finds Her Voice". Was her "hardworking white people" comment covered? No, instead here we are with an entry deriding Tim Russert for being the stopped clock he is, and blurting out a nugget of accurate analysis.
[i]My point on this is not about delegates or the popular vote or any one candidate or who has won or lost. [/i]
Well, no shit John, because otherwise you'd kind of be forced to take Russert's comments at face value, rather than continuing the TalkLeft/Taylor Marsh conspiracy theory nonsense that somehow the Rev. Wright lovin' Network Media is in fact conspiring to destroy Hillary Clinton.
For fucks sakes, Rahm Emmanuel said it's over. That guy is about two shades of red away from being Joe Lieberman, and has lived comfortably in the colon of both Clintons ever since the DLC was formed to ensure that truly progressive Democrats don't get a fair shake.
Look man, this site does GREAT work. Lots of posts about Blue Dogs and Congressman Baby Heath and making sure Harry Reid doesn't back down. But when you then turn around and proclaim, tacitly in the name of the official candidate of Blue Shield and Citibank, that THIS THANG AIN'T OVER, you're not only losing points with real progressives, but you're muddying the waters for the non-political junkie portion of the audience.
Dudes. It IS over. Obama is the guy. To pretend otherwise, down that path lies either madness or Holy Joe- take your pick.
morning @ 127:
Gas Tax Holiday = Let Exxon/Mobil, Shell, B&P, and the other M&Fers pay some of my friggin gas this summer so I can get to friggin work and get eggs & milk & bread for a reasonable price!
If you can, check out Frank Rich's column reader blog on NYtimes.com
It was a typical Obama love fest but the VAST MAJORITY of bloggers' comments were all questioning the
lack of substance with respect to the Media's love affair with Obama.
This was a blogger's comment which got a lot of recommends:
I'm not saying that there are some who won't vote for him because he's black and of course there are those who will vote for him simply because he is black - that's a an acceptable form of racism apparently. But the greater majority of people I know who don't intend to vote for him have said nothing about his race, its his lack of experience, lack of legislative initiatives in either senate, lack of workable plans, its the too smooth rhetoric, catch phrases and soundbites of his campaign that answer nothing. We're young enough to want real change yet we're mature enough to have been taken in once or twice by salesmen selling us a bill of goods.
What is wrong with this country that we continually let those running for the most important office in the land get away with not answering the important questions regarding their experience, abilities and plans - we let Bush get away with it twice already and now the democrats want their turn at it with Barack Obama. We daren't criticize him - for if we do - the media or his campaign are calling us racists, uneducated and uninformed. Reminds me of when nobody was allowed to question Bush's decision to invade Iraq - when we did we were called unpatriotic, unAmerican, and liberal-leftists pinkos. Now because we don't want to vote for Obama, suddenly we're racist, uneducated and bitter.
mudshark @ 136:
you two should read a few other posts
bmw H. 528 @ 135:
Other than pulling a couple of posts by rabid Clinton haters do you have anything else to offer as a counterargument. You're "arguments" are no better than his.
(mea culpa on the formatting flub there)
It's pure irony that 93% of Blacks happen to agree more with Obama's policies as opposed to Clinton.
To state otherwise would make you a racist klan loving nazi.
FBush @ 139:
Sorry, but bullshit. Get over your self pity and victim mentality and do something redemptive for a change.
FBush, Not all of us remember the Clinton economy as being warm and fuzzy... the 90's were great for Wall Street, but it was also the time when the deluge of American manufacturing fled the country and went to Mexico and China. When I try to find some American-made merchandise (which I frequently try to do), and all I see is Chinese crap, I think of the Clinton economy. Some of us are pretty PO'd about that, too.
That being said, I completely understand the frustration being felt by Michigan and Florida democrats. Being in that situation would drive me mad.
FBush @ 20:
Living in Michigan my entire life, the seeds for our economic destruction were sown by Bill Clinton when he signed NAFTA, and started us down the dead-end path of republican-lite, DLC economic policies. Policies that Hillary totally supported until her coronation turned into a nightmare. Personally, I'll pass on that kind of experience. And I think you are going to be surprised at how many people "jump" to support Obama. He will beat McInsane by 10-15% (minimum) in Michigan.
mudshark @ 126:
according to scientific american, a certain percentage of everyone is racist. it's all part of being a primate
ZadieSmith @ 132:
1) "College Professor" on the presidential resume doesn't cut it. Sorry. NO.
2) Clark is a STAUNCH HILLARY SUPPORTER, so nice try. Ain't gonna happen. He knows where the real experience is.
CoIntelPro against Repug DoucheBaggery @ 140:
read the one above your post@140.
This whole thing calling HRC a racist was so overhyped it's mind boggling .
Yeah, I saw russert too. I had the same feelings. I was thinking, he wants the repug mudslinging to begin. Maybe for the ratings?
I was shocked when russert-the-repug endorsed Sen. Obama. He was basically calling Sen. Clinton nuts if she continues her campaign, especially if she can't answer russert's questions. Although they are so damn good questions. Only if he was as rough with chimpy's mess.
russert's show has always favorite repugs. How odd of him to tell Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton when to end the dems race. He she have quoted a respectable dem, like Edwards, who basically said the same thing.
So what if hillary has a bomb on Sen. Obama. How sick would it be for anyone, especially hillary, to try to foil Sen. Obama's campaign? Dropping the bomb will appear revengeful and hateful. So leave hillary.
russert's can't wait to try to tear Sen. Obama a new one.
Go Obama!
Go USA!
Comments are closed on this entry