home

Shocked ! Shocked! To Find There Is Politics Going On

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:04:40 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Todd Beeton skillfully skewers Obama supporter and math whiz Poblano on his shocking discovery that political campaigns engage in . . . politics:

Notice the loaded language [describing the Clinton campaign] ..."conspired"...[against the pledged delegate meme] Now, I'm not saying the milestone is entirely meaningless, all I'm saying is let's call it what it is: a meme pushed out by the Obama camp to influence superdelegates and the media and to manipulate public perception. . . . Look, the second it became clear that pledged delegates alone were not going to win the nomination for either Obama or Clinton, the use of psychological warfare was fair game; it's superdelegates' jobs to be influenced by things like popular vote, majority of pledged delegates and electability and as far as I'm concerned it's the campaigns' jobs to try to use any argument at their disposal to make the case to them.

MORE . . .

What I find remarkable is that the same people who are brazenly spinning this Obama talking point are ridiculing the Clinton campaign for spinning theirs. Again Poblano:

Yes, [Byron York] really did make this argument about Hillary Clinton and the primaries:

There have been four quarters in the Democratic presidential nomination battle. We're late in the fourth quarter now, and when it's over, Hillary Clinton will likely have won three of the quarters -- and won the most votes overall -- but lost the game.

Mr. York? Mr. York? There's a Mr. Wolfson for you on line four.

I'm not saying York was entirely artful about expressing it, but that argument is no more absurd or off limits than the majority of pledged delegates thing. . . .

One of the most off putting things about some Obama supporters, the Obama News Network (NBC) and the Obama blogs is their insufferable sanctimonious hypocrisy about all of this. Hell, they should actually be proud that Axelrod and Co. have played the political game so well. Of course, in terms of Media relations, running against one of the most despised Media figures in history, Hillary Clinton, made their job pretty easy. But that said, Axelrod played his hand extremely well.

I have one caveat - they have played it almost too well. NBC is now a discredited news organization. It is widely perceived by most observers as completely in the tank for Barack Obama. I am now skeptical that NBC will be of much help to Obama in the General Election. I also fear that CNN, ABC and CBS will fear being seen in the light NBC is now and may overcompensate against Obama. Fox of course is a GOP propaganda machine.

As for the Obama blogs, well, they are an echo chamber and when they can contradict themselves on Michigan and Florida so brazenly as Markos Moulitsas has, they really have little effect on the Media narrative (outside of NBC of course) now.

At some point, being a a shameless cheerleader leaves you looking like a . . . shameless cheerleader.

Speaking for me only.

< DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Members | Once Upon A Time . . . >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Shocked ! Shocked! To Find There Is Politics Going On | 137 comments (137 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Heh. (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:11:27 AM EST
    When you say "shameless cheerleader" I automatically think of George W. Bush. ;-)

    Anyway, great post. The Obama bloggers contort themselves into pretzels trying to support their candidate at any cost, then expect to claim some moral high ground over HRC and her supporters. It's ludicrous.

    It really, REALLY annoys me when they scream about how HRC said the votes didn't count in MI and FL. She said exactly the opposite; it was Obama who said the votes wouldn't count.

    Obama and Clinton have not changed their positions on MI and FL; Obama has always been wrong, and Clinton has always been right.

    The Obamans' HDS has turned them into fools.

    You're so negative madamab (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:17:19 AM EST
    That's what happens though when you get old and jaded.  It's a very yummy pretzel if only you would just give it a chance and a taste (if your taste buds aren't broken with jaded old age yet).......it's soooooo yummy.

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:18:37 AM EST
    When I was 12, like Kos, I thought 40 was old too.

    ;-)

    Parent

    He's 12? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:24:11 AM EST
    Wow.  I thought he was much younger.

    Parent
    I Thought 12 Was The Average Age of An (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:39:27 AM EST
    obama follower.  

    Parent
    Movement... Change... (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:11:24 PM EST
    Why am I thinking diapers?

    OK, OK, you heard it before.... Sorry...

    Parent

    And it's a very kewl pretzel (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:44:06 AM EST
    and that is what is most important.

    Parent
    Tracy, I can still taste the pretzel, but I (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:33 AM EST
    ...can't chew it and its not so good when you have to gum it. ;-)

    Parent
    !! This is the quote I've been looking for!! (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by katiebird on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:20:56 AM EST
    madamab:  Thank you so much:

    It really, REALLY annoys me when they scream about how HRC said the votes didn't count in MI and FL. She said exactly the opposite; it was Obama who said the votes wouldn't count.

    Your link lead to EXACTLY the quote I've been looking for -- and I intend to help spread it far and wide.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you!!

    That

    Parent

    Many people said that FL and MI would count (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:23:26 AM EST
    including one proprietor of an orange themed website.

    Parent
    could you be more specific? (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:26:33 AM EST
    I think they have not been humiliated nearly enough.

    Parent
    IIRC Kos Did A FP Post Basically Saying That (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:37:17 AM EST
    Obama and Edwards were stupid to take their names off the MI ballot to pander to IA and NH since everyone knew that FL and MI would eventually be seated. I don't have the link either and I won't click on DKos for any reason. Someone who still goes to that site may want to find the post.

    Parent
    Was that before or after (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:08:32 AM EST
    he told Obama supporters to cross over and vote for Romney in the Republican primary?

    So much for rules.  And integrity.

    Now Obama opposes counting the Michigan votes because some of his supporters followed Markos' stupid advice and he's upset that their votes won't be counted in the (wait for it) Democratic primary.

    The Obama camp is just as Orwellian as the Bush camp ever was.  They'll tell you whatever you want to hear, and after they win, they'll do whatever they please.  They've studied the Republican movement and their method of winning elections and they admire and emulate it.  Whatever they are accusing others of doing, they're really doing themselves.  They lie and deceive easily and with no sense of shame.  Winning is everything and it matters not who is hurt or destroyed in the process.  They will cheat if that's what it takes.  In fact, they'll cheat, and say they're playing fair, and accuse others of cheating instead.  Up is down, war is peace...

    Parent

    The proprietor (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:51:35 AM EST
    of the Site that Must Not Be Named actually created something of a disaster for Obama when he suggested that Democratic Michiganders should vote in the Republican race.  There was no one who believed that people who voted in the Republican race ought to have a chance to vote a second time in a new primary.  Since so many supporters of Senator Obama had done just that, Obama knew how dicey his chances were in Michigan; the second state of the man might actually have been worse than the first.  He could not countenance a democratic process that would leave him in worse shape, so he had to veto every proposal to allow Michiganders to vote again.

    Parent
    Good point (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:58:59 AM EST
    So, will history someday conclude that the Proprietor of the Site That Must Not Be Named really screwed the 2008 democratic primary process, and that he is now the lefty mirror image of Rush Limbaugh who also ran a crossover-voting-mess-with-the-system scam?

    Ah, sweet irony. The netroots.

    Parent

    The quote is somewhere (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:29:00 AM EST
    it's not at hand, though.

    Parent
    I know -- but I've wanted THIS quote (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by katiebird on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:28:57 AM EST
    (copied below) To counter that oft repeated story about Clinton that she said "Michigan won't matter."

    Not so fast, says the Clinton campaign. In a memo just circulated in response, the Clinton campaign denies the charge that it's planning to campaign in Florida; says the Obama campaign is pushing the Michigan-doesn't-matter line only because its efforts to get Democrats to vote "uncommitted" isn't working; and seems to be hinting that it may fight to have delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention after all.

    "While Sen. Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans," the campaign says. "The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren't important ... Sen. Clinton intends to be president for all fifty states. And while she will honor the pledge she signed and not campaign in either state, she intends to continue to give every American a voice during this election and when she gets to the White House."



    Parent
    So it was Obama (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:30:06 AM EST
    who invented "states that don't matter." Who'd a thunk?

    Parent
    Here's a link to an NPR version of same. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by wurman on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:03:36 AM EST
    Interviews (link)
    Clinton Says Michigan and Florida Should Count

    Also, I've posted the text of the Clinton campaign press release about this at several places here.

    Statement by Senator Hillary Clinton on the Seating of Delegates at the Democratic National Convention (link to official text)

    Parent

    We must punish (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:37:20 AM EST
    Florida and Michigan sufficiently that they understand what the Democratic Party think of them.  That will teach them to cross us ever again.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Grace on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:40 AM EST
    we can get them kicked out of the union, do you think?  I think there is a US flag design with only 48 states on it already on the books.  

    Who needs Florida and Michigan when you've got Idaho and North Dakota?  

    /sarcasm

    Parent

    Hey... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:32:47 PM EST
    Not doing the yearly carnacki this year...

    Parent
    Sooooo glad to be of service! :-) (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:27:47 AM EST


    Parent
    Don'f forget that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:39:23 AM EST
    is very practiced at taking names off ballots--just ask Alice Palmer!!  

    Parent
    obama Is So Sure He Is Going To Win The (none / 0) (#47)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:41:34 AM EST
    nomination, they are reporting today that he is in "super duper stealth" mode already searching for a VP.  

    Parent
    Dick Cheney! (none / 0) (#97)
    by Fabian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:29:22 AM EST
    How much more bipartisan can you get?

    If Tom DeLay ever clears his name, he'd be almost as perfect.

    Parent

    Now You Are Scaring Me! obama Seems To (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:53:25 AM EST
    be a lazy guy, so having Dick Cheney do all the work for him would be right up his alley.

    Parent
    To be fair, she did say this also (none / 0) (#68)
    by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:57:29 AM EST
    "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange."
    Link

    But no matter what either of them said or did at that time, it is now clear that the delegates must be seated.  

    Parent

    Isn't that (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Evie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:20:55 PM EST
    just acknowledging the present state of the matter? According to the DNC, FL and MI were not going to be counted.

    She didn't have unilateral power to seat the delegates, but that does not mean that she agreed with it. Her press releases and statements at the time certainly indicated disagreement.

    Parent

    We tried (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:12:11 AM EST
    to tell you that the "media darling" thing won't hold up and once the GOP starts calling CNN etc. the "liberal media" they will cave and talk about how horrible and unqualified Obama is and how terribly he treated Hillary Clinton. They will take no responsibility for their misdeeds, they will just blame it all on Obama and his campaign.

    Then they'll start pumping up McCain. The straightalk express etc. It's so predictable and it's why I think Hillary is a far superior candidate because of the fact that she can win despite the media narrative.

    What happens if Clinton wins the popular vote? Do we say that W. was really right and the roolz are more important than the voters? That seems to be Obama's argument. It's not the least bit funny to me that his campaign is legitimizing everything the GOP has done for the last 7 years. I think that Obama and his supporters really admire Bush and want to be like him. Or at least that's the impression I'm getting. Hence, I think it will be easier for McCain to win in Nov. due to the fact that he is actually in a lot of ways further away from Bush. And he can always pull out all the things Bush said about him in 2000.

    Nail, meet head. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:16:21 AM EST
    What happens if Clinton wins the popular vote? Do we say that W. was really right and the roolz are more important than the voters? That seems to be Obama's argument. It's not the least bit funny to me that his campaign is legitimizing everything the GOP has done for the last 7 years.

    Does Obama really, really think that argument will have any traction in the General Election?

    I'm beginning to believe him when he says he's "not a politician."

    Parent

    NBC (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Lahdee on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:13:16 AM EST
    It's good to be skeptical of NBC. Why would a company whose ownership benefits from the energy policies, and other positions, embodied by republican administrations want to be fair to Democrats?
    Liberal media, baloney.

    It's been pretty wild and crazy out there (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:14:31 AM EST
    Unprincipled is now redefined as creative :)  On second thought, that isn't redefined at all.  That is exactly what my father called it when I was a teenager and "expressing" my fresh and untainted by old age theories of life :)

    Yes, (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:17:45 AM EST
    I find very little admiration for people who win by subverting the democratic process.

    We used to call them Republicans.

    Parent

    I call them dictators :) (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:19:27 AM EST


    Parent
    BTD, you keep talking as if Obama (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:19:01 AM EST
    has already won. He hasn't.  This thing ain't even close to over.

    Obama has what every Dem pol wants... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by pluege on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:05:16 AM EST
    money.

    From a dem pol perspective, let the GE and the country be damned. Clinton can't deliver the dough to them; Obama can - lots of it, ergo Obama is the new dem King.

    Parent

    We disagree (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:23:49 AM EST


    Parent
    Question (none / 0) (#102)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:34:07 AM EST
    It's clear that you believe Obama is the one who will win, but is it also true that you believe Obama is the one who should win?

    Parent
    Well... I think it's at least close to over. (none / 0) (#23)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:27:12 AM EST
    This campaign has been going on for about a decade already. Only a short time left to go.

    Parent
    It wasn't over when Jackson ran (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:32:30 AM EST
    It wasn't over when Kennedy ran.

    I don't subscribe to the MEDIA telling me it's over. This thing is going to the convention. THEN it will be over.

    Parent

    The sound one hears (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:20:51 AM EST
    when she or he reads Poblano, I think, is the wind flowing into the bag.  One would not be dismissed as impertinent were he to not take Poblano too seriously.

    I read a diary at MyDD the other night that suggested that the one unshakable number in the campaign was 1627, and that Obama had surmounted it.  Unshakable.  Like May 31 will never come, and no one could conceive of the Democratic Party actually seating any delegates from Florida and Michigan.

    Unshakable.

    I stopped reading Poblano... (none / 0) (#134)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:45:59 PM EST
    when he/she refused to revise his/her findings when I pointed out that his/her source for information wasn't as thorough as the LOC's Thomas.

    He/she kept insisting that the source was far more reliable than the Congressional Record because it was ummm...non-partisan and therefore better than the primary text database that had all the pertinent information in it.

    Parent

    The one really unfortunate subcurrent.. (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:26:11 AM EST
    is that the election will be "stolen" and there will "blood in the streets" if Obama loses. I don't believe this is solely due to hyperbole by Obama extremists. I think it is deliberately being injected to put pressure on the reptile brains of super-D's who do not want their Denver vacation besmirched by bad press. You do not get that kind violent sub-text from the Clinton side.

    Unlikely I think (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:30:30 AM EST
    If we didn't get to the streets in 2000 and 2004, I somehow doubt the Dem primaries alone are going to do it.

    Someone on the last thread pointed out that something like 70% of Obama supports say they'll vote for Clinton in the GE.

    IMHO a far more satisfying numbers than the much lower number (which I forgot) which he gave for Clinton supports ready to vote for Obama, which, excuse me for being frank, IMHO reflects very badly on them.

    Parent

    No, (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:34:17 AM EST
    it reflects very, VERY badly on Obama that he cannot convince Clinton's supporters to vote for him.

    When will you Obama supporters get a clue about this? It is not incumbent upon us to vote for him no matter what he does or says. He needs to earn our votes.

    Most Obama supporters apparently feel that HRC has earned theirs. Which, although I'm sure they're very fine people, ultimately reflects very well on HER, not them.

    Parent

    Strawman (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    Do you ever read what others write?

    I'm not an Obama supporter. I don't like Obama. I have attacked him on DKos in February, long before you did, I suspect. I have not given him a dime.

    I was an Edwards/Kucinich supporter, and it is supporters like you that make Clinton look very very very bad in our eyes.

    (Fortunately for her you are well matched by Obamatons elsewhere.)

    Parent

    "Do you ever read what others write?" (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    LOL!

    I read what you have written here. It's full of vague generalizations, lies and smears.

    Why don't YOU go to MY blog and see how recently I was pushing for a joint ticket? Oh, you don't have time to search through my entire oeuvre to try and guess what I said in February as opposed to what I'm saying now?

    You did not address my point whatsoever, which does not surprise me. What argument could you possibly have?

    It is, empirically, Obama's job to convince voters to vote for him. HRC has done that job with Obama's supporters better than Obama has with HRC's supporters.

    The polls you quoted show that quite clearly, now don't they?

    Parent

    pants on fire (none / 0) (#92)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:20:49 AM EST
    "vague generalizations, lies and spears" appear to describe your methods, not mine.

    You certainly have lied about me.

    If you're pushing for a joint ticket, that hasn't come across in your posts here, but if that is still the case, I applaud and am ready to support your efforts.

    As for your point:

    I blamed the supporters of either camp who said they would not support the nominee if he's not their present choice.

    You blamed Obama for not succeeding in attracting enough Clinton supporters.

    Fair enough.

    I assume you equally blame Clinton for not attracting enough Obama supporters? That would be logical, no?

    Please confirm that it is so.

    Then there is enough blame to go around (which suits me fine).

    Me, I'd still rather blame the supporters than the candidates. But blaming both is okay too.

    Parent

    Obama's problem (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:47:18 AM EST
    is that he blames voters for not being willing to vote for him.  Instead he should be asking himself, "What's wrong with me that all of these people refuse to vote for me?"  The voters that will not move from Hillary to Obama are not deficient.  We have compared the candidates and do not see Obama as a reasonable second choice. It's his obligation to show us that he is if he wants our votes.  Any candidate with a "D" after his or her name is no longer sufficient to win our votes. Obama can ignore us and say that we are racist, but it isn't true, and it may cost him the election. I can live with that and all of the ramifications that it means. If you can't, then exert some influence on your candidate to wake up.

    Parent
    You don't think Obama will be sucking up? (none / 0) (#136)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:21:25 PM EST
    I do.  That's how it works.  Rendell responded to a woman coming up to him and saying, not why to vote for Obama, but SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS.  It was very dismissive.  I not only expect to see his 'people' on teebee until I am sick of them, I expect more speeches from him.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:44:04 AM EST
    When Obama said "I will get all of her supporters, but I don't know if she will get all of mine," was your reaction "hey, why is he insulting his supporters"?

    Parent
    The MSM's Game Plan Has Always Been Transparent (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:28:40 AM EST
    To any seasoned political observer the game has always been clear. The No-Tax Republican Backing Corporate MSM was always going to pump up the weaker of the two candidates for the nomination. And they always hoped that person would also be the easier to Swift-Boat. In Obama they got both. Then once the nomination was secured they would methodically with the skill of a surgeon slice him into pieces and slowly bleed him until enough of America would never voted for him - especially in the swing states.

    NBC was always going to turn on him. That was always - and every election year IS always in the script. The MSM has never been our friend and will never be our friend.

    On top of that the other day Obama vowed to breakup the MSM conglomerates and replace some of their properties with minority ownership. Kiss of Death. That is exactly what Dean did and overnight he went from Wonder Boy to scum.

    Oh yes, Obama will still get praise until the nomination is sealed because the MSM must make sure they don't get the too tough Clinton into office as she actually has good odds at beating McCain with certain Demographics and in certain swing states and in experience and with a once in a lifetime historic victory in breaking the glass ceiling - - all of which scares the Ivy League Brooks Brother suit boys in the media to death.

    Clinton gives the Democrats a candidate that has withstood the media. She has taken their best shots for over twenty years. They tried to shoot her down again in the last year to no avail. There she stands with a majority of the popular vote when everyone but the informed voter was against her. She is the Rocky of politics. No matter what you hit her with in the end she will be the one with the belt and hand raised in the air.

    But the Fix is in.

    The MSM still has a shot of keeping her out of the ring and they will do all they can to make that happen. Obama will still be the Golden Boy...

    If only until August.

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:35:33 AM EST
    that statement about breaking up the MSM was especially stupid. Not just because of the breakup but because it also sounds like a handout to people based on their ethnicity. I'm waiting to see how that plays. Will they talk about it sooner or later? They went after Dean immediately. They have changed their tune about Obama somewhat already.

    Parent
    I totally agree that the media should be (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:39:24 AM EST
    broken up. I'm seeing HoDo's influence there.

    Maybe Obama can sponsor a bill to that effect in the Senate after President Hillary Clinton is inaugurated. I'm sure she'd be happy to sign it. ;-)

    Parent

    The MCM Have Been Nibbling At The Edges (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    of Obama for the last month or so. Not enough to keep him from winning the nomination but enough to plant the seeds of the GE narrative in the minds of their audiences. Agree, this strategy is nothing new and has been their SOP when it comes to presidential elections.

    Parent
    Whiplash anyone? (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by margph on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:50:03 AM EST
    Talex, you are so right on target.  The connection of the MSM to Republican goals and interests is the heart of the story.  Only a fool would think that NBC (GE) would really be behind Obama and his supporters.  The media will turn so fast if he is nominated that we will all get whiplash.  It will be all McCain all the time.

    Parent
    You got that right!! (none / 0) (#74)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:02:13 AM EST
    "On top of that the other day Obama vowed to breakup the MSM conglomerates and replace some of their properties with minority ownership. Kiss of Death. That is exactly what Dean did and overnight he went from Wonder Boy to scum."

    Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it!!

    Parent

    Credibility and Legitimacy (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by bmc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:31:55 AM EST
    They should be proud that Obama thought to fight in the red-state caucuses, yes. But they shouldn't be so proud that they pat themselves on the back about their stunning success at blocking a re-vote in Florida, taking Obama's name off the ballot in Michigan, yet brazenly arguing that he earned delegates there, or violating the pledge in Florida, yet arguing that he should get any delegates there, while Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also violated the DNC deadline rules, but were not sanctioned.

    The entire fraudulent manner in which the Obama campaign has conspired with the DNC to fix this primary process is actually quite shameful. If Barack Obama were really an agent of hope or change, he'd argue that all the votes should count. That he doesn't just proves that he's not only NOT a credible agent of "change" in politics, he's just another corrupt, power-hungry pol, who'll throw anyone he needs to off the bus in order to amass more and more power.

    This is about the legitimacy of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY now. NBC has already bet its credentials on Obama and lost. The Democratic Party is about to lose theirs--with perhaps 25% of Democrats. And, how does this party propose to win over Republicans?

    Oh, yes: By Fixing the Electoral Process--Republicans love that, don't they? Well, I guess it's the "new-demublican post-partisan" Party credo. We don't need no stinkin' legitimacy.

    Hmmm, Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:04:03 AM EST
    somehow never gets around to mentioning this part:

    "Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also violated the DNC deadline rules, but were not sanctioned."

    Parent

    She tells lies everytime she speaks (none / 0) (#127)
    by karen for Clinton on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    A few days ago she was on and saying the other 48 states did not move their primaries up and it was unfair to give allowances to the two that did. She said it twice and nobody called her on it.

    Not even Wolfson who was listening in and responding to that segments questions.

    She is an outrage and disgrace.

    Parent

    It seems so obvious (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by coolit on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:33:23 AM EST
    that when you look at Clinton vs McCain or Obama vs. McCain:

    Clinton takes what McCain offers and she does it better.  As for her  match-up with Obama, they both offer similar progressive policies..... except Clinton actually developed most of them while he borrowed her ideas. She has shown much better instincts for practical, smart policy.  Furthermore, she could actually implement these ideas while he has shown no capability to accomplish anything tangible.

    Obama on the other hand makes McCain look presidential, diplomatic, and strong on foreign policy. I AM NOT SAYING McCain IS STRONG, I AM SAYING THAT'S HOW THE ELECTORATE WILL SEE IT!  Obama sets up the perfect match-up for McCain to look better than he actually is.

    Why would the DNC select the wrong person to compete in the general election?  I don't know....  How could they lose to W twice?

    Plus (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:52 AM EST
    Obama appears to never have worked this hard in his life.  It's obvious it has been wearing him out and he doesn't like it--he appears to resent it in fact.  Then he has the GE, then if a miracle, the Presidency.  After all that will he still be up for doing the very demanding work of the President, strategizing, fighting with Congress, standing up for what he promised his constituents?

    Parent
    McCain's camp wanted the Obama match up (none / 0) (#39)
    by stefystef on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:37:15 AM EST
    They have said they feel confident about going against Obama, not Hillary because she proved herself to be stronger than anyone thought she would be.

    If the McCain camp feels they have a better chance against the juggernaut they call Obama, then they have something on him that will derail his campaign.

    Something's up...

    Parent

    McCain wants Obama (none / 0) (#49)
    by coolit on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:42:00 AM EST
    because it makes him look presidential.  You can already see how it's gonna go.  In the debates, he is going to besmirch Obama's idealism with hard, serious, condemnation.  Again, I'm not saying McCain is right, I'm saying the American people will move to him.

    In a debate with Clinton, McCain would look naive, incompetent, and over matched.

    If I were McCain or a Republican, I would be licking my chops right now to fight Obama.  He would possibly lose in a landslide to Clinton

    Parent

    Clinton has almost a 90% chance (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:49:26 AM EST
    of beating McCain, sez HominidViews.

    As for Obama, whoopsie!

    Parent

    Just saying (none / 0) (#65)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:54:47 AM EST
    Clinton has 46% unfavorable rating in the GE vs 38.5 for either Obama or McCain.

    Her favorable are 41.8% vs 51.5% for Obama.

    Source: Real Clear Politics.

    Lies, Damn Lies, and Stats.

    Parent

    I'm not very good (none / 0) (#69)
    by coolit on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:58:44 AM EST
    at posting links in here, but I have just been looking at articles on how much better she is performing against McCain than Obama in Florida and Ohio.  We're talking blows out vs even.

    Does that worry you as an Obama supporter?
    What states will he win in the GE that she wont?

    btw, thanks for your tone, I see some other Obama supporters who can be very mean which I don't think helps the process

    Parent

    Here is what I found (none / 0) (#79)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:06:29 AM EST
    People here seem lo like Real Clear Politics as a source.

    First thing on their site is the sidebar to the left:

    General Election: McCain vs. Obama
    RCP Average
    Obama
    47.3
    McCain
    42.4
    Obama +4.9

    General Election: McCain vs. Clinton
    RCP Average
    Clinton
    46.1
    McCain
    43.9
    Clinton +2.2

    Then you go to General Elections/Latest Polls/Battlegound Polls, and there it gets complicated.

    For example, in FL, McCain currently beats both Clinton and Obama. In PA, both Obama and Clinton bets McCain. A lot of the figures are within the stats margin of error. Clinton does come ahead, but I'm not convinced it's significant or determining.

    Then you go to Favorable Ratings and you find (as I mentioned elsewhere) :
    Clinton: Fav: 46.8 - Unfav: 46.0.
    Whereas:
    Obama: Fav: 51.5 - Unfav: 38.5
    McCain: Fav: 48.5 - Unfav: 38.5

    Frankly, the case that one candidate is more electable than the other, is hardly convincing, either way.

    Parent

    Polls mean absolutely nothing (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by pluege on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:16:10 AM EST
    electorial college math is the only thing that matters.

    Where the people are that are voting for each candidate is what matters. If all 32 million Californians supported Obama, it wouldn't make him electible if he only achieved 49.9% of the voters in the rest of the states.

    Parent

    I understand that... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:25:39 AM EST
    ...but to get to the composition of the electoral college, you've got to rely on state polls and primary data.

    My only point here is that I find the data unclear and somewhat contradictory.

    I don't see that clear Hillary advantage (or Obama advantage) that some see.

    I don't see a huge Dem advantage either, which is worrying.

    At the end of the day perhaps neither Clinton nor Obama were the best candidates we could have put forward. I wish Al Gore had run.

    Parent

    PS: (none / 0) (#83)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:54 AM EST
    The reason I'm polite is that I am *NOT* an Obama supporter.

    I was Edwards/Kucinich, and now perfect happy to fight for whoever is our nominee.

    I am appalled by those who say they'll vote for one but not the other.

    Parent

    LOL! (none / 0) (#71)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:01:09 AM EST
    You're using that old favorability canard? LOL!

    I think that thousands of actual head-to-head state polls are a bit more reliable than some vague figure that you don't even bother to back up with a link.

    Please spare me your lies, damn lies about not being in the tank for Obama. We're not buying your pretense of objectivity.

    Thanks ever so.

    Parent

    troll alert (none / 0) (#86)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:10:35 AM EST
    Again you're a troll.

    I've posted at least three links to RealClearPolitics.

    You have an obligation to read what I've written before spouting off.

    In fact, I discovered the RCP site here. Very grateful too. Great site.


    Parent

    Just curious (none / 0) (#55)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:46:59 AM EST
    What is then your theory explaining why all the Limbaugh Republicans want Hillary?

    Parent
    in my opinion (none / 0) (#67)
    by coolit on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:56:03 AM EST
    Rush just wants to cause mischief.  He wants to prolong the drama.  He wants to seem important and get into the news.  I think those selfish things are more important than political strategy to him.

    Parent
    good point (none / 0) (#93)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:22:44 AM EST
    Good point. I'm inclined to agree.

    But do you think he then picked Clinton to prolong the drama just because she was running behind?

    Or was she running behind when he picked her?

    Parent

    Clinton Was Running Behind And Being (none / 0) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:39:58 AM EST
    declared as having no chance of winning the nomination when Limbaugh decided to ad to the mix. Dems for a Day programs had been run by Obama and his supporters since IA. Republicans have crossed over to vote for both candidates in an effort to mess with the election. The meme that all cross over votes for Obama or Clinton are legimate voters who will vote for that candidate and all cross over votes for the other candidate are because the Republicans want to pick the weaker candidate is IMO absurb.

    From polls of key states taken after the primaries both candidates are practically tied in receiving Republican support with percentages of 6% - 8%.

     

    Parent

    I've also noticed (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    that a lot of Republicans I know, people who previously thought Obama seemed appealing, have really gotten turned off after stuff like Wright, Ayers, etc. came out.  They think he's a radical now.

    To the extent these people were inclined to vote in the Democratic primary because it's the only game in town, it's not at all surprising if Obama is receiving less Republican support than he did previously.  I agree with you that it's foolish to suggest that anyone's crossover votes consist solely of people seeking to game the system.

    Parent

    she was behind (none / 0) (#111)
    by coolit on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:49:56 AM EST
    so he picked her to prolong it.  Rush is just in for himself and doesn't really care about the good of anyone else.  he's an opportunist.  glad we found some aggreement

    Parent
    They don't like McCain (none / 0) (#116)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:04:05 AM EST
    they would love to see Hillary beat McCain.  It would validate all their feelings about him - they'll say if he were a real Repbilcian he would have beat her.  McCain can beat Obama.

    Parent
    Point of logic (none / 0) (#57)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:49:16 AM EST
    Since everyone thought Hillary was the inevitable nominee when this contest began, she actually proved weaker, not stronger, than we thought.

    We know the Limbaugh Republicans wanted Hillary to be our nominee. Do have any information about who McCain would prefer?

    Parent

    What are you even talking about? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:01:45 AM EST
    Limbaugh republicans? I didn't know they numbered in the millions in our primaries.

    Retire that lie please.  It's BS and it's Republican talking points.  It's pathetic. Yes. 14 million Limbaugh republicans is who voted for Hillary.

    Pathetic that you've all resorted to this.

    Parent

    Not what I wrote (none / 0) (#88)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:40 AM EST
    I'm sure Limbaugh had zero or negligible effect. That is not what I wrote.

    It is well known that he urged his followers to support Hillary.

    My question to you is: why?

    Parent

    He has a radio show (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:19:47 AM EST
    Why did Kos encourage all the Dems in Michigan to vote for Mitt. He wanted to keep McCain from winning that state in order to prolong the primary. Maybe Rush did the same. Maybe it is like playing the power of God and seeing where it goes. For Kos, he thought it would be great mischief. For Rush, it makes for good ratings and press.  

    Parent
    I agree with you... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:27:21 AM EST
    ...and it's likely too that, had Obama been a bit behind, he would then have been pushing him to keep fanning the flames, do you think?

    Parent
    My opinion on that is that (none / 0) (#72)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:01:40 AM EST
    McCain would want Hillary as Dem nominee. He is a genuine patriot, and I think if he loses to a Dem he wants it to be a qualified competent candidate who will take care of the country. That is not Obama. It's Hillary Clinton. He respects her, which is more than Obama does.

    Parent
    My take exactly. (none / 0) (#98)
    by befuddled on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:05 AM EST
    He would want the best for the country and so would she--they differ on the details. Obama so far wants what's best for Obama.

    Parent
    Lupin are you one of those paid Obama bloggers? (none / 0) (#89)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:14 AM EST


    Parent
    No, long time DK poster. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Fabian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:37:52 AM EST
    Lupin is reasonable, if more of a big "D" Democrat than some us here.  

    I myself, am a little "d" democrat right now with the possibility of becoming a liberal Independent in the future.  Depends on what the Party does.

    Parent

    it boggles the mind (none / 0) (#101)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:32:29 AM EST
    I see this is going to be a daily routine.

    My anti-Obama (yes) credential predate yours, I suspect.

    Read Obama: Jimmy Carter from the North posted 7 FEBRUARY on DKos.

    There are other similar diaries too. There's the one where I compared Obama to Werner Ehrard.

    Is it really so surprising that an anti-Obama, former Edwards/Kucinich supporter could be appalled by some of the extreme views emanating from this long-respected site and try to politely bring my errant brothers & sisters back into the Dem fold?

    Parent

    What is surprising (none / 0) (#106)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    is the arrogance that believes "you" have the power to bring your errant brothers & sisters back into the Dem fold. Politiely or otherwise.

    Parent
    Rush Limbaugh is an idiot.... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:41:47 AM EST
    ...that's already been established. The Republican party is in shambles but the corporate interests that have bolstered them still have a thing or two up their sleeves. Shrill Republican activists like Limbaugh may despise McCain, but the big money Republican interest groups will be firmly on his side. And when that happens, Limbaugh will probably shut up.

    Parent
    Obama has done nothing to confront... (none / 0) (#70)
    by pluege on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:59:30 AM EST
    the major thrust that mccain will use against him - his lack of experience verses the wise old daddy john mccain. And Obamacans haven't addressed that because they have nothing to directly address it with - they only can change to subject.  

    This is the meme that mccain will pound him on in the GE if he is the nominee, and it will be very affective with everyone except 2 of Obama's 3 constituencies: Blacks and the very young. Even the maturer chunk of Obama's third constituency - the Kreative Klass will take pause.

    Parent

    I'm scared (none / 0) (#75)
    by coolit on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:02:34 AM EST
    of an Obama-McCain match-up.  

    It may look like a conservative dad vs and upstart idealistic kid.  While we may sympathize with the kid, in the end, we trust the father.

    Caveat:  I'm not saying this is my view, but I have been watching politics for years now and this is a pattern.

    Parent

    It was always the only matchup I feared (none / 0) (#117)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:07:48 AM EST
    All you have to do is put the two of them on the debate stage and say '200,000' troops in the field - what are you going to do with them?' Who is going to sound more credible, even if you don't agree with the troops being in the field in the first place? Hillary at least knows enough about the DoD and military affairs to answer coherently.

    Parent
    Not everyone is in love with Obama (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by stefystef on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:34:32 AM EST
    and there are people who are seriously questioning his electability.

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/21/mcentee_doubts_obama.html#more

    But the Obama followers aren't listening... people "in love" rarely listen to reason.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#54)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:45:58 AM EST
    I feel the need to periodically restate here for those who don't know me from DKos that last February, I compared Obama to Werner Ehrard and aid I feared his presidency might be like Jimmy Carter's.

    But I don't particularly like Clinton either. Nor do I think she is more electable.

    I haven't given either a dime so far.

    That said, I'll fight for our nominee when he/she is known whoever he/she is like a wolverine.

    Parent

    I wasn't thrilled with (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Fabian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    Hillary "The Establishment" Clinton and I was curious about Barack "Change" Obama.

    Then Hillary became a moderate Democrat with progressive leanings and Obama became a fuzzy, nebulous figure with a strong emphasis on Obama.

    I'll take the Democrat I can rely on for less than I'd like than the bipostpartisan who I can rely on to believe in himself.

    If Obama had proven himself to be some flavor of democrat/progressive/liberal, I could be convinced to support him.  

    Parent

    Just wait, it's coming (none / 0) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:54:28 AM EST
    BTDs new series is going to be interesting.  I wonder how many 'new' Obama supporters will agree with him.  I imagine the 'he's just a pol' will be heard extensively from 'new' Obama people at this point.  New supporters will be jumping all over that meme.  I think they will become very humble.  They 'won', so now they will pretend to be gracious.  I wonder how many 'new' people will join saying 'hey, it was just politics , it was nothing personal, let's unify'.... and I will not be disappointed when 'politics' goes after Obama.

    Except for MSNBC, media is questioning his electability.  Bowers wrote yesterday 'electability' was no longer an issue.  Ha!  The new horserace has begun.

    Parent

    AFSCME/AFLCIO Proud Member (none / 0) (#130)
    by karen for Clinton on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    My union dues are well spent. We were polled last year before they decided on who to nominate and our newsletters are filled with political platform and labor issues are our core interest.

    The March/April issue was on MLK and the 1968 Memphis sanitation workers strike which broke ground for decades of AFSCME organizing victories.

    Blue collar for Clinton is so obviously the case.

    I am most proud my union will not back down or cave in. We need Hillary, we are not the elite.

    Parent

    Well, they 'won' (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:37:30 AM EST
    the psychological warfare battle with CNN and MSNBC and Fox seems to be going along.  Doesn't this mostly mess with the OFB?  

    Another poster wrote that on CNN, Jeffrey Toobin said there IS no such thing as a "majority" of pledged delegates meaning anything. He said WINNING means getting the 2210 (Toobin thinks FL/MI still exist!) total, and nothing else, said Obama was making up new imaginary ROOLZ.   The panel was stunned (shocked, I tell you), especially Gergen.  

    Fox (of all things, came out on top in cable news, I wonder what the OFB thinks about Alexrove accomplishing that) is reporting that the search for Obama's VP has begun.  Ha!  I didn't catch who was involved, but the DNC was listed and Daschle was mentioned.  They are keeping it top-secret out of respect for Clinton (the OFB will say, see.. they're being nice, get over it)

    Campaigning is always politics.  I expect the OFB to whine about neutral media reporting anything questioning Obama.  LEAVE OBAMA ALLOOOOOOOONE, sniff.  The majority of media will prop Obama up but Issues, Schmissues says it's just politics.  I check out the articles on RCP each morning, Jonathan Alter is whining on behalf of Obama (How Clinton's Lates Math Hurts the Party (waaaaaahhhhhh), but the front page is mostly quiet.  Do I detect a change now that Obama claims he has (snark) reached the majority of the pledged delegates? hmmmm

    Is it inappropriate to laugh?  What goes around, comes around.  This is going to be fun.  :)

    Barnacle last night said that Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:09:47 AM EST
    ought to go to see Teddy K. and ask him how to bow out gracefully and make an exit. Wasn't it Kennedy who took it to the convention?

    Parent
    Daschle (none / 0) (#125)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:41:32 AM EST
    Gawd, please, tell me they are not so stupid as to consider Daschle.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:41:46 AM EST
    I think I have been as clear-eyed as anyone about the politics in this campaign.  I don't blame either side for doing what they had to do to win the spin game.

    But I hope in hindsight, we can all look back and see how terribly destructive it is to the Party for anyone to press the argument that the other candidate would be an illegitimate nominee.  By and large, supporters take their cues from the candidate they support.

    It ends up as a game of blackmail where the message is, hey superdelegates, I've got my supporters convinced that I'm the only legitimate nominee and they'll leave the Party if I don't get it, so you better give me the nomination!  Blackmail may be effective but I don't have to like it.  I hope in the future we can figure out a way to avoid that sort of self-destructive campaign tactic.

    Obama has said this: (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by echinopsia on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:56:20 AM EST
    It ends up as a game of blackmail where the message is, hey superdelegates, I've got my supporters convinced that I'm the only legitimate nominee and they'll leave the Party if I don't get it, so you better give me the nomination!

    Clinton has not.

    Parent

    His campaign manager is an astroturfer -- (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:55:40 AM EST
    a professional at creating and using deceptive astroturf organizations, and they are surprised that his campaign is playing politics?

    It looks like a small segment of Obama supporters are stretching and waking up from their long dazed and confused, boondoggled state of mind.

    The rest of them will wake up after they lose in November and wonder what the heck happened.  But deep in their little minds, there will still be a sense of satisfaction because they will feel that they did their part to destroy the Clintons.

    What does astroturf mean (none / 0) (#96)
    by katiebird on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:27:55 AM EST
    in a political campaign?

    Parent
    Pseudo-grassroots front organization (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:46:45 AM EST
    that campaigns on behalf or against issues or other organizations, usually corporations.  

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/03/7765_astroturf_axelr.html

    So basically, they are corporations or industry groups masquerading as grassroots organizations.  They are all about deception.

    From a BusinessWeek article titled "The Secret Side of David Axelrod":


    From the same River North address, Axelrod operates a second business, ASK Public Strategies, that discreetly plots strategy and advertising campaigns for corporate clients to tilt public opinion their way. He and his partners consider virtually everything about ASK to be top secret, from its client roster and revenue to even the number of its employees. But customers and public records confirm that it has quarterbacked campaigns for the Chicago Children's Museum, ComEd, Cablevision, and AT&T.

    ASK's predilection for operating in the shadows shows up in its work. On behalf of ComEd and Comcast, the firm helped set up front organizations that were listed as sponsors of public-issue ads. Industry insiders call such practices "Astroturfing," a reference to manufacturing grassroots support. Alderman Brendan Reilly of the 42nd Ward, who has been battling the Children's Museum's relocation plans, describes ASK as "the gold standard in Astroturf organizing. This is an emerging industry, and ASK has made a name for itself in shaping public opinion and manufacturing public support."
    http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080314_121054.htm



    Parent
    Hear, hear! (3.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:14:00 AM EST
    I heartily agree. (I had just posted something similar in spirit, which I will repeat below.)

    I find the "Obama did this, no Hillary did that" (and vice versa) range of arguments both juvenile and ultimately worthless.

    Campaigns do and say what's opportunistic; that's what they do. They exhibit no respect for reality, for rules, logic and common sense.

    But do we have to carry this here? You should hold a mirror to yourself.

    As an Edwards supporter, I have to say that none of the two factions are coming across as very appealing, right now.

    That is not carried on (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:15:03 AM EST
    by me.

    My motto has always been "Pols are pols, they do what they do."

    Parent

    Obama supporters are stricken (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:16:38 AM EST
    with the "my pol is an angel" virus.

    Parent
    Don't kid yourself (none / 0) (#34)
    by trublueCO on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    There are plenty of us Obama supporters that have our "my pol is an angel" vaccination. I don't doubt for a minute that were the roles reversed, Obama would be acting like Clinton and vice versa.

    Career politicians are all cut from the same fabric. No matter which candidate wins the nomination, it will be up to us to keep them on track. There are people on both sides who think Saint Obama and Saint Clinton can and will do no wrong...they'll come crashing back to earth soon enough. I've seen it on both sides and don't buy the crap that one set of supporters are worse than the others.

    Parent

    Saint Clinton?... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jeffhas on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:09:42 AM EST
    As a Clinton supporter... I can't remember or imagine anyone calling her a saint.  We all know she puts her pantsuit on one leg at a time, and is a politician - pure and simple.

    It was really the storyline from camp Obama of 'a different kind of politician' that set him up.

    Comparing the 'both sides' argument has to be tempered with that hypocrisy.

    Parent

    I should have said "some" (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:35:33 AM EST


    Parent
    Anyone who supports the Clintons (none / 0) (#123)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:35:51 AM EST
    knows that they are not saints.  Whether one has supported Hillary from the beginning, or whether they now support Hillary after having lost their previous first (or first, second and third choices, as in my case), I think you'll find most Clinton supporters to be very pragmatic and not at all unrealistic about expectations.  This cannot be said of many Obama supporters.  Too many of them have a rude awakening coming to them, and IMHO, it won't be pretty.

    I would love to have a more idealistic candidate, but not this year.  This year we need someone who can and will get in there and start fixing things very quickly and effectively.  That candidate is Hillary Clinton, and that's the main reason why I support her.  I also like people like Bill Clinton who understand Republicans and talk about them honestly and clearly to the people.  The other reason is that the 1990s were the best years of my life, economically.  I tend to like peace and prosperity.  So sue me.

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:26:34 AM EST
    I must say nothing irritates me more than the "waaugh nasty obama did this", "waaugh evil hillary did that" or the point we appear to have reached here which is "yes he did", "no he didn't" (& vice-versa).

    There is a process, and it will produce a nominee. Whether it is fair or unfair is in the eye of the beholder. One thing is indisputable: neither side is wholly a victim or a villain, and both had their day in court, so to speak.

    That's fair enough for me.

    So much for the past.

    As for arguments about the future, ie: who's more electable: a supporter of Hillary here sent me to a site full of polls and stats (RPC?) which, instead of boosting his case, showed that Hillary had a 46% unfavorable rating in the GE versus Obama or McCain each with 38.5%.  And this came from a Hillary supporter!

    My conclusion: polls and stats about the future are useless at this stage. They're like a buffet: you can find whatever you're looking for.

    What I'd like to see is more respect for the process and more looking for unity and common ground.

    Parent

    I disagree with your premise (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:35 AM EST
    I think that lately there have been a lot of attempts to play the "everyone's been bad on both sides, so let's just agree to disagree and make up". I just respectfully disagree with this viewpoint and, frankly, I view it as a transparent attempt to trivialize the despicable behavior that has occurred by the Obama campaign and Obama's supporters by pretending that it's all relative and the dirt thrown by each side has been exactly equal. I just don't buy it. I think it's a useful rhetorical tool now for Obama supporters to use but I think it's demonstrably wrong.

    On the other hand, I do agree with you that arguments about electability are pretty suspect at this point. The situation is far too complex to say anything right now about whether Obama or Clinton is more electable. I am not naive enough to think that the right-wing won't have a heyday with Clinton just as they will with Obama. At this point, either one would have a challenging road to travel in the GE. Clinton has always had high negatives and been the (unfair, to me) object of hatred, but Obama is starting to get there as well now - albeit with a different group of people.

    Parent

    It reminds me of the Republican meme (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:39:44 AM EST
    that Democrats and Republicans are all the same and equally bad.  While there is some grain of truth to that, it is not a true statement.  It's not even close, and the last eight years are a perfect example of why it's not true.  (Though, in this primary, the Obama campaign seems to be making it very hard to maintain my claim that it's not true.)

    Parent
    Enough with the "both sides" OFB meme (none / 0) (#133)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:38:19 PM EST
    1. Obama's campaign deliberately smeared the Clintons as racist. Obama's fan base deliberately smeared us -- Hillary's supporters, and I'm betting each and every one of us personally -- as racist. And Obama's cheering section in the press smears Hillary voters, and and entire classes and regions, as racist. That's not sharp-elbowed politics -- that's an attempt to drive the Clintons, and their supporters, from the party and from public life. Please show me where the Clinton campaign has done anything of equivalent scale and scope.

    2. Obama himself can be charged only with sexist language and behavior ("Sweetie," "periodically," and a host of other small slights.) However, Obama's fan base, and his cheerleaders in the press, consistently push the most vile misogynist smears of Hillary, all the way back to the hate memes manufactured by the Republicans in the impeachment years, up to and including calls for Hillary's death, and the Obama campaign leverages that misogyny for votes. Please show me where the Clinton campaign has done anything of equivalent scale and scope.

    3. And then there's the issue of Obama trying to consolidate all contributions to 527 in his own organization, and not even the Democratic Party. What's he trying to do, turn the whole country into the Chicago machine? Please show me where the Clinton campaign has done anything of equivalent scale and scope.

    And that's before we even get to the process issues of disenfranchising two states, the undemocratic nature of caucus votes, and the reports coming from TX and elsewhere of unlawful caucus behavior by the Obama campaign.

    And that's before we even get to policy, like Obama's so-called universal health care plan, which is bogus -- and whose bogosity he cynically covered up with Harry & Louise ads.

    And that's before we get to "neutral" Donna Brazile throwing the working class part of the base overboard -- which has already been done to Asians, Hispanics, women, and the old.

    And then, of course, there's "the map not the math," where the only metric that matters in the general -- the EC -- shows that Hillary as a far less risky proposition than Obama, which I have yet to see seriously addressed and refuted by an Obama supporter on a non-hopey hope basis.

    Indeed, the two candidates and the two campaigns are not equivalent, the differences between them are greater and greater every day, and if our famously free press were not desperately helping Obama drag the corpse of his unity pony across the finish line, his campaign would already have imploded. I only hope we don't have to wait for October for the implosion.


    Parent

    But O is a different kind of pol.. (none / 0) (#119)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:12:40 AM EST
    "He" does it differently. Which, by the way is a true statement. Again, don't insult me, then pander for my vote!!

    Parent
    I have (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:32:15 AM EST
    been aware for a very long time that Politicians are politicians and thus what they say should, indeed must be taken with a healthy scepticism.

    But when you say, "Campaigns do and say what's opportunistic; that's what they do. They exhibit no respect for reality, for rules, logic and common sense.

    If this is true, and I'm not saying it isn't, then why is a Democrat better than a Republican? If we can trust nothing they say during a campaign then why support one candidate over another? If what you say is true, then they are all totally reprehensible and unworthy of being elected to the highest office in our country.

    I expect politicians to be politicians. But I expect, I demand some substance, some decency, some honesty, some integrity or why bother to vote at all?

    I know I will now be told I am naive so hammer away.

    Parent

    adversarial process (3.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:40:50 AM EST
    Why don't you look at the past and study some history?

    Some of our best Presidents such as FDR and Harry S. Truman were fierce campaigners, using every advantage they could grasp.

    (Suggested reading: William Manchester's THE GLORY AND THE REAM, the history of America 1932-72 -- it's a breezy read.)

    It's not as if Hillary, or Bill, or any of their predecessors, had not fought hard, fought back either.

    A campaign is like the adversarial process in the courtroom: the opposing counsels will pretty much say, argue and do anything within the law (and sometimes arguable beyond) to win the day.

    It is not evil; it has nothing to do with decency, honesty or integrity; ask any lawyer: it is the way we (collectively, the jury, if you will) reach a decision.

    In this campaign, the jury doesn't have to be unanimous; a simple majority will carry the day.

    Clinton is doing the best she can to win, and so is Obama. I do not blame them for this.

    We have had plenty of opportunity as a people, as a party, to study both candidates, hear them speak, etc.

    Parent

    I have not only studied (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:54:00 AM EST

     some history, I've lived through quite a bit of it.

    It is not evil; it has nothing to do with decency, honesty or integrity; ask any lawyer: it is the way we (collectively, the jury, if you will) reach a decision.

    And if it has nothing to do with decency, honesty or integrity then I ask again, what difference does it make who is elected? Just vote for any generic Democrat because they are better than Republicans? I've been hearing that B.S. since I voted for Humphrey.

    Sometimes the choices are very clear and sometimes just the difference between bad or worse. Kerry, gasbag that he was and is, would have been a better president than Bush. So would a marmoset.

    Even if politicians and the process do not have nor care about honesty and integrity, I do. And because I do, I cannot in all good conscience vote for someone that I believe has run a racist and misogynistic campaign. It is of supreme indifference to me if you or anyone else agrees with me. It's my vote and my conscience and I won't be bullied, badgered, insulted, or guilted into casting it anyway but the way the best sits well with my beliefs and my integrity.


    Parent

    Puffery and Politics (none / 0) (#120)
    by santarita on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:14:57 AM EST
    I agree that politicians will say and do just about anything legally permissible to win.  And to give credit where credit is due Obama and his team have run an excellent campaign - managing to convince people that he is not a politician.

    Given that politicians engage in a lot of puffery, how do you know what a politician will do?  Looking at the record in government  helps.  While past performance does not guarantee future results, it  sure gives an indication of what values the person has.  The less extensive the record, the less you have an idea as to what the pol will do.  That's the downside to having a candidate with so little of a government or legislative record.  

    Parent

    And in the end, the jury is out and they have (none / 0) (#121)
    by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:16:55 AM EST
    the option of voting for whom they believe will best serve this country. They are allowed to obstain or vote, that is their right. That is what so many have fought and died for. As Judge Judy's book so clearly is entitled: "Don't Pee on my Leg and Tell Me It's Raining" I'm informed and intelligent and seasoned. I am an American!!!


    Parent
    Quite (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:14:48 AM EST


    surely this isn't serious (none / 0) (#50)
    by pluege on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:42:48 AM EST
    let's call it what it is: a meme pushed out by the Obama camp to influence...

    why at this late date would we have any expectation that Obama-aniacs, including their fans in the media pushing for the dem GE defeat, would do an 180 degree about face and start dealing in reality, truthfulness, and politics as politics instead of the inane tripe about change, unity, realignment, and their own purity that they've been hocking for a year?  

    Obama and Obamans have concluded (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by felizarte on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:11:37 AM EST
    that they have the nomination.  So they try very hard to make Hillary supporters say, "we'll support whoever is the nominee."  As far as I am concerned, FORGET IT.  I will not be a democrat the day after Hillary is not the nominee.  I am OBDURATE as Lupin has called me before.  

    Parent
    Assessment: no progress. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:47:23 AM EST


    at what point do they no longer get a press pass (none / 0) (#60)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:50:20 AM EST
    Just wondering, but when a group that is supposedly part of the press but is clearly a propaganda arm (or maybe better, clever political group with a clear choice and motivated to defend/help), at what point is it clear they're not really journalists and real parts of the press. At what point do they not get the rights and privileges of being part of the press. It would be kind of neat to see some sot of challenge of that like NBC and/or FOX being excluded from the press room, not given press passes, etc. And the same goes for big orange and others. Of course since they all have an audience, no one would be that bold. But it would be interesting.

    They're all republican propaganda outlets (none / 0) (#61)
    by pluege on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:50:25 AM EST
    How come ONN (NBC), CNN, ABC, and CBS get to be "completely in the tank" for mccain, but ONN needs to over compensate for the perception of it being ONN and the others will work overtime trashing Obama to avoid that perception. (rhetorical question. Its abundantly clear that the only acceptable public position for a US corporate media news organization is trashing and slimming democrats and poofing republicans.)

    Media controls the narrative (none / 0) (#62)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:50:41 AM EST
    and once they have the race "they" want the gloves will come off. I suspect that the media darling will suddenly find himself the media's punching bag.

    What should scare the he11 out of Democrats is that if (when) Obama is nominated  1/2 the party so enraged they will cheer when he is attacked. Many are ready to bolt the party entirely. Is Democratic leadership counting on the media to bring us all home to Jeebus?

    The MSM chose our candidates for us and then chose which of them they wanted to win.  During the general the media will play McCain's "hero, maverick, straight-talker" mantra 24/7.

    Obama supporters are still insulting Hillary and her supporters, which is dumb beyond my comprehension. They cannot seem to understand that "we" are as invested in our support of our candidate as they are in theirs. And yet the insults keep coming.

    Personally I don't see any healing coming. The MSM will play on the split for all it's worth and this wound will not heal in time for a united party in November. If ever.

    Good post, I do wonder (none / 0) (#103)
    by Faust on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:34:33 AM EST
    about this:

    I have one caveat - they have played it almost too well. NBC is now a discredited news organization. It is widely perceived by most observers as completely in the tank for Barack Obama. I am now skeptical that NBC will be of much help to Obama in the General Election. I also fear that CNN, ABC and CBS will fear being seen in the light NBC is now and may overcompensate against Obama. Fox of course is a GOP propaganda machine.

    While I have no strong love of NBCs relentless bias, I actually LIKE to see some overt bias. I found Walter Pincus to be very interesting in his Call for Journalistic Courage.

    "Objectivity" and "Neutrality" are difficult to achieve even in science. Trying to achieve them in politics is difficult in the extreme. Part of the problem with the media is that even the most biased of the outlets still pretend full neutrality (Fox is "fair and balanced"). It would be nice if the media could be more HONEST about its bias...just being honest about it would be a step towards some truth.

    Do you think that Fox which is clearly infulential will retain that influence, while NBC will suffer for its bias? Whatever one thinks about the fact that NBC is indeed the ONN, it will be telling if FoX gets a pass because "we all know that its biased" while the rest of the news networks run to McCain because they don't want to APPEAR to be "like NBC". I find the suggestion that Fox does not drive them to the left, but the ONN will drive them to the right disturbing (if it winds up being the case). That in itself says something about the media's global bias and what constitutes "neutrality."

    Media Agenda (none / 0) (#122)
    by santarita on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:27:28 AM EST
    Question:  Are the "news" media being driven by ideology or by the bottom line?  I think the answer is probably both.  Whoever the Dem. Nominee is will get a lot more media scrutiny, most of it being negative for the following reasons:  (a) the news media programs needs to be filled with something interesting and people seem to be interested in politics, (b) digging up information on candidates is relatively simple and doesn't cost too much (especially with the campaigns themselves providing a lot of free info) and (c) negative news about a candidate is more interesting (and hence ratings enhancing) than positive news.  

    I do think that the Republican press manipulation machine has been tuned up and ready to go and the media bosses will be pressured to skew their coverage to the advantage of McCain.

    Parent

    Yeah I can agree with that (none / 0) (#131)
    by Faust on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:24:55 PM EST
    I can generally agree with your analysis.

    The problem is even bigger than that though. I think part of the problem is cultural and connected to issues with mass society and mass commodification in general. Also, human beings have never been, generally speaking, naturally oriented towards critical thinking. Critical thinking is difficult (really difficult), and why would news organizations challenge people (and themselves) when they can take the easy route to profit.

    Parent

    Marc Ambinder on Supers, white working class?? (none / 0) (#138)
    by fctchekr on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:46:38 PM EST
    Clue me in, is he pro-Obama, anti-Hillary?

    Ambinder says that Supers in states Hillary won are holding out because they are waiting for the end till she's out, than they will go for Obama.

    He also writes that Obama probably will never win over her base, and he doesn't really need all of the white working class to win, identifying that there is a difference, ie working whites in states he did win will vote for him.

    Of course that doesn't account for winning them over in swing states that are crucial. I'm not sure I agree with him. Seems a very anti-Hillary slant on all...

    Shocked ! Shocked! To Find There Is Politics Going On | 137 comments (137 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment