Obama Mocks Clinton Mocking Obama

Last Sunday, Hillary Clinton "stood in the rec center at Rhode Island College and mocked fellow presidential candidate Barack Obama for his campaign's theme of hope, saying Obama can't just 'wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear.'" [Watch video of Clinton here.] On Saturday, Obama took the same stage and couldn't resist bringing up her comments. CNN describes the scene:

"I think she was here, right?" Obama said toward the end of his stump speech. "She was saying 'Oh, you know, he thinks that the clouds will part and... [that] he's so naïve.'"

The room quickly erupted in "boos."

"Wait, wait, wait," he said.

"He thinks he can wave a magic wand," he continued, mocking Clinton's impression, "and suddenly everything will be great."

Obama then went in to his standard stump lines, saying it's true he "talks about hope a lot." He then defended his rationale in doing so.

Watch it:

Obama mocks Clinton for mocking him earlier about his message of hope. http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1439819445http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=1178199204

Comments

[enoughalready13]

All this man does is cop Hillary - her policies, positions, commercials, answers in debates, tactics - it's amazing. What is there really to this man? Leaders go forward, take stands, demonstrate results, and forge paths that are not copy-cats of others.

[2008thankyou]

Him replying to her insults about him and the people who support him is what you criticize? You clintonites really do exist in denial, don't you?

[jbsouth]

well he did not copy clinton by talking to canadians

[daveny]

You mean like when Hillary outright plagarized Obama's "We need to stop acting like democrats and republicans, and start acting like americans again" line on the Daily Show last night?

[daveny]

By the way , can you name me some actual "results" she's acheived as a senator?

[jdnyc]

The election of Barack Obama would provide the psychological reorientation that this country needs in order to adjust to the real "post-supe­r-America"­' world. It would shake our national identity in a very positive way. With all due respect, Hillary Clinton would merely repeat more of the past in terms of WASPy/Ivy League/corporate liberalism and endless hatred from the right... all feeding in to a weakening America. She does not have the identity that this moment requires in order to avoid the final division of our national identity into burbs and ghettos. Obama would rock the country in a good way, and the dems would guide him on.

This is the moment when we can believe in something new in America with true promise, and more than anything that is what we need. That is what the people in the cities are voting for tonight, and they are the ones who have been screwed the last two times around. This is the moment when we have the chance to redefine the terms of the debate and put the dysfunctional status quo in the trash bin. I really wish the Clintons would get out of the way of a brighter future. It is sad to see so much pessimism targeting the optimism we need so badly.

If Hillary wins Ohio because of suburban racism, it does not bode well at all.

[VTConQuest]

Link to the article I quoted above: "
Judge delays setting trial in Clinton fraud case" - http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/judge_delays_setting_trial_in_clinton_fraud_case/

[diondrabutterfly]

there is no clinton fraud case, einstein

[rosal]

Where are the "experienced" and "ready on day one" tax returns copies? What is she hiding? By the way, the phone in her add does not stop ringing because she refuses to answer. She complains she is always the first one to answer. Wrong in Iraq, wrong in Iran. Heaven forbids she answers the phone. I will never vote for her.

[Allen66]

He is so inmature. Hillary has had our vote since the first debate.
One of our nation’s top military figures, General Shelton served two terms as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In announcing his endorsement, General Shelton said, “I’ve been with Senator Clinton when she has been with our military men and women. I know from those experiences that she understands the demands and sacrifice of military life. I am confident she will always put the readiness and well being of our troops first. She is ready to be Commander-­in-Chief.”

General Shelton joins General John Shalikashvili as the second former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to have endorsed Senator Clinton. General Shelton is the fourth flag officer to endorse Senator Clinton this week.

The first Green Beret to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton served our Nation with distinction over a career that spanned 38 years. General Shelton served two tours of duty in Vietnam, and was awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. He was assistant commander of the 101st Airborne Division during Operation Desert Storm in Iraq, and later commanded the 82nd Airborne Division. Prior to serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shelton commanded U.S. Special Operations Forces. He served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s highest ranking military office, from 1997-2001.

General Shelton joins a distinguished group of 28 retired flag officers who have endorsed Senator Clinton to be our nation’s next Commander-in-Chief. In addition, more than 2,000 veterans and military retirees are members of Senator Clinton's national and state veterans’ steering committees.

[DRHoen]

There's no doubt, and no surprise, that many of the big wigs are for Clinton. But the question is, who are the people for?

[2008thankyou]

Oh yes, her constant displays and attacks are mature.

[questionitall]

Yesterday it was 25 then 35 and now it is 28 flag officers. Who cares anyway my mind is made up by the facts and the fact is she supported this war and has done nothing to extricate us from it.

[toocoldout]

can't wait for primary season to be over. Democrats attacking democrats is disturbing and counterproductive.

[hinnis]

CNSNews.comm) - Just as a Canadian television network reported last week, an Obama campaign adviser gave the Canadian government the impression that Obama is talking tough about NAFTA on the campaign trail to win votes -- and that the Canadian government shouldn't worry about it.

A memo obtained by the Associated Press over the weekend shows how Canadian officials viewed their conversation with Sen. Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser, Austan Goolsbee.

The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who attended a meeting with Austan Goolsbee at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.

DeMora, summarizing the conversation with Goolsbee, wrote: "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Later in the memo, DeMora wrote: "As Obama continues to court the economic populist vote, particularly in upcoming contests like Ohio, we are likely to see a continuation of some of the messaging that hasn't played in Canada's favour, but this should continue to be viewed in the context in which it is delivered.­"

CTV, the Canadian television network, reported last week that Obama was playing both sides on NAFTA -- saying one thing publicly to please union voters in Ohio (yes, we'll renegotiate NAFTA), and something else privately (it's just campaign rhetoric) to ease Canadian concerns.

In a conversation with the Associated Press on Sunday, Goolsbee disputed DeMora's memo. He said that DeMora was not quoting him and had mischaracterized the conversation. Goolsbee specifically told the A.P. he did not use the phrase "it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

However, Goolsbee admitted he did tell Canadian officials that Obama is not a protectionist. Goolsbee told the Associated Press he was trying to convey that Obama wants to strike a balance between free trade -- and labor and environmental protections.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton was also on the line when Goolsbee spoke to the Associated Press on Sunday, apparently to help Goolsbee explain what happened. Burton told the Associated Press that Goolsbee's visit to the Canadian consulate was not official -- that Goolsbee was there as a private citizen, not as an emissary from the Obama campaign.

Both Sens. Obama and Hillary Clinton have insisted they would renegotiate NAFTA to include more labor and environmental protections -- and threaten to "opt out" of the trade agreement as leverage to force a renegotiation.

Such talk does not please Canada.

When Cybercast News Service contacted the Canadian Embassy in Washington last week, a spokesman said only that the CTV report about Obama's double-speak on NAFTA was not true; that "no one has contacted our embassy or our ambassador" to discuss anything of the sort.

No mention was made at the time about the existence of the DeMora memo -- which was "widely distributed within the Canadian government," according to the Associated Press.

[hinnis]

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (AP) — Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser privately told Canadian officials to view the debate in Ohio over trade as "political positioning," according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press that was rejected by the adviser and held up Monday as evidence of doublespeak by rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.

"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said. "He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

[hinnis]

Note: When this story first broke, both Obama and the Canadian embassy denied that any such contact had been made. Here is the Canadian denial: `The Canadian Embassy confirms that at no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian Ambassador or any official at the Embassy to discuss NAFTA. Last night, the Canadian television network CTV falsely reported that such calls had been made. That story is untrue. Neither before nor since the Ohio debate has any presidential campaign called Ambassador Wilson or the embassy to raise NAFTA.'' *** Now that the memo of the meeting has been released to the public, both Obama and the Canadian embassy have been forced to acknowledge the meeting. Now, Obama is saying that the transcript of the meeting is inaccurate. Let's see: first a denial that the meeting ever took place, then allegations that the memo is incorrect. Who do you think is telling the truth?

[questionitall]

Nobody believes this bile anymore so move on.

[amanda08]

Senator Clinton why “didn’t” you read the CIA National Intelligence report on Iraqi before voting on the war, Oh I know you “Polled it” to see if it was popular?

SHE DID NOT READ THE INTELLIGENCE REPORT!!

Some “experience” and what about those TAX RETURNS” & Bill’s foundation dealings? There are lots of skeletons in the Clintons closet! People Beware!

[Spesabsquemetu]

Over the weekend, the most outrageous negative bias against Barack Obama by CNN continued.

This time around, CNN's lead on Sunday ( 3/2/08) with Howard Kurtz "Reliable Sources" purported to be concerned with: "Media Mistreatment" - with the lead into the segment being:
"Clinton goes public about Media Mistreatment".

During a portion of the segment, while purporting to present information regarding whether CNN had a negative bias towards Clinton, CNN highlighted questions which in this viewer's opinion, feigned to be about raising questions concerning the topic - while a sub-text was at work which continued to throw smear and negative undertones at Senator Obama.
For example: CNN posed the question - "Should Tim Russert have pressured Barack Obama about being "BACKED" by Louis Farrakhan?

While the question feigned to be concerned about questioning whether it was appropriate for Tim Russert, during the final MSNBC presidential debate, to continue pressuring Sen. Obama about Louis Farrakhan, when Sen. Obama had very clearly denounced the hateful rhetoric of Farrakhan, Russert persisted in questioning Obama where Clinton then proposed that Sen. Obama's denunciation of Farrakhan was not enough. Clinton suggested that rejection was needed in addition to denouncing Farrakhan, which Sen. Obama then clearly provided.

During CNN's review of this question period – which suggested the purpose was to question whether Russert's pressuring of Sen. Obama was "fair", CNN placed the sub-text at the bottom of the screen which reads: "THE FARRAKHAN FACTOR"...­while suggesting through it's raising of the "fairness" question, a false undertone that suggested that Sen. Obama was being "BACKED" by Farrakhan, by the manner in which it phrased the question: “Was Tim Russert fair to pressure Barack Obama about being “BACKED” by L. Farrakhan?” Sen. Obama has already stated that he is not backed not directly nor indirectly by L. Farrakhan. This was clearly articulated during the MSNBC debate. It is simply irresponsible on the part of CNN to suggest in their claim to be concerned about “fairness” questions, to use FALSE information which only serves to further smear Sen. Obama, while failing to clarify Sen. Obama’s statement on this matter where Sen. Obama made it crystal clear that he has no support from Farrakhan whatsoever, and that he rejects and denounces Farrakhan's anti-semitic rhetoric. It is irresponsible to not report the facts concerning this matter, and raises questions about what the underlying intent is on the part of CNN.

This was followed by a sub-text that questioned whether Bill Cunningham, a McCain supporter went too far regarding his use of Sen. Obama's middle name, which - interestingly, CNN appeared eager to reiterate, while then showing a segment concerning the Cunningham attacks on Senator Obama's middle name - which again, has the undertones beneath it that clearly seem to suggest the false belief that Sen. Obama is Muslim ( while it rejects his Christianity), as well as serving as an affront to hard-working Muslim Amerians who must feel utterly disgusted by what seems to be - CNN's racist treatment of Sen. Obama.

To suggest that it is "fair" to use his middle name, while failing to place the use of his name in the context of hate-filled false innuendo and false information spread about him in attempts to smear his character, smear his name, and to suggest he should somehow be associated with the fear in the hearts of Americans over Muslim-terrorists - is so reprehensible and disgraceful, I am left to question whether CNN is capable of responsible journalism because of their failure to address - the very context it suggests it is concerned about.

When CNN purports that it is concerned with the topic: Hillary Cries Foul; Says Media tilts to Obama" - and then proceeds to re-air the most reprehensible negative press that assaults Sen. Obama's religious beliefs, and his ethnicity, while then purporting to question whether Tim Russert’s questioning of Obama re: L. Farrakhan was "fair" - when the real sub-text to the question contains the foul stench of false accusations that suggests Sen. Obama is being "BACKED" by L. Farrakhan ( when Obama clearly both rejected and denounced Farrakhan's anti-semitic statements as well as clarified that he has NO SUPPORT from Farrakhan whatsoever) - is blatant in its failure to report the truth, while furthering false information about Obama to the public, which continues to fan the flames of reprehensible disinformation concerning Sen. Obama that conveniently then gives the appearance of backing the Clinton agenda:

- to suggest that Sen Obama has not been scrutinized by the media
- to sow the seeds of doubt regarding Sen. Obama's ethnicity and religious beliefs
- to plant the idea in the heads of voters of there being an "unknown" factor about Sen. Obama

IF CNN WERE TRULY CONCERNED WITH REPORTING THE TRUTH, THEY WOULD REPORT THE TRUTH ABOUT SEN. OBAMA.

It should be noted throughout the day on Sunday, there multiple reports on Sen. Clinton on the stump while it seemed almost nothing was shown of Sen. Obama’s speeches throughout the day.

If CNN were truly concerned with clearing up the dis-information that serves to assault Sen. Obama’s religious beliefs, his faith, his service, his record of accomplishments, his sound judgement ( using the many examples from his RECORD as a senator), and the racism directed at his ethinicity – then, it seems that CNN could do this by providing FACTS of TRUTH, and that their journalists would raise their voices in any attempt to uphold the tenets of journalistic integrity ( and not a luke-warm suggestion that there was simply a failure to follow up on Clinton’s refusal to report her income tax returns).


But when CNN purports to be reporting about Hillary Clinton's claim of "Media Mistreatment" - and then, CNN PROCEEDS TO ASSAULT SEN. OBAMA - in a very subtle undertone of negativity that sows doubt, fear, and racist attitudes using FALSE accusations directed at Sen. Obama, - it is time to question WHAT CNN's true intentions are, and whether they are even capable of reporting honestly, fairly and accurately.

Throughout the day, it should be noted that it appeared at least on the surface, that CNN was providing numerous sound bytes of Sen. Clinton’s activities throughout her day, with video clips ( numerous) of Clinton, as well as of Chelsea and Bill Clinton, and in one segment, aired during prime time, what had to be at least five minutes of Hillary Clinton on the stump, while only showing a one-minute rebuttal response by Sen. Obama. And this is supposed to appear “fair and balanced”?

While Jessica Yellin did proceed to point out that the media had failed in following Clinton on her refusal to release her income tax returns, there was hardly any attempt to connect for viewers WHY that type of information would be so critical for voters to understand and learn about particularly, when one looks at the Wall Street Journal article, noting that the Clintons stand to make 20 MILLION DOLLARS from their Yucaipa investments with R. Burkle, part of which is tied to Bill Clinton finding investors for YUCAIPA, raising the question: DOES MSNBC, OR CNN, THEIR EMPLOYEES, EXECUTIVES, HAVE ANY FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS THEY ENGAGED IN WITH BILL / AND OR HILLARY CLINTON?

Might this explain why there appears to be a very negative bias on the part of CNN and MSNBC concerning their negative treatment of Sen. Obama? Has MSNBC and CNN abided by the commitment to transparency that warrents FULL DISCLOSURE – regarding any relationships that they, their employees, or their representatives might have with the Clintons, that could present conflicts of interests for them in the manner in which they provide election coverage? What would explain the repeated negative assaults we seem to be seeing that continue to be directed towards Sen Obama to the exclusion of clearing up the negative disinformation that seeks to undermine his candidacy, to the exclusion of reporting the TRUTH to the exclusion of reporting serious issues regarding the Clintons that the PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO KNOW ABOUT?

References were made during the "Reliable Sources" CNN Sunday program to the SNL reference by Sen. Clinton (where she basically promotes her upcoming appearance on SNL), which took place during the MSNBC debate - which interestingly should note that SNL appears on NBC's network and MSNBC is the network that aired the final presidential debate.

When one puts that together with the fact that the most recent airing of SNL which Clinton told the MSNBC debate crowd to watch – which just so happened to include HILLARY CLINTON as a guest - this past weekend, leaves the question of whether there is a very clear negative bias on the part of MSNBC and CNN in their treatment of Sen. Obama, that continually serves to promote Clinton, while purporting to be "investigating" whether there is unfair treatment of Hillary Clinton - when, the facts clearly seem to indicate just the opposite ( our EYES AND EARS ARE SEEING AND HEARING WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE PROMOTION OF NEGATIVITY TOWARDS OBAMA) that suggests the truth is: MSNBC AND CNN have demonstrated a clear support of Sen. Clinton, with repeated airings of negative content directed to Sen. Obama - to the exclusion of references to facts and information regarding the many accomplishments of Sen. Obama, and the TRUTHS about Sen. Obama that refute all the negative bias - and this has occured while CNN purports to "raise questions about ‘fairness’ towards Clinton" under the guise it uses purporting to raise questions of fairness towards Clinton - that in fact, further the negative agenda of the Clintons towards Sen. Obama that are intent on suggesting:

- that Obama has not been vetted enough by the media ( so that CNN can persist in airing the negative agenda that undermines his faith, the negative agenda that undermines and casts doubt on his ethnicity and appears racist in its undertones)

- that he is somehow an "unknown" entity ( while CNN fails to provide the FACTS that would clear this myth up in ten minutes.

- that somehow Sen. Obama doesn't have the "leadership" that Sen. Clinton purports herself as having - which JOHN KERRY clearly and succinctly debunked during a Wolf Blitzer questioning period on Sunday - which Blitzer focused on Obama questioning his "foreign affairs experience" that Sen. Kerry clearly pointed out must be addressed of Hillary Clinton who has zero Foreign affairs experience, where Sen. Kerry pointed out that Hillary Clinton had huge major red phone moments as a senator, that she failed in responding to because she gave the WRONG ANSWERS ( some of which Kerry addressed that has to do with her vote to support the war in Iraq, her refusal to admitt she supported the war, her attempts to mask that she KNEW she was voting to send our troops into battle while then attempting to blame President Bush for her failure to KNOW what she was voting for!!!, her wrong answers on Iran, her vote that benefitted the credit card companies to the detriment of the painful economics that undermine hard working Americans! )

While Jessica Yellin had the integrity to acknowledge that the media has failed to truly raise serious questions of Sen. Clinton regarding: her failure to report her income tax returns to the public, it should be noted that the media persists in not following up on this matter, nor with helping voters understand WHY it is such a critical issue for them, while the media also fails in reporting anything regarding the Clinton's association with the fraud case against Bill Clinton ( P. Paul, media mogul) which raises serious questions about ethics in campaign financing concerning Hillary Clinton, the Yucaipa investment deals engaged in by Bill and Hillary Clinton ( and whether anyone from MSNBC or CNN or any other media outlets have engaged in ANY investment relationships with the Clintons which would raise serious questions about the ability of the media to report fairly and accurately about Sen. Obama, questions about ethics in journalism and FULL DISCLOSURE as well as CONFLICTS OF INTEREST that could impede the media in remaining faithful to their responsibility to report the TRUTH and provide the public with INFORMATION THAT HELPS THEM TO MAKE DECISIONS AND CHOICES, as well as a raise questions about whether the media could remain UNBIASED and FAIR in upholding their duty to INFORM the PUBLIC so that the PUBLIC can use TRUTHFUL INFORMATION in making their decision about WHO they want to be their next president, and other serious questions regarding Norman HSU, and concerns over inappropriate financing for the Clintons.

These are fair and legitimate questions that are NOT BEING RAISED and that DENY the public their right to know the TRUTH about their candidates. It should be noted that Lou Dobbs ( another CNN so-called "journalist") purported to suggest that there was a need for "transparency" regarding L. Farrakhan while Dobbs modeled such an outrageous bias in his failure to address the FACTS that Sen. Obama clearly addressed regarding this individual, while failing to apply his so-called standard of “transparency” to ethics questions regarding Clinton: R. Burkle ( Yucaipa investment deals, Clintons’ failure to release her income tax returns, her Norman Hsu campaign contributions, to name a few). One can only wonder why DOBBS persists in his biased, one-sided negativity towards Sen. Obama ( and what underlies this negativity?) in his attempts to appear analytical through questions he only applies towards Sen. Obama, to the exclusion of HSU, PAUL, YUCAIPA, and a host of other serious questions that surround Sen. Clinton, her campaign financing, including her failure to release her income tax returns.

The public has the right to be informed. One has to question not only the producers of several CNN programming, but whether this media outlet is capable of reporting the truth regarding Sen. Obama, as it has had ample opportunities to rectify the false accusations, but appears to be more interested in promoting the myth that somehow, Sen. Clinton has been treated "unfairly" - while using NEGATIVE FALSE ASSAULTS on Sen. Obama to "investigate" what is clearly NOT the purpose of their questioning.

CNN cannot be concerned with investigating a "fairness" question regarding Sen. Clinton (the facts of which tell us the opposite is true concerning treatment of Sen. Clinton by the media as well as the negativity it persists in inflicting on Sen. Obama), which CNN then uses to denigrate in a very subtle underhanded manner - Sen. Obama.
CNN cannot be concerned with reporting the TRUTH, when none of their reporters do anything to stand up against the racist undertones to some of the segments that purport to be about raising questions of "fairness" that are then USED to further the negativity agenda by the Clinton campaign to undermine Sen. Obama, while failing to debunk the VERY destructive points it raises in their so-called attempts to "report" the news!

The state of journalism should be of concern to every single American because when a media outlet purports to be reporting on a topic - which the eyes and ears hear and see as having a very negative SMEAR FACTOR being directed at Sen. Obama, while purporting to raise the fairness question about Clinton, raises serious questions regarding ethical standards by the very journalists whose duty it is to pursue the TRUTH, REPORT THE FACTS IN A FAIR AND BALANCED MANNER, and INFORM THE PUBLIC. CNN's conduct has not been fair towards Sen. Obama, and the fact that its journalists fail in addressing the blatant bias against Sen. Obama is shameful. To suggest that what CNN is doing is somehow representative of "news" is a disgrace.
To borrow from a journalist who put it clearly and powerfully:

" If you say something good about a candidate, you have to say something bad about him, and if you don't, that's not fair. What the Clinton partisans wanted was for us to create a PHONY BALANCE that was AT ODDS with what our EYES were telling us. That's not the job of a journalist­." ( Johnathan Alter, Newsweek columnist).


CNN has succeeded, in my opinion to present what is phony in their attempt to appear 'balanced' when in fact our eyes and ears tell us their intentions are to support Sen. Clinton in a biased, unfair treatment of Sen. Obama that furthers the Clinton negative agenda, denies the public the truth in their right to KNOW about ALL the candidates and the facts surrounding their public service, in what CNN then claims to suggest as being their attempts at investigating whether Clinton has been treated "fairly".

What CNN has done, in my opinion is to promote a “phony balance” that serves to undermine Sen. Obama while furthering what appears to be a pro-Clinton candidacy, which CNN clearly seems to support. This is not journalism. This has the elements that suggest a conflict of interest, and robs the public of their right to know the truth, as well as their right to be informed.

One journalist on the Dobbs program summed it up well, when it seemed that all the other guests were repeatedly attacking Sen. Obama with false innuendo, to which – the guest replied:

Perhaps you should write a script using the exact words that Sen. Obama should use in his denunciation and rejection of L. Farrakhan, and have Sen. Obama read it every single day, in order to satisfy your proposals ( that in my opinion - seeks to further suggest negative false information for the purpose of undermining Sen. Obama.)

It should be noted that it appears Hillary Clinton has yet to denounce and reject the racist commentary by Adelfa Callejo, that suggested that Senator Obama’s SKIN COLOR was a problem for Latino voters!!! CNN suggested that Sen. Clinton had denounced this commentary – yet, it appears that when first asked about this, Sen. Clinton suggested that Ms. Callejo was expressing her opinion!

Meanwhile, it would be refreshing for journalists rooted in integrity and ethics to let the sky open up by investigating, reporting and providing critcal information and truth to the public, let the truth pour down with all the facts and issues concerning each candidate. Journalists need to do their job, remain faithful to their duties to serve the public’s interests, and report the truth, investigate and provide the public with the information we need in order to make sound, thoughtful decisions about who we will choose to lead our nation into the future. It is time for the Clintons and those in the media supporting them – to put an end to the politics of divisiveness, disinformation, destructiveness and FEAR.

“No man can terrorize an entire nation, unless WE are all his accomplice­s.” (E. R. Murrow)

We must seize our right to the truth, and demand it be reported to us by the press and the media. We must not surrender to the politics of fear and hate.

[K-Dog76]

Spesabsquemetu

John Steinbeck wrote books shorter than your post... take a deep breath and stop the manifesto. Thats a few hours of your life you'll never get back. You could have just said Clinton is a fear monger and a racist (not to mention a criminal re:Whitewater) and that you are an Obama fan..;

[karrezza]

Here we go again. Tell me this still isn't obvious Obama Ass Kissing again!

Obama VS. Clinton Headlines

1. Obama: Clinton "Desperate" (Pro Obama)

2. Koolth: What Barack Has (Pro Obama)

3. Tim Russert: Obama Responsible For Harry Belafonte, Too (Pro Obama)

4. I Can't Believe I'm Standing Up for Obama... But I Am (Pro Obama, but more Anti Clinton, as if Obama is just his only alternative, Anything better than Clinton implication) Blurb on front in view, too, the sample line, clearly Anti Clinton "When I voted in the California primary less than four weeks ago, I pulled the lever for Senator Clinton. I now believe I was wrong."

5. Obama's Hollow "Judgment" and Empty Record (Anti Obama)

6. Marc Cooper>>Clinton Campaign Cuts Back Wooing of Superdelegates (Anti Clinton)

7. Hillary In "Happy-Warrior Mode" (Tough call but sounds sarcastic)
(Yep sub title to actual article? "Clinton Campaigns as if Momentum Is Hers" (Anti Clinton)

8. Clinton Camp Throws Sink, Chairs, Table At Obama (Anti Clinton)

9. Obama Mocks Clinton Mocking Obama (Pro Obama, though older headline, still on front page)

10. Clinton: "As Far As I Know" Nothing To Base Obama Muslim Rumors On (Anti- Clinton, like how this one implies she is lying by quoting that particular line??)

11. Ohio Voter On 60 Minutes: I Hear Obama Is Muslim, Doesn't Know National Anthem (Pro Obama if you read article)

12. Live, From New York...It'­s Hillary Clinton! (Almost Pro Clinton)

Total Tally???

6 Pro Obama 1 Anti Obama

1 Pro Clinton 4 Anti Clinton (And it was just for SNL show not real campaign news)

[gallonjug]

Kareeza... you're counting aricles which report on the fact that Hillary is losing this race as somehow "anti-hillary"? so sad you feel the need to blame the media for this.
Imagine if Sen Obama had lost 11 primaries in a row, was behind in popular vote, and essentially eliminated in delegates, was trailing in every poll against mcCain. Would the media's reporting of this be somehow "biased"? More depressing, would the nation tolerate an african-american mad using his identity to blame the media, blame the system for his failure? Or would the establishment have already forced him out of the race. Stop hating, start helping.

[K-Dog76]

Well, she is a thug running a thug campaign. She doesn't care about America, she cares about power... Her 3am phone thing prime example... she wants to pick up the phone and make the decision, but never says what makes her more qualified.

[K-Dog76]

kareeza, its this kind of pointless "tally" and fingerpointing that make Clinton a bad choice for President.­.. she is playing the blame game. If you want a president who is good at making excuses, by all means elect CLinton... she'll have plenty of them, cause nothing is ever her fault...

[PortiaElizabeth]

Obama was booed yesterday in Ohio.
Is that why he left the state to go back to Chicago?
Or maybe he expects to be called to testify in the Rezko trial for fraud and money-laundering?

[ohnonotagain]

Booed for what?

[KRS1]

Any actual links or did you hear it from a friend who heard it from a friend? I Googled and found nothing.

[Sursum]

PortiaElizabeth,

Did you watch the video clip? I believe they were booing Hillary, when he referred to her mocking his message of hope & optimism.

Do you think they'll bring up the Rose Law Firm files if Hillary gets the nomination? Or Travelgate? Or Vince Foster? All that stuff will be dredged up again.

No candidate is perfect. But Obama doesn't polarize like Clinton does. And he doesn't represent a dynasty of which so many of us are weary -- Bush/Clint­on/Bush/Cl­inton is not what I want to read in the history books.

[rmetz74]

You are aware that Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing of any kind by anyone involved in the Rezko case, right?

[VTConQuest]

I wonder if HRC, Bill AND Chelsea all have to testify in the Peter Paul illegal campaign funding for her Senate seat scandal together or separately now that it just resumed on February 21st ? 1 VIDEO with 4-5 HRC FELONIES on it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOOwvDtSo3M&feature=related - I hope HRC's trial date doesn't interfere with her campaign..­. hehe, who are we kidding? She'll have plenty of time to testify after she loses the Democratic nomination today! - "Trial date to be set in Paul vs. Clinton on February 21, 2008" - http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?%2Fen%2Fstory-details%2Ftrial_date_to_be_set_in_paul_vs_clinton_on_february_21_2008%2F

[VTConQuest]

Huh... Looks like the hearing for the trial date for the Clintons has been moved back to April 25th. Probably just to acommodate her want to stay in this race until PA's election on April 22nd. Regardless, "California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz ruled Paul's legal team can begin seeking depositions from a host of big names – including Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton – that allegedly were witnesses to an effort by the Clintons and top Democratic leaders to extract millions of dollars from Paul in illegal donations and then cover it up."

[thebeerdoctor]

I find it curious that religion , or the lack thereof, is even an issue. Wasn't this settled in 1960 when John F. Kennedy announced he would not take marching orders from the Vatican. JFK was at least wise enough to know that a person's faith is a private personal matter. After all, is not prayer invoked to seek invisible intervention for tribulations, or simply the fear of death? It is also good to remember that JFK did not use the word God, in his national address on the Cuban Missile Crisis. How did that miracle happen?

[OneAmerica]

She needs to win by twenty points in both states to overtake him in delegates. That will not happen. I am looking forward to her stepping outside herself in the next couple of days, and gracefully drop out.

Oh I must be dreaming, I forget we are talking about the most selfish witch in politics.

[diondrabutterfly]

"witch"--sexist remark

if anyone used a similar remark to reflect obama's ethnicity/african americanism they would be criticized into oblivion, but if you are referring to a woman it is socially acceptable to make such derrogatory comments.

this country is more sexist than racist.

[hopeforchange]

Obama-Ruthless Creep

I saw a cartoon about that used the word ruthless and I have to say that he is a ruthless campaigner. I never saw anyone like him. I cant wait until the republicans tear him apart.

[ohnonotagain]

What is ruthless about bringing the country together. Oh....neve­r mind.

[CellarDoor]

That's great! An opinion; thank you for participating! With the Iraq war vote, Nafta (recent expansion) and the bankruptcy bill, Senator Clinton's votes have actually, physically harmed people I know. But I won't call her ruthless..­.I just won't vote for her.

[bigdaddyvike]

hope for change- an interesting monniker for someone who "hopes the republicans tear him apart". I, too, hope to see him debate McCain. THAT will be the slaughter, and it won't be the repugs standing when dust clears...

[Susan1968]

Now I know what's been bugging me -- all this Obama-mania has a religious fervor to it that turns me cold. "Come to Obama" like "Come to Jesus." Then I find this article from early February:

Obama Basic Training:

On the verge of a hectic few weeks leading to Super Tuesday, the crucial Feb. 5 multistate primary including California's, Mack wanted to drill home one of the campaign's key strategies: telling potential voters personal stories of political conversion.

She urged volunteers to hone their own stories of how they came to Obama – something they could compress into 30 seconds on the phone.

Then Mack brought home the point of her story for the crowd of 100 or so eager volunteers, sipping coffee and watching a PowerPoint presentation in the Obama campaign office on a recent Saturday.

"Did that make more impact on you than if I had talked about his health care plan or his stance on the environment?" she asked.

"Just follow Barack's lead and be honest with them," the Web site advises. "You don't need to debate policy or discuss the day's headlines. You have a very personal reason for investing your time and energy in this campaign – that is the most compelling story you can tell."

After all the questions were answered, the campaign put the volunteers to work making phone calls. Some of them sat on the Q Street curb, making calls on their cell phones.

"We can all sleep Feb. 6," Mack told them, "and we can sleep soundly knowing Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate for president.­"

http://www.sacbee.com/111/v-print/story/649427.html


Another good article from a national blogger who compared an Obama Rally to a Clinton Rally:

In comparison to how the Clintons treated the press, the Obama people treated the press disrespectfully and arrogantly. Furthermore, they didn't have anyone available to us except starry-eyed volunteers. ....

Obama almost never got into specifics. It was change, change, save the country, change, yes we can, change. He did talk about both his health care plan and his education plan, and gave specifics in both cases, briefly. But then it was back to broad strokes. He spent a lot of time defending himself against the lack of experience charge.

Then Obama ended with "there is a moment in the the life of every generation where we decide. This is our moment. We will win. Together we will change the world."

Watching Obama reminded me VERY strongly of watching Werner Erhard, the est leader, on stage in front of tens of thousands of people in the 80s (and on videotape of Erhard at the Hollywood Bowl in the 70s.) Obama has precisely the same kind of universal appeal, the same kind of declarative "making a difference" saving the world approach. He's even using many of the same words and the crowd ate it up.

Because Obama is not saying what he is for, not laying out specifics, and not making genuine promises, but instead making powerful declarations, making himself the candidate with whom everything changes and NEVER SPECIFYING WHAT IN THE HELL THAT MEANS, people are free to, and they damn well are, projecting onto Obama all their hopes and dreams for a better future. He is their mother, their father, their lover, confessor, their priest, their shining city on a hill.
http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/02/obama-cult-of-personality.html

[brooklyncitizen]

THis is a disingenuous post.
I think it is valid to vet out the candidates and frankly Obama seems the lesser of three evils. Hillary had a chance to effect change as First Lady (since this is the "experience" she is running on) and she didn't even get the universal health care passed.I remember how hopeful people were, myself included.

McCain...c­learly an out of touch war mongler.

Obama is specific, and you need to go to his website and READ. But regardless, the fawning and adulation that has attached itself to his campaign stems from a couple of things:

1) It is cultural; we love celebrities and we project all sorts of things onto them....se­riously, the whole OBSESSION with "Brangelina" is sad...thes­e are strangers to us and it's disturbing that the nation obsesses with beautiful /"perfect" people".

2) Bush-this has been the most criminal, corrupt, inept and divisive administration in US history...­and its been going on for 7 plus year (for a total of 8). Obama's popularity is also the HUNGER for someone who is the opposite of this current POTUS :articulte, man of character, a family man with a healthy functional family, hardworking, ethical, ivy league pedigree,an activist and yes, "regular" folk.He was not born with a silver sppon,, he is not of the privleged elite, he and his wife have ascended through their intelligence, talents and sweat...wh­at an amazing example and how CONTRARY to George W.Bush!!!!

While he must have a healthy ego to run for POTUS , his candidacy seems to be more about effecting change and challenging status quo than about his personal political power.THis is why he has a populist appeal; we haven't had a populist candidate since maybe McGovern, and we got smatterings of it with Howard Dean who set the stage for Obama in many ways.

[mhopgood123]

Your blog is an insult to my intelligence! Do you thin Obama supporters don't know what he stands for? Have you gone to his homepage and read all his plans and proposals? He is real and pragmatic. He has pushed major legislatioon both in his home state and congress. People who say he is all promises either don't like him or haven't read his program. He will bring more change than any other candidate in this country because he is intelligent, wise, even tempered and has the abilty to listen to other points of view and unite people. That's what we need right now in Washington. None of the policies of Clinton will ever move through congress due to her her divisive, strident and confrontational politics.

[uglybetty]

The fact is ...Obama has not done one single thing !!
He does mock Hillarys voting,he does give Speeches ,
he does think he is superior to her !!
He is Not what we need in Wash.!!

[ohnonotagain]

Face it, they do not care. Many Americans would rather stand for nothing and fall for anything. How do you think we got into this mess? Integrity has no place in America these days. We need to mandate it back into the White House.