Two thumbs down on Hillary as a running mate. In national polls, she has the highest negative rating of any primary presidential candidate ever. Combine that with her harshly negative scorched-earth campaign, her reputation is in the gutter with Karl Rove and she is damaged goods.
Obama could make her the ambassador to Bosnia as long as she pays for her bullet-proof pantsuits. posted 05/11/2008 at 14:51:50
Hillary has set back the feminist movement for decades. Many reluctant men had come around and were willing to vote for a woman until Clinton resorted to a scorched-earth campaign using the race card and Rovian tactics. Further, it's almost impossible for her to win but she won't drop out and continues to badmouth Obama, damaging the Democratic Party and looking desperate. One of these men who had planned to vote for Hillary, now says,"just like a woman - I'll never vote for a woman again." I'm not trying to justify what these men feel, but that's the reality of it. posted 05/11/2008 at 03:24:30
I'll bet Osama Bin Laden wants McCain to win. McCain wants to occupy Iraq indefinitely, which is just what OBL wants. It would be a tremendous boost for Al Qaeda recruitments. posted 05/10/2008 at 16:41:43
No one is trying to "force" Hillary out of the race. That is a false premise. They are questioning Hillary's judgement to remain in the race when it is clear that Obama is now the presumptive nominee. In playing the racist card, Clinton is looking like a desperate, delusional woman who has gone off the deep end, to the detriment of the Democratic Party. This is the problem when candidates have something to prove. Clinton wants to prove that she is tough ("totally obliterate Iran") and a fighter. Many are saying that is a syndrome associated with some female candidates, who feel they have to prove what men they are. I was hoping Hillary wouldn't go that route but she has. Now she is looking desperate and irrational.
This is one of the most important elections in the history of this country. It isn't about Hillary anymore. She says that Obama is unelectable and has set out to justify her claim by trashing him to the point that he is unelectable. She must drop out now in the interest of the Democratic Party. If she continues, she will give women a bad name and set back the women's movement for decades. posted 05/09/2008 at 16:47:20
The presidential primary is not a football game or a game at all. With so much at stake, this election will be the most important election of our lifetimes, young or old. Yet, Hillary continues to conduct her campaign Karl Rovian style, exploiting racial issues for political gain. Disgraceful. According to your post, it's all about Hillary. Wrong. It's about doing what is best for the Democratic Party. Hillary lost but is in a state of denial which makes her look pathetic. By playing the race card in West Virginia, she is hurting the Democratic Party and damaging her own reputation, at least what's left of it. A lot of women must be cringing at her behavior and thinking, oh my God, this is the first woman presidential candidate and she is embarrassing us and making women look bad. Hillary's character is flawed - she is not fit for the office of president. It's time to get the hook. posted 05/09/2008 at 02:31:09
Anybody but Hillary! I know Obama won and the primary is over but my anger isn't. Wesley Clark would be a good pick because of the national security issue. Webb is too conservative - he voted for immunity for the telecoms.
And as for Hillary, Obama could make her the ambassador of Bosnia - with the provision that she pay for her own bullet-proof pantsuits. Also, she could take James Carville, Paul Begala and Lanny Davis with her, not to mention her red-faced, finger wagging husband. posted 05/10/2008 at 16:54:15
Hillary would cavalierly disenfranchise the thousands and thousands of voters in Florida and Michigan who did not vote for Obama because they were told their votes wouldn't count.
Sore loser, Hillary, is acting irrationally. I am embarassed for her. posted 05/08/2008 at 21:42:36
Hillary Clinton has the highest negative rating of any presidential primary candidate ever. She is considered now as an anachronism - the old politics of yesterday. Four or eight years from now, she will be regarded as even more out of date and her negative ratings won't change, especially after the sleazy, scorched-earth campaign she has run against Obama.
Maybe Obama could appoint her as the ambassador to Bosnia - with the provision that she pay for her own bullet-proof pantsuits. posted 05/09/2008 at 02:17:18
The Clintons continue to play the race card. "Hard working blue-collar workers" implies that blue-collar blacks aren't hard working.
Inasmuch as Obama is now the de facto nominee of the Democratic Party, Hillary is campaigning against the Democratic Party when she makes such preposterous comments.
Fact: Hillary is UNELECTABLE. She has the highest negative rating of any primary presidential candidate in history and she doesn't do well with educated people, independents and young people.
I know many Republicans who would vote for Obama.
I am embarrassed for Hillary. Get the hook! posted 05/08/2008 at 21:52:17
Mayor Koch joins Rush Limbaugh in pushing for Clinton. Clinton has the highest negative ratings in the history of presidential primaries. That's why the right-wing want to run against her. Not to mention that she doesn't do well among independents, blacks and the young. Mayor Koch should be asking for advice rather than giving it. posted 05/08/2008 at 02:44:22
Judging from the way Hillary talks, she sounds completely divorced from reality. Sounds as if she needs electric shock therapy. I'm sure the Obama campaign would pay for it.
She needs to drop out now. It's not about Hillary anymore, it's about the welfare of the Democratic Party. I don't agree with Nancy Pelosi that the continuation of Clinton's scorched-earth campaign won't hurt the party. This election isn't just any old election. It's one of the most important elections of this century. Too much is at stake to have the success of the Democratic party jeopardized by one person's prodigious ego.
I was a supporter of Hillary before she turned to sleazy politics. posted 05/08/2008 at 02:03:44
Another analogy is a scene from the old Monte Python's Flying Circus about a dead bird. The man in the pet shop wouldn't believe that the parrot was dead even though he was reminded over and over that the parrot was dead. I would remind Hillary and her bitter advisers that the parrot really is dead. posted 05/08/2008 at 02:14:33
No one is questioning Hillary's right to stay in the race - they are questioning her judgment. Obama is the presumptive nominee at this point, yet Clinton continues her negative campaigning in West Virginia by playing the race card. It makes her look desperate, delusional and convinces people that she is in denial. Hillary thinks she looks like a fighter, tough and tenacious but at what point does tenacity end and psychosis begin? It's over but Hillary won't concede. This is the first primary campaign for a female and Hillary is embarrassing many women by going off the deep end and looking pathetic. How selfish and egotistical to think it's all about Hillary. It's about doing what is best for the Democratic Party. If you are a friend of Hillary's, it's time for intervention. posted 05/09/2008 at 03:09:36
June 15th. is much too late. She needs to drop out not and stop damaging the Democratic Party.
It's over. It's not about Hillary anymore. posted 05/07/2008 at 15:30:02
I don't believe anything the Bush administration says about Iran, including the Sec. of Defense, Gates. Saudi Arabia has been funneling money and arms to the Sunnis, which results in the deaths of American soldiers but we never hear about it from the media or Bush. posted 05/07/2008 at 16:10:54
The buffoons in Clinton's campaign know they can't win fairly so they want to resort to chicanery and artifice. Thousands upon thousands of Obama supporters in Florida didn't vote because they were told their vote wouldn't count. Obama supporters in Michigan didn't vote because Obama wasn't on the ballot. The best way to settle it is to split the delegates for both states 50-50. posted 05/07/2008 at 20:50:33
All the hacks at the TV networks, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and FOX are left scratching their heads and wondering how Obama did so well. They can't figure out why their swiftboating of Obama on the Rev. Wright story didn't work. They tried to sabotage Obama's chances but failed. Back to the drawing boards.
On CNN, Anderson Cooper's performance was pathetic. He challenged anyone who suggested it might be over for Hillary. He doesn't seem to know anything about politics and I found him to be amateurish. David Gergen and Carl Bernstein were the adults in the room. posted 05/07/2008 at 03:06:15
I think your conclusions are only half baked. If it is perceived that Hillary campaigned for Obama in a half-hearted manner and he lost, Hillary would get the blame. She would be the most disliked woman in politics. With her vitriolic scorched-earth campaign, she has already alienated many, many liberals. She is already hated by conservatives - and she doesn't poll well among blacks, independents and young voters. She has the highest negative rating of any presidential candidate in recent history. Four years or eight years from now, she will look even more old politics than she looks right now. posted 05/07/2008 at 03:20:36
You don't seem to understand what I said. I didn't say that Hillary has no credentials. I said Hillary has never fought for anything other than Hillary. In 1993, after the catastrophic failure of her health plan, she dropped it and didn't pursue it again. She didn't fight for blue-collar workers when CLINTONAFTA was in office. She's fighting to become the president of the U.S. because of her prodigious ego. posted 05/07/2008 at 15:55:22
If the Clintons continue, it's proof positive that they don't give a damn about the Democratic Party.
It's all about ego from here on out. Some say that Hillary is a fighter but I want to know what Hillary has ever fought for other than Hillary? posted 05/07/2008 at 03:36:08
Paul Begala, James Carville and Lanny Davis are all from the old school of politics, beltway types. They are venting their bitterness because they just can't figure out what is happening. I mean, how dare the people not make Hillary, The Queen of politics as usual, the nominee. After all, isn't she entitled to it. I'm glad Donna Brazile put Begala in his place. posted 05/07/2008 at 02:30:46
The cable networks just can't let it go. Their hysterical and saturation coverage of Rev. Wright is disgraceful. They are mum on the Catholic-hating Rev. John Agee, whose endorsement was actively sought out by John McCain. So, the cable networks have double standards. White pastors associated with John McCain get a pass while black pastors are swiftboated. This is a shame that will not be forgotten long after the presidential race has ended. posted 05/06/2008 at 15:35:39
Just wait. If Hillary doesn't drop out, as she should, and continues campaigning in Kentucky, look for her to become the coal miner's daughter. posted 05/07/2008 at 03:51:43
With advisers like Terry McAuliffe, it's clear why Hillary lost. It's a presidential primary campaign but McAuliffe thinks it's a frat party. posted 05/07/2008 at 03:49:11
Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper, George Stephanopolous, Charles Gibson, Joe Scarborough, Dan Abrams and all the other TV hacks must be scratching their heads tonight.
They thought they could derail Obama's campaign by swiftboating him with the Rev. Wright story and it didn't work. Obama did well in Indiana and won in North Carolina. They'll have to manufacture another swiftboat story. posted 05/07/2008 at 04:00:06
I'm quite pleased to see your post on this issue. We must not let the networks sweep the Pentagon Pundits scandal under the rug. CNN, MSNBC, ABC and FOX display the same arrogance and smugness that we see in the Bush administration. They think that an FCC license gives them carte blanche to be irresponsible. We have to come together and let them know their complicity in spreading government propaganda will not be tolerated. posted 05/06/2008 at 15:17:44
McCain is such a flip-flopper, at this point, he must be confused about what he really believes.
Another thing, The Swift Boat Media for McCain has ignored is McCain's support for the privatization of Social Security. His proposals would go even further than Dubya's even though Americans overwhelmingly oppose privatization. If the corporate media served the interests of the people, they would inform the public on McCain's stance on this issue. Instead, the fourth estate continues to describe McCain in tired cliches like, "maverick," "independent," "straight-talker," "forthright," and other myths. posted 05/06/2008 at 03:53:58
If the Clinton camp resorted to chicanery to wrest the nomination away from Obama, the Democratic party would implode. It would be a disastrous end of the party as we know it. The reaction would be historic and fierce and would ensure the election of MCain. (Maybe that's what Hillary wants.) The convention in Denver would be chaotic, making the 1968 convention in Chicago look like a picnic.
Fortunately, I think the super delegates are smart enough to realize this. posted 05/05/2008 at 15:43:55
The Clinton camp just doesn't get - or maybe they do and just don't give a damn. If they wrest the nomination from the first viable black candidate in the nation's history through artifice, the Democratic party would implode. It would be the end of the Democratic party as we know it. The reaction would be historic and the turbulence at the convention in Denver would make the 1968 convention in Chicago look like a Sunday school picnic. posted 05/04/2008 at 16:26:52
CNN's predilection for propaganda spouting Generals prepped by the Pentagon and Bush has-beens makes it a quasi-government network. The old U.S.S.R. had Pravda. We've got CNN. posted 05/06/2008 at 03:17:34
This country doesn't need an Annie Oakley foreign policy. She would take up where Bush left off, only it would be cowgirl diplomacy. posted 05/04/2008 at 15:46:24
Hillary Clinton has become a satire of herself. While she rants about saving workers $ 30.00 on gasoline for the whole summer, she wears designer pantsuits that probably cost more than a year's supply of fuel for the heaviest users. posted 05/04/2008 at 16:05:47
So Clinton and McCain want to suspend the gas tax for the summer. It's a case of Dumb and Dumber. We need a president who will do something about our decaying infrastructure, not ignore it. I'm voting for Obama. posted 05/03/2008 at 15:58:01
I just thought of Jack's last name. It was Jack Jones. posted 05/03/2008 at 03:22:44
Enjoyed reading your clever post. Thank god for Front Line, Now and Bill Moyers on PBS.
About that song, "Call Me Irresponsible," I think Jack somebody made it a hit before Sinatra recorded it. I can't remember Jack's last name. He didn't have Sinatra's style but he had a smooth voice and made it big at the time with an album featuring, "Call Me Irresponsble." posted 05/03/2008 at 03:16:16
Puhleeze! Don't try to play the misogyny card. It's getting old and boring. I would love to see a woman president, and, in fact, supported Hillary at the outset. But when she resorted to a vicious, bitter, demeaning scorched-earth campaign, I changed my mind and now support Obama. Try as you will, there is no way to separate Hillary from her candidacy. By sliming her opponent and damaging the Democratic Party, she reveals a flawed character who is not presidential material. Hillary is giving women a bad name and is setting the feminist movement back a decade. posted 05/03/2008 at 16:07:42
You think like I do but you write better. Great post. The corporate media, especially the cable news networks, wield so much political power, it scares me. As licensed outlets, they have an obligation to exercise that power in a responsible manner. However, as you point out, they have not. It galls me that they dominate the debate. The issues should be decided by the people, not corporate entities who are motivated only by ratings and profit. posted 05/02/2008 at 17:00:52
Bryan Williams' smug and arrogant comments above reflect what is wrong with TV news networks. Is he so obtuse that he doesn't understand his dismissive remarks will be seen as self-serving? In effect, Williams is saying, don't worry about the article, trust me, I know better. That's the type of response one would expect from George W. Bush. posted 05/03/2008 at 21:00:50
We know the Pentagon has always been politicized but it has been politicized by degrees. Under the Bush administration, it has been politicized to the nth degree. This is an extremely important issue that must be investigated by Congress lest our news media evolve into Pravda, the old U.S.S.R. newspaper that served the interests of government rather than the people.
I'm disappointed to see comparatively few comments here given the magnitude of this story. posted 05/03/2008 at 02:53:38
Let's follow the FOX lead and establish a count-down of the number of days Arianna Huffington has not appeared on Meet The Press. If Tim Russert is responsible for NBC's ban on Arianna, it makes him look petty and renders his credibility questionable. posted 05/02/2008 at 17:26:13
I miss Aaron Brown. CNN has been on the decline ever since he left. And he is right - Olbermann is brilliant. Too bad he can't replace Katie Couric on CBS but Aaron Brown is too principled a journalist to play the corporate media game. posted 05/01/2008 at 15:36:42
I can imagine a video of Hillary's"obliterating Iran" remarksmade over a bowl of matzo ball soup and a side of gefilte fish, followed by: "Some of my best friends are jews." Real subtle. posted 05/01/2008 at 03:05:15
I remember it very well. After the landing, I wrote a letter published in a local newspaper stating that it would have been more appropriate if Bush had arrived on the deck of the USS Lincoln in a hot-air balloon. I received threatening phone calls from rednecks. At that time, opposition to the war wasn't tolerated. posted 05/01/2008 at 02:52:47
I remember the "Mission Accomplished" event very well. A local newspaper published a letter of mine stating that it would have been more appropriate if Bush had arrived on the deck of the USS Lincoln in a hot-air balloon. Afterwards, I received threatening phone calls from rednecks. I knew at that time the Bush administration was not being honest with us (Hillary didn't) but opposition to the war was not tolerated. posted 05/01/2008 at 03:12:10
While everything you say is true, I am losing my capacity to be outraged at the
MSM, and believe me, the reasons to be outraged are manifold. I've noticed that when articles appear here on the shoddy practices of the media, they don't elicit as many responses as posts on other subjects. How can we do anything about it unless more people are motivated and organized? Nothing can be done about it unless we have leverage. The state of the media, especially cable television, can't get any worse. A metaphor, only slightly exaggerated, might be the old U.S.S.R. newspaper, Pravda. posted 05/01/2008 at 02:39:12
It's clear after the media (especially TV) aided and abetted the swiftboating of Kerry in the 2004 election and cable television's present swiftboating of Obama, that the presidential race is decided by the media, not the people. It is an illusion that the people elect the president. posted 05/01/2008 at 03:37:51
It won't be persuasive or ever enough for those who want to exploit this manufactured issue for political gain. There is no satisfying the swiftboaters whether they're right-wing conservatives or members of Hillary Clinton's campaign. posted 04/30/2008 at 01:46:14
Thomas Friedman, the NY Times 4-30-08, has joined a chorus of critics who say the Clinton-McCain plan is just plain dumb. It would threaten over 300,000 jobs and stop much needed work on our decaying infrastructure. It's beyond dumb - it's irresponsible. And the pandering is so transparent, it's embarrassing. posted 04/30/2008 at 01:59:05
I agree. I stopped watching the tabloid CNN because of their saturation coverage about Rev. Wright, a largely manufactured issue. I've noticed that before every primary, CNN emphasizes negatives about Obama and overlooksf the weaknesses of Clinton and McCain. CNN will pose a question like, "Is Obama electable without the support of blue-collar workers?" I never hear them ask: "Is Hillary Clinton electable with the highest negative rating of any other presidential candidate?" They never mention the pastor McCain sought out for an endorsement, John Hagee of San Antonio, who said that Catholics are the "whores of religion." Biased CNN has become the most untrusted name in news. posted 04/30/2008 at 02:10:17
My feelings exactly! In the 2004 election, the cable networks obsessed with the unsubstantiated Swiftboat charges against Kerry at the expense of covering the real issues. By fixating on the manufactured story 24/7, the cable networks were complicit in the swiftboating of Senator Kerry. Now, with all the serious issues facing the country, they've gone berzerk over the Rev. Wright story.
ABC and CNN are actively working to sabotage Obama's campaign. It's disgusting. posted 04/29/2008 at 15:50:08
I agree. I've watched the corporate media for a long time (fortunately, they're not my only source of news) and it has never been more transparent that ABC, CNN and FOX are doing everything they can to sabotage Obama's chances. They don't want Obama because they fear he will vote against legislation that would be favorable to the media and telecommunications companies. Together, they are very powerful and are trying to usurp the people's right to choose a president. Not only scary but disgusting. I've never watched FOX but now I've stopped watching ABC and CNN. CNN has become a one-issue channel - boring! posted 04/30/2008 at 02:26:21
The conservatives started the game and the corporate media joined in with gusto. Especially, ABC, FOX, CNN and MSNBC. Soon, we'll be hearing what Obama's third cousins have said. With all the serious issues facing this country, it's insane. posted 04/29/2008 at 16:06:10
Hillary Clinton's negative ratings are the highest of all the candidates. Conservatives don't like her and now, with her scorched-earth campaign, she has alienated a huge number of liberals. posted 04/28/2008 at 02:23:49
If Scalia is such a great legal scholar, how is that I can predict how he will vote 98 percent of the time and I am not versed in the law. When asked about the 2000 election, his response is always, "Get over it!" How can we get over it when the Supreme Court foisted the worst president in history on the American people. It will take decades to "get over" the damage Bush has caused. posted 04/26/2008 at 21:35:33
Hillary Clinton says, if provoked, she would "totally obliterate" Iran, a country of 65 million people. Imagine, if she became president, Bush's cowboy diplomacy would be replaced by Hillary's cowgirl diplomacy. posted 04/27/2008 at 16:16:49
Hillary has said that, if provoked, she would "totally obliterate Iran." In other words she would wipe Iran off the face of the earth. Anyone who would threaten to kill 65 million people is a monster. posted 04/26/2008 at 21:40:54
I'm not a religious person but after watching the entire interview, I would welcome
Rev. Wright as my pastor if I were. I was very impressed with his intellect, sincerity and view of the world. It made me despise the cable networks who have exploited the issue for politics and profit. I worry that many people, including the cable network producers, don't have the mental capacity to understand what posted 04/26/2008 at 15:21:58
Bill Clinton and Mark Penn are the most vociferous proponents of negative campaigning. Look for the campaign to get even uglier, if that's possible. More of that famous scolding finger and red face. That's why Hillary's negative national ratings are 65 per cent. The sleazier the Clintons get, the more Hillary's negative ratings rise. Bill is so desperate, he doesn't get it, alas. posted 04/27/2008 at 02:56:37
The Democratic Party needs to find an exit strategy for Hillary Clinrton. To those who say that Hillary is a fighter, I ask: What has Hillary ever fought for that wasn't for Hillary? posted 04/26/2008 at 14:59:47
I agree. People confuse desperate behavior with toughness.
When Hillary got caught lying about dodging bullets in Bosnia, she blamed it on sleep deprivation. Does this mean that when she doesn't get a good night's sleep, she might wake up and start lying again??? posted 04/27/2008 at 03:12:48
The more desperate the Clinton campaign, the more ridiculous their claims. What next? They'll be telling us that the nomination should be decided by blue-haired ladies. posted 04/26/2008 at 15:28:17
In a column dated June 11, 2007, Krugman said that Hillary couldn't be trusted by blue-collar workers because her campaign was run by strategists who head a public relations company that helps corporations fight union organizing drives. I agree with Krugman. posted 04/26/2008 at 15:35:35
I've watched many presidential primaries but never have I seen such a transparent attempt by the corporate media to sabotage a candidate's chances. ABC, CNN and FOX are out to trash Obama.
CNN uses every chance it gets to rerun the clips of Rev. Wright ranting and on the eve of every primary, they feature Hillary Clinton. On the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, Hillary was on Larry King. On
Situation Room today, Wolf Blitzer was raising questions about Obama's electability, repeating
Clinton's campaign spin, but never mentioned the fact that Hillary has the highest negative ratings in the national polls. And Lou Dobbs slimes Obama everyday. 360 tonight, devoted almost thirty minutes trying to revive the Rev. Wright brouhaha. There is never any mention of McCain's alliance with the lunatic, Rev. John Hagee, who thinks God punished New Orleans for permitting a gay parade.
The cable networks and ABC are as out of whack as Rev. Hagee. posted 04/25/2008 at 02:17:17
He seems clueless. When Clinton goes negative, her negative ratings in the national polls go up dramatically. She now has a 65 per cent negative rating, the highest among all candidates, which renders her unelectable. I understand the main proponents of a negative campaign are Bill Clinton and Mark Penn. They're more interested in winning the battle (the nomination) than in winning the war (the national election.) And to think that Hillary has spent millions of dollars on all this bad advice from Penn and other idiots. posted 04/24/2008 at 17:05:09
I think it's a misnomer to use the word journalist when talking about the likes of Tony Snow, William Kristol or Karl Rove. They're not journalists but propagandists and spinners of the truth. Our news outlets aren't interested in journalism anymore. These people are hired because they have name recognition, like a popular toothpaste. Name recognition trumps journalism. Publishers are saying, the hell with the credibility and the truth, let's sell more copies. It's a sign of the times, alas. posted 04/24/2008 at 16:32:59
If the effect of endorsements is "marginal" as Bayh claims, why is he arm-twisting to keep these representatives from endorsing??? He sounds like an old-time party boss, typical of Hillary supporters. posted 04/24/2008 at 16:54:25
Clinton would "obliterate" Iran with 65 million people? That's like saying, I'm going to wipe them off the face of the earth. She's beginning to make Bush look like a peacenik. posted 04/23/2008 at 16:52:55
Lou Dobbs doesn't like Mexican immigrants and he hates Obama. He doesn't like anyone whose skin isn't lily white. Dobbs sounds like a monotonous broken record, saying the same things over and over. I used to have respect for his opinions but not any more. He's become an unmitigated, loudmouth bore. posted 04/24/2008 at 02:25:52
There is no balance at CNN. There are hardly any independent and liberal voices at "the most trusted name in news." In the conservative context at CNN, frequent guest and Republican, David Gergen, appears liberal. Tony Snow is not an "analyst" but a spinmeister for George W. Bush.
Another thing, when the so-called "military analysts" (another name for Pentagon propagandists) have appeared on CNN, their spin is presented as the ultimate word, with no independent analysts to challenge them. It's hard to determine where the government ends and CNN begins. posted 04/22/2008 at 16:12:01
Like most Clinton groupies, you don't let the facts get in the way of your thinking.
In most national polls, Hillary has a 65 percent negative rating. She has the highest negative rating of all candidates, including McCain. People don't like her. Most conservatives hate her and now, Hillary has alienated a multitude of liberals. Who is left to alienate except gullible, delusional people such as yourself.
Hillary is unelectable. Believe it. posted 04/23/2008 at 02:43:49
I will never watch ABC news again. Both Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous have lost their credibility - and their dignity. I now consider both to be buffoons. posted 04/24/2008 at 02:29:55
I would like to see a woman as president some day but not Hillary. As a woman, she feels that it's more important to look tough than to offer a more rational approach to a potentially catastrophic situation. If we bombed Iran, the price of gasoline would soar to over $ 10.00 a gallon. Think of what that would do to our economy. We don't need another four years or so of cowboy diplomacy. posted 04/23/2008 at 02:26:16
Funny, I saw Hillary on TV just two days ago, telling reporters that she doesn't pay attention to the polls or take them too seriously. Why has she changed her mind in the last two days? posted 04/21/2008 at 02:38:59
You've done it again - another great post. How did Stephanopolous, Gibson and David Brooks ever get the idea that it's the networks' responsibilty to provide some sort of a test for the candidates, to toughen them up for the main event? That's a crock. The networks have a responsibility to present debates on core issues and let the public decide which candidates have the best policies and judgment. And the networks should let someone like The League of Women voters moderate. We know, from experience, that people like Stephanopolous, Gibson and Sam Donaldson are not up to the task. posted 04/21/2008 at 02:32:51
Between the Clinton campaign and the right-wing, they've already used so many outrageous invectives and innuendos against Obama, that by the time the general election arrives, they'll have exhausted their supply of insults. By then, the outrageous charges will have lost their impact. The public will have become more inured and sophisticated. It's not a surprise to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that the Republican party is capable of swiftboating and sliming no matter who the candidate is. If they can slime a war hero like Kerry and make the public think he was a demon, then nobody is safe in the general election, not even a saint.
That Obama is unelectable is a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of the Clinton campaign. By their scorched-earth campaign, they want to render him unelectable so they can justify their claim that he is unelectable. posted 04/20/2008 at 20:13:16
It figures that Karl Rove wears a flag lapel pin. With every pin, there is a prick. posted 04/21/2008 at 03:10:09
Guess what. When Cheney, Rice, Powell and Tenet were in the White House discussing torture tecniques to apply to "enemy combatants," they were wearing flag lapel pins.
Flag pins should be the least of Karl Rove's worries. He conspired to send Governor Siegelman of Alabama to jail for the crime of being a Democrat. When the case is investigated and Karl Rove is indicted, tried and sent to prison, he won't be wearing a flag pin. He'll be wearing stripes. Advice to Karl: Don't pick up the soap in the shower. posted 04/20/2008 at 19:25:42
To add insult to injury, when these so called "military analysts" have appeared on CNN, MSNBC and FOX, their words have been treated as gospel with no opposing or challenging views presented.
No balance at all. It's hard to discern the difference between the networks and the government.
Our news outlets resemble Pravda in the old U.S.S.R. posted 04/21/2008 at 03:00:09
Another issue that is hardly mentioned by the media is the issue of privatization of social security, which John McCain favors. When Bush tried to push privatization down our throats, the American people were overwhelmingly against it. Yet, John McCain is adamant, even more militant about privatization than Bush. A good question ABC might ask McCain: If social security funds had been invested in the stock market as Bush wanted to do, where would social security stand today? posted 04/20/2008 at 20:22:54
Yes, I saw the interview with Leila Fadel. I watch Bill Moyers every Friday night, right after Bill Maher. Bill Moyers has become one of the most relevant journalists on TV today. He keeps knocking 'em out of the ballpark. posted 04/20/2008 at 20:28:25
Arianna, I'm looking forward to seeing you this Friday on REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER. Also, must see on the same night:: BILL MOYER will interview Obama's ex-pastor, Rev. Wright, on PBS.
Don't miss. posted 04/20/2008 at 19:31:51
The power of the MSM or corporate media in national elections is scary. The MSM aided and abetted in the swiftboating of John Kerry. Now, ABC, FOX, CNN and right-wing radio seem determined to sabotage the candidacy of Barack Obama.
On Monday, the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, CNN will give Hillary Clinton an hour of free-time on its network. CNN did the same thing on the eve of the last primary, featuring Hillary, Bill and Chelsea.
If anyone thinks it's a coincidence that CNN promotes Hillary on the eve of the primaries, I have some used Firestone tires I'l like to sell them. What ever happened to the doctrine of equal time??? posted 04/20/2008 at 03:10:52
Hillary's remarks amount to a rejection of a large part of the Democratic party. That would explain her scorched-earth campaign. If she doesn't get the nomination, the Democratic party be damned.
How can the people in Pennsylvania or Indiana vote for a woman who is working against the best interests of the Democratic party??? posted 04/18/2008 at 19:22:09
When Dan Rather says he thinks John McCain can win, I think he puts too much emphasis on the issue of national security. While national security is very important, I don't think the issue will be as significant in the 2008 election as it was in 2004 and 2006. Some pundits are over-emphasizing this.
And to the commenters here who say that Mr. Rather doesn't want change because of his age, I say that's rubbish. I know many people over 60 and 70 who support Obama enthusiastically.
Mr. Rather is a great investigative reporter who has gotten a bad rap from CBS execs and some in the media. He is still doing some great reporting on HD-NET, which I always look forward to. posted 04/20/2008 at 17:19:51
What you don't get is that the "debate" was a set-up by ABC to elicit a cat fight between Hillary and Obama. Hillary bit the bait and excoriated Obama while Obama caught on to what ABC was doing and remained cool. Hillary looked petty and Obama, who did very well, looked presidential.
And the polls show that when Hillary goes negative on Obama, her favorability ratings in national polls plummet. posted 04/19/2008 at 16:14:41
ABC might consider the "debate" a success but Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous lost their credibility. That renders their "success" rather hollow.
On the subject of Obama's bowling skills, David Brooks, in one of the dumbest columns I've ever read in The New York Times, said that working-class voters won't support Obama when they find out "he bowls a 37 for crying out loud." Brooks wasn't joking - he was serious. posted 04/19/2008 at 01:37:59
In his June 11, 2007 column, Paul Krugman said that Hillary Clinton wasn't to be trusted as a friend of labor. Quote:
"...Here's a suggestion: Why not evaluate candidates' policy proposals, rather than their authenticity? And if there are reasons to doubt a candidate's sincerity, spell them out.
For example, Hillary Clinton's credibility as a friend of labor is called into question, not by her biography or life style, but by the fact that, as The Nation recently reported, her chief strategist - a man Al Gore fired in 2000 because he didn't trust him - heads a public relations company that helps corporations fight union organizing drives."
And in Krugman's column dated April 18, 2008: "...The important point is that working-class Americans do vote on economic issues."
Right. And when they do vote, it will be for a candidate they can trust. According to Paul Krugman, that doesn't include Hillary Clinton. posted 04/19/2008 at 02:09:16
Ms. McCabe, only in totalitarian regimes are people forced to prove their loyalty. Flag pins are kitsch and jingoistic. In times of war, the loudest patriots are the greatest profiteers. posted 04/18/2008 at 17:10:03
Let's hope he keeps walking. He's a mental midget who not too long ago was defending the policies of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Just another blowhard. posted 04/17/2008 at 22:10:32
Obama could make her the ambassador to Bosnia as long as she pays for her bullet-proof pantsuits. posted 05/11/2008 at 14:51:50