realrick

Obama will be able to outspend McSameAsBush 10-1. He's even more cash poor than HRC. And he'll get little to no help from his fellow GOPukers because so many of them are locked in tight Senate and House races. Hmmmm......so maybe he can try trading on his president's popularity...?...BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!! Hmm.....how about the Vice-President? BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!
Well, he's a much better speaker than Obama, right? RIGHT???.....

Has your head exploded yet, pal?.....Just checking....

Bottom Line; This is a bad year to be a Repug. posted 04/17/2008 at 02:29:17

Not only is Obama on the verge of beating Clinton and getting the nomination, but, HE WILL HAVE AN EVEN EASIER TIME BEATING MCSAMEASBUSH THIS FALL!

As bad as some think HRC's record may be, it isn't nearly as bad as the one McSameAsBush will have to defend, considering there's been GOPuke domination of all 3 branches of government for the better part of a decade. And, let's not forget that there are some lovely quotes out there with McSameAsBush predicting the same flowers strewn in the paths of our troops that Cheney told us about. (Apparently, FTD hasn't received that order yet.)

And, here's another thing to ponder--As financially plagued as HRC's campaign is, SHE HAS MORE $ THAN MCSAMEASBUSH!!! That's right. So, instead of Obama outspending Hillary 5-1, he'll probably be able to outspend McSameAsBush 10-1. Now, factor in how many GOPukes are in trouble in tight to hopeless top-tier Senate races in key states like VA, MN, NM, CO, and AK. And, that's just for starters. By November, with their huge war chest, the Dems may be able to put states like TX and MS in play with their tough Senate races. Senate races=Dem turnout for Obama. So, with his money woes, McSameAsBush might find himself like the little dutch boy trying to plug the leaky dike--going dark in states that he desperately needs.

Keep that image in your heads, trolls. You're DONE! You just don't know it yet. posted 04/17/2008 at 02:19:05

Hey, who wants to do the over/under for Obama's fund raising for this month?

This "debate" might just help him set a new record.

I'll take $50,000,000.00 in the Obama fund raising pool for April.

Which is awesome considering this is Tax Month. posted 04/17/2008 at 01:47:39

Yeah, because these same Beltway Blowholes have been right all along about Obama......

BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!

(I knew I couldn't keep a straight face while writing that response.) posted 04/17/2008 at 01:45:21

Are you kidding?

Do you remember Robert Duvall's line to William Holden in the movie "Network" when Holden threatened to go public about how they were selling out the news division at the network in a cheap grab for ratings?

"Great! We need all the publicity we can get!", Duvall shouted as Holden slammed the door on his way out.

Public opinion matters as much to these whorehouse networks (a great term from that movie) as the opinion of Holden's character mattered to Duvall's.

Idiots like Gibson and Stephanopoulous actually thrive on being slammed. It gives them more street cred with Rush and Hannity, two other media whores. posted 04/17/2008 at 01:31:00

Just wait for the debate when Obama has to correct McSameAsBush about who the players are in Iraq when he won't have "Schmoementum" Lieberman to whisper in his ear.

And, who says Obama is "a liberal running from the left"? His proposals--from health care to energy independence to ending the war--are dead even with mainstream American opinion.

You're the extremist now, bub.... along with Rush and Hannity, the guys who keep pulling the string out of the back of your neck every time you open your mouth. posted 04/17/2008 at 01:04:55

I have to laugh at all the GOPuke/Clintonite triumphalism that I am seeing on this board tonight.

You people are so doggone DUMB that you not only don't have a sense of history about the last few decades or the last few years. You don't even have a sense of history about the last few MONTHS!

Every time Obama's opponents have attacked him, most often with ad hominem nonsense as in tonight's "debate", his polls have gone up, his fund raising has exploded, more super delegates have come over to his side and he has kept packing in more wins in states that the Clinton campaign keeps telling us don't matter.

The corporate media has taken on the ridiculous role of a comedic Chicken Little telling us with every "gotcha" moment that THIS time, FOR SURE, Obama's in trouble! And, every time Obama comes out stronger than before leaving the Beltway Blowholes with more egg on their faces.

The trend is our friend, folks. It AIN'T gonna change. At this point in the process, the public has pretty much made up its mind about Obama. We want him to be the nominee. And, considering the crappy numbers GOPukes have and the horrid record they have to defend this fall, we probably want him to be the next president too.

But, keep up the silly commentary about how those two droids at ABC "really "got Obama this time, huh, huh, huh". You're providing some great comic relief for me. posted 04/17/2008 at 00:55:16

They sound as delusional as some mentally ill guy ranting on a street corner.

They're probably longing for the days when all they had to discuss was a stained blue dress instead of how they've ruined our economy and massacred our finest men and women in our military needlessly.

It's obviously got them even more unhinged than they were before.

Sucks to be them, doesn't it?.... posted 04/17/2008 at 00:25:51

Great post. You said it so well.

You and your family will be in my prayers. posted 04/17/2008 at 00:12:12

There was another aspect that Sen. Obama didn't cover in his perceptive and accurate comments about how bitter and angry people are right now in America.

The American news media, with its obsession with the trivial and the inane over the substantive and the vital, is a HUGE cause of the American public's bitterness and anger.

IMO, they should put a copy of tonight's debate in a time capsule. If our society fails to survive and a different form of life evolves on Earth to replace us (Nature's usual pattern--seen any dinosaurs hangin' in your neighborhood, lately?), perhaps they can learn from our mistakes and blunders.

Right now, the state of what passes for news from the American news media, is one of the biggest embarrassments in the entire world. posted 04/16/2008 at 23:54:40

Watch his fund raising numbers just following tonight's debate and for this month.

How does it feel to be in the 28% minority, bub? posted 04/16/2008 at 23:39:08

We CAN take it and get pissed off at the same time.

Unlike GOPukes, we can hold more than one thought in our heads simultaneously.... posted 04/16/2008 at 23:31:56

Here it is, folks--The Acme Missile Debate.

As I've posted before, Obama's opponents seem to be like Wile E. Coyote and he seems to be like the Roadrunner. Every time they think they have him in some elaborate snare of a "gotcha" moment, he escapes from them, leaving them far behind in a cloud of dust or plunging to their doom over a cliff.

We've seen Obama's opponents try the Acme Fishing Rod (aka Super Tuesday)--stacked, early primaries in huge, expensive states ostensibly to reel in the nomination early for Clinton. That didn't work. Obama actually won on Super Tuesday.

Then they tried the Acme Sound Recorder (aka endless audio/video loops of cherry-picked quotes from Obama's former pastor). That didn't work. After Obama's speech on race, where he disowned the comments (NOT the pastor! Nice try, "Stupidopoulous"!), his numbers actually went up.

Then they tried the Acme "Small Town" Destruction Machine--aka using big city resident Obama's comments about the corporate media and GOPukes' favorite sacred cow--their phony image of small town America. That didn't work because there actually ARE bitter, angry people there.

Now, we get the Acme missle--aka tonights substitute FauxNews debate--with nothing but "gotcha" questions for Obama that he deflected nicely. Prediction: Obama's numbers will go UP after this debate.

Once again, the Roadrunner escapes in a cloud of dust. posted 04/16/2008 at 23:22:39

Oops! So, secondly, I doubt that Clinton's comment will eclipse the "bitter" nonsense. Forgot to put that point in.

On that note, it's late and I'm hittin' the hay! ;) posted 04/16/2008 at 00:35:49

LOL!!! Bill is kind of hilarious!

Will this "fooled by Obama" comment from Bill eclipse the "bitter" comment from Obama?

First, I hope not. It seems as tho that comment is helping Obama.

Secondly, the false "Capra-Movie-Norman-Rockwell-painting-Andy Griffith episode" imagery of small town America is far more of a sacred cow to the corporate media, the GOPukes and many other groups. It's part of what feeds their beast. So, they are far more dog-eared and defensive about any kind of commentary about it, however well-meaning and constructive it might be, which is an issue I've posted about on another thread. posted 04/16/2008 at 00:33:46

I've been saying that the Clintons are running a Republican-like campaign.

I wonder if we should nickname her "McHillary" or "McClinton" or "McHillary McClinton"..... posted 04/15/2008 at 22:51:31

I actually understand your cynicism. Like many Americans, you come by it honestly. It's exactly the kind of thing Obama was talking about when he made the 'bitter" comment. People have been so let down by Washington that they are cynical that anything can change.

I learned, for the worse, in the 1960s that one person can make a difference when Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were killed.

Obama's run a terrific campaign so far and is in the process of beating the biggest electoral juggernaut the Democratic Party has seen since the Kennedys. I realize that change doesn't happen overnight and is a day by day process. But, based on the guy's track record so far, I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps you should too. posted 04/16/2008 at 00:23:03

Oh, c'mon, Mr. Obama, this isn't important.

Don't you listen at all to the corporate media? It's your bowling score and your comment about small town PA is what matters!

The Constitution? Well, it was nice while it lasted..... posted 04/15/2008 at 23:27:42

The guy lived and worked in Chicago for 20 years!

That's about as getting in touch with America as it gets.

btw, your stereotypes about the visitors to this site are both false and disgusting. posted 04/15/2008 at 22:33:50

One thing I've found fascinating about this whole "bitter" nonsense: Just how dog-eared and thin-skinned a lot of people are about the imagery of small-town America.

Obama said that there might be some "bigoted people" in small town America. HORRORS!! How DARE he? And, he said it IN SAN FRANCISCO, which as, we all know, is not part of the real America. Well, he's just "out of touch". Which seems to be the CW of Obama's opponents to the "bitter" comment.

Well, reality check:

--Foreclosures and job losses are happening in rural areas as well as urban areas. Seems like both areas are suffering. But, no one's bitter or bigoted from the experience, right?

---Disgusting crime happens everywhere. A truck dragged James Byrd after he was dead because he was black in rural TX, not San Fran. Matthew Shepard was beaten and left for dead in WY, not San Francisco.

--How about serial killers? Whether you're talking Gacy, Ramirez, Gilmore or BTK, they've both got 'em.

--As weird as any gay pride parade may be, does it top that polygamy cult in TX for weird? And, to my knowledge, no kid was ever molested at a gay pride parade.

People need to realize that small-town America is not some Capra movie or Rockwell painting or Andy Griffith episode. It's just as real and flawed as anywhere else. Just like San Francisco, It can take, and could use, some constructive criticism. posted 04/15/2008 at 22:27:17

Can you smell the desperation wafting from Camp Clinton?

This "bitter" comment molehill is truly their Hail Mary pass.

They know they have to beat Obama by over 20 points to give themselves even the most remote chance of catching him in the rest of the few remaining primary states.

However, based on the reactions from the public noted here, it looks like that Hail Mary pass is going to fall short and incomplete. posted 04/15/2008 at 03:21:19

Chris, all I did was point out that Rush wants more votes for HRC, to the point of encouraging Republicans to cross over and do it, with the stated intent of causing chaos in the Democratic Party. Therefore, when people vote for Clinton, logic dictates that they're doing exactly what Rush wants.

All the math and the odds show that we already have a nominee: Obama.

So, what is the point of still voting for Clinton? Didn't we have a democracy when LBJ pulled out in 1968? When Gary Hart pulled out in 1984? When Reagan stayed in and hurt his party's chances in 1976? When Ted Kennedy stayed in and hurt his party's chances in 1980? The issue isn't whether we still have a democracy, but, instead, whether we are using our right to vote responsibly in it.

All I'm saying is that, if Clinton supporters are committed to winning this November, then the time has long since passed to keep voting for Clinton. You're not doing the party, or it's chances for winning this November, any good. You are, however, keeping both the corporate media and Rush happy, so knock yourselves out. posted 04/14/2008 at 22:29:37

I don't necessarily agree with that, but, assuming arguendo, that you're correct, perhaps that alleged hostility by Obama supporters is because they are bitter and frustrated, to coin a phrase, towards Clinton's remaining supporters because they realize exactly what I was posting about. posted 04/14/2008 at 22:14:36

Actually, the problem is exactly the opposite. There ALWAYS seems to be something more to discover about the Clintons.

From Mark Penn's Colombian connections to their crappy, nearly bankrupt campaign to Bill's corporate ties to Chinese overlords, this gang has more shoes constantly dropping than Imelda Marcos and Carrie Bradshaw combined. posted 04/14/2008 at 22:09:46

Let's debunk a few things here.

The first--Does Clinton still have the right to run? Of course, she does. No one disputes that, Obama included.

The second--Well, ALL the states need to be heard from. Nonsense! This is a primary, not a general election. History is replete with candidates from Lyndon Johnson to Gary Hart, who still had more viable candidacies, who pulled out before the primary process was complete, for the good of the party.

But, I think, the overriding issue that has NEVER been discussed is the motivations of the Clinton voters at this point. Why do they insist on throwing their votes away? Their candidate can't win. In fact, some have made the plausible argument that a vote for Clinton at this point is really a vote for John McCain. Indeed, Rush Limbaugh has started a whole radio campaign about that. Doesn't it bother these Clinton voters that they are doing EXACTLY what Rush is telling them to do? It would bother me if I agreed with Limbaugh on how to inhale and exhale air, much less on how to vote.

I'm not trying to castigate or criticize anyone, here--just pointing out there is food for thought for the remaining Clinton supporters that the corporate media sure isn't going to bring up because they want to keep a horserace going for ratings. But, WE should discuss it... posted 04/14/2008 at 22:03:54

No.....just from 1994..... posted 04/14/2008 at 21:50:49

I've been noting that HRC has been campaigning like a GOPuke for most of her career. This is nothing new. The only thing the Clintons have ever been good at for the Democratic Party is to have the slickest coattails in history with their constant triangulation and DINO positions, which, in turn, causes massive Democratic losses in Congress.

If HRC were ever to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, in this year or any other, you can bet that the Democrats will lose scores of seats due to depressed turnout, just as they have in the past with a Clinton at the top of the ticket. posted 04/14/2008 at 21:29:42

Wow, ya think you've got too much "Red Bull" in ya there, Bondaroid?

I know how much you GOPuke guys love to live in the past when all you had to worry about were stains on a dress and drumming up a phony impeachment farce instead of ruining our economy and massacring our military needlessly. That's understandable.

But, if you could be bothered to read what Arianna wrote and what I wrote, one of the things we are appalled by is that the Clintons WEREN'T like this back in the good ol' days of the 90's. They actually ran campaigns bases on the issues like "It's the economy, Stupid"

Now, I guess "It's the elitism, Stupid". How far they've fallen.

The reason so many Dems are angry or disappointed in them now is because they've become.....well....like YOU! Dwelling on the past--lying about false accomplishments (a phony impeachment for you, a phony Bosnia landing for HRC)--focusing on the trivia rather than the issues. They've morphed into a GOPuke Manchurian candidacy.

There's an interesting analysis about why they're behaving this way which can be found here:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/041308.html

But, frankly, I don't care why. I just want them to stop so we can get on with the very necessary business of dispatching McSameAsBush. posted 04/15/2008 at 18:08:38

Jeez Louise! It never ceases to amaze me how little people know about our own democracy!

This is a PRIMARY, not a GENERAL ELECTION.

Do you know the difference?

There is NO RULE that states that ALL states need to be heard from before the party can unite around a nominee, real or de facto. Whoever tells you anything different is lying to you! History is full of examples of candidates who were extremely viable who left the race for the good of the party because their chances of winning were so remote and/or a campaign run would be divisive or hurtful for the party.

LBJ, Gary Hart, ever heard of THOSE guys? They put the good of the party FIRST, even if it meant a bitter rival, RFK for LBJ, for example, might get the nomination. On the other hand, selfish candidates like Reagan in 1976 and Ted Kennedy in 1980, hurt their party when they ran prolonged campaigns without a hope of getting the nomination.

Man, oh man! Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who's picked up a history book around here or knows my own party's rules! I guess it's the "elitist" in me..... posted 04/15/2008 at 17:15:07

And in case anyone thinks Chitown's exaggerating about how much the corporate media is in the tank for McSameAsBush, check this out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402633_pf.html posted 04/15/2008 at 17:07:32

Sure, "Obama's a LOSER" because he's raised more money from small donors than any candidate in history.....

Sure, he's a LOSER because he's helped the Dems raise voter registration to record levels....

Sure, he's a LOSER because all the right track/wrong track polls are skewed against the GOPukes.....

Sure, he's a LOSER because McSameAsBush has one of the greatest political minds of our time and could never possibly confuse our opponents in the Middle East and have to be corrected by Obama in the middle of a debate. He just does that around Shmoementum Lieberman.

Y'know, if you're going to make some kind of BS fearmongering diatribe against Obama, it might help to reference things going on in THIS campaign instead of races that were run over 50 years ago.

...Adlai Stevenson.....Good GOD!!! posted 04/15/2008 at 17:03:51

Which was my point. Obama didn't say that. Apparently, you can't do nuance too well.

Also, there's a big difference between the idea that "some" people cope like that and "all" people cope like that when there's hard times.

I guess those of us who get that are too "elitist".... posted 04/15/2008 at 16:52:40

FDR (4 freakin' terms!), JFK, LBJ, the current majorities in the U.S. Senate and House, our current Speaker, Ted Kennedy--nearly 50 years, Robert Byrd--the longest serving member of the Senate, Bernie Sanders--a SOCIALIST, for cryin' out loud!

To say that the country doesn't elect liberals is as stupid as saying that it doesn't elect conservatives. posted 04/15/2008 at 16:47:03

HRC is truly The Manchurian Candidate of the GOPukes. It seems that the only thing that Bill learned from palling around with Newt Gingrich in the 90's was how to use the same scorched earth tactics.

But, getting beyond this, I have to say that I'm disappointed in the other members of my own party who are still supporting HRC despite the fact that she can't win.

No one, but no one, can justify a vote for her at this point. We HAVE a nominee already, according to the math and the odds. Do the Clintonites WANT to have McCain in the WH for 4 more years of Bush-like insanity? Do they really believe that HRC's tactics will somehow endear her to the majority of the party, many of them young people, that she has alienated with this crappy, sleazy campaign that she's run this year? Does she think we'll remember this kind of garbage fondly if she tries to make a run again in 2012?

I think not.

In fact, if a Democrat doesn't win the WH this November, it will be HRC and her campaign vampires who will get the blame. Which is as it should be. posted 04/15/2008 at 16:39:16

You mean there's no bigotry in small town America?

Gosh, that's a relief!!!

Shame on you, Mr. Obama......"snark" posted 04/15/2008 at 16:29:25

Watching this, while LMAO at the Annie Oakley comments, I was struck by what a class act this guy is. He didn't attack HRC's blatant lies about Bosnia or Ireland. (God knows he would have had every right to and the GOPukes aren't going to lay off that, if by some miracle, she becomes the nominee.) No, instead he stuck to issues---her voting record, her personnel decisions and her silly gun lobby/drinking shots photo op (which I still predict will be HRC's "Dukakis in the tank" moment once the late night comedians get a hold of it this week.)

It will be nice to have a nominee who knows how to fight back with force, class and dignity, not mention a leader who tells the truth about our country. Promise HRC the next spot on the SCOTUS and let's wrap this thing up in 6 weeks. posted 04/13/2008 at 23:39:30

All that remark showed is that HRC is willing to throw the finest leaders of the Democratic Party under the bus just so she can continue her desperate cheap shots at Obama.

Which is not surprising since the only things the Clintons have ever been known for in terms of party loyalty is how many DINO positions they could take and, thus, how many seats they could cost the Democrats in Congress.

If your beloved HRC, by some miracle or coup, becomes the nominee, you can kiss Democratic control of the House and Senate good-bye. Which is probably something you couldn't care less about because you're probably just as self-centered as she is. posted 04/14/2008 at 16:47:57

This was another case of Obama being a class act again. By extolling Gore, Obama was able to send the message to Clinton: "Don't throw our finest leaders under the bus just because you're desperate to score cheap shots against me" without actually coming out and saying that.

Beautifully done... posted 04/13/2008 at 23:54:01

The irony of Bill's statement in juxtaposition to HRC's response to Obama's truth-telling is that it points out an obvious fact that many people have been talking about for quite some time:

Hillary's campaigning like a Republican. posted 04/13/2008 at 20:30:02

Free speech, the right to vote, and the right to contribute to the candidate of your choice....

Jesus Christ, Beck, democracy's a bitch, ain't it?

Poor little you.... posted 04/13/2008 at 20:25:27

Considering the dire finances of her campaign, I hope the bartender was savvy enough to get upfront cash instead of allowing her to work up a tab and stiff him. posted 04/13/2008 at 16:34:05

I keep LMAO every time I see these pictures.

I think HRC is going to deeply regret this photo op.

This is Dukakis in the tank all over again. posted 04/13/2008 at 04:01:42

Hey, Hillary, try asking Ethel Kennedy how much she likes guns. posted 04/13/2008 at 03:37:17

LOL!!!

If Obama did that, he would definitely lose MY vote, HRC's reaction notwithstanding! posted 04/13/2008 at 00:50:06

Yes, consumer confidence is at a 26 year low.

But, NEWSFLASH--According to Hillary and McSameAsBush, NONE of them are bitter! They are all, as the song says, "shining, happy people holding hands" with as Hillary puts it, "their shirt sleeves rolled up".

So, don't worry, be happy, folks. Make that trip you've been putting off for so long due to $4 a gallon gas to lovely Crown Point, IN and have a brewski with our pal Hill and reminisce about those old hunting days of yore.

In the meantime, there's nothing to see here with this story.

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN1144771920080411?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&rpc=23&sp=true

Let's move along now.

We now return you to your regular programming with the perpetual media spin that Barack Obama is an uncaring elitist who is completely out of touch with the public. posted 04/13/2008 at 00:48:30

That was SUPERB! HRC's pandering only proves Obama's point.

btw, she wasn't far away from where I live when she made that statement. If her hunting photo op is going to be around here, people had better stock up on body armor. posted 04/12/2008 at 23:05:24

Can her campaign get any more embarrassing and disgraceful?

If she's planning a duck hunting photo op, a la John Kerry and Mike Huckabee, I'm going to need advance notice so I can stock up on my barf bags. posted 04/12/2008 at 23:00:29

There must be only one poor person in a cubicle reviewing comments at this hour, which is why the site is so backed up. Believe me, I DID respond in kind to some of the snark artists who responded to my posts on this topic.

In the meantime, no one has answered my question:

How is Obama's statement an indictment of himself or the public (the corporate media/HRC/McSameAsBush lobbyist-loaded campaign/press spin) rather than a searing indictment of the lack of leadership in D.C. that caused the sour mood of the public in the first place (which we ALL KNOW is what Sen. Obama was really talking about)?

Know this: I'm not going to be distracted by this nonsense that he insulted ANYONE but career politicians in D.C., y'know the type....like....say.....his two OPPONENTS! So, they squealed like stuck pigs in response and are spinning their collective rears off that it was an insult to the public. Oh REALLY? Going to church is an insult? Owning a gun, an insult? Project much, people?

So, either deal with the central issues--the failure of career D.C. pols, the mess that we're in from that failure and the mood that it's caused. And don't bring up any ad hominem nonsense about any non-existent insults. I'm not taking the bait. And, from the looks of Sen. Obama's excellent response in Muncie, IN the other day, neither is he. posted 04/13/2008 at 03:30:18

I used to work as a claims adjuster. I handled claims from victims of Katrina, Rita and Wilma. They were nice on the phone too. They were also very pissed off at the way their government responded to what they were going through. A person doesn't have to shout like Howard Beale in "Network" to be bitter or angry. Perhaps, it's your powers of perception that are problematic, not any "depth of character" issues on my part or Sen. Obama's.

Oh, btw, once you've gotten on the streets for 20 years to help out your community taking crappy salaries in the meantime while taking years to pay off your student debt, then you've got the right to criticize Obama's character.

From where I sit, you're nowhere NEAR his league. posted 04/13/2008 at 02:59:50

I have both listened to the statement and Obama's defense of it. He was talking about the sour mood of the voters due to the terrible treatment they've gotten from career politicians in Washington. PERIOD.

You and many of his other critics are simply reaching into the nether regions of your collective glutei to pull out this garbage that he was in any way critical of the public or of PA. He wasn't. Having lived in a rust belt state most of my life, I can tell you that what he said is dead right. There are many bitter, angry people out here.

He wasn't criticizing people for going to church (a practice he took heat for a few weeks ago because, as I'm sure you agree, we are ALL responsible for the everything our pastor says and if we disagree with any of it, we should leave the family of our church community immediately. NOT!) or owning guns or even anyone's stance on trade or immigration.

That is just crap that you and your ilk are heaping onto the conversation to divert from the undeniable truth of what he was saying: The career politicians in Washington, including the jamoke or jamokette you're probably supporting for President, have failed us.

If you disagree with him, it is up to you to prove that there aren't many bitter people out there with a terrible attitude toward America's political status quo despite massive evidence to the contrary. Good luck with that.... posted 04/13/2008 at 02:51:32

Yeah, right.....Obama is such "toast" that he's probably going to break yet another fund raising record this month....... posted 04/13/2008 at 02:24:08

How you got that impression out of what Obama actually said says a lot more about you than it does about him. posted 04/13/2008 at 02:20:04

I'm not showing you a damn thing---Look for yourself.

--Consumer confidence at a 26 year low.

--81% think the country is on the wrong track in the last CBS/NYT poll.

--The polling on the majority of Americans who believe we were lied into Iraq by Bush and Cheney.

--The public reactions to the Bear Stearns bailout, the inaction on the home mortgage mess, etc.

I refuse to take your ignorant bait and give you links to any of them. (In fact, if you know how to work that device near your hand, you know the one they named after a rodent--the mouse--you might find some on this SITE!) Instead, I would point out again that, if you disagree with Obama, YOU are the one with the burden of proving a negative--i.e. that many people AREN'T bitter or angry about the crappy state of our country due to over a decade of the Republican boot on its throat despite evidence and data to the contrary.

Since you can't do that, you can take yourself, and your snark, elsewhere. posted 04/13/2008 at 02:16:25

The only shallow thinkers are those, like yourself, who are arguing against Obama's point. You have to make your case, in the face of massive amounts of poll data and anecdotal evidence, that very few people are bitter or angry at the way Washington D.C. has responded to, much less caused, the hard times that so many people are suffering.

OK--The floor is yours!

''crickets chirping"

Just as I thought..... posted 04/13/2008 at 01:31:35

This is the court of public opinion. So, let's look at this as a "burden of proof" issue.

Who has the tougher case to prove here?

Obama, with his statement that many people in America are bitter about America's hard times?

Or HRC and McSameAsBush, who argue that very few people are bitter, despite hard times?

Keep in mind that both sides are making these arguments with consumer confidence at a 26 year low, personal income at a snail's pace, foreclosures at an all-time high since The Great Depression, the worst wrong track/right track polling, the Bush/Congress poll ratings, etc?

One more thing: How is Obama's statement an indictment of himself or the public (the corporate media/HRC/McSameAsBush lobbyist-loaded campaign/press spin) rather than a searing indictment of the lack of leadership in D.C. that caused the sour mood of the public in the first place (which we ALL KNOW is what Sen. Obama was really talking about)? posted 04/13/2008 at 01:12:23

You couldn't possibly be more wrong!

First of all, here's a fact, not an opinion--Obama is WINNING! He is ahead in the popular vote and delegates. As for superdelegates, he only has to win 20% more to beat Clinton. That's winning, pal. Simple as that.

And, unless you are going to make the asinine assertion that all of Obama's supporters are "latte-sipping elitists", which you undoubtedly heard from Rush or O'Reilly so it "must be true", you have to concede the fact that Obama HAS connected with average, small-town Americans in places as diverse as WI, VA, ID, and WA.

Second, how is being straight-up, honest with the public, as these remarks and his defense of them reflect, a sign of inexperience? How is tackling tough issues, whether it be race, religion, or the economy a sign of "elitism"? That's ad hominem nonsense.

And, if you think John McSameAsBush with 100 years in Iraq, with more tax welfare for the wealthy, with more Scalitos on the SCOTUS, with no clue about the economy, who has virtually NO health care plan, is a "moderate Republican", then I've got some swampland in FL I'd like you to take a look at. posted 04/13/2008 at 00:25:12

Y'know, I've gotten to the point where anyone who uses the term "elitist" (do any of you who are throwing that word around actually know what it means, btw?) automatically loses the argument with me, despite the subject matter.

At this point, you HRC diehards remind me a lot of Wile E. Coyote going after the Road Runner. It's always the idea that, "THIS TIME we've GOT Obama for SURE!"

Your Acme dynamite (aka Super Tuesday) blew up in your face, your Acme crossbow (aka the Pastor controversy) backfired and now, we have the Super-Charged Acme rollerskates (aka Obama telling the truth about lower/middle class anger in America) which is sure to slam you into some wall somewhere as well.

Just as it's tons of fun to keep watching Wile E. Coyote to keep tumbling over the cliff to make that distant cloud of dust far below, it is so much fun to watch the Clintonites and, soon, the McSameAsBushbots, do the same. posted 04/12/2008 at 19:28:51

Boy, I hope these Obama comments DO stay in the press as long as possible. They really clarify the choices that we have here.

On the one hand, we have Obama--a guy who is willing to tell us the truth on numerous hard issues from race to economics to class to foreign policy. Here, we have Obama rightly saying that many Americans are angry at D.C. for failing us economically, politically, socially, and in so many other ways.

As a primary choice, we have Clinton with her idiotic "morning in America" refrain that we're "optimistic" and "rolling up our shirt sleeves".

As another contrast, we have a general election candidate in McSameAsBush, who views any accurate portrayal of the mood of the American public as "elitist" and "out of touch" despite whatever polling and other research data that may be out there to support Sen. Obama's assertion.

So, what do you want, America? Do you want a candidate who pads her resume' and is belching out "happy talk" about your mood like HRC? Do you want a candidate like McSameAsBush who offers nothing new and just carping, ad hominem criticism of anyone who tries to talk about the sour mood of the voters and the dire state of our nation? Or do you want someone who will tell you the truth, even when it hurts? Someone in the mold of Harry Truman or MLK?

The choice is ours. posted 04/12/2008 at 18:33:51

If God is on HRC's side, then he's lousy at math.

Because she sure does have one hell of a hill to climb to even get CLOSE to Obama much less get ahead of him in either the popular vote, the delegate count or the Superdelegate count.

Rather than follow the lead of a religeous deity, Obama, instead, just followed the lead of another famous Democrat, Harry Truman.

He told the truth and people think it's hell. posted 04/12/2008 at 17:28:31

Obama made a comment that people are angry and bitter due to their dire financial circumstances, and have tuned out on D.C. except for their own personal, religeous concerns. In swoops McCain and HRC claiming that Obama is "out of touch with" and "looks down on" the American public, respectively. Rather than run some analysis of what Obama said based on the media's OWN polling, the corporate media just, by and large, regurgitate what McCain and HRC said without analyzing what Obama said at all.

Never mind that the media's OWN polling shows that:

Over 81% of the country thinks we are on the wrong track.

Most people believe the Bush Administration deliberately lied about WMD in Iraq.

Most people feel that their children will be the first postwar American generation to be worse off than they are.

Most people were up in arms over Washington bailing out Bear Stearns while ignoring the mortgage crisis.

These are just a few examples I could have cited.

But, instead of analyzing Obama's comments in light of their OWN POLLING, the media, instead, just act as stenographers and allow HRC and McSame to just repeat their drivel to respond to Obama, despite the fact that their views are wholly unsupported by what the media's own research and polling has disclosed.

And Obama has supposedly gotten a free ride from the media?? That's a LAUGH!! posted 04/12/2008 at 17:23:32

You sound like an abused spouse instead of someone willing to fight to unseat the GOPukes this November.

"OOOOOOO........those big, bad Republicans.....we're so scared.........."

The fact is, Obama is taking on his toughest opponent RIGHT NOW! HRC has more $ than McSameAsBush. She was the defacto heir apparent to the White House as recently as last Christmas. And now, she is on the verge of getting her ass kicked come this June. All this while running a Mark Penn slimefest of a campaign that is every bit as nasty as anything Obama will see this fall.

On top of that, McSameAsBush is the defacto incumbent in that his party is in power in the WH and has been in charge of Congress for almost the entire last decade. All of these pigeons coming home to roost---from Iraq to the recession to health care to the mortgage crisis---are HIS baggage, not Obama's. The polls have been all over the place, but I have yet to see one where McSameAsBush cracks 50%. That is the literal "canary in the coal mine" stat if you are an incumbent the spring before the general election.

Finally, there's no way that you can convince me that those record-setting, newly registered Dems are going for McSameAsBush in the general. It's Obama who has been nailing most of them.

Of course, based on that Obamabot nonsense, these facts are probably wasted on you. posted 04/13/2008 at 01:56:46

Yes, consumer confidence is at a 26 year low.

But, NEWSFLASH--According to Hillary and McSameAsBush, NONE of them are bitter! They are all, as the song says, "shining, happy people holding hands" with as Hillary puts it, "their shirt sleeves rolled up".

So, don't worry, be happy, folks. Make that trip you've been putting off for so long due to $4 a gallon gas to lovely Crown Point, IN and have a brewski with our pal Hill and reminisce about those old hunting days of yore.

In the meantime, there's nothing to see here with this story. Let's move along now.

We now return you to your regular programming with the perpetual media spin that Barack Obama is an uncaring elitist who is completely out of touch with the public. posted 04/13/2008 at 00:44:28

Here's the second part of my "small town America" post....

Don't you see, Rachel? The GOPukes and their media stooges HAVE to try to prop up the false "Capra-Movie-Norman-Rockwell painting"Leave-It-To-Beaver" "Andy Griffith Show" image of small town America! If they can't, if that house of cards falls apart for them, then they would have to admit that "small town America" has the same anxieties, the same flaws, the same prejudices, the same traits, good and bad, as anywhere else, including San Francisco.

I really feel strongly about this, which is why I've posted this thought on several blog strings. If the GOPukes can't maintain their propaganda image about "small town America" as a means to divide this country and to keep people voting against their economic interests, then they may be doomed to permanent minority status as a political party as people realize just how economically screwed we ALL have been due to the unnecessary distraction of the Culture Wars.

That's why there's so much criticism, Rachel. It's based on fear. Republican fear. posted 04/16/2008 at 15:29:10

Another terrific post, Rachel. In fact, it's SUCH a terrific post, my response will have to be in two parts! :)

I'd like to take a shot at answering your question: "Why is it such a big deal that Obama said people who had been screwed economically were bitter?" Because Obama didn't just make that comment about the American people; he specifically made that comment about "small town" America. And, he said it in SAN FRANCISCO, to boot.

The false image of "small town America" is a truly sacred cow for the GOPukes and their useful stooges in the corporate media. It feeds their beast. So, any kind of commentary, much less constructive criticism, about "small town America", especially coming from a Democrat, must be attacked viciously and unfairly. It has to be distorted, taken out of context or flat-out lied about. And all of these tactics have been used to try to discredit Sen. Obama's comments.

To be continued... posted 04/16/2008 at 15:28:03

Nice of you to parrot the corporate media spin about this rather than actually listening to what's being said, and done, by all parties.

Obama simply stated that there is a lot of bitterness, anger and frustration out there---a racially neutral statement. (There are, after all, African-Americans who live in PA. Shockingly enough, he talks to people of all races.) That statement has been borne out, both anecdotally in questions at town hall meetings or debates, such as the question from retired steelworker Steve Skavara in Chicago last summer, or statistically, such as the record-low approval numbers for Bush and Congress, the right track/wrong track polling.

So, what we have here is a leader in touch with what the people are thinking and feeling. Or do you prefer creeps like Dick Cheney being in charge who treat the feelings of the public with a contemptuous response of "So?" when they're pointed out to him. If you do, how do you look your kids in the face before entering a voting booth? posted 04/12/2008 at 23:40:03

Great post! And, as I've noted, the corporate media's role in simply acting as stenographers for Obama's critics, or, as you cited, pushing a negative viewpoint of Obama's statement is particularly maddening when you consider that they are undermining their OWN work, their OWN research.

It seems like every day we are being hit with stories in the press noting the following:

--Over 80% of the country thinks we're on the wrong track.

--Most people think we were deceived into the Iraq War by Bush and Cheney.

--Most people think their children will have a worse life than they had.

--Most people are up in arms over gas prices, the Bear Stearns bailout, the cost of the Iraq War (Hell, take your pick! The list is endless!)

Yet now, the media dopes undermine their OWN REPORTING by putting forth or repeating the argument that pointing out the feelings of the public, feelings depicted in their OWN research, is somehow an "elitist" act.

Which is exactly why I think there is a lot of outrage brewing over the media's coverage of Obama's remarks. posted 04/12/2008 at 23:28:28

There are already old quotes being unearthed from Bill Clinton and others, Democrat and Republican, that reflect exactly what Obama said.

Bottom Line: These corporate media smear jobs, a la the Dean Scream and the Swift Boat crap, just don't work anymore as the internet keeps expanding and becoming a more all-encompassing source of information and other POVs. There's millions of people who can have a politician's back now when he/she is being unfairly smeared or his/her quotes are being twisted like a pretzel to distort their meaning.

I'm not even going to bother with the links, as I have to blast. Just keep watching the Obama surrogates bringing up these quotes over the next few days. It will be truly embarrassing for his critics.

Once again, Obama is the RoadRunner and his critics/opponents are Wile E. Coyote. Just when they think they've got him again, it's "BEEP, BEEP" and a cloud of dust...... posted 04/13/2008 at 16:50:07

This site's space limitations preclude my responding to your inquiry as fully as I would like. Suffice to say that both Mary Mapes and Dan Rather were thrown under the bus by CBS to placate conservative Bushbots on a story that CBS had dead right.

However, if you really want to find out more about it, why not get your information from one of the participants rather than wikipedia? Here you go:

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Duty-Press-President-Privilege/dp/0312354118/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208133836&sr=1-1 posted 04/13/2008 at 20:48:10

Great post, Rachel. It's obvious that the Couric hire has been a disaster for CBS. However, I don't think that event marked the beginning of the end for CBS.

Instead, I think CBS News was irreparably damaged by the Bush Air National Guard debacle. The fact that CBS failed to stand up to the right wing bloggers and politicians when they, basically, had the facts of the story dead on right was disgusting and disheartening. The sacrifice of producer Mary Mapes and the shoddy treatment of Dan Rather, which has culminated in an embarrassing, highly justified lawsuit from Rather, has only exacerbated that situation even more.

I vowed after the Bush ANG fiasco to abandon CBS, have never looked back and never regretted that decision. I'm sure I'm not alone in that view. posted 04/12/2008 at 22:58:03

And so, AAR's unilateral suicide pact continues.

Rather than install a true radio talk show host, they go the Hollywood route again, having Belzer follow on the heels of Garafalo. By contrast, the GOP loved using Hollywood personalities like the late Charlton Heston as figureheads for organizations like the NRA but, they never would have dreamed of sticking one of them in front of a mike for 3 hours because they knew that the talent would simply not transfer. They would wind up with a bigger sleeping audience than a narcolepsy clinic.

In the meantime, syndicated hosts Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller will continue to eat AAR's lunch. I suggested in an earlier post that they needed to elevate Cenk Uyger to this slot. But, instead of a radio pro, we get this neophyte instead. Good luck with that!

Nice going, Green. I have just one question for you: Are you really invested in seeing this network succeed or is this just one huge tax write-off between you and the IRS? Because right now, this Rhodes fiasco is totally FUBAR! posted 04/10/2008 at 16:06:29

Exactly spot on, Mr. Norman.

In fact, I think Ms. Rhodes was the victim of some "reverse sexism". If Bill Maher had made these same statements in his stand-up act, no one would have noticed or cared and he would be hosting the next "Real Time" segment with no one batting an eye.

But, how dare, Randi Rhodes, a WOMAN, engage in such "hate speech"? What a CROCK!

And you are also correct in pointing out that this was far more a criticism of Clinton's and Ferraro's political positions and their obvious conflicts of interest rather than any kind of misogynistic personal attack.

The fact is that, ever since Mark Green took over AAR, the criticism of HRC by various hosts, especially Ms. Rhodes, has been looked at askance. There was also a LOT of personal jealousy pervasive at the network over Rhodes' popularity in spite of her spicy, acerbic manner. Basically, they were just looking for a reason to get rid of Rhodes and, finally, they found one.

Good on them. In the meantime, I hope they also enjoy the tanking ratings that are sure to follow on the heels of this farce as Rhodes' loyal audience will now undoubtedly tune AAR out. posted 04/10/2008 at 16:28:04

There is nothing this outlaw administration hasn't politicized---our military, our Justice Dept., our regulatory agencies--everything.

When is Congress going to apologize to MoveOn.org for censuring the ad that they ran about Petraeus? Based on the nonsense and garbage we had to wade through as testimony this week from him and Crocker, that ad of theirs was dead on target.

It appears that Petraeus really IS far more loyal to Bush than he is to his uniform or his country. posted 04/14/2008 at 02:03:17

NOT funny! And FLAGGED! posted 04/10/2008 at 17:32:02

Advice to AAR: They need to move Cenk Uyger into Rhodes' time slot YESTERDAY. This move makes sense for the following reasons:

1. There is a growing perception that AAR is in the tank for HRC due to Mark Green's control of the network. Putting another staunch Clinton critic into Rhodes' flagship slot would do much to defuse that perception and put the spotlight back on the content of Rhodes' statements and her behavior afterward rather than any conflict of interest questions about Green's stewardship of the network.

2. Uyger is one of the few rising stars that AAR has left. Ever since AAR came on, what has amazed me is that the most noted progressive talkers are the ones NOT affiliated with their network, namely Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz. Ever since Franken left, they haven't had one superstar type radio personality that the network can promote. Cenk would offer them that opportunity.

3. As noted above, progressive talk radio is getting more and more popular. AAR does not have the sandbox all to themselves anymore and they need to make a huge splash to compete, especially after this PR disaster. Elevating Cenk to his own solo drive time show would be just that type of gambit.

Don't bother thanking me for helping you out of this mess, AAR. I'm just a law-abiding citizen doing his duty. posted 04/10/2008 at 14:36:34

Well, what about Richard Widmark passing recently with barely a shrug from the media? From the coverage I saw of the guy, they showed a few of his clips from westerns and not much else. Widmark happened to be one of America's finest film noir actors. So, why not show a few clips from "Night and the City", "The Street With No Name" (THE paradigm for undercover cop movies like "The Departed"), "No Way Out" or "Kiss of Death" (he only received an Oscar nomination for that one!)? There was barely a mention of Widmark's film noir career. It would be like noting John Wayne's passing without discussing his Western roles.

I agree with you about Deborah Kerr, btw. Next to Jane Russell, she was the leading lady that Robert Mitchum most enjoyed working with. I didn't see too many clips of the two superb movies, "Heaven Knows Mr. Allison" and "The Sundowners", that they made together. That was another part of her career that the media ignored. posted 04/09/2008 at 02:25:00

Y'know, it never ceases to amaze me that McCain can keep inflicting his brain farts about Iraq on the public every other day while the media just yawns, yet they are absolutely obsessed with what Obama's former pastor said 7 years ago.

Double standard anyone? IOKIYAR indeed!

Ed Schutz is right. This guy is nothing more than a disgusting warmonger. I wonder how many of his lobbyist staff have profited off of the Iraq War. I have to wonder because it's not like the media's gonna tell us..... posted 04/07/2008 at 14:34:39

This is such a phony, bait-and-switch argument that the Clintonites are using to try to undermine Obama's presumptive nomination. Leaving aside that the Clintonites are bargaining in bad faith and welching on a deal that all parties made to invalidate the MI and FL results once those states broke the rules, the Clinton campaign simply does not have the money to compete in them, much less to contribute to the refinancing of any kind of primary revote.

While we're posting these comments and debating this issue, Obama is outspending her 5-1 in PA and creeping up higher in the polls there every day.

This whole farce is nothing more than sour grapes from Clinton's big money windbags, with Dr. Dean being unfairly exploited as their scapegoat. Disgusting....

Let's hope that this primary season ends HRC's presidential chances forever. I look forward to seeing her grow the beard that Bill Maher predicted for her, a la Gore and Richardson. posted 04/05/2008 at 22:49:21

"Hard-Partying Youth"? The guy was drunk and/or on drugs until he was 40! Just how long does "youth" last in the eyes of the media?

Then, he supposedly stops, but without using the 12 Step program. So, what we're left with is an arrogant, close-minded, dry drunk who has driven our country to ruin.

Where was this movie when we could have REALLY used it? Like in 2000?... posted 04/02/2008 at 13:56:01

Actually Roger did discuss exactly that when he wrote his review of Michael Moore's documentary "Sicko" last year.

Go to his website and check it out for yourself before spouting off. posted 04/02/2008 at 13:49:02

Best wishes to Roger Ebert! He has shown nothing but courage and character while going through this terrible crisis with his health.

I have lived next to Chicago most of my life and watched his career closely, both in print and on television.

I'm proud to say that I have Siskel & Ebert's 10 Best/!0 Worst shows on tape for each year dating back to 1983. I've since transferred them to DVD-R and they are an absolute joy for this film lover to watch. Interestingly enough, the "Worst of the year" shows are more entertaining than the "Best of the year".

While I am relieved to hear that Roger is healing, I hope that he will get his voice back soon. I so miss hearing his bantering wit when discussing film. We miss you on the tube, Roger. Ebert & Roeper...well...just ISN'T without Ebert. posted 04/01/2008 at 22:39:41

Does Matthews know the difference between guts and gall?

Bush had better get used to this. It's how he's going to be greeted at all public appearances outside his little cocoon until he croaks.

He has become Herbert Hoover to the tenth power.

I just hope that we won't have a huge increase in homeless people from this mortgage mess living in shanty towns named "Bushvilles". If we do, we'll have come full circle from the 1930s. posted 04/01/2008 at 00:33:58

That's why they call it "acting". posted 03/27/2008 at 16:39:56

Bravo!

That's something I've been screaming about. Due to HRC's blatant party disloyalty (i.e.--her campaign's insensitive race-baiting and her de facto endorsement of McCain), I've been advocating that the NY Democratic Party needs to put a heavyweight, self-financing primary challenger (Hello, Michael Bloomberg!) to her the next time she runs for the Senate. And bounce her out of politics permanently.

We cannot risk the Clintons running this kind of scorched earth campaign against one of our own ever again. posted 03/27/2008 at 00:25:41

These crashing polls, after her negative campaign against Obama, should serve as a "canary in the coal mine" for the Clintons. They are totally trashing their reputations as loyal Dems in this scorched earth, Tonya-Harding-kneecapping run for the WH.

I would like to think that they still have enough self-interest and common sense left to read the writing on the wall if Obama is able to close within 10 points or less in PA on election day and get out of the race. Remember--LBJ WON the NH primary in 1968. However, his numbers were so much lower than expected that he did the honorable thing and withdrew from the race rather than put the party through a nasty, divisive prolonged battle. However, no one has ever accused the Clintons of being as loyal to the Democratic Party as Lyndon Johnson. Or as politically astute for that matter.

Still, if they have any sense of history, they have to know, by numbers like these, that they are destroying their political legacies. There is still a possibility for HRC to get an appointment to the Supreme Court (Wouldn't that drive the fundies NUTS?!) or for Bill to be a goodwill ambassador of some sort under an Obama presidency.

After they peruse these numbers more thoroughly, they have to ask themselves how far they are willing to go and how much of their legacy they are willing to sacrifice. posted 03/27/2008 at 00:05:58

This race is getting SOOOO HILARIOUS!

We have Biblical references to an endorsement, a faux dangerous Bosnia landing and now, a bunch of mega-bucks fat cats who want to swoop to HRC's rescue and carry her across the finish line much like the SCOTUS did for Bush in 2000.

Too....MUCH! LOL!

Don't these idiots ever log onto their computers and see where Obama's donations are coming from? They may have some huge bucks but Obama's got the numbers....and, therefore, a LOT more bucks! posted 03/27/2008 at 00:35:16

Thanks for crunching the numbers, Rachel!

Y'know, in a very short time, I think YouTube hits are going to be just as telling and important as Nielsen ratings for the television and cable networks.

And, 2 million hits mean a lot more than 2 million pairs of eyeballs seeing this thing. You have to know that there are YouTube users at home and in the workplace calling people over to take a look at it.

YouTube has amplified the power of "word of mouth" exponentially. posted 03/27/2008 at 00:21:23

I have been a huge critic of the Clintons on a lot of things, but, here, I thought Chesea hit this one out of the park. It is time for candidates and their families to take a stand that their personal life, for the most part, is off limits to the public and the press.

Chelsea Clinton has been a huge asset for HRC's campaign, so, naturally, in yet another sign of the Clinton campaign's ineptitude, she has been relegated to the college crowd and only gains notice when some silly controversy like this comes up. Also, who came up with the doofus idea that she won't talk to the press? She's intelligent, articulate, forceful and can make a point without sounding like a pompous, divisive jerk, which separates her from most of the HRC surrogates, including the former president. posted 03/26/2008 at 21:50:04

VERY cool video!

I love how she "Forrest Gumps" herself into major media events with some of the players and events from this year's campaign.

And think of how nice it will be to have the media discussing a raven-haired beauty during this next news cycle who ISN'T Spitzer's call girl.

Thanks, Obama Girl! posted 03/25/2008 at 22:51:41

Even if this detestable war means the end of the Republican Party as we know it, it still would not have been worth it. posted 03/24/2008 at 20:20:47

"They volunteered".......Which is something you never did, Dick. posted 03/24/2008 at 20:12:21

Didi: posted 03/24/2008 at 17:27:51

Thanks for posting this, Linda.


We have to keep in mind a line that William Goldman used for the movie adaptation of "All The President's Men": Follow the money. And, to do that, we have to acknowledge a dirty, little secret:


THESE ARE NOT NEWS NETWORKS; RATHER, THEY ARE CORPORATE INFORMATION OUTLETS.


Keep that in mind like a mantra, folks.


So, when you hear Anderson Cooper or Joe Scarborough say something to smear someone about their views, realize that it is coming from Time/Warner or General Electric. Once you have that down, it's easy to understand what's happening here.


Major corporations do not want to discuss Obama's health care plan, his plan to deal with the mortgage crisis or end the war. Instead, they want to fan the flames of hatred, get a lobbyist/corporate tool like McCain in there, and keep counting their profits. Further, they are so insanely timid and terrified of being labeled as "liberal" by tools like Limbaugh, Bozell, Ingraham, and the rest of the GOPuke goon squad that they don't know which end is up. So, they overcompensate by parroting their talking points, instead of doing more objective analysis. I mean, sometimes, I think they are so lazy and scared that I think most cable outlets simply go to The Drudge Report and use whatever they find on there in the morning as their guide for what they're going to cover any given day.


And, sure, we can have a level-headed commentator/anchor like Olbermann be the exception to the rule occasionally. But, still, he is forced by his editors to cover this crap as well, altho in a much more (yes, I must say it) fair and balanced manner than most other cable hosts.


That's why what we do here---at sites like Huffpo and others--where we engage each other on the internet and call the networks out on their crap--is so vitally important. The internet keeps getting more diverse and extensive with each election cycle. Which is why the telecom giants are so hot to control it and thereby limit its content. However, until that happens, we can be a strong countervailing force against the corrosive influence of corporate ownership of our national media. Meanwhile, the networks, especially cable, keep hemmoraghing audience shares because the public sees through nonsense like this and is simply tuning them out. posted 03/24/2008 at 01:39:38

I've been postulating the same theory in various other threads on HuffPo for quite some time, Cenk. While doing so, I've noted that there is no historical precedent for the way that Clinton's been campaigning--i.e. that, despite bitter rivalries in the past, NO Democrat has ever so much as hinted that a GOP presidency would be preferable to their rival. For example, despite their bitter rivalry neither Lyndon Johnson nor Bobby Kennedy ever had a kind word to say about Richard Nixon in comparison to each other.



So, I agree with your premise that Clinton is only staying in to try to sabotage Obama. However, I've predicted that her efforts are doomed to failure. At this point, the only people who have looked bad by their criticism of Obama is....well.....the Clintons themselves. Whether it's manufactured anger over some campaign pamphlets or some moronic statements from a surrogate like Ferraro, the Clinton attacks just keep missing their target and backfiring on them. In fact, Obama's calm, reasoned responses to them, such as in the Ferraro mess, have only made him look good. (btw, I've refused to insult the intelligence of anyone perusing this by even so much as hinting that Ferraro was a loose cannon speaking on her own. You're welcome!)


In fact, I don't think 2012, despite any delusions from the Clintons, is realistically even on the table for them. The fact that Obama will have beaten her by then is proof that the nation has moved on from them. Rather, I think Clinton's best chance at the White House came and went in 2004. THAT was the year she could have replayed the old Clinton/Bush battle and possibly won it. Would her Iraq vote have hurt her in that campaign as John Kerry's did? Possibly. But still, that was her best shot.


As for sabotaging Obama, forget it. First of all, as seen by how things have played out in the primary, the Clintons have grossly overestimated just how much of a damn the nation gives about what they think about anything anymore. Secondly, we are looking at things from the perspective of March 2008. All indications are that every issue, from the economy to health care, to Iraq,to gas prices, to the housing crisis, will be FAR worse by this November. And, we have seen that Obama is superb at both fund-raising and putting together a good staff on the ground. Not to mention, we have seen that he knows how to take a hit and come out on top. But, the biggest factor, as I mentioned, is how much WORSE things will be by November. Those Republicans (up to 27 now!) aren't all retiring from the House because of their health. They can read the handwriting on the wall.


Emerson wrote, "Events get in the saddle and ride mankind". Events are now riding Obama and the Democrats all the way to power in 2009. Hillary be damned.....


posted 03/23/2008 at 01:45:39

I've never looked at any politician as someone I've wanted to "have a beer with". And, I think most people feel that way. That "have a beer" silliness is a completely media-generated canard. To go along with so many of their other urban legends ("Republicans are always perceived to be better on national security". "Democrats are always perceived as the party that raises your taxes." I've got a million of 'em.)

What I think is even more interesting than the endorsement itself is the Clinton Camp's hyperventilating response to it. Penn saying that it's not important now, but, if it had happened a few weeks ago.... Or Carville comparing Richardson to Judas.

These people are getting absolutely HILARIOUS as they go through their death throes! Obama doesn't need any SNL skits that support him. What he's getting from his opposition is funny enough!

In the meantime, it was nice for Obama to get Richardson's endorsement, but it wasn't some life-saving moment for his campaign. He has already been having a tsunami of super-delegates coming over to his camp ever since Super Tuesday. And that trend hasn't abated, even when he's hit a rough patch. Speaking of which, tracking polls have shown that he was starting to come out of his dip in the polls right after his speech last Tuesday and the huge, positive reaction to it.

That's a good sign for the fall. Obama is a guy who can take a hit, pull himself back up and get right back into the fray. Richardson can recognize a good thing when he sees it. Which is why he finally joined his neighboring governor, Janet Napolitano of AZ, and endorsed him. posted 03/24/2008 at 02:03:00

This is an outrage!

It is no coincidence that this information was pulled right when all of those internet chain mails were circulated about Obama attending a madrassa, etc.

It's sad, pathetic and disgusting to see how a political opposition that is bankrupt of ideas has to rely on crap like this or the random rantings of a pastor to try to derail the Obama movement.

Neither smear campaign will succeed. The American people are tired of this crap and hunger for a change from politics as usual. posted 03/20/2008 at 22:26:42