home

Sunday Open Thread With Obama On Fox

Watching MTP and ABC's This Week, the pundits roundtable demonstrates that Barack Obama's most important constituency, the Beltway Media, remains firmly in his corner.

It should not matter, but it matters a lot. It is why I believe Barack Obama is more electable than Clinton.

This is an Open Thread. Below is my live blog of Obama on Fox. Jerome Armstrong has a nice post on it. Open Thread bonus - Indiana demographics and North Carolina demographics.

On "Face The Nation," when asked about Jim Clyburn's outrageous comments about the Clinton camp, David Axelrod went out of his way to categorically reject Clyburn's conspiracy theory. It seems clear to me that Clyburn was off the reservation there and the Obama camp wants no part of Clyburn's delusions. More . . .

Obama on Fox transcript. Below, my live watch highlights. I will skip all the silly Obama Watch setup nonsense.

Chris Wallace asks the questions.

Q. PA, what does it mean? White voters?

OBAMA - Keep in mind Sen Clinton was well regarded. That she won should not come as a huge surprise we came back . . . On GE matchups Clinton just a bit better. In WI and VA and IA I won white voters. Confident that when we come to a GE, those are voters I will appeal to.

Q. Is Clinton tougher than you? What about losing white working class 70-30?

OBAMA - Monday morning quarterbacking after you lose is par for the course. I have won them in other states. She ran good campaigns in Ohio and good campaigns in PA, these voters are less familiar with me and I am less familiar with them.

We have always been the underdog in this race. Because I am relatively new.

Q. Isn't there still a racial divide in this country that makes it hard for you to win the Presidency?

OBAMA - I am running better against McCain than Clinton [I believe that is false right now]. I put states in play that Dems have not won in the past. I will bring people together.

Q - Clyburn says blacks are furious about the Clintons. Do you agree with Clyburn?

OBAMA I do not think Clyburn is right. I am confident the Dem Party will come together. Come August, whoever the nominee is, the Party will say we will come together to beat McCain.

Q. Jeremiah Wright a victim?

OBAMA - No. It is a legitimate political issue. But snippets to caricature him and the church, and this was done in a deliberate way. But I got to church not to worship a pastor but to worship God. Look at the whole church and the whole man in judging them.

[More on Wright. Nothing new.]

Q. What were the controversial remarks you said you heard Wright make? And about America?

OBAMA - Problems in the black community are discussed in sharp ways. As for America he has talked about slavery and Jim Crow. He has catalogued the bad in America and not enough about the good.

Q - Do voters have an interest in knowing who you are and what your values are?

OBAMA - Absolutely. But look at my 20 years of community service. Look at how I have raised my family. I do not say that he Wright issue was illegitimate, but that it was done improperly. Look at the flag pins. I have worn flag pins and I will in the future. The reporting was not reflective of me and my patriotism. Remember my 2004 DNC speech.

Q - William Ayers and Tom Coburn. The same?

Obama - No, of course not. I called Coburn afterwards. My point is just because I have an association with someone does not mean I agree with what they say.

[20 minutes in and I do not see Obama taking anybody on.]

Obama says Republicans have better ideas on government regulation.

Boy is he taking on Fox and the GOP today. NOT.

Q. Are you really post partisan? Gang of 14, you were not part of it. Partial birth abortion.

OBAMA - This is fair but I voted for tort reform measure. During the Roberts nomination, I defended my colleagues. On the Daily Kos. I was fiercely attacked for it.

[This is true. Here is the post in question. He did give on on the Roberts issue in the way he discussed it.]

On partial birth abortion or late term abortion, I grant that the state can restrict it, so long as it has exceptions for the health of the mother.

As President, I want to bring people together and listen to all sides of the debate. I want to get us out of the polarizing debate.

[This is all gibberish imo.]

Q - Will you vote to confirm Petraeus as Cent Com?

Obama - Yes, Petraeus has been a good tactical commander.

Q - If Petraeus disagrees with you, will you replace him?

Obama - I am C-i-C and I see the strategic mission. I will listen to him of course, but I am the President.

Debates? We have had 21. We want to talk to the voters.

Premature to discuss running mates. Open to it? I am going to punt on the question.

IF you are ahead in the PV and PD will people be angry? Obama, yes they will be angry. But here is my belief, Dem will be unified. I think I am the unifier.

Obama will run privately financed campaign, first since Watergate? [Is this correct? I thought bush and Kerry were privately financed?]

Obama looks for way out of his public finance commitment.

What have you learned? OBAMA - I have the right temperament to be President. I have an even keel. Mistakes? I made a few. Actually all the time. I talk too much. instead of listening. I learned I miss my family.

[Comments now closed.]

< Late Night: Johnny Can't Read | That Was Then, This Is Now >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It's not just the Beltway Media. . . (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by bslev22 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:51:39 AM EST
    This morning Josh Marshall has a blog up, titled "Dark, Very Dark".  This ominous sounding title is prompted by his review of the Wall Street Journal's article highlighting Bill Clinton's intensifying role in the campaign, and offering baffling insights such as, hold on to your hats, the fact that Bill Clinton doesn't like to lose elections.  Does it matter that much in the grand scheme of things?  Perhaps not. Are Josh and like-minded folks in the blogosphere facilitating a deep and lasting schism between various factions of the Democratic base?  You bet they are.

    I think the blogs are now irrelevant (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:53:21 AM EST
    All of them.

    This one too.

    Parent

    Irrelevant? You think? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by bslev22 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:01:25 AM EST
    Don't want to overuse my commenting privileges BTD, but if not now I would be interested at some point in reading about why you think the political blogs have become irrelevant.  I for one get more from reading analyses by you and Jeralyn than I get from the NYTs, and I'm not blowing smoke.

    Parent
    I think they could have ben relevant (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:03:40 AM EST
    IF they had been issue centric and pressed the candidates on issues. Instead they became candidate centric and thus irrelevant.

    Parent
    I agree on the candidate centrism. (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:10:47 AM EST
    It's be one thing if they actually had objective candidate support - constructive criticism, listed policy deficiencies as well as engaging in team building and organizational support.

    But when The Candidate is held blameless and The Media and The Opponent and even The Public are the ones criticized in their stead, blogs aren't a useful, not even as a focus group.  Maybe as a real time sociology experiment in psy ops, but little else.

    I still think that TL is great.  Here there's no reluctance to examine the issues. (as opposed to a obsession with spinning them.)

    Parent

    What do you call it (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Burned on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:20:52 AM EST
    When you laugh and sigh at the same time?

    "Maybe as a real time sociology experiment in psy ops, but little else."

    Very funny line, very true and very sad.
    It's been a huge letdown.

    Parent

    saughing? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:26:47 AM EST
    Good natured self-depreciating resignation?

    Parent
    top o' the rec list (none / 0) (#161)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:00:05 AM EST
    A diary I had no problem with (propaganda, but fairly benign stuff) until the tip jar stated "It's not like he is consistently using the media to espouse openly right-wing framing, the way his Democratic opponent is.".

    Then he lost me.  They just can't resist it!

    Parent

    TL (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:26:08 AM EST
    is quite a bit more objective than say, Huffington Post.  The story is the story, and then opinion is added but clearly indicated.

    The other key is that the comment policy allows for differing opinions but watches the flaming.  

    That will be the go-forward model for blogs that would like to succeed, in my opinion.

    Parent

    Relative Objectivity... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by DanR3 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:32:31 AM EST
    I started visiting this blog more frequently after super tuesday simply because it was one of the few blogs remaining that allowed HRC supporters to actually voice an opinion without getting immediately pounced on by Obama supporters or banned by the site owners.

    I wouldn't go so far as to describe TL as being "objective" though, other than by adding some balance to the rest of the noise.

    Parent

    I agree with you about (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:48:22 AM EST
    the fact that they became candidate centric, although a few tried to remain neutral.  It just got harder as the vitriol increased and the supporters became more defensive/offensive.  Issues couldn't even be discussed without the thread devolving into name-calling and accusations.  People began bashing people who represent their own values and support many of the same democratic ideals that they do.  How can you do that and not see the damage you're doing to the party as a whole?  I know many are totally frustrated after the events of the last seven to eight years, and some wanted radical change NOW.  Not going to happen.  I'm really angry at some of the bloggers and MoveOn for feeding the frenzy.  They've managed to diminish their good work by taking the positions they did, at least AFAIC.  And after worrying about government intervention and republican tricks, they did it to themselves!!!!

    The blogs are shaped to a large degree by its participants.  You guys have attempted to keep trolling to a minimum and posts on topic.  For that I thank you.  Others should have followed your lead and tried to remain more objective, despite their personal feelings.  Blogs are supposed to represent all of us, not just the ones who support one candidate or the other.

    There'll have to be a lot of introspection, accountability and healing after this.
    I hope we're mature enough to do all of that, but I'm not very optimistic.


    Parent

    My normie (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:36:59 AM EST
    friends are far more interested in other stuff in life than this election.  They aren't going to need to "heal."

    As for blogger-world, myself included, the obsession with the race is our responsibility.  Obsession is obsession.  Unhealthy stuff....but rather fun.  :)

    I'm convinced that this business of being so divided is a lot simpler than it appears.  The older Dems are now becoming the swing voters in the Fall.

    That's so not surprising.  Obama's tax proposal?  Deadly.  They don't like his relationship problem.  They don't like his attitude.  They just don't like the guy.  

    The new flood of progressives into the party used to be the swing voters.  

    All that has happened is that the demographics have flip-flopped.

    What's new about this?  Nothing, I think.

    Parent

    Obviously, the demographics have switched (none / 0) (#138)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    because we don't have a white man running in the dem primary.  :-)

    I think you're probably right about the amount of attention being paid, although the people I know here do not blog, but all are all following the race very closely.  Maybe that's influencing the way I feel about division.  One actually said about two months ago that she was leaning toward either Obama or McCain.  Pretty stunning, isn't it?  I haven't talked to her lately though.

    It's still a while until November.


    Parent

    My real life friends (none / 0) (#195)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST
    are an eclectic bunch.  They are cute.  Even those who voted for Obama called me after PA to congratulate me. :)

    They'll be happy to vote for Clinton in the Fall.  

    I had one die-hard activist friend.  Frankly, she got on my nerves.  I'm an emotional moderate.  *haha

    Parent

    The canddiates... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:21:40 AM EST
    ...spent 250 million to avoid any issue based debates.  I don't think the blogs did that to themselves.

    At least their public participants  didn't consciously do it.  I can't speak for the  semiprofessional Troll raters cadres that came to dominate or politically clense them.

    Parent

    How hard can you squeeze the difference? (none / 0) (#82)
    by ding7777 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:05:35 AM EST
    You yourself said there's not a dime's worth of difference between them

    Parent
    The small blogs (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:36:06 AM EST
    like TalkLeft weren't all that relevant to the electoral process to begin with.

    The large blogs WERE relevant and burned through their relevancy starting with a smolder quite awhile ago that became a raging fire in the last 4 months.

    I think Talkleft has GROWN in relevancy to the electoral process because of the self-torching of the others.  Although Talkleft is clearly partisan, it isn't mindlessly so.  That simple fact makes the site so unique right now that its relevancy is greater.

    Parent

    they are as relevant (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:39:01 AM EST
    as they ever were.

    Blogs work on the premise that the moderator goes out into the googlesphere, finds something that interests him or her, then quotes it back, states an opinion, and lets folks talk about it.

    How has that changed?  If you say it's irrelevant now, then you have to admit that it was irrelevant then.  There is a reason you're not on a knitting blog or a fly-fishing republicans for Jesus blog.  We all pick the areas that interest us and post accordingly.  That's why many of us left Kos and HuffPo.  The opinions expressed there were just too radical from our own beliefs.

    Don't worry--something new will come along to outrage you and you'll feel relevant again.

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:41:26 AM EST
    they bet the farm that Obama would catch on like some wildfire and they can go back to the binary of good bad between the two parties.  They are not equipped to deal with anything that is not either good or bad.  They cannot deal with analysis or criticism.  They are cheerleaders when they should have been pushing the progressive Agenda.  Finally, what is amazing to me, is how they were manipulated by the Axelrod viral campaigns.  I think it will become very clear that the viral tactics of the campaign manipulated the big boyz.  This is where I think they are now truly irrelevant, they are not immune to being manipulated and being locked in "correct" thinking.  

    Parent
    So...what you're saying is... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:44:29 AM EST
    they really are tools.

    Parent
    they have become tools (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:49:58 AM EST
    and therefore are irrelevant.  Reminds of Soviet:  The official organ of the great revolution kind of stuff.  

    Parent
    the staff at the Obama campaign HQ (4.00 / 0) (#200)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    are on average 20something YOs and is why imo, they're influential in bringing Obama's views here. This medium belongs to them by and large, but, the temperament and lack maturity is very apparent. I have never read such vicious garbage aimed at Sen. Clinton, a repectable person who is undeserving of any of it.

    however, even with the exception of even Huffpo or TPM, the mature blogs have had limited effectiveness for the candidates, or Obama would have won the nomination by now.

    They have had successes like the US attorneys scandals at the DOJ. Josh's site while being too partisan for me at times  has been invaluable in bringing attention to the Congress mobilizing, emailing, faxing, calling them as have a few others.

    Parent

    i think blogs have a place (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by moll on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:02:24 AM EST
    I used to live in a place that had a historic town hall - sort of like a secular version of a church where everyone belongs to the same church.

    Blogs today are like that building. People do not vote in a vacuum - they swap information with others in their community. They get feedback about what other people think and feel. They want to stand with "their own kind" and they want reassurance that they're not making a mistake and they want to not miss any crucial information.

    Some of that has to happen on the local level. Only, local doesn't mean geographical anymore. It means people with shared interests.

    So I don't think blogs are irrelevant. I think there is a certain danger in the way we are gathering our news, whether it is blog or mainstream - it disturbs me how people tend to not read anything except their own echo chamber. It especially disturbs me when I find I am just as guilty, because I do not like reading "their" take on things (so I just avoid it). This is the real xenophobia these days. But perhaps the best blogs are the ones that have bloggers who read outside their own neighborhood, and the xenophobic blogs will not survive.

    Parent

    What About The State Specific Dem Blogs? (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:24:58 AM EST
    They, at least in the past, seemed to concentrate on local issues, monitoring how the politicians were performing and pushing them to perform better etc.

    Parent
    Blogs have other uses too (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:48:27 AM EST
    When the Iraq War was looming, I was one of those who loudly protested to friends, especially Republican ones, this was not a good idea. But who was I? One insignificant voice over the NYT and Judith Miller? I believe if the blogs were as big as they are now, maybe we could have made a dent by protesting. Maybe not, as lies were fed to the people by the administration. Maybe we would have been labeled UnAmerican, UnPatriotic, and been hated outcasts but we would have at least tried.

    When I stopped commenting at DK, I did not write a GBCW diary, I didn't even make a fuss, I just brought my voice over here, like it or not. Ha! I don't hate the Kossacks, I was one of them. I kept saying we are eating our own. I laugh at them now because I was never mean like they have become. I always thought Markos would step in and say, OK, we are going over the top here. But, he went over the top with them. Blogs are relevant. Jim Webb and Jon Tester would have lost without the on the ground effort and financial support the blogs encouraged. Having said that, I think the big blogs are not as relevant now as they were because the honesty has left the building. It is no longer issues, causes, and keeping the politician's feet to the fire. And the candidate they choose does not even want to be identified with them. He might be their hero but they are not his. We are the voices of the blogs and that makes us relevant.  

    Parent

    I left DK without a GBCW diary too (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    but that was intentional. When Hillary wins the nomination, I plan to go back and do a victory dance diary.. I even have the title..it's a bit childish, but I can't resist. It will be titled, "Neener, neener, neener!!!" And then I will chortle a bit in the first sentence and then challenge them to get back to what DK said it was there for in the first place, the discussion of, and work to implement, progressive and Democratic agendas. I expect to be either banned or totally swamped with insults. But, I am a big girl and I can handle it. Just like my candidate can. Heh.

    Parent
    ha (none / 0) (#238)
    by Cal on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:11:20 PM EST
    I'll recommend that one!

    Parent
    The why continue to attack (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by buhdydharma on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:33:04 AM EST
    or more accurately in your case)participate i a site now dedicated to attacking Democrats, instead of putting your effort into defeating Republicans?

    The blogosphere is only effective when it is a somewhat united front. Right now it is destructive to the one cause that really matters, defeating the Republicans.

    Remember torture

    Remember Iraq

    Remember NOLA

    Remember it is Republicans that are the problem. not fellow Dems.

    Parent

    I think the blogs are now irrelevant (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cal on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:22:36 AM EST
    They were ever relevant?

    Parent
    The opportunity was there. (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by cawaltz on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    Instead of pushing an individual they should have been pushing an agenda. Instead of saying all of the candidates are basically the same they should hve been discussing philosophical differences as well as policy differences and even record and how that fit into the progressive agenda. Instead they bought into identity politicsrace and gender) and living and dying by poll numbers and money raised. There should have been pushback when the media pared the race down the race or focused on BS.

    Parent
    Yes And The Monitors Needed To Crack Down (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:22:45 AM EST
    when a person went into person attack mode on an unbiased basis.

    I would love to really debate issues on a civil basis but I'm not going to debate commentary that consists of nothing but talking points and insults. Even a winning point can be lost when you add a personal insult to the mix. Have to admit that I have not been real good the last two days on omitting the put downs myself. Have to work on dealing with the issues and ignoring the B.S. again.

    Parent

    Agreed. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Cal on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:04:16 PM EST
    Uh? (none / 0) (#208)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:44:25 AM EST
    Sorry, I get it (none / 0) (#215)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:46:50 AM EST
    I misread a previous comment.

    Parent
    The race (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:12:49 AM EST
    divide is a big topic, with a lot of editorials this morning.  What I noticed is that more are pointing out that this is a fairly odd argument.  90% AA vote is pride.  But when he loses the excuse is that the people are racist?

    That means Iowa is less racist than Ohio.  There's an argument guaranteed to lose the election in the Fall.  Bye-Bye PA, for sure!

    Another editorial pointed out that Axelrod has tried this same divisive strategy when he ran Edwards campaign and another time....both failing.

    Parent

    You'll find that ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:30:30 AM EST
    ...many Edwards supproters washed up with the drfitwood here.  Edwards clearly never had any truck with polarizing voters on charater issues. He clearly saw how he was going to be smeared as a racist or sexist and knew it was time to bug out. He anticipated this disaster quite nicely.

     

    Parent

    With a wife like Elizabeth it would have been (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:34:28 AM EST
    ...hard to smear him as sexist, IMHO. The other thing, yeah probably.

    Parent
    Maria (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:42:47 AM EST
    would you have thought a year ago that Bill and Hillary Clinton would be fighting charges of racism?  

    They could have easily made John out as sexist.  Rumor has it that the leak about John's haircut came from Camp Obama.

    Parent

    Oh, I thought the original post.... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:46:59 AM EST
    ..was was suggesting that the Obama camp would have pointed Edwards as a racist and the Clinton camp would have tried to brand him sexist. I'm sure that Team Axelrod would have thrown anything at Edwards that they thought would stick.

    Parent
    and yet (none / 0) (#169)
    by cawaltz on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    There WAS a prominent female blogger that implied he was(she used it as an excuse to defect to Obama). I lose respect when I see folks tossing around the words racist and sexist like they have no understanding of what the word means. It is a grievous wrong in my opinion to call someone a sexist or racist to score political points or attempt to score points when you disagree with someone.  

    Parent
    when did Axelrod run Edwards campaign? (none / 0) (#61)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:52:16 AM EST
    interesting: have a link?

    Parent
    Media consultant (none / 0) (#102)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:24:15 AM EST
    down the page on this link.  In 2003.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edworg.html


    Parent

    Aw geez... (none / 0) (#166)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:02:47 AM EST
    Did you have to make me read something about Marshall on a nice Sunday morning?

    Parent
    The media doesn't vote Democratic (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by koshembos on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:59:56 AM EST
    Once it's McCain vs Obama, the media will be all McCain. Furthermore, Obama as nominee will lose at least 10% of the Democrats whom you antagonized and doesn't care for.

    Obama will further depress or even eliminate the Democratic success in the Congressional elections.

    The Democratic party will pay for many years to come for Obama's racist, arrogant and mindless campaign.

    Brazile said today - (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:22:59 AM EST
    Obama has not played the Race Card!
    Well - I guess not for those who live on the Obama Planet.

    Parent
    It was Brazille who started it (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Serene1 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:29:05 AM EST
    by accusing Bill Clinton loudly of racisim because he made the fairy tale comment regarding Obama's Iraq war opposition.
    Obama followed up on it dutifully with the memo and subsequently seeing racist overtones/undertones in each and any of Bill's comment.

    Parent
    The Obama (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:36:59 AM EST
    campaign tried to squelch Bill Clinton, because people do like him, and he is an asset to her campaign. I think he did step back for a while as they tried to reassess his role and decide if voters believed the hype.  (Bill Clinton a racist?  Please.) It's interesting to hear that he's now getting much more involved again, so I guess they've decided.

    Can't keep those Clintons down.  :-)

    Parent

    "Damaged" Obama (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:42:13 AM EST
    Watching This Week, what is wrong with these people?  "overturn the will of the people" Donna Brazille, is she serious?  She is damaging the party.  

    Parent
    Or inadvertently (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:46:25 AM EST
    Helping Sen Clinton, if the will of the people is the popular vote, not the delegate count...that would be delicious irony.

    Parent
    As usual (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by standingup on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:00:47 AM EST
    Brazille started the program trying to appear "neutral" but it didn't take long before she was in full defend Obama mode.  I am amazed so many of the networks continue to have her on as an "uncommitted delegate" instead of being honest that she favors Obama.  

    Parent
    I noticed that DB (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:02:58 AM EST
    first mentioned "will of the people" and popular vote, then, suddenly realizing that HRC is now plausibly arguing she leads in the current PV, Donna said "and the will of the people in the pledged delegates".

    Laughable.

    She's a shill for Obama, and it's simply dishonest for ABC and CNN to put her on constantly without pointing out her clear pro-O bias.

    One reason why I am watching less of these cable/network political chat shows.  They almost always feature 1-2 pro-O pundits with no one for Hillary.  MSBHO being the worst of course.

    Parent

    "there might (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:45:08 AM EST
    be some racism there"  -- obama in response to clinton's lbj/mlk comment.

    Parent
    Does Obama seriously think that (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:17:31 AM EST
    Martin Luther King could have gotten the Civil Rights Act through Congress by himself??? LBJ did some serious and dirty politicking to get it through. I was living in McLean, VA at the time, and I remember the grownups, I was 14, talking about what LBJ had had to do to get it through Congress. He literally blackmailed some of the Reps. and Senators into voting for it. LBJ knew where ALL the skeletons were buried and he had no compunction about threatening to make them public if the Civil Rights Act wasn't passed. Obama should be grateful to the "old style politics", without it he sure as hell wouldn't be where he is today.

    Parent
    Really? I'd like to read about that some time. (none / 0) (#209)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:44:29 AM EST
    Any recommendations? I was 14 y.o. at the time too but was interested in politics. I've always known LBJ worked the back rooms pretty well.

    Parent
    There is an excellent bio of LBJ out. (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    It has several volumes and the author was given total access by Lady Bird to all his papers, including private ones, as well as interviews with her. I don't recall the author, though. McLean is right outside DC and all of our neighbors, and my Dad, worked for the government in some capacity. Many of them were in Congress, or worked for people in Congress. And the word got around just through discussions at barbecues and things. Back then there wasn't this huge secrecy crapola all over the place, and people did discuss what was going on openly. Of course, it was discussed after the fact, although not by much. There were victory parties for the Civil Rights Act, in the white suburbs, believe it or not. And how it was done was openly discussed and admired. LBJ may have been a lot of things, but he was first and foremost a master politician and one of the earliest proponents of civil rights legislation.

    Parent
    Your insider view is fascinating. (none / 0) (#239)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:14:36 PM EST
    I would have been so intrigued by those discussions back then, and still would for that matter. The plots that go on within the political sphere are more exciting than many books and almost all TV entertainment.

    I'll look for the LBJ bio. Thanks so much for the information.

    BTW, I briefly lived in Fairfax, so I know where McLean is. Lots of political action in those parts.

    Parent

    I will tell you one thing I heard (5.00 / 1) (#259)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:37:10 PM EST
    that may not have made it into the book. LBJ and the old pols were friends for years. And during those years, LBJ kept his ears open and his mind on "save" when in the steam room, the bar or where ever they let their hair down and their secrets out. Some of the stuff he used was really dirty and low down, like mistresses, illegitimate children,..remember this was before the pill and men were careless..and all sorts of things that in those days were never mentioned in decent society and certainly not in the press.

    But LBJ used them, and used them well. He didn't have to threaten to tell the press, he just had to say, "What if your wife finds out about this?" because in those days divorce was a political career killer.

    LBJ was good at what he did..he got the bill through, by hook and by crook. And we should all be grateful.

    Parent

    Bill Moyer Did A Great PBS Presentation On (none / 0) (#216)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:49:00 AM EST
    the subject. I don't have a link but I'm sure if you go to their site you will be able to find a clip.

    Parent
    Thanks so much. I'll go and check it out! (none / 0) (#233)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:04:25 PM EST
    Koshembos (none / 0) (#57)
    by bslev22 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:47:42 AM EST
    Another TPM acquaintance.  Good to see you.
    Bruce

    Parent
    Is the media for Obama? (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:59:56 AM EST
    Or against Hillary?
    Important distinction when considering the GE.


    Not mutually exclusively (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    of course, we don't know whether they love McCain or Obama more. My guess is the former.

    Parent
    Um, that's Exclusive. . . (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    We shall see. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Faust on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:02:42 AM EST
    I think McCain is going to be a lot less robust than people think personally. I could easily be wrong. I hope to God I'm right.

    Parent
    If Obama gets the nomination, he will (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:24:25 AM EST
    lose the election the first time he looks down his nose at McCain. No matter what you think of the man's politics, there is no argument that he is a war hero, has served his country in war and in peace, and has a much longer record of public service than Obama does. If Obama gets snotty with McCain, it will cost him the election. Even without his own baggage. I don't like McCain, but I do respect him and his service. So do a lot of Americans. And if this green kid comes in with his sense of entitlement and looks down his elite nose at McCain, that will be the end of him. Even people who would have voted for him just because he is a Dem will draw the line at that. Hillary has been in public service as long as McCain has, albeit without the military record. She will attack his policies and plans, not him personally. Obama doesn't have anything to counter policies and plans with, so he will probably stoop to the same methods he has used against Hillary, and they will backfire on him.

    Parent
    Yes - the CORPORATE media is for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:39:12 AM EST
    because they're always seeking a "New American Idol."
    If not, Edwards haircut videos would have been less important than Wright videos - concealed from the public until most of the primaries were over.
    What's interesting is Obama supporters slamming the MSM that's coddled and stroked Obama from the gitgo and still conceals damaging info about him.
    If Hillary had lied about her own father in order to obtain a key endorsement, it would be headlined in MSM and Obama blogs!

    Obama began his "operation chaos" long before Limbaugh with his "Dem for a day" - but that's ignored by the MSM because Hillary is the target of Operation Chaos.

    Parent

    BTD (4.75 / 4) (#19)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:17:59 AM EST
    fails to say if he's more electable for the general or the primary.

    I assume he meant both.

    However Daschle on ABC is illustrating why he could not break the GOP in the Senate over al lthose years and why he was unseated by his constituency.  He's borderline delusional about Obama's appeal post Wright or disengenuous to the nth degree.   His intellectual performance and that of his wingman is tremendously underwhelming.
    They are not dealing with the fall out from Ayers and Wright in an honest manner.

    Parent

    Daschle is a weasel (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by wasabi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:51:35 AM EST
    A few years ago he was on Meet The Press and he threw someone under the bus for absolutely no reason.  I can't even remember who it was (I'm old, and I've slept since then), but I lost all respect for that man on that day.

    Parent
    I think he (none / 0) (#219)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:50:31 AM EST
    means in the GE.  But I don't understand his rationale tied to the fact Obama is -so far- the darling of most of the main stram media.
    We've seen how much OH and PA voters care about that... The GE voters would care even less.

    Parent
    I think it is CDS with the Beltway Boyz! (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by alexei on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:03:35 AM EST
    And that means that Obama will face the same CDS against McCain and he can't handle it.  Remember, Gore and Kerry also faced the CDS and did not do well. Obama will be worse than either as evident in how he couldn't deal with the mild criticism and questions in the Primary.

    Whereas, Clinton with all the terrible CDS is essentially in a tied race with much less money and a non-existent strategy for the caucuses.  She is now actually getting grudging respect for her toughness, her political skills and her resilience.  from many of the Media. Therefore, it is Clinton who is much more electable on this issue than Obama.  McCain is the real "Media Darling" in this race and Obama will wilt under the relentless CDS, while Clinton will see it as business as usual and tread on.

    Also, its the supporters who are tougher and (3.00 / 1) (#75)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:02:19 AM EST
    more resilient.

    Old biddies don't switch allegiances just because some young thing says "gasp!!! X will do anything to win!!!! OMG!!!!

    and etc, etc...

    Parent

    Not sure what your (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:01:27 AM EST
    point is but this "Old Biddie" resents people that call us Old Biddies. Unless of course you are another Old Biddie and then you have some right to talk for yourself as an Old Biddie but not for this Old Biddie.

    Parent
    i also find the obama (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:06:22 AM EST
    "media darling" theory propounded by big tent to be laughably naive. if he maintains his status as "media darling" throughout the general election then he is not what he claims/appears to be, i.e. a democratic politician.

    He isn't.. Did you see him on Fox, or (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:14:33 AM EST
    read the transcript? He is Republican-lite.

    Parent
    Obama plays to the audience. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:19:37 AM EST
    Which is to say that he bends with the passing breeze.

    He did learn one thing from Kerry - never be specific, never be clearly defined.  That way he can shift from one vague position to another without every being accused of flip flopping.

    Or as one of my sig lines said:
    The Audacity of Ambiguity!
    The Climate of Change!
    The Search for Substance!


    Parent

    Isn't your current one over there... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:03:58 AM EST
    member of the Cult of Issues and Substance

    love it.

    Parent

    Yes,Audacity...was the one previous to it. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:36:32 AM EST
    I used the "Audacity of Ambiguity!" when the whole Unity! Hope! Change! meme was being touted as if it was more than feel good political rhetoric.

    Soon enough, even that became too outrageous and went with the Cult of Issues and Substance.  

    Parent

    And Obama is claiming (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:08:33 AM EST
    he doesn't hit back all the time. Apparently, he thinks he is running a nice campaign. Check out his claims. Some of them are just plain funny..more schoolyard wisdom to go with his foreign policy creds..
    One of the things that I learned in the school yard was: the folks that are talking tough all the time, they're not always that tough. If you're really tough, you're not always looking to try to start a fight. If you're really tough, sometimes you just walk away. If you're really tough, you just save it for when you really need it," Obama said.

    So he is ducking debates because he is tough?? Funny, I thought it was because he is unable to articulate his own policies.

    And this one really shows he has NO CLUE as what the job of President entails..

    "I'm not interested in fighting people just for the sake of scoring political points." "If I'm going to fight somebody it's going to be fighting over the American people and what they need."

    Well, how does that fool think he will have to fight for the American people if not by scoring political points? Of course, I can understand his point..if I had as little political credibility as Obama does, I sure wouldn't count on scoring political points, either as a candidate or a President. Of course, not being willing or able to score political points he will be totally ineffective as President. But I guess getting there is the whole plan, not actually doing anything once in office.

    Obama's campaign talk (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:16:52 AM EST
    now is still being dictated by Hillary.  :)  

    She's rattled him.  He is letting her set the agenda.

    Her call for a non-moderated debate made me laugh.  Clever woman, she is.  It's another very bold and intriguing idea.  I even looked to see if he'd go for it, although I knew already he wouldn't; but the very idea of that type of debate was just so interesting I was hoping.

    She's been highly creative, in my opinion, in coming up with challenges and ideas to keep us all interested in this long campaign.

    Parent

    And her plan spares a grateful country (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    the prospect of Katie Couric moderating a political debate.  She was next up for the opportunity to grab more air time than the candidates in what has happened to debates since they went to commercial airwaves.  Portentous moderators pontificating at the candidates and the public were bad enough.  A perky moderator was going to drive me mad -- but it was dumb for Obama to bail, as Couric hardly was going to be hard-hitting.

    Parent
    Obama is more (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:14:18 AM EST
    electable in the primary because of the media.  He isn't more electable in the general.  The media will turn on the Democrat.  They always do.  It would be naive to think that this election will be any different.

    The media (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:19:59 AM EST
    reports the news of the day, and the Republicans aren't shy about making sure they have news of the day to report.

    There was a great article yesterday on the absurdity of this business that Hillary should get out of the race for the good of the party, going back over the primaries in the past.  We've never seen any such cry before like this.

    Parent

    where was this article? (none / 0) (#86)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:07:32 AM EST
    great article yesterday on the absurdity of this business that Hillary should get out of the race for the good of the party, going back over the primaries in the past.


    Parent
    I believe this is it (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:34:33 AM EST
    Why is Obama still the front-runner? at Reclusive Leftist

    Parent
    It's NOT me! (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by oldpro on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    My identity has been stolen.

    Dammit.

    Parent

    Drat! (none / 0) (#186)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:19:08 AM EST
    Now, I can't retrace my surfing steps.  But I appreciate the request.  It reminds me I need to "clip" good ones.

    It basically gave a history of primaries and how candidates have handled this business of "dropping out."

    A lot don't right up to the convention.

    If you're soundly winning, obviously, demanding your opponent drops out is crazy talk and pretty rude.

    If I run across it again, I'll post.

    Parent

    Not only that but.... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:25:42 AM EST
    ...Republicans don't pay attention to the media that is currently smitten with Obama. They tend to listen to Fox and Rush and company. And if those particular outlets favor Obama and McCain in the GE, it will be miracle days. Obama's darling status with certain media outlets might help him the ridicule heaped on Gore or Kerry; it won't stop him from being swiftboated by Republicans.

    If Russert, Tweety et all haven't been able to convince half of the electorate that Clinton is the devil for all their efforts, they won't be able to sell Obama over McCain to enough people even if they try. That's my opinion. Obama if he is the nominee will have to win this on his own merits. He can't hope for a media assist to carry him to victory. Does he have what it takes? I honestly can't answer that question but right now I am inclined towards the "no" column.

    Parent

    The media (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:07:50 AM EST
    can only have one darling at a time.  Who will be the love interest in the GE?  

    Hmmmm?

    Parent

    more electable due to beltway media? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Chimster on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:19:25 AM EST
    There's an oxymoron floating around somewhere in that sentence. Was there ever a time when Obama wasn't a Beltway media darling? No. Our party is now evenly, bitterly divided.

    Obama is not more electable due to them, but I can guarantee that our current Democratic divisiveness is due to them.

    Bore-ack Obama (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by coolit on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:21:33 AM EST
    I was watching Obama's policy speech in the gas station in Indiana the other day.  He wasn't talking about hope, or change, or inspiration....  He was talking about policy.  He was talking about what kind of president he would be.

    He looked incredibly bored; Annoyed that he had to waste his time with such a trivial policy conversation.  He was droning on and on.  With no affect. Speaking as fast as possible.  It looked like he just wanted it to be over.  

    Maybe he missed the screaming fans. I don't know.  However, if he is our nominee and in the general election, this could be his Achilles Heel.

    Clinton read laundry lists (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:22:46 AM EST
    and the public loved him, partly because Clinton loved his laundry lists.

    Parent
    Excellent point (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by rnibs on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:42:59 AM EST
    It's his failure to be enthusiastic about anything other than himself that will be his un-doing.  

    I believe that he will ultimately be un-electable, because though he is able to charm many, he can't charm enough voters to actually win the GE.  He's not winning anyone on policy.

    I think that this campaign hasn't had enough political discourse because Obama won't engage in it unless he's forced to.

    Parent

    did anyone else see (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:21:51 AM EST
    our current president at the press club dinner?  my goodness, i dare say he appeared inebriated.  clinton could not appear because she was "dodging sniper fire" while obama was "in church".  and the attendees just yuckity yucked right along.  then there was the laugh track played along while he "conducted" the marine band which, it was reported, was something "he always wanted to do".  i guess between that and getting the guy who "tried to kill [his] dad" we can rest easily.  bush has gotten to do what he always wanted.  

    what a disgrace is that guy and the media who plays along with him.  

    I couldn't watch (none / 0) (#112)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:31:26 AM EST
    thanks for taking one for the team.  =)

    It reminds me of the 2006 correspondents' dinner where he joked about missing WMD's.  

    Parent

    Wright Interview (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:32:19 AM EST
    I wanted to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, and unlike many I came away having stronger feelings about his type of religiosity.

    First of all I think he has the right to say whatever he wants in his church and to his congregation.  I frankly don't care how he says it either.  

    Second, Obama made a big deal about his religion therefore I think Obama's church is an issue and I think a very important issue.  He maintains that he is post racial and transcended the culture wars of the past.  Yet, Wright's church is embedded in those wars and in the racial divide.  It is the church's core value.  In this regard I find Obama to be steeped in hypocrisy.  

    Third, Wright claimed that he tried in his church to bring the outside world into the church and visa versa.  Wright's theology is based on unifying the two worlds, unlike what he said other churches do. So, this notion that Obama gets a pass cause he is a politician and he Wright is  a preacher is really then another lie.  Wright does not believe that they should be separated.  He attributed that lesson to the Chicago theology teacher he had. So, the worlds are not separate and Obama should not get a pass neither should Wright.  

    Fourth as a Christian for him to degrade Bill and Hillary from the pulpit, considering that he was one of the ministers invited to the White House when Bill was asking for religious counsel, I find to be a complete violation of one of the basic ideas of Chrisitianity, forgiveness.  I am not really religious, but a religious man who violates one of those core values for political purposes to me has no credibility.  He sounds just like any other hate filled preacher.  

    Finally, he perpetuates some racial lies.  He said, black people don't commit suicide, they just sing the blues.  Well, that is just not true.  Since suicide is a taboo, often times it goes under reported particularly in lower income communities and in the black community.    

    He kept talking about context and being taken out of context and kept bringing up these convoluted "lessons from the Bible", well, where have we heard that before?  What is worse all the so called liberal/progressives/intelligentsia that are willing to let this guy get a pass cause he is black and they think he is a progressive.  Weill, I don't buy it.    Hateful preaching is hateful preaching, I don't care where it comes from and giving it excuses.  I think people have a right to do it, but I am not obligated to forgive it or accept it.  

    Hey, Stellaaa (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:41:24 AM EST
    did you see on No Quarter that Obama only spent three years as a community organizer?  Methinks this is akin to his being raised by a single mother, where you find out she was only single for a couple of years.

    Man, the guy sure knows how to exaggerate.  

    But, here's the thing--I've been investigoogling for almost an hour now and I cannot for the life of me find a true CV for Obama with dates and positions, etc.  Maybe I just don't have the right phrases, but...holy!

    Parent

    I knew that... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:43:21 AM EST
    there is nothing there.  I am astounded at the idiocy of the left and how they bought this stuff just like the nation bought the stuff leading up to Iraq.  It's scary.  

    Parent
    Community organizer and Rezko (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:46:41 AM EST
    Inherent contradiction.  I know it's a subtle one.  But if he had the Community Organizing credentials, there is no way he would have had the Rezko relationship.  For me that is the core Obama lie and there is no way to clean that baby up.  Then the post racial transcendant persona when he is winning by pushing the racial and the non transcended stuff.  I cannot believe people buying this stuff out of harmful pathetic liberal white guilt and past century PC politics that I find patronizing and harmful.  

    Parent
    Oh, he could have had it (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:56:54 AM EST
    with a cold, calculating eye toward the future.  It often gets left out of the mix, but you and I know that Rezko was in charge of campaign finances for one of Obama's races.  Was it his first race?  Was Obama told: be a community organizer, work some voter registration drives, be a lawyer at this firm that represents me, then we'll run you in a few years?

    I am with you on liberal, pathetic, white guilt.  Reminds me of when I volunteered at one of Atlanta's gay rags, and when we'd do a story on a corrupt gay councilman or a bad gay businessman, we'd get the nastiest letters for going after one of our own.  There were two standards: the straight one and the gay one.  It does no favors to give a certain minority or class of people special treatment.  We should all be held up to the same standards--that's what equality is all about.

    It's the same kind of kid-gloves treatment I see Obama getting and it makes me savagely furious.  He's not running for student council.  We are looking at an international financial crisis, two wars without end, staggering poverty, high rates of homelessness, and torture being committed in our name.  We need someone with more than a couple of years so-called community service, wherein he couldn't even get the heat turned on in public housing.  We need a true leader, not someone who's been doing the bare minimum while he's waited for his chance to run.

    Parent

    Heh.. (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:00:21 AM EST
    the worst thing is that the people they are alleging to defend are hurt the most by this kind of patronizing politics.  

     

    Parent

    Yes, because it opened up some old wounds (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:15:34 PM EST
    When I heard the AA woman yelling at a AA policeman to take off that uniform and stop working for the Master, I thought, well, that sounds like racial division. I truly believe that BHO should stay in the Senate to serve out his term and get re-elected and then aim at winning the WH. He would have experience and would have grown up. Right now we do not really know what his agenda is. And I do not want another guy in there who thinks that foreign policy can handle itself.

    Parent
    Not only was Obama's mother not single for (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:28:53 AM EST
    very long, but she didn't raise Obama all by herself, either; it irks me that the "story" of Obama's life tends to omit the significant contribution of his grandparents.  Anyone who has children knows that whatever challenges the years from birth to age 10 present, they are nothing compared to those faced from age 10 to age 18.  Nothing.  And those were the years when Obama was in the care of his grandparents.

    The "community organizing" part of Obama's life is, I am convinced, just one more chapter in a story that increasingly reads like fiction, or to be charitable, one that has been embellished to make it more interesting.  Does it seem odd to you that we have not heard from anyone who was involved in that organizing with him?

    It seems quite possible to me that Obama's beginnings, as the child of one parent who abandoned him early, and another who essentially abandoned him just when he was on the cusp of forming an identity, are probably responsible for him constantly inventing himself.  Where you or I, as children or teenagers or young adults, said, "I think I want to be a ____," and carried our history with us, unchanged, Obama seems to have thought about what he wanted to do, or be as an adult, then looked back and reconfigured his history to make the end result a better story.

    He has no idea who he is - it may not be entirely his fault, but I do not believe that someone who does not know from day to day, issue to issue, who he is or what he believes, or who feels a constant need to rewrite his own history and create his own reality, belongs in the White House.

    Parent

    What irked me... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by americanincanada on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:37:33 AM EST
    The other day regarding community organizer happened during his sit down with the Indy Star editorial board.

    I knew it was only a matter of time before he brought it up, which was true, but he added a new detail. he told them he not only was a community organizer in southside Chicago but just over the state line in Indiana too.

    That is the first time I had heard that and they seemed surprised as well. I wonder if they will call him out for pandering?

    Parent

    Anne, I read an article yesterday about (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    Obama's high school years. One of his friends who was mentioned in his book as the one he had his deep conversations on race and his struggles with it said the whole thing was bull.

    According to this friend, Obama's real struggle was with his feelings of abandonment from his parents. That sounds real to me and makes me understand his need to be loved by all and to be everything to everybody. It kind of made me feel sorry for the young Obama.

    Parent

    It's the math...you're using the wrong one!! (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:50:18 AM EST
    See, Obama counts months as years. For instance, he claims "11 years" of service in elected office. He fails to mention that the "years" in the Illinois legislature only last 4 months. The legislature meets from the first week in Jan through April. Sometimes into the first week in May. So, those seven "years" serving in elected office in Ill. are actually 28 months, which is two years and two months.

    And he did community organizing for three years, mostly registering people to vote, which he counts as civil rights work. Just like MLK. Except Obama's life wasn't in danger for doing it when he was doing it like MLK's was. Two birds with one stone there!!

    And he seems to not realize that he isn't halfway through his Senate term, but he counts as if he has done four years in it already. And that was when he started the campaign, not now when he has been in office for almost 3 years, but not doing a lot of work at it. You have to learn the Obama math, hon, it's different than the usual politics. Heh.

    Parent

    Wright (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:55:18 AM EST
    is Obama's self-identified Mentor.  Obama knew full well what he preached about.  I can only think that he is so ambitious that he failed to warn the Dem backers that this was coming.

    They must be heart-sick.  They have now trashed the viable candidate.  And backed someone who will lose.

    Parent

    No. They are not heartsick. (5.00 / 2) (#227)
    by oldpro on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:00:07 PM EST
    If winning the presidency were the number one goal, then yes...they would be heartsick.

    In fact, the goal was to get rid of the Clintons once and for all...damage them irrevocably...and they are making progress on that goal.  Who would have believed anyone could sell a story that the Clintons are racists to anyone - much less anyone in the black community?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    I tend to be a bit more optimistic.  I don't think he's sold that tall tale at all.

    Parent
    On MTP they touted (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by kenosharick on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:38:22 AM EST
    the Newsweek poll "showing Obama up by 9"- never mentioning that the week before it had been 19. Completely irresponsible. Meanwhile Barack sounded like a repub on Fox today- taking a jab at Kos,teachers, and wanting to restrict abortion rights. He said "I DO NOT THINK BILL CLINTON DELIERATEY PLAYED THE RACE CARD"- will this get ANY media play?

    Up 7 actually (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    But NBC is the Obama News Network and is perceived as such.

    Like the blogs, MTP has blown its credibility, a credibility it should never have had of course.

    Parent

    Maybe if Obama wins (none / 0) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:43:11 AM EST
    the "Democratic" nomination we can get an actual Democrat to run as a third party candidate -- hey maybe Edwards would!

    Parent
    What did he say about Kos & abortion? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:12:47 AM EST
    I'm planning on watching the replay at two.

    Parent
    DKos... (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:23:45 PM EST
    From what I read of BTD's summary, he pointed out where we reamed him for his position on John Roberts.

    Parent
    MTP Coverage Today vs Blitzer (none / 0) (#234)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:05:34 PM EST
    MPT coverage this morning seemed so biased, but I was pleasantly surprised to see a much more "balaned" (dare I say this?) discussion on CNN by pundits after McCaskill & Schumer appeared.

    Parent
    What did Mc and Shoe (none / 0) (#253)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:03:06 PM EST
    have to say? I don't watch CNN unless scanning for punditry of primary results.

    Parent
    Clyburn (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:42:11 AM EST
    That situation sounds like a McCain ploy.  Let the guy say something to inflame the voters, then pretend you had nothing to do with it.  You get both the outrage and the pretence of innocence in inflaming it.  

    LOL.  Good one.  (whetting finger and signing a "1")

    What Clyburn said HURTS Obama (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:43:14 AM EST
    It was not something that a sharp operator like Axelrod would have wanted.

    I strongly disagree with you.

    Parent

    We'll have to (none / 0) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:43:57 AM EST
    agree to disagree then.

    Parent
    I'm with you and CC (none / 0) (#113)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:32:19 AM EST
    Craig Crawford on this one. I think they are trying to get out the (AA) vote.  Demographics are pretty entrenched for both candidates and their wins will be based on turnout of their groups.  Penn did not have the expected turnout.  I can't see it hurting Obama if he's the media darling.  If the media doesn't report it, it never happened so who is going to get upset if it's not covered? No one.  Clyburn comments created very little on Clyburn but 2-3 days of rehashing the Clinton's and trotting out people who agreed (and then some) with Clyburn. It got exactly what the Obama camp needed, negative Clinton coverage.

    Nothing Obama has done has mattered because the media says it doesn't. On and on and on....

    Parent

    Media conjecture off (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by pluege on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:46:18 AM EST
    It [the beltway media] should not matter, but it matters a lot. It is why Barack Obama is more electable than Clinton.

    the "beltway media" support of Obama in the GE  remains pure conjecture, which has a high probability of being wrong. It should not serve as a  basis for selecting a candidate.

    All newspapers (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:49:38 AM EST
    are going through this.  Check out the LA Times.  It's a trend toward hyper-local, and it's going to destroy newspaper media as we know it.

    Look at every story you find on Yahoo or Google--they come from newspapers.  They are the last forum where real journalism is actually going on.  Yet, the NY Times is (I think) the only remaining newspaper in the country that has a full-time reporter in Iraq to report on the wars.  Have you seen our national newspaper lately?  That would be USA Today.  It's about three pages.

    Papers used to generate huge profits, then the big media companies came in, bought them out, and tried to jack up the profits even more.  This is what happened to CBS back in the eighties.  The first thing they did was cut half the staff.  Remember when CBS used to be the number one news network?  And now, they're barely number three.  

    I don't think Americans stopped caring about real news.  I think the networks just stopped giving it to us.

    Moreover (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:02:03 AM EST
    It will hurt Google next.  Google a topic, and the first 4 pages are all right off wires.  Same cut and paste article, regardless of the paper.

    Eventually, people will give up.

    Parent

    People stopped subscribing (none / 0) (#177)
    by independent voter on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:10:28 AM EST
    and the newspapers cannot afford to keep reporters overseas anymore. The excellent news available on the internet early on encouraged people to stop paying for print media, decreasing the revenues there, decreasing the types and numbers of journalists, decreasing the news available via the internet. Now the newspapers are struggling to drive revenue through websites and keep some quality and breadth in their journalism.

    Parent
    Speaking for myself... (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by jussumbody on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:41:49 AM EST
    the reason I stopped reading the paper editions of the NYT and WaPo was the promotion of Judy Miller lies shortly after the outrage of Jason Blair (was that his name?).  Just overpriced propaganda that led me to avoid their on-line versions (aside from the occassional peek at Paul Krugman).

    I was already suspicious of the papers for the way they totally avoided mentioning the illegitimacy of the first Bush selection and the results of the Florida recounts.

    We are ruled my multinational corporatists.  When the financial house of cards collapses maybe things will turn around, or maybe they will get worse.  But that's the way it is.  Our politics are corrupt because they are not democratic, and for the time being there is no discussion about making long overdue reforms to our electoral process (i.e. the electoral college and the extremely corrupt and undemocratic Senate).

    Parent

    Watching Daschle talk about passion... (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Marco21 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:52:17 AM EST
    is like watching Paula Abdul talking about great singing.

    Someone give him a Red Bull.

    good one (none / 0) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:54:59 AM EST
    is the implication that Hillary has none?  Or that Obama's passion is better?  or that the "young people's passion" is the reason he should be voted?  I never get the passion as a political virtue in itself argument.  

    Parent
    In other words, (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:56:25 AM EST
    he's not more electable because he's better qualified; he's more electable because the media loves him.

    So the media once again pick the president?

    Democracy in action.  Gotta love it.

    Ding Ding Ding (none / 0) (#95)
    by cawaltz on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:17:19 AM EST
    and we will continue to lose as long as we allow the media to paint the perceptions. They are operating in the best interest of their corporate bottom lines, not in the interest of the average Americans.)

    Parent
    Clinton Wants Debate Without Moderators (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by barryluda on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:03:08 AM EST
    According to the Washington Post:

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton again challenged Sen. Barack Obama to a debate in Indiana, but this time with a new twist: no moderators.

    That would be great.  Maybe we could actually focus on the issues.

    Wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:08:09 AM EST
    that be fun?  I loved the idea.

    Obama has said "absolutely never."  :)

    Parent

    Just saw J already had a whole post on this (none / 0) (#90)
    by barryluda on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:10:39 AM EST
    Just catching up.

    Note to self: just read TalkLeft when catching up!

    Parent

    Obama Has Already Said No n/t (none / 0) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:39:00 AM EST
    Beltway is One of Many Medias (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by cdalygo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:07:30 AM EST
    The local medias are not falling in line anymore, BTD. Take a look a the recent press she has garnered in the battleground states.

    Nor do many other people see or hear the Beltway media anymore. Much like policies dictated from DC politicians, cute little takedowns from that crowd have little effect on people's lives. (Or if they do, it's pushing them toward the Clinton camp.)

    Although November is a "national" election, ultimately it's a battle of states. Local people in different states will decide this election because they are more engaged than ever. [An unintended positive consequence this volatile campaign.] That weakens the Beltway media even more.

    Insiders (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:09:37 AM EST
    talk leaves most people cold, and that media is all about insider talk.

    One thing I have enjoyed about following this election so closely is seeing the state-by-state differences and strategies.

    It's like political geography!

    Parent

    Media darling status (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by rnibs on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:11:51 AM EST
    The problem with it is that the media will "date" him during the primary, but they're gonna marry McCain in the GE.

    And unfortunately, I think a lot of voters will do the same, or in the case of some Dems, they won't vote for McCain, but they'll opt to stay single for four more years.  

    Do you seriously believe (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by cawaltz on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:14:13 AM EST
    the the Beltway media crush won't end the minute he gets the nomination BTD? Considering the fact they "crush" on McCain as well I believe it will end and we will begin to see the shilling of McCain.

    Laws say states determine popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by gabbyone on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:17:32 AM EST
    This morning on George Stephanopoulos's show
    it came out that the DNC controls the delegates
    but not the popular vote.  That popular vote is under state law rules and must be counted in the candidates total based on state law. This means that Fla and Michigan are in control of what happens to their popular vote. The Obama people
    on the show are now complaining that this hurts
    the caucus states who have no popular vote. It goes back to the rules here....the states determine how they want to vote, the states determine if they want a primary with popular vote or a caucus. The Clinton supporters talked about Florida only so Michigan may not consider there popular vote valid here.

    Media doesn't do rules (none / 0) (#148)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    If the Obama camp says the popular vote doesn't matter only pledged delegates, the media says only pledged delegates matter, why is the popular vote important in this media generation?  Even Dean came out and said the superdeez can overturn the popular vote once the Clinton popular vote argument grabbed hold in the media.

    MI probably can't matter if the decision is controlled by a Repub/Obama supporter legislation.  If there aren't enough Clinton supporters to tilt a vote, the rules become irrelevant.  :(

    The most important thing is to take out Clinton.  I try to view everything through that distorted lens. sigh

    Parent

    I was thinking the other day (5.00 / 7) (#97)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:21:47 AM EST
    (yeah, I know--shocking, but I actually think sometimes) that everything I've achieved in my life has been made more of a struggle by the perception that I shouldn't be doing it.  

    My first job out of school, when I got tired of working for someone else and started my own business--I was told I was being too aggressive, and that it was unfair of me to take my customers away from my old boss (even though they chose to follow me).  The more successful I got, the more unseemly it seemed to my competitors.  

    Then, when I started my second career and excelled in that, too, I was told I was pushing things too hard, that I was too driven.  I'm not making that up: someone said I was too driven, and that I needed to back off.  I'm kind of talking around my careers here for the sake of anonymity, but suffice it to say, I'm solidly in the creative class--yet, it's almost frowned upon that I want to be successful, that I enjoy the spoils.  Meanwhile, the men in my field who are doing well get celebrated as mavericks and heroes.

    And the point of this long whine is that I honestly feel that these characteristics that have driven me to success would be celebrated in a man, but because I'm a woman, I've always had that second layer of resistance. I've always had to be careful about being "too" competitive or "too" driven.

    How this ties in here is that I see the same thing with Clinton.  "She'll do anything to win."  "She's desperate to win."  "She's too driven to win."

    What's wrong with wanting to win?  Why is it bad for her to be competitive and driven and any other number of traits that are seen as positive in men?  Of COURSE she wants to win.  What is wrong with the world when the fact that a woman wants to succeed is a negative?

    Surely, I am not the only woman who feels this way.  And someone upthread said my next point: the republicans have won for years without the black vote.  The deciding factor is always women.  Let's see how driven we are to get to the polls if Clinton gets shafted for being "too" anything.

    And take the other side (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:28:45 AM EST
    Obama is NOT a fighter. I've seen that several blogs have come to that rightful conclusion.    Imagine if Hillary were seen as "not a fighter".

    A woman treads a careful path.  She can't be seen as too aggressive, but she also can't be seen as "not a fighter".

    Parent

    Kathy, you are so right about this - (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:46:32 AM EST
    we have not come as far as we think we have, if  women are made to feel like they need to apologize for their success and for their drive, that somehow the limitless possibilities that exist for men are limited for women by some antiquated and hypocritical standard.

    Parent
    It's just very depressing (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    that nothing much changes.  Women always get that double standard.  Can you think of one successful woman who isn't either considered a ball breaker or a crazy b*tch?

    Now, I know you're going to say, Dolly Parton, but remember how she was vilified when she got LA management for her solo record?  The Nashville establishment basically disowned her for Here You Come Again...and then she got to number one on both charts and they all got LA management of their own.  They called her "The Iron Butterfly" when she told Col. Parker to go Cheney himself.

    Here's the thing, though: once she stopped being in the spotlight, and wasn't perceived as being as successful, she got a pass.  The truth is that now she's even more successful than ever--but she's quiet about it.

    That's the only way women can really be successful without being branded crazy or a b*tch: they have to be really quiet about it.

    Parent

    You women are so successful, and (5.00 / 4) (#220)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:50:37 AM EST
    I am happy for you.  I have some understanding of the 'driven' personality.  But once I had to start staying home with my Downs daughter, I got hit with another 'second class citizen' slam--from my husband.  A professor, he went off to his Ivory Tower (as my engineer dad would have said) every day.  "You have it easy," he'd moan, "while I compete in that jungle for our living."

    Yeah--that 'jungle' amounted to being paid for doing what he loved (research mostly).  And in the meantime, I was responsible for the health and safety of our babies (toddlers, schoolkids, teens, etc.).  Do you think it ever occurred to him to worry that his baby might smother, or die from illness or accident because I took my eye off the ball?  Of course not!  "Just a housewife" had four lives in her care, but that's just what women do.

    Well, 'just what women do' until he had a stroke and  became paralyzed and unable to speak.  Then HIS life depended on my either caring for him myself or organizing aides and doctors and therapists, etc.  (I'd had plenty of practice with mother, mother-in-law, and aunt.)

    Finally, he gets the idea.  I'd been 'earning my living' several times over all those years.  And darned efficient at it I was, too, despite a certain lack of respect and support.  So when I blow my top at someone who sloughs off charges that Obama does not respect women, please pardon me.  I've had more than enough of that guff in the past 75 years, and I am not likely to keep my mouth shut about it, either.

     

    Parent

    No, you are not the only woman (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:47:17 AM EST
    who has heard this repeatedly.  Our numbers are legion.  "Too driven," "intense," etc. -- I've heard them all.  But a few perceptive men finally told me what was going on, every time I received outrageous (and illegal) treatment in the workplace.  I was a "threat" for working harder and wanting to succeed.

    Yes, I also see it and hear it in so much coverage of Clinton.  And every time, it just makes me make a few more phone bank calls to fight harder for this campaign.  I want a president who works harder and wants to succeed in the White House -- and if a few men in Washington feel threatened and have to work harder to keep up with her, all the better for we-the-people.

    Parent

    I've hear this same comment (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:51:28 AM EST
    from lots of other women.  Your success does more to show men what women can do than anything else.

    Good for you!

    Parent

    I was actually (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by misspeach2008 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:36:23 AM EST
    told that women should find Obama's style more comfortable than Hillary's because his is more feminine.  Had to down a boiler-maker to swallow that one.

    Parent
    Because women are not allowed to be that way! (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by janarchy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:44:46 AM EST
    What's wrong with wanting to win?  Why is it bad for her to be competitive and driven and any other number of traits that are seen as positive in men?  Of COURSE she wants to win.  What is wrong with the world when the fact that a woman wants to succeed is a negative?

    It's always been that way. If a man works hard, etc. he's ambitious, impressive, admirable, tough.

    If a woman acts that way, she's a castrating beeyotch, shrew, harpy, harridan blah blah blah.

    We always have to work twice as hard to be seen as even close to equal (regardless of what Rev. Wright says in terms of only AA men having to do that). Sexism at its finest.

    Parent

    If you were to describe this (3.00 / 2) (#183)
    by 1jpb on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:15:34 AM EST
    contest without mentioning the gender of the candidates, it would be BO who is the talented, but resented, upstart (like yourself), and HRC would be the entrenched power status quo (don't forget that HRC didn't start from ground zero (like you and BO did), she started with a popular ex-president and the power that comes with that.)

    Your story fundamentally tracks much closer to BO's campaign than it does to HRC's.  Clearly you personally identify with HRC, but your experience more closely resembles that of BO's.

    Parent

    If you were able to understand (5.00 / 4) (#194)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:29:15 AM EST
    what Kathy wrote, you would not have written this.

    When was Obama told he was "too driven"?  When did men discourage him from trying to succeed?  When he got a prep school scholarship, a law review editorship, a clerkship at a major firm after only his first year of law school, sealed court records that ran out the competition -- a couple of times --  his name on bills for which others had battled for years, the national convention spotlight that could have catapulted many a longtime party faithful to Congress . . . and to candidacy for president after only a year there?

    Do tell.

    Parent

    Obama said: (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:22:31 AM EST
    Monday morning quarterbacking after you lose is par for the course. I have won them in other states. She ran good campaigns in Ohio and good campaigns in PA, these voters are less familiar with me and I am less familiar with them.

    I'm surprised he said this, frankly.  It doesn't help his experience creds at all.  When will he become familiar?


    He had six weeks (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:27:26 AM EST
    to get to know the PA voters and vice versa.  I'd say that the PA voters got to know him a little too well.

    Parent
    Ditto (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:30:29 AM EST
    on my take.  LOL*

    But I wouldn't expect him to admit that his gaffe killed him.

    Personally, I think it's sort of a stupid question to ask a politician.

    Parent

    I heard this immediately after PA. (none / 0) (#141)
    by rooge04 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:46:25 AM EST
    That the people there didn't know him. Even though both of them have about `100% name recognition I was honestly being told that people in PA voted for Clinton because she'd been around so long and they knew her.  Oh, and the racists of course.

    Parent
    I get a kick out of that DNC commercial on (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:33:58 AM EST
    McCain. "Are you better off than you were eight years ago?"  I guess we are going to run on Bill Clinton's achievements. Too bad Obama will look foolish doing so.

    Obama Consistently Says We Are Not n/t (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:43:01 AM EST
    Not if HIllary is the nominee! :) N/T (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    No, of course not (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:43:33 AM EST
    They HATE Clinton.  He was Monica, NAFTA, and I'm pretty sure AIDS too, all rolled into one.

    What they're saying is that we need a Republican Congress again (GULP), like we had 8 years ago.  They're stumping for Newtie! LOL.  Just kidding.

    Parent

    As per Obama, Bill was awful... (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by rooge04 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:43:33 AM EST
    so I'm not really sure whose record he'll claim for the Dems.  Jimmy Carter??  Since according to him the last 16 yrs have been terrible!  

    Parent
    I guess Obama will run away from Bill's (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Teresa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:57:36 AM EST
    record while the DNC brags about it in their anti-McCain ads. It's kind of amusing.

    Parent
    Transcript of the Fox Interview (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    ...so you don't actually have to watch Fox ;-).

    Link to Fox Obama interview

    Thanks For Providing Info (none / 0) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:45:05 AM EST
    Think I will wait to read it until this evening after a couple of drinks.

    Parent
    I read the part about KOS (none / 0) (#147)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:48:28 AM EST
    where Obama was defending people who voted for John Roberts and people there were lambasting him for it.

    Oh, the irony that they support him now.

    Parent

    The People On DKos Will Get A Negative Return For (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    their investment. Of course they bear the responsibility for that, because they made a major investment without asking for anything in return.

    Unfortunately, the rest of us may  have to live with that decision.

    Parent

    What?!? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:42:49 AM EST
    >>>Obama says Republicans have better ideas on government regulation.

    Astonishing!!
    Obama is determined to be "everything to everybody."

    >>>As President, I want to bring people together and listen to all sides of the debate. I want to get us out of the polarizing debate.

    Another reminder that not all Centrists are members of the DLC.


    Link please? Thank you. (none / 0) (#235)
    by jawbone on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:07:15 PM EST
    Found link-here's Obama an the R regs praise: (none / 0) (#248)
    by jawbone on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:38:10 PM EST
    OBAMA:  Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea.

    WALLACE:  Such as.

    OBAMA:  Well, on issues of regulation, I think that back in the `60s and `70s, a lot of the way we regulated industry was top down command and control. We're going to tell businesses exactly how to do things.

    He seems to be relecting his UofC econ advisers here. Oh my.

    It's about halfway down the FOX transcript.

    And I think that the Republican party and people who thought about the margins (ph) came with the notion that you know what, if you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives for businesses, let them figure out how they're going to for example reduce pollution. And a cap and trade system, for example, is a smarter way of doing it, controlling pollution, than dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.

    I think that on issues of education, I have been very clear about the fact, and sometimes I have gotten in trouble with the teachers union on this, that we should be experimenting with charter schools.  We should be experimenting with different ways of compensating teachers.  That -

    Parent

    Chris Matthews may have won Indiana for Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by ineedalife on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    Although I couldn't listen to the sound at the gym (iPod too loud) I saw Chris Matthews do a segment comparing Bill Clinton to Bobby Knight. It included Bobby Knight's farewell speech telling his critics to kiss his asz. Indiana is all about basketball and they realize letting Bobby Knight go because he was a colorful guy was a huge mistake. His program never broke any rules, his players all graduated and still love him, and he won three national championships.

    The unspoken part of this comparison isn't just a dog whistle, it is a freaking orchestra. The PC administration of Indiana U, since Bobby Knight, have forced two AA coaches on the program, over the protests of the savvy Indiana basketball fan base. It has been a disaster. Indiana now faces the first NCAA sanctions in its history. The team finished poorly, even with two future NBA players on the roster.

    So the question is, Go back to the sure-thing in the Clintons, or repeat the failed experiment at IU by accepting the candidate being shoved down your throat by the party elites?

    oh, please (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:47:16 AM EST
    you'd think they'd go back to her original statement, in context, before writing such a stupid piece--and contacting foreign countries on it.

    Excuse me? (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:58:12 AM EST
    Did Obama really say

    Obama says Republicans have better ideas on government regulation.

    Whoa !!!  Right, like the government regulations the Republicans so favored on the environment??  That is outrageous. The Bush Adm. undid most of the regulations on the envirnment the Clinton Adm. had put in place. I would have to do some research but if memory serves me I even think
    undoing one of those was the very first thing that came out of the Bush Ad. in 2000.

    I am appalled Obama said this....
     

    Obama Is Not Really Into The Environment (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:05:19 AM EST
    no matter what he or his website says. In 1/07 he personally introduced and promoted a liquified coal bill that Gore publicly said was horrible. He only withdrew his support in 6/07 when it became apparent that it would hurt his presidential run.

    Parent
    I wish Obama (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:30:14 AM EST
    said "the Republicans have better ideas on government regulation" to Al Gore's face.

    Parent
    I Can't Help But Think That This Is One Of The (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    reasons Gore hasn't endorsed Obama.

    Parent
    Could be... (5.00 / 1) (#250)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:54:04 PM EST
    but I am not holding my breath for Gore to do the right thing (imho) which would be to endorse HRC.


    Parent
    No regulation (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:06:41 AM EST
    is the Republican idea on regulation.  In Reagan terms, deregulation and doing away with remaining vestiges of the New Deal.  Ask air controllers how well that went.  See how little of our food supply is monitored now, compared to European countries' rules.  Obama is, again, not talking like a Dem.

    Parent
    Another Dem Value Thrown Under The Bus n/t (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:53:35 AM EST
    I couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#193)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:28:48 AM EST
    with you on this. That is exactly right.

    Parent
    Bush Admin has Trashed Nixon Environmental Regs (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:56:42 AM EST
    The Bush administration has failed to enforce many of the environmental regs/laws enacted under Nixon!  

    What about FAA regs?  Tax regs?  SEC regs?
    and the list could probably go on.  

    Parent

    Well get used to it (3.00 / 1) (#175)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:09:09 AM EST
    he's the democratic nominee.  He's on his GE strategy and moving to the middle so he can compete for the indies and moderates against McCain.  He will need to attract Clinton supporters but still needs to maintain his Republican support to get elected.  It should be interesting to see how 'broad' (twisted) his positions (or lack thereof) become in the name of unity (compromise) coalitions and change (screw the people)policies.

    I'm very disappointed it looks like this will be out next president.

    Parent

    Walden- (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:12:12 AM EST
    don't give up.  Indiana is the tie-breaker.  If Obama had already wrapped this up, then it would be over.  The sd's are sending him a firm message that he needs to close this.

    There is still hope--it may be slim, but I'm still betting on our girl.

    Parent

    A Dean 25er says c onvention! (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:36:36 AM EST
    Ok I posted this, but Scott Maddox (a Dean 25er) was on.  Bad news... the candidates need to bring them a FL/MI agreement to vote on (ain't going to happen) but.... I saw this as good news... he has changed his mind on having supers decide now.  He is open to going to convention.  Could be they feel it will give supporters time to mellow out, but I prefer it to mean that they will allow politicians time to duck the issue... I mean time for vetting!

    Parent
    he's the former mayor of tallahassee (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM EST
    good guy.  great town.  he's also very young.  i think he was mayor there in his twenties.  glad to see he hasn't od'd on the kool aid.  

    Parent
    waldenpond (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:18:30 AM EST
    (1) he is not yet the nominee  and (2) I have to say that if we are going to have a Pres. that believes that the Reps. have better ideas on government regulations then I rather be
    McCain that president.

    At least I would not feel ill blaming the Pres. for doing what Reps. do.

    This is not a tactic: Obama has said things along the same lines for a while.

    I have no trust that Obama will fight for the Dem. values at all. And then what will happen? When we complain teh Reps. will say : but but but.. it was your Dem pres. that did this.

    Parent

    idea if Obama gets the nomination.

     have no trust that Obama will fight for the Dem. values at all. And then what will happen? When we complain teh Reps. will say : but but but.. it was your Dem pres. that did this.


    Parent

    If this is post partsanship (none / 0) (#181)
    by Manuel on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:14:46 AM EST
    FDA, EPA, Interior, ...

    Is there any regulatory agency that has worked more effectively under Republican administrations in the last 25 years?  I wish Obama would give examples when he makes statements like this.

    Parent

    He doesn't have any (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:27:46 AM EST
    from teh very begining his strategy has been to blur the lines and make the Clinton Adm. disappear and essentuilly operate as if we had Bush Bush and Bush sinc ethe Reagan Adm. He needs to negate in his mind what the Clinton Adm. has acheive b/c he is unable to recognize that and stand straight against HRC. He thinks that if people "forget" the Clinton years they would not support HRC.
    It's really infantile and a dangeorus political
    tactic. One may ask then : why would anyone bvoye Democrat if there is nothing Bill Clinton the only Dem Pres. to get re-elected in modern times has done that is better, much better ?

    I despise this about Obama profoundly because it goes against what so many people have fought for as Democratic values and programs to help real people. It is playing right of a Rep. book undermining the Clinton years altogether.  I find this from Obama one of the most shameful and unforgivable things. Obama keeps on undermining the democratic party.

    Obama: fight HRC on your own merits and not by trashing the Clinton Adm.

    Parent

    "bvoye" should (none / 0) (#198)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:33:11 AM EST
    have been "vote".

    Typing too fast and not checking; my apologies.


    Parent

    EEOC in shambles (5.00 / 3) (#213)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:46:11 AM EST
    according to a lawyer friend there.  And thinking is that bad as it has been with understaffing and closing of offices under Bush, Obama would revert to Reagan years with Clarence Thomas-type views of affirmative action on racial issues.

    As for gender issues in employment, of course, that part of the EEOC's charge essentially was ignored under Thomas.  And I doubt that any of us see signs that Obama is a sensitive new age guy on gender issues.

    Parent

    Cynical (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by chrisvee on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    Hillary wins PA, muddies the waters of the popular vote, makes inroads into Obama's key demographics, & gives the SDs something to think about.  Now suddenly we're inundated again with stories about how Bill Clinton has irreparably damaged his reputation in the AA community, how Hillary has irrevocably lost the AA vote, how the campaign is trying to damage Obama for the GE, and how we may have protests if he is 'denied' the nomination.

    Should I be surprised?  Isn't this the same narrative we heard between NH & SC?   After perhaps suffering from less enthusiastic than expected urban/suburban turnout in PA, the campaign needs to score a big, big win in NC as well as a victory in IN.  Recent polls may indicate a slight narrowing of the margin of victory in NC and a tight race in IN.  And suddenly we're back in the toxic soup of 'Clintons are evil race-baiters, she's unelectable because of her, and they will do anything to win including sabotaging the 2008 race so that she can run again in 2012.'

    Can the so-called party leaders just simmer down, figure out how to re-enfranchise MI/FL, and let the voters vote?  Bloviating about the long-term negative effects of the choice between these nominees is not helpful at all and they should be shutting the media down when they try to do it.  

    Obama's interview only reinforces my opinion that he's just another pol who will say anything.  Given that fact, what he says appeals to me less than what Hillary says.  I still have no idea what he is fundamentally 'for' or what he will actually 'do' in office.  And I refuse to pick a candidate just to 'outsmart' the media bia because I susepect that's a game we can't win.

    BTW, I don't think threatening protests (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:24:14 PM EST
    is the way to go. People's minds return to the LA riots and burning the neighborhood's lively hoods as people watched and being terrorized mostly by a group of young pi%%ed off troublemakers. Even Al Sharpton's shutting down the city. It shows that if someone does not like the verdict or outcome, they will take revenge. It is not a good way of trying to win over voters. To say there will be a civil war in American if Obama is not the candidate is to terrorize the SD and Americans.

    Parent
    Timmeh threw out the 2012 scenario again this (none / 0) (#232)
    by jawbone on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:04:20 PM EST
    morning.  The idea Clinton will do or say anything to get BO to lose in the primary or the general so she's still viable for the 2012 election.

    Now, I believe Hillary is a realist--and this is her shot.  Older candidates don't do well in the Dem primaries--and she will be 66 then.

    Think the digs at her wrinkles are bad now? The MCMers will go crazy about the idea of a retirement age woman running for president.  McSame has not been getting the agism treatment bcz he is still a media darling--but Hillary?

    In our society, after a certain age, most women become invisible--unless they are very famous in their field.  But breaking into a new level or a new field? Much more difficult.

    Our society is not kind to older women--and the MCM will lavish attention on each new wrinkle or looser jowl.

    I used to think Obama would have a better shot in 2016, with seasoning, experience, and another senate election to his credit.  Now, I wonder if he can do a second "transformative" and "transcendent" camapaign.  Michelle Obama implied he would not run again, that this was the public's chance to have him as their president.  I think they realize they more that's known about him, the more he's just a man, just a politician, just another human being--not The One.  

    Parent

    Chris Matthews (none / 0) (#256)
    by chrisvee on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:15:50 PM EST
    The 2012 scenario was on the Chris Matthews Show as well.  I think it was Norah O'Donnell who mentioned it.  I saw Joe Klein shaking his head no (to his credit) although he had already made some virulently anti-Hillary remark immediately prior so he doesn't get too much credit.

    Parent
    Clyburn: A dupe or a dope (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:01:18 AM EST
    It seems clear to me that Clyburn was off the reservation there and the Obama camp wants no part of Clyburn's delusions.
    Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but I am sure Axelrod would never admit it. That would political suicide.

    It matters not a whit (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by goldberry on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    The honeymoon will be over a half nanosecond after the balloons drop in Denver.  Suddenly, the volume on the Obama campaign will be turned down to a whisper and the McCain campaign will be turned up to 11.  It will be Iraq and terrorism and Robert Mugabe and Raila Odinga 24/7.  

    Then we'll have fricking John McCain and Botox Cindy at the inaugural ball.

    Obama is not more electable than Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Sunshine on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:15:18 AM EST
    If Hillary is receiving white vote 70%-30% and Obama black vote 92%, this is not going to change...  Then you have the youth vote going for Obama, Hillary will not and can not attack the youth for coming out to vote, but the Republicans will...  This is what happened to McGovern and he won only 1 state in the GE, maybe Obama will do better than McGovern, but how much better?

    Can we please stop (3.00 / 1) (#207)
    by smott on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:43:31 AM EST
    ...extrapolating primary nbrs to the General?
    Yes BO loses whites to HRC 70-30.

    That is not the same as losing whites 70-30 to McCain.  Much depends on how many women jump or stay home.

    Parent

    Blitzer (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    McCaskil is a typical Obama supporter, she constantly talks of change and fresh point of view and then she throws these anti Hillary zingers.  Schumer, on the other hand, will always compliment and not go negative.  This notion of Negative is embedded in Obama campaign.  McCaskil is toxic.

    He gave in (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    in the Roberts alright: he was for Roberts and got convinced by his own chief of staff to vote against  
    b/c of Obama 's own political future only.  There is a great article in the WAsPo that
    discusses how Obama's chief of staff convinced him to oppose it on political grounds (only!) but that Obama very much wanted to vote for Roberts.

    HRC was against Roberts from the start and gave a compelling speech as to why he was the wrong choice.

    I watched my DVR'ed Boston Legal (none / 0) (#237)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:08:42 PM EST
    last night where James Spader's character (Alan Shore) was giving arguments before the Supreme Court.  Of course Alan lapsed into (highly unrealistic) criticisms of the Judges themselves.  

    I was thinking geez, that Supreme Court again, what if we get another Roberts?  I guess I have to vote for Obama!

    but wait, Obama almost voted for Roberts and defended those (indefensible characters) who did vote for him.

    Never mind.  I guess we're screwed.  Please, please, please, let a Democrat run as a third party candidate.

    Parent

    No, you don't (5.00 / 1) (#254)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:08:15 PM EST
    I was thinking geez, that Supreme Court again, what if we get another Roberts?  I guess I have to vote for Obama!

    The Supreme Court argument is much more complex than that. Both parties have used it as a wrench to force people into submission of voting for a candidate.  But it is a fallacy.

    The President nomninates a SC appointee but it is Congress responsability to confirm such candidate. Congress does have the power to stop a nominee if they are in the majority or close to it; which they will be.
    Elect a Democratic Congress and the Supreme Court responsability is on them.  I am tired of parties threat of the SC to then have the Dems. Congress
    play along with the Rep. choices. If the Dems. in Congress do not have the spine to do their job and stop the wrong nominees un;less they have a Dem Pres. then they should NOT be in Congress.  

    The Congress can do the right thing with a Rep. Pres.:  remember Robert Bork.

    So, no, the "fear of the Supreme Court" kind of  argument is not an honest one.

    Parent

    Young people's infatuation with Obama... (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Alvord on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:43:05 AM EST
    ... may fade the more his flaws are exposed. The young are famously hard to get out to the polls. Will they still come out and vote in the fall if Obama is the candidate and he has been subjected to the right wing attack machine?


    Obama feeds their idealism with the hope and (none / 0) (#230)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:02:13 PM EST
    change messages. But, lately he has not been able to stay "above the fray" and "bring people together," because he is as involved in attack politics as anyone. Since his words and message are incongruent, it'll be more difficult for him to utilize the uniter theme as the campaign moves forward.

    If the campaign evolves in a way where that message is lost to him, then young people are likely to become more disenchanted and not go to the polls in November if he wins the primary. I just DO NOT see him as a winning candidate!

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#246)
    by Alvord on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:32:09 PM EST
    I think it is likely that many of Obama's young supporters will lose interest in him as time goes on and they will fail to come out and vote in November if Obama is the nominee. Added to that is Obama's weakness with older white voters, Hispanics and Jews plus McCain's appeal to independents and even many Hispanics and Jews. I don't see how Obama wins.

    Parent
    I think Arabella was snarking (5.00 / 3) (#240)
    by otherlisa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:14:40 PM EST
    and some prime snark it was...

    Did Obama really say: (5.00 / 1) (#251)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:56:30 PM EST
    Obama: But here is my belief, Dem will be unified. I think I am the unifier.

    OH no !!!! That's exactly what Bush run on...OMG.
    This is deja vu all over again....What a nightmare..

    It worked (none / 0) (#255)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:15:13 PM EST
    didn't it?  People complain Axelrod is like Rove.  Rove and the media got Bush elected.  People see comparison's between Bush and Obama.  Bush got elected.  It will never appeal to me, in fact creeps me out, but for those who want Obama elected (any D will do ya) isn't it a good thing?

    Parent
    If the media had such a power (4.50 / 2) (#11)
    by Serene1 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:07:57 AM EST
    then how come Obama lost to Hillary among Democrats in all the big states. Conventional wisdom suggests that if media really had the power then winning those states among Democrats should have been a cakewalk for obama as the media was literally eating out of his hands and the opposite for Hillary.
    So if media doesn't have that much of an impact in the Democratic election then what impact will it have in the GE.

    Flawed analysis (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:11:58 AM EST
    It can be argued that the only reason Sen Obama has done as well as he has is because he has been the media darling. Seriously if they treated him like they treated Edwards do you think he'd be anywhere nearly as successful?

    Parent
    It can also be argued (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Serene1 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:18:40 AM EST
    that Obama's win was mostly in caucuses states where the win was mostly due to superior organizational capabilities and less to do with a favourable media .

    Parent
    True, but he has done well (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:24:01 AM EST
    In other primaries, raised a lot of money. Some of it is from astroturfing various social networking and info sites (I saw it early on right after Ron Paul astroturfing), the rest is from non stop media love fest.

    Heck as early as super tuesday they were declaring he was going to win CA and Hillary would drop. When she did very well the next day they turned it around into a negative.

    Without this he would have been gone a long time ago.

    Parent

    More than the friendly media (4.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Serene1 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:42:26 AM EST
    I think it was the funds available with Obama and Hillary's miscalculation besides other things that propelled Obama.

    Early on after Obama won the IOWA caucus because of superior organizational skills, he had more money than Hillary. He was able to outspend Hillary in almost all the states. Comparitively Hillary had to pick and choose states where she could spend to optimize the money available with her and that was a big advantage for Obama.

    Media love may have played a role but I believe it was a very insignificant one because given the kind of love showered to Obama by the media and the equivalent hate towards Hillary. Hillary should have lost NH and every other contest thereafter.

    Parent

    the media (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:59:11 AM EST
    hid Obama penchant for radical chic and black nationalism.

    he lied to Iowa about his personality. he created fictional post racial identity that has proven to be a joke.

    Parent

    Interesting argument (none / 0) (#71)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:59:57 AM EST
    I guess we'll just agree to disagree (a little bit). Food for thought.

    Parent
    No Sunday morning TV (4.16 / 6) (#27)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:21:41 AM EST
    The "lunch  bucket" Democrats don't watch these programs. I think only the blogs watch them and the Pundocracy watches them. It's a closed loop.

    This is how tragedies like Pennsyvania happen: the low information voters won't get involved. Blame the great unwashed for not watching Sunday AM talking heads. Those stupid people should watch TV, and then read kos to know what they should think.

    Kos & Corp, Inc.  can claim that these low information voters would rather sleep in, go huntin' or (hillariously!) go to church than watch Sunday AM TV.

    Parent

    Even less so in coming months (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:24:54 AM EST
    as we emerge from hibernation, put down our guns, go to church early, and get outside at long last to get to the garden centers on Sunday mornings out here in the burbs and urban patches of the hinterlands.  We'll only be bitter about ice burn on our lawns, whilst clinging to our yard tools.

    And much of the populace will be engaged in coming weeks not with primaries but with commencements and end-of-school-year rituals of kids' recitals and such.  Movers and shakers will just be shaking and moving their opinions back and forth at each other until Labor Day or so, except for us political junkies.  

    Parent

    There is truth in that (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:24:10 AM EST
    In PA, when it became clear that the PA vote mattered, people became excited and declared who they wanted. Then they went on with the Spring projects but,they still went out and voted. No one I personally know, changed their vote in those 6 weeks.

    The other day when I was so tired of the same thing being written over and over, it was a great blog breaker to mow my lawn. I was on the Cub and enjoying the warmth and the sweet smell of freshly cut grass and totally not thinking politics. A nice break indeed. Sorry to the people with alergies. Yesterday I finally got my one junk room cleaned out in between blog breaks.Not everyone watches the cable news outlets. Yes, a 500,000 hit is a good day's rating, but sometimes it is only 250,000 for Hardball. Many people get their news on the network stations and then it is not all about politics. So take a percentage of Americans who are watching political shows vs the percentage of Americans who vote. Smidgen.

    Parent

    How would you know what we watch? (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:11:39 AM EST
    The "lunch  bucket" Democrats don't watch these programs. I think only the blogs watch them and the Pundocracy watches them. It's a closed loop.

    This Lunch Bucket Democrat has been watching these Sunday morning shows for 20 years. The condescending hits just keep on a-comin.

    It might even surprise some people that many "Blue Collar" or "Lunch Bucket" Democrats can actually read and write. Imagine that. We even venture out on the Internets now and again. Imagine that. We been sneaking into that closed loop when no one was looking.

    Course there is one significant difference that I've noticed down here amongst the peasantry, we may watch the bobble-heads sometimes, but we don't have a whole lot of use for them. That adoration amongst themselves definitely is a "closed loop" IMHO.

    Parent

    Well IMO The "Lunch Bucket" Dems Have (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:33:50 AM EST
    proven they have better critical thinking skills than many of the so called "Creative Class."

    Parent
    Since it is Open Thread (4.50 / 2) (#106)
    by dem08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:28:40 AM EST
    Here is a Topic:

    All the Candidates since Ronald Reagan, for both parties and Independent, have been weak candidates.

    My first two Democratic Choices in 2008 were Edwards and Clark.

    Hillary began with name-recognition and an enormous money advantage and is a long-shot.

    Obama raised money and hopes among new voters and lost most Clinton Voters.

    Bill Clinton never got anywhere near 50 percent of the votes in the GE, and Bill is supposedly the popular one.

    The Republicans have John McCain and Mitt Romney.

    And Edwards never was able to win anything despite having the best message.

    We live in the Age of the Not-Giants, and any of the remaining candidates, Obama, Hillary, McCain are weak.

    It will make a difference in what anyone will be able to do as President.

    But I cringe when I hear a Democratic strategist say, "We have two strong and historic candidates." Historic, yes; strong, that has to be a joke.

    Hillary weak? (5.00 / 0) (#249)
    by miriam on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:48:58 PM EST
    Most of the unflattering commentary from the media on Hillary portrays her as anything but weak.  Would you consider her "weak" if she weren't a woman?  I think she's an extremely strong person, but she's judged by a different standard because she's female. As for the media talking heads like Matthews and Olbermann, it's been my loooong experience that weak men (and women) detest and resent strong and highly intelligent women....even though they often marry them and then continue to resent them.  

    Parent
    Yes, compared to Reagan, Nixon, and LBJ (none / 0) (#257)
    by dem08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:20:27 PM EST
    Hillary, like her husband, both Bush's, and Jimmy Carter, is weak as a candidate.

    Hillary had a huge advantage in money, name recognition, and staff over all the other Democratic candidates in the 2008 election. Her only disadvantage is that she is Hillary. Fans of The Clinton's love her and him, but The Clinton's never poll over 50% nationally.

    Bill always had more people approving of the job he was doing than ever voted for him. He was president when Democrats lost the House for the first time in 40 years, and then lost the Senate. And he was impeached, and as far as I know, there was either none or very little fall-out for the Congresspeople who impeached Clinton or those who voted to remove him when the trial moved to the Senate.

    The Democrats came back (sort of) in 2006 because of Bush's war.

    Parent

    So you're saying because the MSM likes Obama (4.50 / 2) (#217)
    by doyenne49 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:50:13 AM EST
    and hates Clinton that THEY should essentially choose the Dem nominee?

    Hey, look at the great job the MCM did in 2000 (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by jawbone on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:55:35 AM EST
    and 2004!

    Let's let them set the parameters and the select the nominee and president.

    Worked out so well recently....

    Parent

    That's what I understand (none / 0) (#252)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:59:15 PM EST
    BTD is saying.... I confess I do not see the logic of it. It sounds rather cynical to me...
    I wish BTD would expand this sentence/statement he keeps repeating better.

    Parent
    Associated Press "coverage" of Hillary (4.00 / 1) (#260)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:37:29 PM EST
    Clinton a couple of hours in Willmington, Indiana: "Hillary Rodham Clinton said the assassination attempt Sunday on the Afghan president shows that the U.S. has failed to give proper attention to Afghanistan." covered 5 paragraphs on her, 18 paragraphs on Obama
    The article was titled "Clinton: Afghanistan needs more US attention."
    Now the biassed press, is riding Obama on Senator Clinton's coat-tails !!! They are no longer 'implying' preference over their candidate; now the press is blatantly unapologetic (I guess)about who they want to get the nomination; now is the time when the electorate needs to press the upper echelon of the DNC to denounce this continuous, spiraling practice whether they want to or not, they MUST!

    Clyburn is Right (1.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Jade Jordan on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:54:46 AM EST
    Listen to Black Talk Radio.  If Hillary steals the nomination she has already lost the majority of black people will not only not vote for her, but will never in the near future vote Democratic again.

    Without the black vote democrats can't win.  That is reality.  A reality Hillarites want to ignore.

    So, another lie (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:56:48 AM EST
    perpetuated, that if she does what is in the DNC process, "she stole the election".  

    What are they demanding from Obama other than just being black?  Like the blog boyz the black community gave Obama obedience without any expectations for anything.  

    Parent

    Am I the only one (5.00 / 10) (#73)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:00:54 AM EST
    who thinks this "stole the election" crap is right up there with the government spreading AIDS to kill all black people?  Can we just take a breath here?  There is no "stealing" of the election if all the votes are counted.  And why do folks feel that Obama "owns" this election, and that it can be "stolen" from him?  This sense of entitlement only isolates people.  The hysteria is alarming.

    Seriously, what the heck has Obama ever done for the black community?  I'm sure the republicans already have some tenants from Rezko's slums ready to talk about what a great asset Obama was to them in their times of need.

    This double standard is just gobsmacking.

    Parent

    Ferraro and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:05:31 AM EST
    He should find her and give a great big kiss since it was she and a bunch of other tinkerers that made all the complicated rules to give new comers a chance at the nomination.  It reminds me of the formulas that are made for government funding:  5 points for having a NEPA, two points for advertising in a minority paper, then divide by 25, subtract...32..sit on your head spin for a few hours etc...etc.  

    If they want clarity, winner take all.  Now sit and play with the rules.  

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    but that was Obama's meme months ago.  He kicked it off with rousing ire with the young progressives who really don't know much about the Democratic Party by saying the Super Delegates were undemocratic.  

    Now, he's worked to block voters in MI and FL, so THAT is a meme they don't want to push.  But this is what happens when you have a very inconsistent message.  Your supporters are still chanting the old meme while you've reversed positions.

    It is chaotic thinking now.

    Parent

    If Black Talk Radio (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:59:14 AM EST
    is perpetuating a lie, a respected Congressman should be debunking it.

    Moreover, if Black Talk Radio wants to make sure Obama loses, then they will keep it up.

    Obama needs no enemies if he has friends like Black Talk Radio and Jim Clyburn.

    They will make him unelectable.

    Parent

    Hear, hear! As ever, you found the words (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:56:48 AM EST
    -- and as usual, far fewer than it would have taken me -- to respond to threats of race riots, threats that disserve Clyburn's candidate as well as the country.  Talk radio, whether black, white, neocon or allegedly "progressive," is just squawk radio and continues to do a disservice with such Limbaugh-like nonsense, no matter whether on the left or the right.

    It's not about politics; it's all about ratings, with no concern as to the consequences.  I stopped listening to anything but NPR long ago.  And as soon as I hear someone saying that they listen to radio squawkers, I started edging away from them, as they are not worth my time.  They are misinformed and have no opinions of their own.  Worse, those who listen like to be whipped up by mob-think and just like to make trouble, too.

    Parent

    Even NPR (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:38:00 AM EST
    goes off the deep end many times these days..Some of the reporters (couple of the women) are so obviously pro-Obama that comes off pretty evidently in many of their notes...Sad, really sad.

     

    Parent

    Sorry. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by pie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:59:56 AM EST
    Blacks have traditionally been democratic voters.  Hillary speaks to their issues more than McCain does and staying home might help get him elected.

    Neither of us know what November will bring. I think she can help heal the rift in time.  

    Parent

    Could we get a shout-out (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:03:04 AM EST
    for Hillary's vehement, of a certain age, white, women supporters?

    People should be more than a tad concerned about alienating them.  A brief glance at exit polling shows that we make up anywhere between 52-60% of voters.

    The democratic party would crumble without us.

    Parent

    If that is the case then (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by americanincanada on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:06:17 AM EST
    how is it the republicans have been able to win the whitehouse so many times without the AA vote?

    Demopraohics show that it is the women's vote that if, even if only by a small percentage, walk out...will kill Obama's chances of winning. Add to that the white working class vote, the hispanic vote etc, etc...and well...

    Parent

    And without (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by rooge04 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:23:04 AM EST
    Conservative White Dems, Hispanics,lunch bucket Dems, and women the Democratic party cannot win either.

    Besides, I do not believe the majority of the Black community feels this way. Perhaps talk radio is perpetuating these types of falsehoods and I have heard it from people online. However, I don't think most African Americans despise the Clintons or that they wouldn't vote Democratic.  If they did, they are doing themselves a disservice. Not to mention, that Obama would then be hurting his own community by perpetuating this type of hate.

    Also, even if the superdelegates voted for Clinton even if she did NOT have the popular vote (which i don't agree with)...it would still not be any stealing, since that's the whole purpose of the superdelegates.

    I believe that African American leaders, talk radio and some people on the internet are treading dangerous ground claiming that AA's will not vote for Clinton and that the Dems will lose their vote forever.  It does nothing to dissuade Conservative whites of the fear that Obama continues to play the race card.  And the people I've seen online putting out fears of riots and violence also helps to solidify these race divisions.   Thanks to Obama, the great Uniter.

    Parent

    Oy (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    So, now this election has been truly whipped up into a race war where voters are meant to be bullied into voting for Obama by threats of black voter revenge. Lovely. What a sophisticated electorate we are. Not to mention the inspiring unification that has taken place.

    So now and in the future, competing against a black person for the nomination will be considered 'stealing the election' away from them.

    How Orwellian that it is Clinton who is considered to exhibit an attitude of entitlement.

    I officially give up. This election has truly deteriorated to a level that I don't want to participate anymore.

    Parent

    without the democratic party (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:34:36 AM EST
    and white dem voters, there would be no black elected politicians to speak of.  you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  if your ridiculous threat materializes, what will locally elected black politicians across the south then do?  join the republican party?  i'm proud to vote for bennie thompson every time he wants to run for MS02.  he has done a great job and on the merits is a very good congressperson.  but i don't see him joining the republican party if hillary clinton is the democratic nominee this year.   without white dems, black dems can't be elected.  without black dems, the south is solid republican for the next generation (again) and the opposition will likely make inroads into african american local electoral success in the south precisely due to racial polarization over the obama kerfluffle.   but democratic prospects for presidential elections will not be affected one whit, because all southern states with large black populations are reliably republican in presidential elections.  that is the reality you need to face.  the democratic party does not need african americans to win the presidency.  it does, however, want them and wants to represent their interests abeit not at the exclusion of others.  get it?

    all of this is, of course, beside the point.  this is an idle threat.  from where i sit, in the predominantly african american mississippi delta region, there seems to be very little interest in spurning the democratic party over the nomination of one man to a single office.  in my town of less than 3,000 souls, of which 80% are african american, i have yet to see a single obama bumper sticker or yard sign.  i think your threat is empty hot air.  african americans know their pocketbooks, and they know that the democratic side butters their bread, regardless if the candidate is black or white.  clinton will make her case to african american voters and win them back.  i wish i could say the same for obama.  

    Parent

    Not just the south, please (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:43:45 AM EST
    Everywhere.

    Parent
    A Reality That Obama's Supporters Chose To (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:37:54 AM EST
    ignore is that Obama hasn't been able to capture 50% of the Democratic vote in the big Dem states. Do you believe Obama's hype that Clinton voters will vote for him but his voters will not vote for her? Now you and he may be right about his supporters not voting for Hillary but you might want to look at exit polls and the percentage of Clinton voters who won't vote for Obama.

    Without Hillary's voters democrats can't win.  That is reality.  A reality Obama supporters want to ignore.

    Parent

    Well, listen to us Working Class white people (5.00 / 2) (#247)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:33:08 PM EST
    If Obama is put into the spot, The Democratic party loses a lot more than the AA vote. There are some places where we were just getting back the Reagan Democrats which have costs us in the past. Those Catholic White older women add up to a nice bloc also.

    Parent
    Found this link in (none / 0) (#91)
    by Serene1 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:11:44 AM EST
    TM. Maybe the media is finally getting arround to vettting Obama. Wonder when the other will follow:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-killerspin27apr27,0,6789688.story

    The above mentioned lik details the connection b/w Obama and Robert Blackwell Jr.

    wait a minute (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:33:21 AM EST
    he was paid $8,000 a month, working on a part-time basis, to give counsel to a guy who wanted to bring a ping-pong tournament to Chicago?

    What could Obama have possibly been doing that required him to spend 8K worth of time a month on this project?  That's $96,000 a year.  Where does Killerspin get that kind of money to pay counsel when they need grants just to put on the tournament?

    What a sham.  He's getting 8K a month from this guy, he's on two different boards that we know about where he apparently did nothing but show up for meetings (if that) and got paid an annual salary.

    How many more of these schemes have to turn up before people start asking what the heck is going on here?

    Parent

    Tax returns for these years (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:03:26 AM EST
    from Obama are the ones still lacking, as I recall?  Yes, I wondered as well about how much he got paid by Ayers for chairing that board.  And don't forget that Obama also was collecting "faculty" pay from the U of Chicago, which also got earmarks from him.

    Parent
    Man (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:09:47 AM EST
    who wouldn't kill for those "jobs"?

    Clinton needs to call for those tax returns.  She's shown hers for the last six thousand years.

    Parent

    Newspapers have nose-dived (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:39:59 AM EST
    all over the country.  The key to profits is classified lineage, and it was dropping badly because of the 'Net competition (craiglist, realty websites, etc.) even before the economy killed it.

    See stock prices of those that went public, as did our local paper.  Prices above $20 per share now down to $5, the standard 75% drop in a few years.  It's a disaster for many investors, retirees, etc.

    Of course, the publishers and other top execs responsible for much of the Luddite resistance to adaptation got themselves Exxon CEO-level salaries and perks while they gut newsroom staffs, just like the rest of big business.  

    Yep (none / 0) (#149)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:51:04 AM EST
    What a moronic editorial. you think Obama will rin with that stupidity?

    How much you want to bet on that one? I give Obama credit for this - he agrees with Clinton on that issue.

    Oh, you did not know that?

    Editorial removed (none / 0) (#171)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:05:54 AM EST
    Readers are not permitted to post entire articles here. They can link and quote a paragraph or two and then add their thoughts. This space is for comments and there are copyright rules.

    Parent
    we can comment on twisted editorial (none / 0) (#151)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:53:31 AM EST
    here - http://tinyurl.com/5mp52l
    (hint - BTD)


    Fox transcript is up (none / 0) (#172)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:06:38 AM EST
    Not for zealots, on either side (none / 0) (#180)
    by katana on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:14:12 AM EST
    In the current New Yorker, the magazine's TV critic, Nancy Franklin, said:

    In last week's debate, Obama was brought down to earth, and Clinton had the discipline to remain down on earth.  I'm more confused than ever about which is the best candidate, but I also feel more hopeful, having seen them withstand the combination of laziness, calculation and small-minded aggressiveness that they were confronted with.  They were flawed and they were impressive, and to me they looked like winners.


    A Dean 25 on Fox (none / 0) (#187)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:20:44 AM EST
    Scott Maddox on again.  He said the candidates need to get together (stop campaigning, reach an agreement and get back to campaigning) and come up with a plan for the 25 to review on seating FL/MI.  Well, that was futile.  Nothing will happen with FL/MI.  Next, he said he'd changed his mind about not allowing this to go to a convention.  He had received comments that people had questions about all 3 candidates and if it stayed positive, it gives people more time?  Interesting........ So keep the positive attention on the Dems through the summer and try to keep attention away from McCain?  

    An alternate read of Axelrod's Clyburn comment (none / 0) (#223)
    by jawbone on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:54:16 AM EST
    is that the Obama campaign wishes to look like it has nothing to do with this "racism" or "racializing" attack on the Clintons--but it damn well wants it to be done by surrogates.

    Don't recall who said it this morning on one of the Sunday talk shows, but it was said that Obama does not do attacks well, they rebound against him, and he should have the surrogates do it.

    Which is what I think Clyburn is doing.  He did it prior to SC and now prior to NC.  Now he just may be hypersensitive, but, somehow, I doubt that.

    David Axelrod went out of his way to categorically reject Clyburn's conspiracy theory. It seems clear to me that Clyburn was off the reservation there and the Obama camp wants no part of Clyburn's delusions.

    I just don't buy that Clyburn is delusional or hasn't worked this out with the campaign.  It's how the political game at this level of dirty attack is played. Someone who's in a safe seat or otherwise can't be attacked too badly does the dirty work. And it must be someone with enough heft to get attention from the MCM. Check, check, and check. Mud thrown, dirt out there, enough sticking to cause problems.

    Howard Deam on MTP (none / 0) (#226)
    by wasabi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    I thought Howard was great this AM.  Russert kept badgering him about how the party was being torn apart and Deam kept to his talking points.  He always followed up that America is craving "change" and that she'll not get it by voting for McSame.
    Good job Howard.

    Dean is a weak chair. (none / 0) (#236)
    by Cal on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:07:47 PM EST
    His Brazile blabber on MTP re MI and FL was "great?"  Come now.

    Parent
    Didn;t see that part (none / 0) (#242)
    by wasabi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:16:34 PM EST
    I only tuned in when Russert kept badgering him about how it'll tear the party apart FOREVER if Obama isn't coronated.  I thought he handled that really well.

    Parent
    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#258)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:28:56 PM EST


    Your Open QuestionShow me another »
    Kamal karna roy , script of new testaments of living by human_animals of current time:?
    pl visit web for more detaied views on democracies in redevelopment phases , sith search words on web search with words " kamal karna roy "

    obama on fox (none / 0) (#262)
    by rev paromita roy democratic agent of reforms world on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:45:38 PM EST
       

    NewsNation Investigations Education Photos & Video World Technology KidsPost Discussions Metro Entertainment Religion Corrections Business Health Post Magazine Archives PoliticsPolitics Blogs House/Senate Votes White House Congress 2008 Campaign In Depth Polls In the Loop DC | MD | VA OpinionsOpinions Home Outlook Feedback Discussion Groups Toles Cartoons On Faith Telnaes Animations PostGlobal LocalMetro News Weather Local Explorer Jobs Education Traffic Community Handbook Cars DC | MD | VACrime The Extras Real Estate Columns/Blogs Obituaries Local Business Yellow Pages SportsRedskins Capitals Columns/Blogs MLB Nationals D.C. United Local Colleges NBA Wizards High Schools Golf NHL Arts & LivingStyle Movies Travel Fashion & Beauty Horoscopes Smart Living Television Books Home & Garden Comics Entertainment News Food & Dining Museums Theater & Dance Crosswords City GuideFind Restaurants Find Local Events Find Movies Visitors Guide Find Bars & Clubs Going Out Gurus JobsSearch JobsCarsBuy a Car Sell a Car Experts & Advice Dealer Specials Coupons Real EstateBuy a Home Sell a Home Property Values Commercial Properties RentalsFind a Rental Rent Your Place ShoppingShop New Deals & Discounts Shopper Blog Shop Used Sell Your Stuff Pets
    SEARCH:  washingtonpost.com Web | Search Archives
    washingtonpost.com  > World  > Asia/Pacific Your Comments On...

    Poor Muslims Cite Fear of Backlash After Blasts in Historic Indian City
    JAIPUR, India, May 15 -- Down dusty alleys in a neighborhood of Bangladeshi migrant workers, police detectives searched house to house Thursday for suspects in the coordinated bombings that tore through this historic city two days ago.
     - By Emily Wax

    Commentsrobin1231hotmailcom wrote:

    Commentsrobin1231hotmailcom wrote:
    THE REV DR KAMAL KARNA KARUNA ROY OPINION ON THE ISSUE. It is india's ill motive to attach acts of militants to nato like pakistan , bangldesh et al but india must examine how true religious persecution and oppressions on people ofislamic faiths do generate growth of militants in the indian subcontinent; so called terrorisms are illdefined nanaalism , patriotisms of some forms. It has become traditional for superpowers and petty and smaller_power nations viz india to blame islamic protests , actions for survival in living as acts of terrorism. coutries like india of powerfuls like usa shold change basic hatred on isam and followers of islams. History of ancient times have enough proof that islamic people generated good culture, good passions of living , good cultures which if measured in respect of other followings of religions are no inferiors.people should try to respect islam as they respect jesus, krishna , sivca, buddha et al of god/s' category for worship and prayer purposes DR ROY IS STILL A CONTESTANT IN GOP NOMINATION AT THE NOMINATING GOP CONVENTION IN 2008 FOR THE NOV 4, 2008 GENERAL ELECTION AS ELECTORAL COMPETITION AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN A ARIZONA SENATOR WHO WAS ALLEGED TO BE A FREQUENT INFLUENCE PEDDLING AGENT AGAINST USA GOVT BUT HE SUCCESSFULLY EVADED INVESTGATIONS FOR FELONY CRIMES AGAINST USA. dR ROY COMPLAINED TO 70+ USDC JURISDICTIONS IN USA COURTS FOR ALLEGED CRIMINAL AND CIVIL VIOLATIVE CONDUCTS OF MCCAIN, OBAMA AND HILLARY AND DEMANDED IN COURT PAPERS WITH ALLEGATIONS THAT U S SENATE SO FAR DELAYED INVESTIGATIONS AGAINST 3 HIGH PROFILE U S SENATORS FOR VERY VERY SERIOUS CIVIL VIOLATIONS AGAINST PEOPLE OF USA AND USA GOVT. OBAMA POSSIBLY WITH ALL INDICATIONS CHEATED TAXES ON ILL BARGAINED MONEY IN BIASED HOUSING DEAL OF HIS DWELLING IN ILLINOIS WITH HELP OF REZKO, THE LATER GUY IS NOW IN ZAIL AND AWAITING CRIMINAL TRIAL. WHY OBAMA IS IMMUNE OF INVESTIGATIONS AND TRIAL ,POSSIBLY JESUS WOULD NOT BE KNOWING IF HE WAS ALIVE AS A PRESUMED GOD OF HUMAN_ANIMALS IN BILLIONS. hILLARY EVADED INVESTIGATIONS AS FIRST WOMAN MOST NOTORIOUS OR ILLFAMED OR FAMOUS IN THE CENTURY IN 2000'S. sHE IS ORDINARY LIKE CITIZEN . SHE MAY NOT BE IMMUNE AND CAPABLE TO EVADE INVESTIGATIONS SINCE SOME SENATOR WENT TOU S JAIL FOR CRIME IN OFFICE OF BEFORE.MCCAIN ,JOHN AS PER N Y TIMES REPORTS AND EVIDENCES USED FREE SEX_PURSUITS WITH A MIDDLE AGED WOMAN , AS A LOBBYIST IN HER 40= yrs as john was heading towards 70 yrs . free sexual pursuits are criminally offensive as any gain or pleasure including in sex is capable of price value but john paid nothing for sex_bargain. ex gov mr eliot spitzer paid costs to use love acts with a woman of choice, possibly man_woman relationship is not always illegal but free sex for pleasure as in case of mccain isabusive on woment. john must face investigations by fbi, us senate if he violated woman labor for sex for free.
    5/16/2008 5:50:01 PM
    Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

    5/16/2008 5:53:20 PM
    Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

    robin1231hotmailcom wrote:
    THE REV DR KAMAL KARNA KARUNA ROY OPINION ON THE ISSUE. It is india's ill motive to attach acts of militants to nato like pakistan , bangldesh et al but india must examine how true religious persecution and oppressions on people ofislamic faiths do generate growth of militants in the indian subcontinent; so called terrorisms are illdefined nanaalism , patriotisms of some forms. It has become traditional for superpowers and petty and smaller_power nations viz india to blame islamic protests , actions for survival in living as acts of terrorism. coutries like india of powerfuls like usa shold change basic hatred on isam and followers of islams. History of ancient times have enough proof that islamic people generated good culture, good passions of living , good cultures which if measured in respect of other followings of religions are no inferiors.people should try to respect islam as they respect jesus, krishna , sivca, buddha et al of god/s' category for worship and prayer purposes DR ROY IS STILL A CONTESTANT IN GOP NOMINATION AT THE NOMINATING GOP CONVENTION IN 2008 FOR THE NOV 4, 2008 GENERAL ELECTION AS ELECTORAL COMPETITION AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN A ARIZONA SENATOR WHO WAS ALLEGED TO BE A FREQUENT INFLUENCE PEDDLING AGENT AGAINST USA GOVT BUT HE SUCCESSFULLY EVADED INVESTGATIONS FOR FELONY CRIMES AGAINST USA. dR ROY COMPLAINED TO 70+ USDC JURISDICTIONS IN USA COURTS FOR ALLEGED CRIMINAL AND CIVIL VIOLATIVE CONDUCTS OF MCCAIN, OBAMA AND HILLARY AND DEMANDED IN COURT PAPERS WITH ALLEGATIONS THAT U S SENATE SO FAR DELAYED INVESTIGATIONS AGAINST 3 HIGH PROFILE U S SENATORS FOR VERY VERY SERIOUS CIVIL VIOLATIONS AGAINST PEOPLE OF USA AND USA GOVT. OBAMA POSSIBLY WITH ALL INDICATIONS CHEATED TAXES ON ILL BARGAINED MONEY IN BIASED HOUSING DEAL OF HIS DWELLING IN ILLINOIS WITH HELP OF REZKO, THE LATER GUY IS NOW IN ZAIL AND AWAITING CRIMINAL TRIAL. WHY OBAMA IS IMMUNE OF INVESTIGATIONS AND TRIAL ,POSSIBLY JESUS WOULD NOT BE KNOWING IF HE WAS ALIVE AS A PRESUMED GOD OF HUMAN_ANIMALS IN BILLIONS. hILLARY EVADED INVESTIGATIONS AS FIRST WOMAN MOST NOTORIOUS OR ILLFAMED OR FAMOUS IN THE CENTURY IN 2000'S. sHE IS ORDINARY LIKE CITIZEN . SHE MAY NOT BE IMMUNE AND CAPABLE TO EVADE INVESTIGATIONS SINCE SOME SENATOR WENT TOU S JAIL FOR CRIME IN OFFICE OF BEFORE.MCCAIN ,JOHN AS PER N Y TIMES REPORTS AND EVIDENCES USED FREE SEX_PURSUITS WITH A MIDDLE AGED WOMAN , AS A LOBBYIST IN HER 40= yrs as john was heading towards 70 yrs . free sexual pursuits are criminally offensive as any gain or pleasure including in sex is capable of price value but john paid nothing for sex_bargain. ex gov mr eliot spitzer paid costs to use love acts with a woman of choice, possibly man_woman relationship is not always illegal but free sex for pleasure as in case of mccain isabusive on woment. john must face investigations by fbi, us senate if he violated woman labor for sex for free.
    5/16/2008 5:50:01 PM
    Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy