ForwardtoYesterday

Yeah, it was the clever "collusion" of the media that led to three weeks of all-Jeremiah Wright-all-the-time reporting on the major cable channels. I guess I just missed that part. Or did I miss all the pundits who believed HRC "inevitable" for so long when that was never the case, if they'd only paid attention to the grassroots.

Both candidates got their fair share of attacks and "free rides" -- the real media bias here was to keep the race going for as long as reasonably possible, not that it's no longer reasonable, they've given up on that.

Despite, or perhaps because, of her vigorous (which is a polite word) campaign, Hillary has lost the nomination. I'm done gloating, because eshalom can get past blaming the media and perhaps consider why his/her candidates resort to demagoguery failed. posted 05/12/2008 at 17:26:19

If he were talking about a male candidate, would anyone even notice this? Would that make KO an invoker of subtle support for violence against men?

Smell the obsessive search for something to get outraged about! Everything said against Hillary is giant world class issue, everything said about Obama is "politics ain't bean bag." Of course, some of my fellow Obama supporters in the blogosphere get a bit over sensitive themselves too sometimes -- I've been sensing a Madame Defarge vibe in some of these folks.

I agree with Bill Clinton about one thing, we all just to chill, Ms. Sklar most definitely included. posted 04/25/2008 at 18:30:26

Sorry, but I live thirty miles from L.A....Not in my backyard!

I wouldn't mind if they moved out to a remote corner of the Mojave Dessert, however. posted 04/24/2008 at 19:03:54

Is there any reason on earth any human should listen to this guy, ever? His MO is "win some battles, lose every war."

And today Arrianna is criticizing major outlets for hiring professional liars like Tony Snow and Karl Rove. Not sure how this is different (Except that he's probably not being paid -- or not paid much, anyhow.) posted 04/24/2008 at 16:10:00

If you're going to try and turn Hillary's incoherent points, which scream about enfranchisement while simultaneously discounting scores of states, into something worth reading, the least you could do is to be somewhat grammatical and clear. I have no freakin' idea what you're trying to say. Of course, it's hard to be clear when you're point actually makes no sense whatsoever. posted 04/23/2008 at 15:54:31

Not desperate, accurate. The Clinton campaign is calling this a double-digit victory, but it's closer to 9% than 10% -- not quite double digit.

Of course, the real difference is tiny, but in a campaign entirely based on psychology, obviously the psychological factor matters a lot. And, by the way, it's the Clinton campaign that was, and remains, desparate. posted 04/23/2008 at 15:50:25

Hey, doe anyone think John McCain will be asked to "reject and denounce" this? Anyone? posted 04/19/2008 at 20:17:48

You've convinced me, John Ridley -- William Ayers should NOT be the Democratic nominee for President! Next issue, please. posted 04/19/2008 at 20:01:06

Oh good freaking god. Please take a look at what you're writing. Do you have any idea how this stuff sounds? You are not one to be teaching anyone about debate. You use no fact and rely solely on name calling -- all in the name of...accountability. posted 04/08/2008 at 23:35:19

Look, I'm no big fan of Hillary, pretty obviously. But this is uncool. Tammy Bruce is nothing more than an Ann Coulter wannabe, and these quotes are from all those anti-Clinton books published in the nineties, which I give about the same degree of veracity to as the secret codex of L. Ron Hubbard. It is, in all liklihood, nothing but lies.

Much as I dislike the kind of HRC supporters we often see online, and much as I disagree with her approach, people who actually meet her seem to -- and this is really shocking -- like her. It's just a shame she can't come across that way in front of a camera. posted 04/08/2008 at 23:24:30

You're right. She carefully sidestepped saying that the putative double standard was based on gender. But if it wasn't based on gender, what was it based on? Her liberal politics? Well, no because if anything Obama is slightly to her left. Was it because of her being a conservative punching bag for all these years? I'd give that one more credence if she wasn't meeting with Richard Mellon Scaife and borrowing talking points from all of her old enemies. She clearly meant one -- either it's because of her gender or she's a member of an oppressed minority of one, but she's was, at last, too smart to say either because she knows how bad it'll sound.

I know Hillary supporters think it's just great to be a male African American with a foreign sounding name and that just means the media beats a path to your door, but Hillary is raising whisting in the dark to a new level. I have no objection to her staying in the race, but until the moment she says, "yes, I am trying to win more popular votes and if I fail to win those votes, I will concede," she will get no respect from anyone but the Taylor Marshite legions as she tries to sound the trumpet for enfranchisement at the PRECISE MOMENT she is also reserving to right to disenfranchising ALL of them. posted 04/08/2008 at 23:16:49

I'm sure if you go through the list of Clinton supporters, you'll find a homophobe in there somewhere. And tell me, what position does Donnie McClurkin hold in the Obama campaign? Neither BO nor HRC is responsible for the complete panoply of all the opinions held by each and every one of their high profile supporters.

However, they are responsible for their campaign, and the only Democratic I see exploiting social prejudice is HRC -- not that I particularly blame her, at this point exploiting and reigniting long discouraged white fear of black people is her only half a hope. Sad, but true. posted 04/05/2008 at 12:46:52

I disagree that it's impossible -- but it would harder and, let's face it, gay marriage was not the burning issue to bring the country down around in 2004 and that goes triple in 2008. It's a bit tragic as I think it's absurd that we even have to discuss, but all we need to do is reassure people that they're particular churches will not be somehow forced to conduct gay marriage. (I personally am sure it would be wholly unconstitutional to do so, but apparently pastors are actually afraid of getting discrimination cases, even though, for example, rabbis have been refusing to marry mixed Jewish-Christian couples on a regular basis with no legal problem whatsoever that I know of.)

But to put HRC up on a pedestal over this is pretty ridiculous and has ties to some religious leaders of her own that aren't exactly gay friendly. The fact of the matter is that, as the person running on the right and subtly exploiting bigotry in PA, she can afford to do it more easily than Obama -- though I personally hope he does some more gay outreach soon. posted 04/05/2008 at 12:41:36

I think it's more complicated than that. It's about identification. Ethnicity is more than about genetics, it's cultural.

As a secular Jewish person, I don't believe in the religion at all, yet I still identify as Jewish. I also know people who are half-Jewish on their father's side, which makes them non-Jews under traditional rabbinical law and who were raised as Christians, but who, if you asked all the Jews in the room to stand up, they'd be standing up.

In America, it's true that we don't offer biracial people the chance to "choose" as my friends might be considered to have chosen. But the fact of the matter is that race and ethnicity is to a large extent a fiction created by human beings and is porous.

Along with being Jewish, more than half of my friends are Asian-Americans, and so I feel a little bit Asian-American. I don't look one-bit Asian (and I'd like to -- I might still have my hair, and it would probably be tetter!), but it's not hard to see how someone like Obama, with close white and Asian contacts in his native Hawaii, but who moved to an African-American community in Chicago and eventually married a more fully identified African-American would basically decide to fully idenitfy as being black while also being as fully white as people will allow him to be. posted 04/04/2008 at 16:00:58

So, basically this guy is admitting that he'll say anything, maybe even an outright lie, to get elected. And we're supposed to take him seriously. Backers like this aren't doing much for Hillary's image. posted 04/04/2008 at 15:46:20

"Half-white"? Just what are you implying here? posted 03/31/2008 at 22:33:54

Wrong. Obama and his followers are not against a redo. That's something that's happening at a State Level. However, again, this clusterf#ck, as bad as it was, was signed off by ALL the candidates, Hilary included. Her tactics are this now are nothing more than less than pure, self-interested politics.

Still, I would have liked to see a redo, though I strongly suspect it would have turned out to be a draw or close to it in any case. posted 03/31/2008 at 22:31:07

The part where no one campaigned and everyone was told it didn't count and, in fact, that agreement was made that it would not count.

That part.

BTW, The whole idea of having campaign is so that it's not just a case of the most famous person winning. posted 03/31/2008 at 22:28:00

Actually, I do think 9/11 "truth" theories are wacky, but you're right, this one really takes the cake. I suppose old Karl wrote Obama's book for him, and gave him speech lessons besides getting him to become the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and then 8 years in the Illinois State Senate, too. posted 03/31/2008 at 22:24:56

Please, please, please, if you're going to complain about folks "who trash everyone....", it might put you in a better rhetorical position to not then turn around and label people "Obamabrats" who write "Limbaugh style posts" without at least being able to point to a particular.

I am sick to death of this tactic. If you're going to support Hillary, that's fine and I hope you agree that it's fine if I support Obama and that may lead us to have a very different intepretation of the facts a lot of the time. But this constant, endless, neverending victimization meme, which paints nearly all Obama supporters as vicious slanderers, while Hillary supporters are only trying to be heard and understood, while also being egregiously untrue also doesn't get us anywhere, and it needs to stop if there's ever going to be an end to this. posted 03/31/2008 at 22:19:59

It's true that, like much of the big media, NPR can get overly chummy with elites, including generals, but attacking NPR on the basis of not questioning the word "diabolical" to describe a bomb?... Frankly, I fail to see the point. All bombs that are designed to kill people cleverly are by their nature diabolical, on any side and for any purpose. What would be the point of trying to get the general to make what many would understand as an anti-American statement, all for the sake of attacking an obviously true statement? What would be the point? All the general would do is get angry and bluster, and the audience would be no smarter. As for introducing the general as a frequent past guest on the show -- frankly, what in the world is wrong with that? You can criticize their choice of having him on that often, but you'd have to be a genuine idiot that just because someone is frequently asked about a subject that it makes them correct. This is simply a factual statement

Being called "public" is a two-edged sword. If anything, NPR is on a shorter leash than other networks, as they are a political football. They still manage to carry shows like "On the Media," which does more to explore this very question than a million FAIRs.

We should be better than most conservative media critics, who basically expect to have their opinions confirmed 24 hours a day. posted 03/28/2008 at 13:12:36

Nope, no broad brushes on this thread. I know it's an Internet comment line, but even the people who are supposedly on the same side as me and probably vote the same are embarrassing as the few foolish rightwingers. I love to bash big media from a liberal-progressive perspective as much as anyone. But "NBC=Fox" is idiocy. When President Obama and a heavily Democratic congress take power, some of you will be just as obnoxious and intolerant and smug as the worst Bushbots. Think about it, please. posted 03/28/2008 at 12:39:42