home

The Press Wakes Up, Is It Too Late?


(Washington Post Photo)

Dana Milbank has a great article in today's Washington Post about how the mainstream media reporters came out of their stupor today to grill Barack Obama -- on NAFTA, on Rezko, on whether he will lose the Jewish vote and on his record. (Transcript is here.)

It took many months and the mockery of "Saturday Night Live" to make it happen, but the lumbering beast that is the press corps finally roused itself from its slumber Monday and greeted Barack Obama with a menacing growl.

The day before primaries in Ohio and Texas that could effectively seal the Democratic presidential nomination for him, a smiling Obama strode out to a news conference at a veterans facility here. But the grin was quickly replaced by the surprised look of a man bitten by his own dog.

Obama was clearly flustered. [More...]

Obama responded with the classic phrases of a politician in trouble. "That was the information that I had at the time. . . . Those charges are completely unrelated to me. . . . I have said that that was a mistake. . . . The fact pattern remains unchanged."

When those failed, Obama tried another approach. "We're running late," the candidate said, and then he disappeared behind a curtain.

And how classic is this: he tried to blame the tough questions on the Clintons:

Before he beat his hasty retreat, however, Obama found time to assign blame for the tough questions suddenly coming his way. "The Clinton campaign has been true to its word in employing a 'kitchen sink' strategy," he protested. "There are, what, three or four things a day?"

Spoken like a man who had just been hit on the head with a heavy piece of porcelain.

And when have you read an account about Obama like this?

For 40 slow minutes, Obama delivered his policy prescriptions and answered questions from the veterans.... And the great orator found himself proclaiming that "it makes sense to have transferability."

Whatever. Reporters, at tables in the back of the room, answered e-mails and read newspapers. Obama, by making no news in his speech, had left them plenty of time to plot their ambush -- executed minutes later to the obvious surprise of the candidate.

After a particularly rough batch of questions from Chicago reporters that sounded much like those Hillary has been asking, Obama had had enough.

An aide called out "last question," and Obama made his move for the exit -- only for reporters to shout after him in protest. "C'mon, guys," he pleaded. "I just answered, like, eight questions."

The questioning, however, has only just begun.

What a disgrace that it took the media so long. If Hillary should end up out of the race by next week, which I doubt, they'll be jumping on Obama and propping up McCain. I'll be having none of it.

More video here.

< WAPO-ABC Poll: 2/3 of Dems Say Hillary Should Stay in Race With Either Ohio or TX Win | Zogby: Clinton Leads In TX, A Tie In Ohio >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This is why she's (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by NJDem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:49:21 AM EST
    staying in until at least PA--the vetting has finally begun!  Which all Dems should welcome, we want our nominee to win in November--that's the whole point, right?

    They can attack her from angles, and yet... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:06:04 AM EST
    she has withstood it all before and will again.  The Clintons are one of the few Democrats we have who have proved to us time and time again that they can stand up against Republican slime machine and prevail.

    Think of it this way:  100 attacks launched at Hillary that all miss their mark is better than a SINGLE attack on Obama that he can't handle and dooms his entire campaign.

    No, I don't think Obama is that weak a candidate to just fold that easy, but it is a great unknown.  There are just too many unknowns about his ability to push back against the Freak Show.

    [ Parent ]

    He didn't handle today (none / 0) (#73)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:07:29 AM EST
    all that well.

    [ Parent ]
    It was jarring, a big wake up call (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:16:15 AM EST
    His ability to fend off attacks is one of my top concerns with him.

    I still remember John Kerry...

    [ Parent ]

    Sad times (none / 0) (#20)
    by herb the verb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:23:43 AM EST
    Just because I'm pissed the MSM has been so unfair to Clinton doesn't mean I want them to be equally unfair to Obama. How about they be unfair to McCain instead?  

    OTOH, if it is fair coverage and criticism, there isn't anything wrong with it and all we can do is hope that Hillary can pull this victory out of the ashes.

    I've posted here plenty of times that there can be only one Media Darling, and Barack darling, you are not it....

    [ Parent ]

    If the delegate count were the same (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:51:39 AM EST
    yes, i think Obama would still be here. The difference then is the press would be treating Hillary like the front-runner, unlike how they are treating Obama.

    Also, the best way to not get in trouble with the press is to actually pick a side and not equivicate on every possible question. Telling the truth helps too, or so I hear.

    [ Parent ]

    sbhdawn, did you see it the first time? (none / 0) (#51)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:25:46 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    sbhdawn has been banned and all (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:13:34 AM EST
    18 of his/her comments today have been deleted.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep, wouldn't mind that at all (none / 0) (#66)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:03:12 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah of the choices we have (none / 0) (#68)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:03:49 AM EST
    I think Clinton is best.

    [ Parent ]
    You're under arrest!! (none / 0) (#69)
    by tree on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:04:49 AM EST
    As a senior enforcer of the Punctuation Police, I must inform you that you are being charged with excessive punctuation!! Three posts with blatant excessive punctuation is the limit around here!! Please take your fingers away from the keyboard and put your hands behind your back!! Uniformed officers  
    will be arriving shortly!!

    (I will now issue myself a warning for one post with excessive punctuation!!)

    Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

    [ Parent ]

    how about the direct approach? (none / 0) (#79)
    by tree on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:15:56 AM EST
    Can you cut it with the double exclamation points already? Every sentence you type is really not that important, despite what you might think.

    [ Parent ]
    Depends on which elections (none / 0) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:06:44 AM EST
    If the tables were turned and Obama and Hillary switched situations, including the states won, the caucus versus primary vote, the Dems for a Day campaign, all of the news that's been going on, I'd say YEP, he should stay in.

    [ Parent ]
    As someone who works in DC.... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:53:33 AM EST
    ...I have to say yeah, hell yeah, and hell to the yeah. Those were great days and I am thankful that the Clintons were in the White House during the years that my kids were the right age to go to the Easter Egg Rolls presided by the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]
    ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! (none / 0) (#82)
    by hellothere on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:17:26 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Jeraly, Here's a video clip of the scene (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:51:29 AM EST
    at the end you can see Lynn Sweet yelling. LOL. They smell blood and I almost feel bad-well not really.

    Video.

    I love how he blames the Clinton campaign. Like they had the friendship with Rezko and they made his economic adviser call Canada about NAFTA.

    Are you for real? (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:46:53 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Latino Voter, ABC Obama Video Link! (none / 0) (#14)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:15:33 AM EST
    That was a priceless video clip from ABC News. Barack's whole demeanor and posture is different than what we usually see. But, it's the same as it usually is whenever I've seen him be confronted. He just doesn't take it well at all.

    In fact, Barack generally doesn't do very well in any type of situation where there's an exchange, or back and forth (debates, press conferences). He stammers and stumbles.

    Perhaps all those years of teaching and lecturing have only prepared him for a one-way flow of information.

    Barack is at his best when he's the only one talking. Hence, his much-vaunted eloquence in speeches.

    I frankly don't think he's even a very dynamic speaker, although that's the 'narrative'. There  was his convention speech in '04. I was most struck by his enthusiasm; he looked like he got invited to sit at the adults table on Thanksgiving.

    There's his 2002 anti-war speech. However, that wasn't recorded live at the time of the event.

    A while back, as posted here at TL, Barack did a new studio recording of the old 2002 anti-war speech - which is where recent audio clips are taken from.

    [ Parent ]

    sbhdawn, (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:27:49 AM EST
    i feel for you--and i'm guessing we're gonna be seeing some ptsd-like symptoms from obama supporters soon--but please don't smear the clintons in your defense of obama.  he's been attacking them untruthfully for over a year, and quite frankly i think he owes most of his rise thus far to his ability to leverage and goad irrational anti-clinton hate.  in fact, if the media had been even-handed throughout this election cycle, i'd wager that hillary would've had this nomination locked up a long time ago.

    [ Parent ]
    So sbhdawn, you think (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:58:15 AM EST
    Obama can beat the Repubs in November, but he wont make it that far because Clinton used the republican tricks to beat him now....thats a great line of thinking there. Im sure the republicans wouldve been nicer to him.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks, I added it (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:39:54 AM EST
    to the post.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama and the Press (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:26:49 AM EST
    Two months ago there was an article in the NY Times about how Obama never speaks to the press.  Apparently the press did not mind, they just took it.  He would even call them on a phone conference call to give them updates instead of talking to them.  How lame are they?  Now I guess he believed his own mythology.  
    Second, I was wondering if Obama got this far cause there was no satire.  It was left to MSNBC and people believed the comedy of his campaign as truth.  Satire is needed in our electoral system.  

    Well SNL could have gone the other direction (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:38:43 AM EST
    Satire wouldn't have hurt him so much had SNL chosen to follow the herd and given him a favorable impression in their sketches and piled on Hillary with the rest of their corporate buddies.

    In that sense, Clinton was lucky that the satire cut her way.  But of course,  what they made fun of was grounded in truth.

    [ Parent ]

    you nailed it (none / 0) (#87)
    by facta non verba on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:25:25 AM EST
    he is a myth.

    Well done. Why didn't I think of that?

    He will unravel before our very eyes within this next fortnight.

    [ Parent ]

    Keep drinking the Kool-Aid (none / 0) (#129)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:47:41 AM EST
    Clinton needs Obama to implode and unravel in the next couple of weeks,  despite a recent turn in the momentum to Clinton I've seen nothing to suggest that this is going to happen.  

    Realistically the last week have been tough for Obama but in my opinion that could actually play to his advantage.  Expectations are lowered and he can get away with a 10 point loss in Ohio and a 4 or 5 point loss in Texas and spin it as a victory.  In fact with that kind of scenario if the weightings towards more heavily democratic districts in Texas favours Obama as expected,  and he dominates the caucus then its possible he will actually extend his significant pledged delegate lead out of March 4th.

    The worst thing for him would have been polls going into today showing him continuing to close in Ohio or even take a lead,  and extending a lead in Texas.  Then you could have had a New Hampshire or California scenario where he doesn't meet expectations.  Now he can spin anything short of a disaster as almost a wash -  he took everything the media and Hillary could throw at him and came out "extending" his delegate lead. And that he "managed to turn around 20+ point deficits a couple of weeks ago."


    [ Parent ]

    "Bad news", (none / 0) (#205)
    by herb the verb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:12:15 AM EST
    It's the new "good news".

    [ Parent ]
    You Do Realize (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:59:27 AM EST
    That it was the Obama campaign who pushed the Hsu story.

    That it was an Obama campaign staffer who asked Marc Ambinder when the press was going to start covering Bill Clinton's sex life.

    That it was Obama who recycled the false smear that Hillary had a 20-year plan to power.

    Which is not to say Clinton hasn't pushed her share of negative stories as well.  But let's not pretend Obama is a saint.  He's not, he's a politician.  Although other than what I've seen as sexist dogwhistles from Obama, I think this primary has been incredibly tame in terms of "negative" hits by either candidate.  

    And that it was the Obama campaign (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:11:04 AM EST
    that circulated the smear that Bill Clinton was giving speeches on 9/11/06 to Asian businessmen.

    And that it was the Obama campaign who played the race card and painted the Clintons as being racist.

    And it was Michelle Obama acting on behalf of the Obama campaign who said that Hillary couldn't take care of her house so she couldn't run the White House.

    [ Parent ]

    That Last One (none / 0) (#50)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:21:32 AM EST
    was the press corps having a bit of fun by taking the line out of context.  Now, having seen more of the Obama campaign since then, I could believe the Obamas hoped the press would have that bit fun with Michelle's line and that's why it was included, but I don't think there's any proof of that.  

    [ Parent ]
    How does the press corps take Michelle (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:43:59 AM EST
    out of context if the link is to a YouTube video of her speaking and saying that?

    [ Parent ]
    I blame the liberals and progressives (5.00 / 14) (#44)
    by lily15 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:12:39 AM EST
    who pushed his candidacy despite the perils...and without any regard for intellectual honesty, principle, or integrity.  For me, this has been a disgusting display of willful ignorance and stunning stupidity...Unfortunately, it confirms that there is something very wrong with Democrats.  And every time I'm reminded that Jay Rockefeller, that whore of a politician who pushed through his intelligence committee a Bush sanctioned telecom immunity bill, now  to come out loudly  for Obama, I cringe. And then to further the travesty by having Obama cite Rockefeller's "leadership" in the Senate (as with his non existent no vote on AUMF), however wrong on actual facts, makes the revulsion complete. Who are these morons and what is their real agenda?  And aren't they now exposed? We must seriously consider if the Democratic party has been actually infiltrated with traitors or elite idiots. No sensible person would promote such a flawed and weak candidate on the singular theme of someone else's change mantra.   Patrick Deval is not someone to be emulated.

    Every single member of the liberal media and blogosphere who has engaged in this dumbed down group think, should be held accountable for the travesty that they have perpetuated. I too hope it is not too late.  But I am seething at the lying and dishonesty  within our ranks from people who should know better.  And we haven't even begun to discuss the sexism of the left yet.

    Is this... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Alec82 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:19:11 AM EST
    ...helpful? I will withhold my substantial concerns about accuracy and allow you to answer that question.  

    [ Parent ]
    helpful to whom? (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:41:11 AM EST
    obama?  no.  to a fair election and an attempt to salvage what's left of the brains and conscience of the democratic party?  yes.

    [ Parent ]
    this is the problem (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by facta non verba on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:48:42 AM EST
    if anyone criticizes Obama it is not considered fair.

    And if you criticize Obama on a blog say TPM or PuffObama you are attacked. As I noted earlier on a thread, a friend of mine and professor of history at Wake Forest observed:

    Obama supporters have a personal relationship with their candidate. It is akin to a religious experience. He's taken on faith. Christianity too promises hope of eternal life. Obama promises hope in the here and now. And since neither Christianity nor Obama can deliver on their promises, the disappointment that inevitably will come will be brutal. They will turn on Obama.

    And you write: Barack has not run his campaign on smearing Hillary. Some of us beg to differ. He has but since you support him you fail to notice it. I am Edwards supporter. I could have gone either way. I was pushed into Clinton camp as well as pulled. Obama's attacks on her have been sexist and misogynistic and so that pushed me. The fact that she really is a Democrat pulled me in.

    There may be something to ..... (none / 0) (#203)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:06:30 AM EST
    ...the religious experience thing. I have concluded, after several honest attempts to be religious, that I simply lack the "God" gene. Perhaps that's why I feel so perplexed by the willingness of so many people that I truly respect to take such a leap of faith with an unknown commodity, especially after the Bush years.

    [ Parent ]
    Well la di da... (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:12:30 AM EST
    Sorry to disappoint.  You have managed in one thread to pass on all the vile anti Clinton talking points.  Congratulations.   Red face, power hungry, disappointed supporter, part of the gang (psst, the gang supports Obama), Monica...wow.  Doing a great job there. But I must point out the punctuation excess is a give away.  

    Obama has played (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:26:29 AM EST
    the Victim card and Race card very well.
    His "Harry and Louise" ad that the Insurance industry used in 1993-94 to kill UHC, is awful and will probably be used by the Repubs!
    And Obama claims he supports UHC, but his health care plan is NOT universal - no matter how much lipstick his supporters put on that pig.
    Bottom line: Obama is very deceptive.


    [ Parent ]
    Obama is for tweaking NAFTA (none / 0) (#135)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:03:00 AM EST
    not doing away with it (the same as Hillary).

    I thought Clinton vetoed the Partial Birth Act

    On November 5, 2003, President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3) into law.


    [ Parent ]
    well, re: nafta, that's not (none / 0) (#144)
    by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:15:38 AM EST
    how he's made it sound to ohio.

    [ Parent ]
    2 faced? from his Presser yesterday (none / 0) (#189)
    by ding7777 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:49:41 AM EST
    what I have been saying on the campaign trail. That I believe in trade but it is important for us to have labor standards and environmental standards that are enforceable and that I intend to obtain modifications and amendments that will make them enforceable


    [ Parent ]
    hmm, ugly comments and personal attacks. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by hellothere on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:16:36 AM EST
    that's not nice. i notice you haven't been on very long. this blog wants discussion and you don't seem inclined that way.

    Timeline...Rezko in trouble before purchase (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:32:10 AM EST
    Obama completes purchase June 2005.

    Two years before the house purcase  Rezko's problems started to reach the newspapers.  As someone who has worked in the field, by the time it go to the papers, I would say one year before Rezko started being in default and in violation of regulatory agreements with the various government loans and programs.  The Law firm, that represented the non profit and Rezko was the same law firm, Obama's,  I lay my life on it he was getting the letters from the City showing the violations.

    1.  He did not know or 2, he did not care to know.  Either is despicable.  

    Some critics say that given Mr. Obama's longtime emphasis on ethics, it is puzzling that he would have been so involved with the Rezkos on the house and lot deals after questions had begun to crop up about Mr. Rezko's political and business activities.
    For at least two years before the property purchases, news articles had raised questions about Mr. Rezko's influence over state appointments and contracts. There had also been reports that the F.B.I. was investigating accusations of a shakedown scheme involving a state hospital board to which Mr. Rezko had suggested appointments.

    Also, Chicago officials had announced that they were investigating whether a company partly owned by Mr. Rezko had won public contracts by posing as a minority business.

    NYTIMES

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:25:44 AM EST
    But the Clintons are more combative with Republicans and that's why they can't bring the country together.


    Money Talks and . . . (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:28:57 AM EST
    . . . it speaks volubly through its control of the levers of communication.  It helped to derail Howard Dean and install Kerry (whom it deemed the more vulnerable candidate) and it seeks to replace Clinton with Obama against whom it believes it can rally its base and undercut through a whispering campaign exploiting the worst elements of prejudice and fear.

    Eh? (none / 0) (#170)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:33:08 AM EST
    You are saying that Obama is Kerry, and Clinton is Dean,  and the big bad shadowy black helicopter crowd are seeking to replace Clinton with Obama in the same way they replaced Dean with Kerry.

    I'm still trying to get my head round what you are trying to say.

    [ Parent ]

    I have a lot more questions too (3.00 / 2) (#63)
    by facta non verba on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:56:46 AM EST
    Senator Obama. Please explain this:

    Obama's rally in Beaumont today was the highest-energy of this Texas swing, with a crowd that was about three-quarters black cheering at almost every turn.

    An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBT rights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner, listing the various attributes ? race, gender, etc. ? that shouldn't trigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to saying that gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fell silent.

    So he took a different tack:

    "Now I?m a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday," he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers.

    "I hear people saying things that I don?t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian," he said, and the crowd seemed to come along with him this time.

    I have had it with Obama. I intend to attack him without mercy, here, there and everywhere. Every misstep will be noted, every stupid comment published, every hypocrisy exposes. He lies like no one else in the race. His campaign denied meeting with Canadian officials after CTV aired their story. No meeting every took place they said. Well then what about the minutes from the meeting that the AP has now found. The Obama campaign told Canadian officials that they planned to make NAFTA an issue but not to worry about it, it was just politics.

    Beaumont Texas today.

    And you kindly tell me why you lied last week:

    The denials were sweeping when Senator Barack Obama's campaign mobilized last week to refute a report that a senior official had given back-channel reassurances to Canada soft-pedaling Mr. Obama's tough talk on Nafta.

    While campaigning in Ohio, Mr. Obama has harshly criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement, which many Ohioans blame for an exodus of jobs. He agreed last week at a debate with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that the United States should consider leaving the pact if it could not be renegotiated.

    On Monday, a memorandum surfaced, obtained by The Associated Press, showing that Austan D. Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who is Mr. Obama's senior economic policy adviser, met officials last month at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.

    I have had it with Obama. The gloves are coming off. I will not sit idly by and see the Democratic Party go down in flames. It is time for all Democrats to stand up and take notice of this rather pathetic creature called Barack Obama, our junior and the all too sophomoric Senator from Illinois.

    There are just too many questions for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:15:22 AM EST
    and very few answers.  We deserve to know more before we go over a cliff with Barack as our nominee.  I hope Clinton can do good enough tommorrow just to hang in there until Pennsylvania.  If Obama can still win there after 1 month of real questions then I would not be as upset as I am right now.

    [ Parent ]
    You're on tilt tonight, it seems (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:29:17 AM EST
    If I ran this blog, your hysteria would be deleted.  Not having that privilege I will simply have to ignore it.

    [ Parent ]
    the liar is (none / 0) (#103)
    by facta non verba on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:26:53 AM EST
    Classy sign off to your post (none / 0) (#117)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:26:23 AM EST
    With supporters like you I can't imagine that Clinton needs any enemys.  Your closing remarks about Obama seem to me to be a clear violation of the Talkleft policy prohibiting personal attacks.

    [ Parent ]
    How about (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by pennypacker on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:58:18 AM EST
    the press asking Hillary to releaseher tax returns? What possible reason has she not done this? I do not see an outcry from the media. Or an outcry from her answers on sixty minutes last night. If Obama had lost eleven straight primaries and cuacuses would he still be considered a viable candidate? Ridiculous.

    c'mon. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by ajain on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:04:14 AM EST
    This totally ridiculous argument will never stop from Obamamaniacs.
    1. Her campaign has said at atleast 2 different occasions that it is going to release her tax returns by filing date.
    2. If you watch the comment on 60 minutes, it is clear that the questioner was pushing her beyond limits. I mean he would not take her answer and kept pushing the question and she cleared up what she said at a press conference today.
    3. It is not Hillary's fault that Barack has a 17-yr old relation with an alleged slumlord and NAFTA-gate


    [ Parent ]
    If Barack was a woman with the same (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:08:10 AM EST
    credentials and experience he would never have gotten past Iowa. He never would have been considered a viable candidate, period.

    [ Parent ]
    well one another thing... (none / 0) (#121)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:28:10 AM EST
    it's the voice.  Obama has that powerful and captivating voice (only when giving his big speeches) that the media just went gaga over it and all the JFK/MLK starting pouring in.

    After years of listening to Bush, it seemed even more impressive.  But now we see the man behind the curtain.  The Wizard in the land of Oz... and it just is not so mighty after all.

    [ Parent ]

    Right (none / 0) (#128)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:46:12 AM EST
    Because clearly the path to success in this country is being an African-American male.  

    But at least you guys aren't using gender in a divisive way.

    [ Parent ]

    And if Hillary had not been married to Bill (none / 0) (#209)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    She would never have made it to the Senate

    [ Parent ]
    Tax Returns (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:16:44 AM EST
    I don't understand the fascination with politicians' tax returns.  Has there ever been any meaningful discovery in any candidates' tax returns?  Having said that, other than trying to avoid the typical ridiculousness that greets every normal thing the Clintons do, I don't get why Hillary doesn't end the discussion and just release them.  Except for that "ridiculousness" thing.

    The 60 Minutes crap is just that, crap.  Hillary's answer was perfectly fine and the determination to use this to smear her makes Obama's supporters sound desperate.  I think you all are doing Obama more harm than good with this one.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Alec82 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:19:32 AM EST
    ...I don't really think this has much traction, except to play into the anti-Clinton machine that the right has spent fifteen years cultivating.

    [ Parent ]
    If there is nothing there why not release? (none / 0) (#127)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:39:42 AM EST
    Clinton lent her own campaign $5 million dollars.  Surely Democratic primary voters deserve to know where did it come from?

    Obama has already released all his tax returns,  why should Hillary have the opportunity to hide any skeletons that might be in that closet until she is the nominee and it is too late.  

    If you argue that Rezko etc should play out now to either destroy Obama or make him a stronger candidate against McCain surely the same should go for Hillary and her returns.  The fact that she is so reluctant  to release them now seems to imply to the cynical that there is some "there" there.  Then again,  maybe it's the "Clinton rules"!  :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Do (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by rooge04 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:01:46 AM EST
    the 11 straight losses matter more than the states that also came before? Because Obama lost NY, CA, MA and other large states on 2/5. I didn't realize that simply losing 11 contests, straight in a row, is what the caveat for defeat is now.  Because as far as I can tell, he's not in any position to declare himself the winner just yet.

    How horrible to let voters ALL over America decide who their nominee will be.

    I love it. Democracy in action.

    [ Parent ]

    Winner take all (none / 0) (#200)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:03:26 AM EST
    Remember the Dems do not have winner take all. So the delegates were proportional.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah how that.... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:57:42 AM EST
    ...Why hasn't the press asked her that? Oh wait, yeah they have.

    [ Parent ]
    The NY Time analysis... (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Alec82 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:12:48 AM EST
    ...is far more sober.  

     Senator Clinton has taken the same position as Senator Obama on NAFTA, albeit a bit later.  It was a political fumble on his part, but that is about it.  The Canadian envoy invited his economic analyst to an informal meeting and the Canadian government has indicated that the content of the meeting was in essence what his campaign said it was.  

     With Rezko, they appear to be on a treasure hunting expedition that isn't really leading anywhere.  Where are the allegations of impropriety?  As far as I can tell, failure to disclose the number of fundraisers he hosted for him.  I also cannot help but notice there were multiple emails sent by Senator Clinton's campaigners to the press suggesting they go on the attack on this pretty lame story.

     That's politics, I guess, but we always knew the swiftboating would start somewhere.  Out of Rove's playbook indeed.

    Blaming the Clinton Campaign (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:23:02 AM EST
    Campaigns push stuff like Rezko all the time.  Obama is the one who pushed Hsu.  So blaming her campaign sounds kind of lame.

    I do agree that so far there doesn't appear to be anything with Rezko except stunningly bad judgment on Obama's part in entering the land deal and, of course, having anything to do with Tony Rezko in the first place (although he has plenty of company on the latter one).  But I think he was his own worst enemy today.  If you're not going to provide any additional information, then say "we've answered all we're going to, there's nothing else to say" or something like that.  But promising to release any info asked for and then basically refusing to provide any new info is just asking for trouble from the press corps, IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know if there is nothing there. (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:32:50 AM EST
    Especially since he hasn't answered questions and little by little the story comes out. I'm not a reporter but I have questions about him and Rezko.

    Specifically I have questions about a vote he "accidentally" cast while in the IL Senate. As reported by the L.A Times.

    But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics. On Nov. 14, 1997, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside. The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, "I'd like to be recorded as a no vote," explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

    Source.

    So Sen. Obama accidentally casts a yes vote for this bill and then wants the record to reflect opposition. Is this gambling measure the same one that is referenced in this article from the Tribune?

    But when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure, Obama vocally opposed it.

    Source.

    Why hasn't the press noted this or asked or made an issue? I don't buy for a second that he accidentally voted for a gambling measure his friend and political patron was pushing. To me this vote looks like payback for something and he hid it under the cover of pressing the wrong button.

    [ Parent ]

    Good Question (none / 0) (#25)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:39:22 AM EST
    I'd be surprised if there's a connection if Lynn Sweet hasn't asked about it or looked into it.  You might want to simply ask her.  Here's her blog link, I believe she has comments.

    I don't suggest you contact her to try to stir up trouble, but instead to cut down on speculating.  One of the problems Obama will have so long as he lets these questions linger is people will fill in the space with speculation, which can make everything look more sinister than it is.  Afterall, it might not be the same bill.

    [ Parent ]

    ok... (none / 0) (#188)
    by ajain on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:49:29 AM EST
    When he is asking everyone to trust his judgement we ought to be interested in his dealings and why he has lied and/or switched his stories around continuously.
    Also, if there is one couple that has been investigated top-down and bottom-up, it is the Clintons

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Alec82 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:38:03 AM EST
    I was unaware of any involvement by Senator Obama's campaign in that ridiculous Hsu controversy.  There was never anything there, either.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#27)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:40:51 AM EST
    Both campaigns have pushed their share of ridiculous stories.  I don't so much have a problem with Rezko, mostly because it's something that's going to get covered eventually anyway and I'm definitely in the earlier is better than October camp on these things for both candidates.  But Clinton has pushed other stories that were pretty useless, IMO.  

    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately for the Democrats... (none / 0) (#1)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:46:46 AM EST
    ... no, it's not too late. There are still eight months until November.

    Better late than never (none / 0) (#2)
    by talkingpoint on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:49:08 AM EST
     Hillary have been gaining in all the latest polls. She will win everywhere except Vermont. We will see how the media covers her victories on Wednesday.

    Late night thoughts... (none / 0) (#5)
    by jerry on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:55:36 AM EST
    What if we have the press we deserve?
    What if Rod Serling were around?  What could he do to help us understand?

    What if we had Rod Serling around? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:58:49 AM EST
    Well, for one thing, that 3:00 a.m. ad would been much more interesting and bone-chilling.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#29)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:44:35 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And he could have mentioned (none / 0) (#45)
    by oldpro on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:12:51 AM EST
    that soylent green is only 14 years away...

    [ Parent ]
    Don't eat it! (none / 0) (#91)
    by Oje on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:36:34 AM EST
    Soylent green is people.

    [ Parent ]
    the unraveling has begun (none / 0) (#8)
    by facta non verba on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:02:10 AM EST
    and they have been caught in a lie as well. They denied a meeting with Canadian officials. The AP has minutes of a meeting in which indeed Obama campaign officials told Canadian officials that not to worry that they would use NAFTA as a political weapon against Clinton but it was just politics. Nice.

    And then this crossed the wires. A report on a rally in Beaumont, Texas:

    Obama's rally in Beaumont today was the highest-energy of this Texas swing, with a crowd that was about three-quarters black cheering at almost every turn.

    An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBT rights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner, listing the various attributes -- race, gender, etc. -- that shouldn't trigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to saying that gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fell silent.

    So he took a different tack:

    "Now I'm a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday," he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers.

    "I hear people saying things that I don't think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian," he said, and the crowd seemed to come along with him this time.

    Throw me under the bus, why don't you?

    I Don't See Why That's Bad... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:12:16 AM EST
    What am I missing?  Because I think Obama did a good thing by taking on Christian homophobia.  He hasn't always been good on this issue, but this seems like an instance where he was doing the right thing and calling out bigotry.

    [ Parent ]
    here is what you are missing (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by facta non verba on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:15:27 AM EST
    he tells us that he wants our votes and that he will work for us but that he must also listen to the other side.

    The other side are a bunch of bigots and religious fanatics. They can't be reasoned with. It is Westboro Baptist Church crowd, the Pat Robertson social conservatives, and James Dobson.

    The state's rights argument is disingenuous because 23 states have already banned marriage, civil unions and placed limits on domestic partnerships. So if I am traveling to Utah and I get in an accident, my California domestic partnerships is invalid. My partner can be denied access to my hospital benefits. And then I am taxed at a higher single rate. Hillary will allow domestic partners a fair tax policy.

    He is not taking on Christian homophobia. Read the article, they went silent on him and so he turned to Jesus. I turn away from that nonsense. The gay blogs are up in arms. The leadership oddly enough not so much but they are cowards. They are afraid of being shut out. Better a seat then no seat is their logic. I disagree. What's the point of talking to James Dobson?

    [ Parent ]

    I don't really know... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Alec82 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:17:38 AM EST
    ...when he was bad on this issue.  His church is gay-friendly, he has included gay people in all of his unity speeches, and he supports civil unions and a full repeal of DOMA.  His association with an African-American church, though, hurts him with many in the gay community, as does his association with a highly spiritual and socially engaged Christianity (as opposed to just intellectual, a variety that seems to be preferred by the Anglicans).  There's no there there, though.

    [ Parent ]
    Alec82, weren't you banned for the day? (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:29:22 AM EST
    (Sorry if I got the wrong person.)

    [ Parent ]
    I am scared to even reply... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Alec82 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:35:19 AM EST
    ...because it is off topic. Please refer any questions to Jeralyn.  

    [ Parent ]
    Donnie McClurkin (none / 0) (#22)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:31:21 AM EST
    One of the low points in the Obama campaign.  A terrible choice handled in a way that makes me believe it was designed to pander and appeal in all the wrong ways.

    And he reportedly refused to have his photo taken with Gavin Newsome, San Francisco's mayor, during his Senate run.  Newsome was in the middle of a gay marriage controversy at the time, specifically he was allowing gays to marry in S.F.

    So, yes, I'm happy to see Obama publicly stand up for gay rights when he isn't being pushed or forced to.

    [ Parent ]

    Should've Added (none / 0) (#28)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:43:29 AM EST
    As is so often the case with Obama, my problem is not so much his policies* as his rhetoric and political posturing.  

    * I support gay marriage and think Obama and Clinton are wrong on this issue.

    [ Parent ]

    But today in Beaumont Texas (none / 0) (#76)
    by facta non verba on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:12:23 AM EST
    he threw me under a bus.

    Obama's rally in Beaumont today was the highest-energy of this Texas swing, with a crowd that was about three-quarters black cheering at almost every turn.

    An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBT rights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner, listing the various attributes ? race, gender, etc. ? that shouldn't trigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to saying that gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fell silent.

    So he took a different tack:

    "Now I?m a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday," he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers.

    "I hear people saying things that I don?t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian," he said, and the crowd seemed to come along with him this time.

    And last the Human Rights Council sent an email out to the LGBT community from Senator Obama.

    For six paragraphs he goes on about his comment to HIV/AIDS research (Clinton offers $55.2 billion versus his $50.0 billion, or 10% more than he does), how we are entitled to domestic partnerships, civil unions, and even marriage but it is up to states (well that misses the fact that half of them have outlawed any of the above) but what really irked me, nay angered me, was this:

    I will always work towards full equality. But I will also always listen to the other side.

    The other side? Who? James Dobson. Now that is someone clearly ready to let go of his hate. Obama must be stopped before he destroys the Democratic party.

    [ Parent ]

    How exactly (none / 0) (#131)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:52:55 AM EST
    did he throw you under the bus?

    If you really want to find something to get upset about I guess it isn't that hard to do so.

    [ Parent ]

    you have to understand the (none / 0) (#183)
    by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:46:13 AM EST
    long and sordid background of the evangelical concept of "hate the sin, not the sinner" used to alienate and demonize the glbt community.  this is just another of the many ways in which obama demonstrates he lacks any meaningful understanding of or sensitivity to civil rights battles that have been fought by dems.  and now it looks like he's recently altered his open letter to the lgbt community, presumably in response to outrage over his political gamble.

    [ Parent ]
    He already (none / 0) (#41)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:08:16 AM EST
    threw us under the bus.  What he's doing right now is merely putting it in reverse and running over us again.  And again.

    [ Parent ]
    I am glad (none / 0) (#100)
    by facta non verba on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:17:01 AM EST
    that you noticed. So many fail to do so.

    We have work to do, we need to rally around Hillary, she has warts but Obama is just awful.

    [ Parent ]

    If that's throwing you under a bus (none / 0) (#112)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:10:40 AM EST
    I shudder to think what he would need to do to impress you.  Through your Hillary tinted spectacles I suspect there is nothing that Obama could say or do that would not be throwing you under a bus.

    The fact is that Obama is the only candidate to have gone in front of audiences that are traditionally unfriendly to LGBT rights and actually confront them on the issue.  I found the passage from Obama's speech that you quote inspiring and positive.  I guess it's another Rorschach test.

    [ Parent ]

    On Rezko (none / 0) (#11)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:09:25 AM EST
    I think he screwed up by promising to provide any info the press wanted and then refusing to do it.  He also got into it with the Chicago reporters by claiming his campaign had released the closing documents on the real estate deal to the Sun-Times and Tribune only to have reporters from those papers (or so it appeared) vigorously dispute that.

    The most complete video I've been able to find is unfortunately on a Fox blog.  

    I don't think Obama does a terrible job, but he's clearly not used to dealing with hostile press.  He seems put out by having to do it and I'm not sure that's the more beneficial attitude to have with a press corps.

    In any event, he better get used to it because I don't think they're through with him.  Although I can't decide if they will be harder on him if he wins tomorrow (clear frontrunner) or loses (backlash over his inability to knock out the much hated Clinton).

    he doesn't like (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by facta non verba on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:24:00 AM EST
    criticism. He takes it personally. So do his supporters. He can't handle it. He is just like Richard Nixon in this respect. Why don't they love me? I am so lovable. Don't they realize that I am the one that they have been waiting for years? I am the anointed one.

    He anointed alright. Anointed by the corporations. His wife works Sidney Hill LLP, the ninth largest law firm in the world with over 1,800 assholes. It is the sixth largest law firm in terms of revenues with over a billion dollars in revenue. She is a corporate lawyer. Her job is to find loopholes, tax deferments,  trade benefits for her clients.

    Rezko may hurt Obama should he win the nomination or even if he loses it. It may cost him the VP slot or even his Senatorial career. It is too early to tell but the signs don't augur well for him. And like you said:

    he's clearly not used to dealing with hostile press

    I ain't smitten with Obama. He's an empty suit, a charlatan, another Richard Nixon. I had been treading lightly offering a benefit of a doubt but no longer. The gloves are off.

    [ Parent ]

    I dont think there is (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Rainsong on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:55:44 AM EST
    .. much of a story in Rezco, or even the Canadian-NAFTA gaffe.

    But thats not the point to me - the smears, media exaggeration, wild speculation, innuendo, and other crap is all in a days' work, and business-as-usual for all candidates for political office.

    Its how you deal with it that matters.

    Way back in January, I first saw Obama in a 3-way debate with Edwards and Clinton, and Edwards was just slicing him up with the easiest of softballs. If he is having trouble under "friendly fire" from his Democratic Party colleagues, how can he make it through the Republicans?

    I thought then Obama was unable to think on his feet, easily flustered without a set script, and would have to learn fast, before fronting hostile media and unexpected questions with the cameras rolling. In the Texas debate, a couple of times Clinton basically covered for him on gaffes, and now this? Hmmmm


    [ Parent ]

    those stories alone may not be huge, but (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:24:47 AM EST
    they start to piece together a mosaic for Obama that brings in to question his judgement, his affiliations, and his willingness to abandon and/or defend core democratic principles.  The reason it seems like a lot is being thrown Obama's way in rapid fire fashion is because:

    a) we don't know the guy all that well and there are hundreds of things he has yet to be asked

    b) the media seemed hellbent on rushing this guy to become our nominee without bringing these things up until Hillary's campaign brings it up.

    Then of course they blame it on her for trying to throw the kitchen sink at Obama but in truth, it wouldn't need to be that way had the media done its job in the first place.

    [ Parent ]

    *Nodding* (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Rainsong on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:28:24 AM EST
    Piecing together the real picture, as you say - but then we Americans do love our Hollywood myths and legends, and we are very good at it. We don't like our Disney bubbles burst.

    I'm working in London at the moment, returning next week, (Rainsong is my gf's account) but one of the other Brit contractors I work with said this morning "Before you guys unleash another Coke phenomenon on the rest of the Free-and-Unfree Worlds -- or another Bush -- is it too much to ask, if you test that it is fit for human consumption, first?"

    (background to the conversation, was around  discussing Obama's recent reference to NATO. Some of my co-workers thought it a bit premature of him to be dictating what NATO allies should, or shouldn't be doing, when he is still just a candidate, and supposedly as a Senator with responsibility for the relevant committee, but is too busy with his campaign to do it?)

    [ Parent ]

    I Should've Added (none / 0) (#17)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:19:15 AM EST
    That I think the video is a better source than Dana Milbank.  Certainly Obama got a bit more grilling today than he's used to and I'm sure the tension in the room felt different than in past encounters, but watching it, it doesn't seem quite as hostile as Milbank makes it sound.  It's not friendly and Obama does seem touchy, but I've seen worse.  And if he's the nominee, so will Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    well if obama can't handle a hostile (none / 0) (#84)
    by hellothere on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:22:20 AM EST
    press and gets the nomination, it is going to be a long, hot summer.

    [ Parent ]
    hmm (none / 0) (#30)
    by ajain on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:48:08 AM EST
    I think Milbank's account is pretty fair considering the way the reporters rip apart everything the Clinton camp does.
    Plus from watching the videos online it Milbank's account seems very accurate

    i wonder if countdown will have milbank on (none / 0) (#86)
    by hellothere on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:24:04 AM EST
    to discuss this. naw, i don't think so. msnbc is too far gone.

    [ Parent ]
    Just the fact patterns, ma'am! (none / 0) (#31)
    by Oje on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:50:21 AM EST
    I love this line:

    "The fact pattern remains unchanged."

    What is a fact pattern?

    Well... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Alec82 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:52:48 AM EST
    ...fact patterns are hypotheticals in law school and legal analysis.  It was on the fly.  I think he was saying that nothing has really changed since he talked about it earlier.

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:58:41 AM EST
    we are taught to accept the "facts beyond change" and build our defense around them.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks to both of you... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Oje on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:01:22 AM EST
    That is funny. So the meaning of "is" and "sexual relations" and "political positioning--wink, wink, nudge, nudge" are all variants of fact patterns!

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn, nice double-entendre (none / 0) (#54)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:32:51 AM EST
    "The facts beyond change."

    [ Parent ]
    The Press Wakes UP... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Matt v on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:54:38 AM EST
    "... no, it's not too late. There are still eight months until November. "

      Hmm.  Superdelgates may be the Party's salvation after all.

    that's what they were put in there for (none / 0) (#75)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:11:37 AM EST
    They serve as a safety net and as the Obama supporters love to say -- the rules are the rules.

    [ Parent ]
    They would have done it anyway... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Alec82 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:56:09 AM EST
    ...and the questions about lobbyist influence and corruption is not going to change for anyone, Senator McCain included, in the general election.  The press is sensationalist for the sake of market share, and it appears to work.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:01:44 AM EST
    Democrats are crazy to ever think the press is their friend.  The press is never the friend to any democrat.  The idea that Obama would stroll to a general election win if only that evil Hillary Clinton would get out of the way, is ridiculous.  In fact, I'd argue that he's been saved for this long because Clinton is still in it.  

    [ Parent ]
    John Fund (none / 0) (#40)
    by standingup on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:05:22 AM EST
    may be laying out the line of attack the right will take in his WSJ column.  It looks like they will be trying to push the association with Nadhmi Auchi via Rezko.  And they are painting Auchi as a very unsavory character.    

    I've Seen This Before (none / 0) (#46)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:15:54 AM EST
    So I think you're right.  In addition to the Rezko/Auchi crap, we're going to be seeing that Weather Underground dude, Ayers.

    The Muslim emails and the flag pin and pledge of allegiance crap have always, IMO, been about preparing the soil, so to speak, so that the bigger GOP smears to come can grow.  As I've said before, I predict they go with the oldie, but goody, Obama as dangerously outside the mainstream using all of this crap to build the narrative.  It's one reason why I'd like to get as much Rezko out of the way now as possible.  First, because if it's going to take Obama down, do it now not in October.  Second, if it doesn't take Obama down, get it out there so it's old news in October.

    [ Parent ]

    I Should Add (none / 0) (#49)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:19:27 AM EST
    That while I have my own concerns about Obama, mostly centered around his rightwing framing and his sexist dogwhistles, I've seen nothing in the Rezko, Auchi, Ayers, etc., stuff that makes me believe he's unfit to be president, especially as compared to John McCain.  It may make me prefer Clinton even more, but it does not make me think that Obama should not be the choice over McCain.  If I'm reluctant to support Obama whole-heartedly in November, it will be because of his sexist dog whistles, not any of this crap.

    [ Parent ]
    the sexism is (none / 0) (#67)
    by facta non verba on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:03:20 AM EST
    not just unbelievable but unbecoming a Democrat.

    My mother who is 85 and will vote tomorrow in Rhode Island and never has an unkind word to say about anyone. Even on Bush, she goes "well, he's in a tough place." For the first time since Richard Nixon, I heard broach a negative word on a political candidate. Her comment: "That man is so full of hate. How can his wife let him say those things?"

    Indeed, how can the American people let him say those things? Moreover how can we as Democrats allow him to say those things and sanction him with our votes.

    My mother, god bless her soul, will vote for Mrs. Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#101)
    by facta non verba on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:21:05 AM EST
    but you are wrong. Obama played the race card. And he throws comments like "the claws came out." That's a catty reference. Sexist. Today, he accused Clinton of throwing a temper tantrum. More misogynistic hate. He is implying that as a woman she is unstable.

    And nice of you to attack an 85 year old woman. Classy act.

    [ Parent ]

    Saw it on Hannity (none / 0) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:51:27 AM EST
    the other night too.  (watched on analog cable so it can't be tracked as ratings.)

    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't it bother anyone... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Siguy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:45:43 AM EST
    That there's nothing to the Rezko story?

    I mean, most of you are basically cheering that the press hammered him over this, but almost none of you actually believe that Obama did anything wrong, or at the very least, you've presented no evidence that he did.

    This election is turning into a disaster. After Hillary wins tomorrow, there'll be no clean outcome possible. Whoever comes out of this will be irrevocably damaged. I know this site is pro-Hillary and that most of you seem to think that this has been a campaign of Obama attacking Hillary, but I honestly just don't think that's true. Even when he was behind, he's pretty much had only positive ads, and the only negative ads were always response ads.

    Frankly, I'm starting to get disgusted. It's like the longer this goes on, the more dug-in people get. I'm even starting to feel it myself. The thought of voting for Hillary now, something I was happy to do  a few months ago, now turns my stomach because of all these attacks. Unlike most people online, I won't pretend that I wouldn't vote for her in the general because I can't in good conscience help the Republicans in any way, but I actually feel like it'll be hard for me to pull the lever for her now. That's just my personal feeling about it, I get that everyone here feels the opposite and thinks Obama is some sort of misogynist who doesn't deserve any support, but crap, this is really depressing. We're turning a surefire Democrat election year into a knife fight.

    It bothers me. (none / 0) (#114)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:20:15 AM EST
    True.

    Any on edge comments by Clinton surrogates are the Obama camp being disgusting and playing the race card.

    On the other hand somehow Obama is some kind of misogynist because of some ridiculous analysis of a couple of his phrases as being sexist dogwhistles.

    It's interesting and some of the vitriol displayed in the comments here towards Obama is very distasteful.

    Not that any of this would effect me in terms of voting as I'm not in/from the US  :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Link for you (none / 0) (#207)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    most of you seem to think that this has been a campaign of Obama attacking Hillary, but I honestly just don't think that's true.

    Attack timeline going back to 2006.

    [ Parent ]

    Rezko (none / 0) (#102)
    by facta non verba on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:24:21 AM EST
    Mr. Rezko was not in trouble when Sen. Obama asked him to tour the house and give his opinion on whether it was a good property.

    Rezko and Obama have been wheeling and dealing since 1991. You can ignore the facts, that doesn't make less true.

    Obama will be done within a fortnight. It will be a joy to watch him self-destruct. People will wonder how it all came apart.

    anything can happen (none / 0) (#105)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:40:15 AM EST
    The voters will have their say soon enough tommorrow...  Be prepared to see Obama win all these states or even sweep.  We just never know how strong the spell is... or whether it has been broken in time.

    [ Parent ]
    true. i'm not counting any chickens yet. (none / 0) (#195)
    by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:58:13 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Rezko/Rezmar problems (none / 0) (#107)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:42:39 AM EST
    March 2001
    Partial list
    An abandoned nursing home in Woodlawn. Rezmar and the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., known as WPIC, closed on the deal in 1995. Rezmar stopped repaying the $3.6 million state loan in March 2001, and the state eventually foreclosed, taking ownership of the building earlier this yea
    SunTimes

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:03:12 AM EST
    You said that the purchase happened before Rezko was in trouble, I showed you evidence that this was not true.  How is Clinton behind Obama not caring that he was entering into a boneheaded transaction with a developer was had and was under default on millions of government financed loans?  What does the Clinton campaign have to do with this?  

    [ Parent ]
    Head in the sand (none / 0) (#122)
    by magisterludi on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:28:43 AM EST
    much?

    [ Parent ]
    Bizarre... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:11:03 AM EST
    Better to ignore.  

    [ Parent ]
    When you say there is NO pathway, you are lying (none / 0) (#124)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:34:09 AM EST
    Take your lies to some other blog.

    Lots of bizarre posts from Obama supporters at TalkLeft this morning.

    Shouldn't this be a good day to look forward to for your candidate?

    [ Parent ]

    In the tank (none / 0) (#119)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:27:01 AM EST
    Well, the Clinton campaign has started playing hardball with the media...

    They put the press filing room in a men's room at a recent event.

    Since the press is so "in the tank" for Obama, the media should be grateful for the convenience this location provided them.

    i have little sympathy for the (none / 0) (#202)
    by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:05:18 AM EST
    press right now.  they've screwed over hillary, the dem party, and america--time and time again.  they have a lot to answer for.

    [ Parent ]
    The interests of the democratic party come far (none / 0) (#123)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:29:23 AM EST
    down her list of priorities.  Even if she loses the primary I'm beginning to think she would prefer McCain to win the presidency so she can come back in 2012.  That seems to be where her strategy is going.

    This is not the Psychic Friends Network (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:35:04 AM EST
    Psychics and telepaths down the hall.

    [ Parent ]
    There seems to be plenty of psychic (none / 0) (#132)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:53:58 AM EST
    deductions of Obama's thoughts and motives.

    [ Parent ]
    the hallway is wide enough (none / 0) (#136)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:03:03 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    So you are not bothered at all by Hillary (none / 0) (#138)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:06:51 AM EST
    effectively cutting a campaign commercial for John McCain.  You can guarantee that this clip will show up again in GOP campaign advertising if Obama is the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Least of my worries (none / 0) (#165)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:29:37 AM EST
    McCain is more prepared to be President than Obama.  It will be up to Barack to live up to the nomination if he gets it.  I already said I'm leaving the Democratic Party if/when Hillary Clinton withdraws.

    Today is the day, let's see what happens.

    [ Parent ]

    Did it bother you (none / 0) (#208)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:22:30 AM EST
    when Obama sent out the "Harry and Louise" mailer using Republican talking points against universal health care, so that the Repubs could use it inthe general to say, "See, even you think it's a bad idea."?

    Does it bother you that Obama attacks the only two-term Dem administration since WWII?

    Does it bother you that he blames the Dems and Repubs equally for what the Republicans have done in the past two decades?

    Because, you know, it should.

    [ Parent ]

    Nothing to say on Hillary's McCain endorsement? nt (none / 0) (#134)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:01:37 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It wasnt an endorsement, but its funny... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:08:02 AM EST
    Obama constantly saying Hillary cant beat McCain, no one has a problem with. Hillary pointing out Obama's biggest weakness (and obvious to anyone willing to think beyond the primary) and all of a sudden shes trying to be McCains VP and a turncoat.

    How bout some consistency JoeA?

    [ Parent ]

    The difference being (none / 0) (#141)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:12:25 AM EST
    that John McCain isn't going to run a campaign ad quoting Barack Obama saying that Clinton can't beat McCain.

    John McCain could most certainly run a campaign that says "Even Hillary Clinton admits that John McCain is more experienced than his rival, Barack Obama."

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:19:18 AM EST
    Thats really going to sink Obama, not his actual lack of experience, no thats not the problem, its Hillary pointing it out. Right.

    [ Parent ]
    Right, and Hillary Clinton is so experienced? (none / 0) (#152)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:22:54 AM EST
    If you make the argument about experience in the General then neither Obama or Hillary are going to win against McCain.

    The 3am ad is only really effective for McCain,  certainly not for Hillary.  Counting 8 years as the wife of the President as valuable foreign policy experience does not pass the laugh test.  

    The issue is that Hillary has effectively cut a GOP campaign commercial directly against Obama.  I can't think of Obama doing something similar.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, lets ignore Obama's problem (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:31:57 AM EST
    by talking about Hillary some more, thats really going to help.

    But going by your example JoeA, Ill take 8 yrs as first lady and 8 yrs as Senator over 2yrs as Senator and living out of the country for 4yrs as a 10yr old.

    [ Parent ]

    If the argument for the presidency comes down to (none / 0) (#185)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:47:39 AM EST
    that then

    McCain > Clinton > Obama.

    I'm hoping you're wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    well, (none / 0) (#192)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:51:56 AM EST
    If the argument doesnt come down to that then it doesnt matter what she said, does it? Obama's issue is experience, regardless of the person pointing it out. If he can get past that, then a video with Hillary saying something wont matter.

    [ Parent ]
    And McCain (none / 0) (#154)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:23:55 AM EST
    Isn't going to run a campaign ad quoting Clinton.


    [ Parent ]
    Thanks Carnak (none / 0) (#158)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:26:50 AM EST
    However you don't know that and it doesn't change the fact that Hillary shouldn't have done that.

    [ Parent ]
    They won't (none / 0) (#167)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:31:57 AM EST
    It's too easy to render such an ad ineffective.

    In 2004 moveon tried to use some statements Hagel made about Bush against Bush in an ad.  All the repug bloggers crucified Hagel of course.

    Hagel made a statement the next day saying the ad was lying about what he said, and moveon pulled the ad.  Not even those repug bloggers who feigned so much outrage even remember the episode to this day.


    [ Parent ]

    I have no idea (none / 0) (#172)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:34:13 AM EST
    what you are referring to.

    Considering the fact that Hillary did in fact say this, I fail to see how she can saying that she didn't.

    [ Parent ]

    She didn't say (none / 0) (#174)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:36:28 AM EST
    McCain would be a better president.

    She commented on how she thinks the General Election will play out.


    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#176)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:38:23 AM EST
    She said that John McCain is experienced and has gotten things done whereas Obama has only talked.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well? (none / 0) (#177)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:39:57 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#180)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:42:28 AM EST
    She didn't say "gotten things done."

    And even if she did, she never said she agreed with or would agree with those things.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Why not? [nt] (none / 0) (#160)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:27:22 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I've never seen Obama say that (none / 0) (#146)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:19:25 AM EST
    Clinton can't beat McCain.  I've seen him say that he does better at bringing independents and wavering voters over to the Democratic side on Presidential ticket,  and that this is likely to make him more electable against McCain than Clinton is.  It's an argument that also suggest he will have better coattails to help expand Democratic majorities in Congress and the Senate, especially in Red and Purple states.  He has argued that Hillary is a polarising figure and starts out with 47% of the country already with a negative opinion of her or saying they won't vote for her based on an opinion poll.  Some of that is debatable,  but certainly none is flatly false.  Also none of his similar comments come in soundbites that are likely to be used in campaign commercials for McCain.

    I think there is a clear difference.

    [ Parent ]

    A series of unfortunate events and (none / 0) (#137)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:06:09 AM EST
    intentional smear attacks by the Conservatives and the Clinton campaign.

    The Rezko affair was an unavoidable hit.  They knew it was coming.  They probably didn't expect the Clinton campaign to the ones with the pom-poms cheering on the press. In truth the press isn't really making that much of a big deal about the matter EXCEPT when Wolfson & Co. start throwing out insinuations.

    The NAFTA/Canada affair was a straight hit job by the Canadian government and, if Obama does become President, he shouldn't forget it.  The Obama campaign made a mistake in the sense that they didn't think that the Canadian government would actively get into the US Presidential race. Obviously they were wrong.

    As usual, the press is doing what it does.  When you show weakness they attack you.

    The good news is that both of these "scandals" will likely tire quickly.  Unless something of note happens with the Rezko trial it will be forgotten about by the time of the next primary.  The NAFTA kerfuffle is a news cycle story and that's about it.  It served it's purpose for the Clinton campaign and they should send the Canadian Conservatives a box a chocolates, along with probably the RNC.  

    From Obama's perspective the silver lining (none / 0) (#142)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:14:49 AM EST
    is that it will help him effectively manage expectations going into the primaries.  Now you are unlikely to see sky high expectations not being met.  If he squeaks a popular vote win in Texas then the night is a big win for him regardless of what happens in Ohio.  Of course the Clinton campaign would go back into spinning it as a "red state" which doesn't count.  If he does manage a popular vote win in Texas I think it's over,  the Clinton campaign might fight on to Pennsylvania but realistically superdelegates will start flooding to Obama.  

    OTOH if Clinton wins the popular vote in Ohio and Texas then things will start to get interesting.

    [ Parent ]

    That is a good point (none / 0) (#150)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:21:35 AM EST
    Obama can now manage expectations.

    This is particularly true of Ohio where he can use the Canadian leak somewhat to his advantage, eventhough I don't think it probably had much actual impact.

    [ Parent ]

    Let me get this straight (none / 0) (#210)
    by tree on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:42:41 AM EST
     Obama can "use the Canadian leak somewhat to his advantage" by blaming his (possible) loss in Ohio on the fact that his campaign got caught lying? There's a winning spin for you!

    [ Parent ]
    The local Chicago media pushed Rezko (none / 0) (#143)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:15:18 AM EST
    nothing happened on it til today because the trial started today and Axelrod lied Sunday when he said they have answered the press' questions, which got the local Chicago people, whom they have been ignoring, to say "Uh, thats not true".

    The Obama campaign made a mistake in the sense that they didn't think that the Canadian government would actively get into the US Presidential race. Obviously they were wrong.

    Those pesky Canadians, otherwise Obama couldve gotten away with lying to the people in Ohio. Those bastards, I hope he makes them pay.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes I know (none / 0) (#147)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:19:57 AM EST
    they are just big fat liars aren't.  Thank goodness we have you to tell us when someone is lying.  

    Those "pesky" Canadians are catching a lot of heat domestically for stick their nose in to American domestic politics.  It is believed that Harper's Chief of Staff leaked the memo.  If that turns out to be true that is VERY bad.  But as long as it helps Hillary, no biggie right?  

    [ Parent ]

    Geffen himself (none / 0) (#149)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:21:32 AM EST
    All politicians are liars, he never said "except Obama."


    [ Parent ]
    The charge of liar (none / 0) (#153)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:23:09 AM EST
    generally has very little impact on me regardless of who it is directed at.  

    [ Parent ]
    The Post I responded too (none / 0) (#159)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:27:09 AM EST
    Seems to contradict your next response to me.


    [ Parent ]
    How? (none / 0) (#169)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:32:39 AM EST
    I don't care that the Canadians are lying.  I care that they meddled in American domestic politics.  

    Where did I suggest I have a problem with lying?

    [ Parent ]

    I see (none / 0) (#173)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:35:06 AM EST
    The talking point has changed from them being liars to tampering with our elections.


    [ Parent ]
    It would be nice (none / 0) (#175)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:37:34 AM EST
    if you bothered to read what I WROTE rather create your own inferences out of whole cloth.

    [ Parent ]
    Not me (none / 0) (#157)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:26:24 AM EST
    Thank goodness we have you to tell us when someone is lying.  

    Im not calling them liars, the reporters are.

    But as long as it helps Hillary, no biggie right?  

    No, as long as it is the truth no biggie. Obama denied something that happened. The problem wasnt the meeting, it was claiming there was no meeting.

    Its not the crime, its the cover-up.

    [ Parent ]

    ooh the cover-up (none / 0) (#166)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:30:06 AM EST
    sounds so nefarious.  

    I guess it isn't possible that Obama didn't know the details?  

    For the record he never denied there was a meeting.  He denied that they met with the Canadian ambassador.  They didn't meet with the Canadian ambassador.

    Where he was apparently wrong was that NAFTA was briefly discussed.  But given the fact that he wasn't there, how bout we ease up on the accusations of lying.

    [ Parent ]

    well then the proper answer (none / 0) (#178)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:41:30 AM EST
    is "I dont know". Either one calls into question his grand judgment he claims to have. "Let me deny something I have no idea about."

    It wouldve been helpful if he told people that we needed to read between the lines of his denials.

    "Its not true." = It wasnt the ambassador.
    "It didnt happen." = It wasnt a phone call.

    It wouldve made things so much easier for everybody.

    [ Parent ]

    So you agree (none / 0) (#196)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:59:50 AM EST
    that you don't know if he was lying or not?  You are simply saying that because it is politically helpful?

    [ Parent ]
    do you agree (none / 0) (#204)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:06:47 AM EST
    that a blunt denial of "It didnt happen" or "Its not true." is purposefully misleading when what you are really disputing is one or two items of the bigger story? Such as who the meeting was with, and how the meeting took place.

    [ Parent ]
    And the meeting with with an advisor to (none / 0) (#181)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:42:32 AM EST
    the campaign who was invited to speek with consular officials wearing his "Professor of Economics" hat rather than any "Obama Advisor" hat.  Clearly the Obama campaign had no knowledge of the meeting until after it happened, didn't authorise it and didn't view it as a meeting of the campaign with Canadian officials.

    The lies being spread by the Clinton campaign that the Obama campaign actually sought out the Canadian government to reassure them is ridiculous and insults peoples intelligence.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually- (none / 0) (#186)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:48:33 AM EST
    The lies being spread by the Clinton campaign that the Obama campaign actually sought out the Canadian government to reassure them is ridiculous and insults peoples intelligence.

    What insults peoples intelligence is the notion that a College Prof would ever be speaking with Canadian officials if he wasnt affiliated with the Obama campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Professor hat (none / 0) (#212)
    by tree on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:53:42 AM EST
    '... rather than any "Obama Advisor" hat."

    If he was truly wearing only his "prof" hat, then he had absolutely no authority to assure the Canadian government that they could ignore Obama's rhetoric on NAFTA. Nobody on the Obama campaign has fired him, for what would have been clearly a firing offense if your desperate spin were true.

    [ Parent ]

    If you were to confuse (none / 0) (#148)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:20:07 AM EST
    Obama with a Democrat, maybe so.  Clinton isn't one running the post-partisan agenda.

    Most people can tell that she's saying what we all know is true, during the general election McCain will be running on his experience, and everything that comes with it, Obama will continue to run on judgment and his speech from 2002.

    Of course you people are so threatened by this simple observation, you've convinced yourself it's an endorsement of McCain.

    She never said McCain would be a better president.

    Never.


    It amazes me that somehow so many Hillary (none / 0) (#164)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:29:33 AM EST
    partisans have managed to convince themselves that she is experienced.   This is based on what????

    [ Parent ]
    That's not (none / 0) (#171)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:33:49 AM EST
    The topic at hand.

    It's based on the assumption that she wasn't just sitting on her hands in the White House.

    If you think that's not a good assumption, well, fine.  Others can disagree.

    [ Parent ]

    My partner is a Clinical Psychologist (none / 0) (#182)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:45:18 AM EST
    That clearly qualifies me to be one to,  when would you like your first session?

    [ Parent ]
    Do you have anything to do with (none / 0) (#184)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:47:29 AM EST
    His practice?  Work there at all?  What's your relationship to his practice?

    [ Parent ]
    Hell I've lived with her for 8 years. (none / 0) (#187)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:48:47 AM EST
    Shouldn't that be enough?

    [ Parent ]
    Inside (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:51:18 AM EST
    Her office?  You know.  Where she works?

    If you did, I wouldn't mind asking you about a condition my aunt has cause chances are you'd probably know better than most, and would at least be able to know where to refer my question.

    [ Parent ]

    That isn't fair (none / 0) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:24:21 AM EST
    She has criticized McCain and she most certainly opposes McCain on just about everything.

    Her poor decision to praise McCain in relation to Obama notwithstanding.

    The Thread (none / 0) (#179)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:41:32 AM EST
    Press waking up and asking questions.  I say about time.  Hoping it's not too late.  Now the question is when will the blogobots wake up?  

    Maybe never (none / 0) (#199)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:03:00 AM EST
    See Exhibit A:

    Mickey Kaus
    (Living in a bubble of poison for over 5 years...)

    [ Parent ]

    Summary of todays Obama spin. (none / 0) (#191)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:51:29 AM EST
    Candidate Obama, self proclaimed bonehead, continues to claim he has the judgement advantage, while his campaign flies head long into NAFTA gate.  Obama, claims he is being victimized by a vast hemispheric conservative conspiracy being fueled by his opponent, Hillary Clinton and her supporters.  Obama, who rarely answers questions, expresses his disgust at having to answer "eight questions".  Meanwhile, his campaign is alleging that Clinton is endorsing McCain.  

    TL commenter Chisoxy  brilliantly clarifies the Obama campaign stance

    Obama can beat the Repubs in November, but he wont make it that far because Clinton used the republican tricks to beat him now....thats a great line of thinking there. Im sure the republicans wouldve been nicer to him.
    Ergo, if only the Clinton campaign did not come up with the ways to beat Obama, he would win the GE.  Therefor, Clinton is to blame if he loses the GE.  

    Wow (none / 0) (#198)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:02:05 AM EST
    This was a nasty thread. I'm closing it.

    HIllary has figured out what to do with the press (none / 0) (#211)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:46:39 AM EST
    Put them in the toilet

    Its going to be a long day, might as well have some fun.