Roy Sekoff on Hillary Clinton's Win in Pennsylvania, with Dan Abrams, Norah O'Donnell, Catherine Crier, and Pat Buchanan

Comments

[pmorlan]

What self respecting Democrat would allow the media to choose their candidate? Remember this is the same media that brought us George Bush and were the head cheerleaders for the Iraq war. Please don't let your allegience to either Obama or Clinton to allow yourselves to drink the media kool-aid. If you allow them to divide Democrats in the Primary they will repay you by slicing and dicing our nominee in the Fall. You can still support either Obama or Clinton without giving the media their pound of flesh. Think before you pile on either candidate when the media is leading the charge. When they write columns or post blog comments deliberately designed to set Obama supporters against Clinton supporters don't rise to the bait. Instead go after the media. It's our only salvation for the Fall campaign.

[NABNYC]

I saw this, and Roy Sekoff did a good job. Pat Buchanan is solely a Republican PR guy, probably getting his talking points from Fox News, and Pat Buchanan hearts Hillary. Boy the Republicans want to run against her. They think this will be like summer vacation, party time around the country, they will have so much fun rallying their folks who detest Hillary Clinton. They will raise money, replenish their coffers, get out the vote for otherwise uninspired Republican candidates to keep a strong presence in Congress. The Republicans cannot believe the Democrats are so stupid that they would run Hillary Clinton, the most disliked and distrusted person in America (except for George Bush) as the Democratic candidate.

Pat Buchanan cannot contain his glee as he talks about how wonderful Hillary is, the perfect candidate, and chuckles and smiles at the same time.

Roy Sekoff gets it, and he's doing a good job of trying to maintain some sanity on the news. Good job, Roy.

[geriak]

Roy Sekoff is NUTS!!! Can't get any more bias left than him.

[BlueOnBlue]

The media has decided that Pennsylvania was a 10-point, double-digit win for Hillary. Abrams says it and so does everybody else. It was actually a 9-point (or 9.146-point to be exact about it) win.

I know it's only a percent, but it is significant in that it was not a "double-digit" win. If it were reported accurately, there would be a big difference in perception. Obama cut Clinton's early lead by MORE than half and she did not achieve her goal of a "double-digit" win.

I was watching the official PA Department of State vote counts all night during the election and at no time was there a difference of 10%. The media decided early that was the story, and darn it, they are sticking to that story.

[Swift2]

Good lord, call out the cops! It wasn't 10%, only 9.something! Stop the presses!

I know spin is unmerciful and inevitable, but that's about the nitpickiest of spin possible.

The reality was, it wasn't a 9% win for Obama. Close doesn't really count in anything but horseshoes. (The same would go for what some blowhard pundit said was the "minimum," too.)

[tdpubs]

So does HRC have more votes than BHO? or is it all perception?

[CarolynH]

There is a positive way to counteract Clinton's bloody war. Barack needs to do a debate where he defines the message (offensive position) - it will do much to erase the last "gotcha" debate which did have a negative effect.
The false "bitter" comment can be countered offensively. The Republicans (and Clintons) have ruled for too many years and they are the ones who have "clung" to the issues of guns, religion, and stereotypes as a way of neglecting the needs of the people. Their politics is filled with issues to divide us (conflicts over gun usage, defining our citizens as black versus white, gay versus straight, religious versus atheist, etc. - using labels to destroy our uniqueness and commonality as human beings and pivot us against each other). This allows them to STAY AWAY from SOLUTIONS to the IRAQ WAR and our Economic Crisis. Barack was showing compassion for our electorate by promising to put their needs above these FALSE ISSUES. Of course the win at any cost strategy has driven his opponents to invert HIS meaning and reverse it's argument - inflicting the Anti-Obama IMAGE on him. BARACK, please tell your opponents forcefully that YOU ARE GOING TO PUT A STOP TO THIS GAME BECAUSE IT MUST END or things WILL NEVER CHANGE. YOU MUST BE INDIGNANT AND ANGRY AS WE ARE since they are blocking any help for us. Your must show strength to FIGHT for CHANGE so when the "spin" rears it's ugly head it is

[Swift2]

Actually, you should read Sam Stein's interview with Mudcat Saunders, who is very friendly to Barack. The comment at the fundraiser, by the way, was revealed by a reporter HERE, not by one of Hillary's evil minions.

Mudcat makes the relevant political judgments there. Barack made a comment that doesn't sound good to white, rural America, which is the way that a lot of Democrats have sounded to them. If he actually believes that, he's in trouble. What Democrat carried rural America, not once, but twice? Hmm, could it be that Democrat's last name began with a "C."?

I especially appreciated Saunders' comment that "Reagan Democrats are begging to come home, if only we make a big enough tent for them." Making disparaging remarks about people's religion and their guns is a good way to lose rural America.

[tdpubs]

Unfortunately, when you tell a fat person that the diet industry has been using them to make a killing and that they keep dieting because it makes them feel better than getting up and working out, fat people get angry. They don't lose much weight, but they feel better about doing something.
The truth is not pretty and fat people are .. fat.
Reagan Dems are still living under the delusion that Ronald Reagan was hero. He bled them dry and stole their dream. He took their money and left them in debt. Boy, he could make a good speech.
Why aren't they voting for BHO, shouldn't he be the next Ronald Reagan?