home

NBC's Pathology: Clinton Hate Trumps Obama Love

NBC's terrible trio of Olbermann, Russert and Matthews report that Obama is none too pleased that the Media is STILL obsessed with Hillary Clinton. But here's the funny part - the Media's behavior is ALSO Hillary Clinton's fault.

They are truly incorrigible. It strikes me that Clinton as VP would be perfect for NBC. They could keep their programming exactly the same. Olbermann could continue to do his half an hour of negative news about Clinton, Oddball, Worst Person and a lame comedian. Easy.

Nice post from Barb at daily kos.

Comments now closed.

< South Dakota Exit Polls | Open Thread: Respect >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Displeased because? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by rilkefan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:14:17 PM EST
    It's his day?

    Because Hillary won't go quietly into the night. (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by mogal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:19:38 PM EST
    They want her to go sit in the kitchen... (4.83 / 6) (#60)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:39:44 PM EST
    ...with the other ladies while the men go into the den and smoke cigars and talk about important business that she wouldn't understand. I really don't think they understand that she has as much right to fight for this nomination as anybody else. I really believe that if Clinton were a man, then this election would be portrayed as an exciting race to the finish line, not an attempted coup by a candidate who has no right to usurp the throne of the rightful "historic" heir.

    Parent
    It is not his day (none / 0) (#99)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:47:16 PM EST
    This is a day for the Dem Party.

    They has an AA candidate for the Presidency.

    They have several strong VP choices.

    You need to be sensitive to other peoples feelings. Remember, he needs their support.

    Making it about Obama is not the way to geth their support.

    Just imagine how you would feel if this went the other way.

    These people are really hurt, frustated, angry. Please be sensitve to their feelings.

    Parent

    You are pretending that the GOP (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:03:51 PM EST
    isn't seeing this broken rigged DNC at work. They know Obama was pushed over the line by Dean pelosi and a byzantine system of caucuses.

    Parent
    Pretending??? (none / 0) (#182)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:26:55 PM EST
    He is the Dem Party's nominee.

    I'm sure the GOP is going to start on him tonight.

    I'm very disappointed that Hillary did not get the nominations. However, that does not take away the fact the Dem Party has made history tonight.

    How history will treat this primary remains to be written. I hope that the truth of the media and the DNC will be written.

    I expect that 20 years from now, people will look back on this and wonder "what were they thinking".

    Parent

    That's funny. (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Boston Boomer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:28:37 PM EST
    I'm angry, but I'm not hurt.  Watching Hillary handle the tremendous abuse and raging hatred that has been dumped on her for months now has inspired me and helped me see my own strength and power.  

    Never again will I listen to the political "bosses" and "experts."  They know less than I do about what is happening in this country.  

    It's way too late for any Obama supporter to be "sensitive" or "understanding."  Way too late.  I'll never vote for him, even if Hillary makes the terrible mistake of accepting VP.


    Parent

    Wrong (4.42 / 7) (#129)
    by Davidson on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:53:08 PM EST
    By nominating a black candidate the way they have it has set up a nightmare scenario: Obama will be delegitimized as an affirmative action candidate who needed the Party to rig the nomination process for him to "win."  Also, the fact Obama ruthlessly and falsely smeared the Clintons as racist will have nuclear fallout in the GE.

    This nomination will be a disaster in terms of race relations.

    Parent

    Perfect way to express their absurdity . (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by mogal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:15:18 PM EST


    I can't watch them (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:16:01 PM EST
    I have tried a couple times.  I will listen to Chuck Todd, but that is it, then I have to switch.  Olbermann is the most openly, outwardly, inwardly SMUG person on the planet.  He reeks of smugness.  It hurts my eyes to look at him.

    Claire McCaskill the only in the tank for Obama person who has hit all the right notes this evening.

    Shame on Hillary (5.00 / 17) (#11)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:19:02 PM EST
    for forcing the media to obsess over her.

    Funniest thing I have seen today (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:21:25 PM EST
    Tweety wondering why people are not covering Obama and suggesting that the international mmedia should.

    They are hilarious.


    Parent

    MSNBC post-modernism (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:24:24 PM EST
    Doesn't that reassure you (none / 0) (#39)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:33:47 PM EST
    that he will continue to be their 'darling'?  I never watch...  CNNs trying to help, MSNBC is going 110%...

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:39:56 PM EST
    Because they still aren't focusing on Obama. Even now, it's still all about their Clinton hate, what his darling status has always been about.

    Do I think they'll hate on him as much as they hate on her?  No.  But she's gotten stronger as the primary season has wore on despite the media's hatred.  He's been limping since the Wright fiasco and the media is just getting started.

    Parent

    They are stirring the pot (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:45:04 PM EST
    If you don't think they are aware that the prmary has created a rift that has improved McCain's chances, you are kidding yourself.

    Parent
    hammer Nail Head (none / 0) (#106)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:48:23 PM EST
    They will hate Obama now for depriving them of their whipping post called clinton.

    See their howling insanity transfer itself seamlessly.

    Parent

    And I will be purring like a kitten... (none / 0) (#175)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:09:58 PM EST
    Obama is the media's Bush2000 (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:48:31 PM EST
    and I believe they'll continue giving him a free ride.
    Well, except for Fox.

    Parent
    A free ride? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Y Knot on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:50:17 PM EST
    They gave him a what now?  Have you been watching the news the past few months?

    I think you're confusing Barak Obama with John McCain.

    Parent

    why should it? (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:44:18 PM EST
    These media idiots are fickle.  All it takes is for one story to break and they can turn on someone faster than you can feel a tingle.

    Parent
    Um, no. (none / 0) (#51)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:38:13 PM EST
    MSNBC would like nothing better than to have another repub in the White House.

    Otherwise, Olbermann will be out of a job, and Tweety and Timmy will have to start criticizing a president for the first time in eight years.

    Parent

    May Olbermann (5.00 / 15) (#12)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:19:31 PM EST
    get chronic jock itch and Pumpkinhead and Tweety get eaten by a great white whale off the Nantucket shoreline.  :)

    Seriously, talk about three dumb frat boys.  Sheesh.

    best comment of the night (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:20:17 PM EST
    so far and funniest!

    Parent
    Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:27:20 PM EST
    The last thing I want to lose is my sense of humor.

    Might as well laugh.  The whole thing is absurd.

    Parent

    HA (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Brookhaven on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:00:28 PM EST
    LOL.  Oh, but I feel for that poor white whale. After trying to digest those two, he/she would need a titanic load of pepto bismol after the runs the poor creature would suffer.  Cruelty to mammals: write that down.  ;)

    Parent
    Obey? (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:23:20 PM EST
    I just read on another thread that Matthews just asked if Clinton would "obey" as VP?  That can't be right.  Has anyone said this about any of the possible male VP candidates?  

    Do these guys want Obama to lose the female vote?

    Yes. (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:26:08 PM EST
    Next question.

    They are gleeful because Obama is a much much easier target and it is McCain that sends tingles up Tweety's leg.

    Parent

    Wow... (none / 0) (#31)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:28:51 PM EST
    their love for Obama is a hoax?  I find that hard to believe.  They are great actors then.  

    Parent
    Watch (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:37:37 PM EST
    The one thing I have been convinced of is the media ARE actors, one and all. This is all comes off as scripted reality TV. The only question in my mind is going to be the when.

    Parent
    the media has shown a concerted effort (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:45:33 PM EST
    they may be more manipulative than you think.  Remember the Iraq war propaganda?  But mostly they just think it's "cool" to hate the Clintons and Obama is their vehicle for accomplishing their demise.

    Parent
    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:51:52 PM EST
    He gave them billions of dollars in ad money too. He needs to get his money's worth.

     

    Parent

    Its not about love or hate for the media. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Y Knot on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:48:07 PM EST
    It's about ratings.  They want eyeballs on the TV, they don't honestly care how they get them.  That's why they've been so gleeful about this primary.  It's been a huge winner for them, ratings wise.

    Honestly, I think if Clinton had overcome the odds and pulled out the nomination they'd have been overjoyed.

    Heck, if there's a huge fight in Denver and she pulls it out there, they'll be thrilled. If there's riot, they'll probably all pee themselves on camera.

    If you can't tell, I'm a wee bit disappointed in our news media.

    Parent

    Nah (none / 0) (#136)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:55:14 PM EST
    They know she'd blow McCain out of the water. They want a close contest this GE season. It makesfor better TV.

    Seriously, I don't think they give a fig about anything other than ratings,certainly not the country.

    I can't believe the DNC doesn't learn. Over and over again they fail to see that identity politics is NOT where we succeed. We succeed on issues. We succeed when we appeal to people's logic rather than to affability. Sigh.

    Parent

    But the question is (none / 0) (#56)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:38:31 PM EST
    how much of what we've been seeing is Obama love, and how much is Hillary hate?

    Parent
    Tweety (5.00 / 13) (#30)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:28:13 PM EST
    may not actually be aware that women get to vote.

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#35)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:29:59 PM EST
    funny...

    Parent
    Clinton is hated (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:27:15 PM EST
    The sun rises.

    Any surprises?

    nope (none / 0) (#38)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:33:07 PM EST
    none today (none / 0) (#102)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:47:47 PM EST
    Amen to that Big Top Dem (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:27:33 PM EST
    (I posted on the threshold thread)...re Matthews's language discussing a Clinton VP slot:
    will she obey, can she be subservient
    Is it VP or Pres 1A. ?

    Also discussion about Clinton as a negative along with Bill, rather than the IMMENSE asset she would be.

    Pathological indeed.

    I hope they keep it up. (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:31:24 PM EST
    I want the sexism to stay out there. No more shrugging it off and pushing it under the rug.

    Parent
    I have a feeling they are (none / 0) (#40)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:34:00 PM EST
    setting the stage for him not to offerit to her. he will try and make some concession about a health care czar, but only with his plan.

    I hope she doesn't take anything.

    Parent

    Gee (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:41:35 PM EST
    Do you think he media may not be aware that they are creating a rift that will become harder an harder for Democrats to overcome? Hey not only that but the close race will make for such great reality TV. Too bad the nation will have to live with the results of scripted reality TV.

    Parent
    They are in deep denial (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:35:23 PM EST
    They seem completely unaware that Clinton got nearly as many votes (or possibly even more votes) than Obama and that she won more purple and blue states than Obama. They really believe that she is unelectable. Oddly, I used to believe the same thing. But I was able to wrap my brain around the fact that she has proven that she is electable. They don't seem to be able to absorb that information.

    Parent
    how can you even watch MSNBC (none / 0) (#42)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:34:59 PM EST
    they are the ones pushing the VP story during the WHOLE primary, then they blame Hillary for it

    Parent
    Are these SD's announced in this count down (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Teresa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:29:36 PM EST
    public? I know a few are but are the rest?

    Oh, and how much do you want to bet (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:29:48 PM EST
    that Donna tries to put Obama over the top by declaring her allegiance on CNN?

    Donna Brazile Is Going to Endorse Barack Obama? (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:46:55 PM EST
    Get outta here.  That's crazy talk.

    Parent
    she will carefully deliberate (none / 0) (#115)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:50:34 PM EST
    Her decision will not come until she has a chance to look through the numbers and the electoral maps.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#105)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:48:10 PM EST
    Who Else Are They Gonna Talk About? (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:35:00 PM EST
    Pathologically (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:36:18 PM EST
    And I just don't understand it.

    Parent
    I've Never Entirely Understood It Either (5.00 / 6) (#146)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:58:37 PM EST
    I think it's a combination of elitism (Bill's from Arkansas, working class loves them), sexism (his uppity wife), jealousy (they're smarter, better looking and have actual accomplishments), and anger at how the Clinton's reveal their own impotence (how many times have the media tried to drive the Clintons out and America just won't listen, that's why all the glee tonight, although I have news for them Hillary might not be the nominee but she's more powerful right now than she's ever been).

    Bob Somerby is convinced it's caused by some strain of 1950s East Coast Irish Catholicism gone bad.  I don't know if he's right, but there does seem to be a theme among the most noxious long-time Clinton bashers (although it's not limited to them).

    Amanda Marcotte also had an interesting explanation, which fits in nicely with all the misogyny:

    But in the end, it's not them as individuals that draws such fascination. It's the very existence of their marriage, which offends the reactionary story about the fate of women who dare embrace feminism and demand to be respected as full human beings, even by their husbands. Believe me, I get the story emailed to me by various misogynists all the time, who recite it to me like a mantra: No man could ever want you, women who aren't obsequious are unloveable, etc. The Clintons not only give lie to that myth, they basically blow it apart. Hillary Clinton didn't run off every man in sight with her intense intellect and her feminist ideas. On the contrary, she married the D.C. equivalent of the homecoming king, the sexiest guy in the class. (Considering how the beltway journalism is soooooo high schoolish, I think the metaphor applies.) And it wasn't an accident. Not only was he attracted to her mind (women's brains are sexy, oh noes!), but he is not crippled into picking someone more subservient to shore up his ego. The Clinton marriage makes every male politician who's got the standard-issue glazed-eye, no-thought political wife look small-minded, petty, like they can't handle living with their intellectual equals.

    The entire thing is worth a read.

    And, yes, the hatred is pathological.  

    Parent

    I've always believed that (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Davidson on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:07:13 PM EST
    Clinton hate is unlike generic anti-Democratic hate in its fury throughout the the media and right wing circles because at its core it's about misogyny.  How dare he love her, be with her?!  Bill should have been one of "them" and instead he embraced the "enemy."

    Parent
    NuDem Value: Have a Dream? Forget it, Sweetie (5.00 / 11) (#46)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:36:18 PM EST
    This wouldn't happen without the help of Democrats. I have a good half century left in this carcass and good freakin' luck if the Dems see one scintilla of support from it.

    Daily, they have exceeded what I thought were the outer reaches of contempt for women.

    Under Boss Roolz, a woman who's ten times qualified and has a record that far outstrips an unaccomplished empty suit like Obama isn't even being relegated to cargo class but brought to the center square to be vilified, insulted, demeaned and even stripped of her accomplishments.

    Oh yeah, and asked to clean up after the Party.

    Thanks a Brazilian -- Dems can ride to glory on their own steaming stack of BS.

    They should be grateful that I'm strong-willed because it's the only thing keeping a diehard Proud Liberal like me from actively supporting McCain (in the hope it clears the fetid jackass stables that is today's House of Dem.)

    I'm Indy, I'm peaceful, I'm out.

    So because she lost it's all because she's female? (1.00 / 2) (#83)
    by halstoon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:44:57 PM EST
    I don't see that. Last year, she was the prohibitive favorite; everyone--media included--assumed she would be the 44th president. Nobody had a real problem with it. Men ran against her, but nobody did so b/c she was female; they all had their own ambitions and egos to feed.

    In the end, Obama ran a better race. He beat her in Iowa over the war; he hung with her on Super Tuesday, and then he exploited her lack of preparation for the post-Super Tuesday races in February. She righted the ship starting in March, but by then it was too late. She spent her campaign into debt while Obama's team banked a mountain of money. She had to shake up her staff while Obama's team remained tight-knit and on message.

    She and the media threw the kitchen sink at him; he didn't wither. Talk radio has literally mentioned Wright or Ayers almost every day since March, and yet Obama still is beating McCain nationally.

    Does it occur to you at any level that she was simply beaten by a better-prepared, superior campaign, if not a superior candidate? Or is misogyny the only reason you will accept?

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:46:48 PM EST
    You sure kicked the crap out of that strawman.

    Parent
    Don't you think Clinton bears some (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by halstoon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:52:32 PM EST
    responsibility in her loss? Or is it just because the big bad media doesn't like the woman?

    Are you saying that America is really so malleable? Is America really so sexist that all the Obama people are just voting for the man? For that matter, why is Edwards not the nominee? How did the black man win? Are we now just a nation of affirmative action, giving the unqualified black the job the deserving white worked so hard for? Is that the argument you want to support?

    Please, make a sound argument for how misogyny is at the root of this loss. I want to read it.


    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:02:01 PM EST
    Still kicking the exact same strawman!

    Every single time someone complains about the sexism and misogyny in this campaign, some clueless Obama supporter comes along to say "how dare you claim she only lost because she's a woman!"  Just like clockwork.

    You took it quite a few steps further, granted, by turning a rather straightforward complaint about sexism into "Are we now just a nation of affirmative action, giving the unqualified black the job the deserving white worked so hard for? Is that the argument you want to support?"  Huh?

    Many Obama supporters have chosen to be classy and conciliatory today.  Judging from all your comments, your choice is to stir the pot and taunt as many of the losers as possible.  I wonder what your candidate would say if he saw you at it.

    Parent

    :o) (none / 0) (#142)
    by Burned on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:56:19 PM EST
    Between hanging out here and not turning on the tv, I might survive intact.

    Parent
    The argument that we got the candidate that (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by my opinion on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:55:10 PM EST
    ran a better campaign got us George Bush.

    Parent
    It also got us Bill Clinton. n/t (none / 0) (#157)
    by halstoon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:00:51 PM EST
    It got us George Bush. (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:08:17 PM EST
    And the republican slime machine has yet to fire up.

    Parent
    Nope! you bought the ruse (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:02:50 PM EST
    The media labeled Hillary "inevitable" - code for "beat the B---h!"
    Don't you remember all last summer and fall? Tweety would say, "who can take out Hillary?" - "who can beat Hillary?" - code for bull's eye on her forehead. And she had supporters of all other candidates targeting her.
    Obama is an Empty Suit and no - he wasn't hit with a kitchen sink!
    Not yet.
    That's just more rhetoric from his campaign depicting him as a "victim" up against the big Clinton machine that was never as big as the Establishment that was supporting Obama all along.

    Hey - now we have another nominee backed by the Establishment - McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, Obama...

    Parent

    Obama doesn't know what (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:27:39 PM EST
    the kitchen sink looks like.  He's probably never washed dishes...  

    Parent
    Exactly (1.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Gabriel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:51:10 PM EST
    Hilary completely mismanaged this campaign. Someone should make sure Mark Penn never works as a Dem consultant again. She should sue him for malpractice.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#118)
    by Gabriel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:50:57 PM EST
    Hilary completely mismanaged this campaign. Someone should make sure Mark Penn never works as a Dem consultant again. She should sue him for malpractice.

    Parent
    Didn't wither? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:51:02 PM EST
    Funniest line all night!

    Parent
    Acually I reckoned she'd be beaten (none / 0) (#123)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:51:27 PM EST
    in Iowa and SC and would fade from there. I just didn't expect Obama to deliver the defeat to her.

    What are you talking about whith her being the presumptive nominee?

    Parent

    Do you disagree that for most of 2007 she was (none / 0) (#152)
    by halstoon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:59:37 PM EST
    the assumptive favorite? Look back at October 2007 Gallup #s, with Clinton around 50%, and that was in the full field. In fact, it was not until February that Clinton lost her lead in their poll.

    When a candidate gets 50% in a field of 8 or 9, I think it's pretty clear what the public is expecting to happen. In this case, what the public assumed would happen failed to happen.

    Q: Did you think it would be Edwards who won? Were you originally an Edwards supporter? Did you have a favorite back in fall '07?

    Parent

    It's presumptive. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:08:34 PM EST
    No, I thought she'd be beaten. She was weak in Iowa and the rest of the midwest on a state by state basis there were huge strategic oportunities for a clever campaign to exploit.

    The front runner status seemed at the time to be a bit artificial when compared to state by state polling.  I knew she'd lose iowa and that would open th edoor to a defeat for her.

    Parent

    Keith Olbermann is really showing himself (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:36:49 PM EST
    not to be all that clever.  If he doesn't want Hillary on the ticket - which I suspect he does not - he really should stop characterizing Obama not picking Clinton as the VP as "a SNUB".  He was saying it over and over and over again - harping on how much it would embarass her - revealing his obvious pleasure in such a scenario - but failing to grasp how easily that could be used against Obama were it to happen and become conventional wisdom that she was snubbed.  What an idiot.  He must think John McCain is just as good as anybody else running.

    as David Gergen just said (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:40:36 PM EST
    He needs her a lot more than she needs him right now!

    Parent
    That Is A Marked Change (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:46:39 PM EST
    by Mr. Gergen. He has repeatedly stabbed Hillary Clinton in the back on Anderson Cooper's show, and has often been, in my view, the late-night equal to Cafferty and Olbermann.

    Parent
    MSNBC is the new FoxNews (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by stefystef on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:38:13 PM EST
    Obama can't stand one nice word about Hillary and he's using his network to try to take Hillary out of the race.

    I can't watch MSNBC or NBC anymore.  Not even local.

    You stole my comment without attribution... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:38:26 PM EST
    ...obviously I'm kidding. I'm sure you noticed the same thing I did. It's amazing isn't it, the media obsesses on Clinton's every comment today and then wonders why she is stealing Barack's thunder?

    Who could not notice it? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:41:13 PM EST
    NBC is not a news organization.

    Parent
    Specifically MSNBC... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:43:15 PM EST
    ...NBC News (network) is, if any are, which is perhaps debatable.

    Parent
    Watching Lou Dobbs fight with Donna Brazile (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:38:27 PM EST
    is interesting. Donna is delusional, claiming that Obama connecting with Blue Collar workers.

    James Carville (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:38:52 PM EST
    is telling Lou Dobbs why the RFK thing caused very bad feelings because Obama pushed. Donna starts rolling her eyes saying "that is not true, Obama did not push that story."  Why does CNN give her a stage???

    and why does Donna Brazille has to keep (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by TalkRight on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:40:18 PM EST
    interrupting everyone.. is that how her mommy told to behave in a group discussion.

    Parent
    btw I can like lou dobb panel enjoying the (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by TalkRight on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:41:53 PM EST
    little prank with Donna trying to stir her hornet's nest!!!

    Parent
    She knows she's finished if obama loses in (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:53:27 PM EST
    November.

    no one will ever return her calls ever again.

    Parent

    I think she's a window (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:40:50 PM EST
    into the Obama campaign.

    Parent
    Close the blinds!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by ap in avl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:32:05 PM EST
    Eeeek! (none / 0) (#77)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:43:52 PM EST
    Technically, sending out Olbermann's... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:44:26 PM EST
    ...video wasn't pushing the story.  Oh, wait. Yes, it was pushing the story, except in the mind of Brazile. Is she actively trying to be ridiculous, or does this come naturally to her? And why is it that whenever a Clinton supporter says something that stupid it ends up being headlines, while this woman repeatedly gets away with it?

    Parent
    How did Obama push the RFK thing? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:44:00 PM EST
    press releases, even the news (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:46:11 PM EST
    organizatons said his campaign pushed it...that is what got the ball rolling.

    Parent
    I saw no proof of that... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:47:23 PM EST
    ...but potentially you're right. It's probably not worth thread hijacking over.

    Parent
    Not seriously in dispute (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:55:49 PM EST
    LINK

    In addition, the Obama campaign sent the entire political press corps the transcript of a searing commentary about Mrs. Clinton by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.

    Mr. Stephanopoulos: You say you're not trying to stir the issue up. But a member of your press staff yesterday was sending around to an entire press list -- I have the e-mail here -- Keith Olbermann's searing commentary against Hillary Clinton. So that is stirring this up, isn't it?"

    Mr. Axelrod: "Well, Mr. Olbermann did his commentary and he had his opinion. But as far as we're concerned."

    Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But your campaign was sending it around."

    Mr. Axelrod: "As far as we're concerned, George, as far as we're concerned, this issue is done. It was an unfortunate statement, as we said, as she's acknowledged. She has apologized. The apology, you know, is accepted. Let's move forward."



    Parent
    Ok... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:01:23 PM EST
    ...I was completely unaware of this.

    Parent
    Believe me (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:03:46 PM EST
    I found it surprising that the media reported on it at all!

    Parent
    Burton: "no place in this campaign" (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:57:17 PM EST
    Some time down the lane they will understand the (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by TalkRight on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:39:10 PM EST
    signs were clearly there... why would Obama who is a presumptive nominee is limping towards nomination in the last few months primaries..

    They will come to reality .. sooner or later..

    But by then .. who will be the biggest loser apart from the DNC.. the VOTERS of democratic party... but they will finally take some solace in the McCain as president.

    Gergen just said on Lou Dobbs (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by mogal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:41:39 PM EST
    "He may need her more than she needs him."  Donna agreed.

    Gergen just said on Lou Dobbs (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by mogal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:42:24 PM EST
    "He may need her more than she needs him."  Donna agreed.

    Hillary is far more qualified... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by AX10 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:47:48 PM EST
    to be President.  I do not want her to play second fiddle to some upstart.

    Parent
    Let's hope Hillary is a bigger person than me (none / 0) (#148)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:58:49 PM EST
    because if it were me I'd be saying "Lotsa luck with that new coalition." I'll be back in the Senate.

    Parent
    Which Is Why MSNBC's Reaction Is So Funny (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:18:18 PM EST
    They think she's done and her power has grown by leaps and bounds, they just don't realize it yet.  I'm not sure Obama realizes it yet.  

    But it's her voters that swing in elections and the Democrats need to win (we need Obama's too, but they don't swing as much and even if they did he's the presumptive nominee) and her delegates aren't going anywhere.  Obama has to be careful nothing changes over the summer because his hold on the nomination isn't 100%.  Whether anyone likes it or not, Hillary will have to be made happy.  I suspect the bidding starts tomorrow.

    Parent

    NBC's pathology (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:42:53 PM EST
    It would not have gotten this far had the Democratic Party leaders had the courage and morality to stand up to their treatment of one of their most popular candidates in history, former First lady of their only 2 term President in over 30 years, and one of the most admired women in the world.

    Their silence has been the true pathology.

    Thanks for your post (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:47:26 PM EST
    I ask that regular TL commenters treat this person with respect.

    Whether you agree with comment or not, it strikes me as sincere and hearfelt.

    One thing would clear up (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:56:42 PM EST
    the controversy for me.

    Ask them both a question about FDR and the New Deal.   look at what both have written about the New deal.  See if either support/or have kind words for the New Deal.   Therein shall you find the answer.

    Parent

    it is absurdly long (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:14:56 PM EST
    It's a screed not a comment and it was posted on multiple threads. BTD, I hope you delete it. I am emailing the writer and sending it back to her in case she didn't keep a copy.

    This space is for comments, not reprinting original work or work of others.

    Parent

    However it strikes you (none / 0) (#143)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:56:33 PM EST
    don't delete my posts


    Parent
    I did not delete your comments (none / 0) (#158)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:00:58 PM EST
    gee BTD, why should the (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:48:39 PM EST
    international media waste valuable air time on a guy who, if he's the dem. nominee, will lose in nov? surely there must be a new season of "american idol" coming in the fall. at least that has a winner.

    really, you should know by now, everything is the fault of the clintons, from forcing adam & eve to eat the apple, all the way up to making pres. bush say something stupid in public now. it's. all. their. fault.

    got it?

    Wow. Maybe DB is the one who's outta touch (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:50:05 PM EST
    not President Clinton. Obama getting the Clinton supporters is a non-issue?!  LOL!~ The dude hasn't figured out how to "speak to them" incase she hasn't noticed . . .

    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:05:34 PM EST
    is the won who decided that Bill Clinton should not campaign for Al Gore in Tennessee in the closing weeks of the 2000 election.  Because, you know, the Gore campaign had everything under control.

    Then, of course, she blamed the Clintons for Gore's loss.  

    Delusional doesn't even begin to describe Ms. Brazile.  If she becomes DNC Chair, I'm never coming back to the party.

    Parent

    Eep (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:06:08 PM EST
    Won = One.  I can't believe I typed "won" in any sentence about Donna Brazile.

    Parent
    Oh please (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:50:22 PM EST
    My fellow Clinton supporters:

    It just occurred to me.

    When Senator Obama finally extends his hand, perhaps it will be like a musical some of us old tired white folk may have heard tell of:

    "Making my entrance again with my usual flair
     Sure of my lines...
     No one was there."

    Posted before (none / 0) (#124)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:51:39 PM EST
    I read BTD's request.  

    Parent
    by the word (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by diplomatic on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:52:03 PM EST
    you will soon be rich.

    Just for a chiaroscuro effect... (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:53:20 PM EST
    ...Chris Matthews is now descending into David Brooks territory by claiming that because Barack Obama went from poor/lower class to the the Ivy League he missed the essential middle class step that will cause Americans to identify with him. Sigh.

    And yes, I've heard that before, so it's not the sign of a "turning" in the media. It's just the stupidity that exists in the media and has simply been far more blatant, from beginning to end, on all things Clinton.

    He's a legacy Harvard grad. (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:59:51 PM EST
    Both parents have PhD 's. Ordinary people are like a petri dish full of bacteria for Obama.

    Sl;ighluy icky and deffinitely a lower life form.

    Okay maybe that was Hyperbole, but watch what they do with his faux poverty years.

    Parent

    If you know it's hyperbole... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:06:34 PM EST
    ...and yet you manage to still "post" such past-due, expired slimy stuff, I don't know. It's sad.

    It seems hokey and boilerplate, but please look into the various documentation -- autobiographical and journalistic -- of Obama's community organizing and GOTV efforts for Bill Clinton. That's the only response for this sort of comment. A plea for broadening the scope of the knowledge that forms your opinion.  

    Parent

    He doesn't have a UHC plan. Period (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:54:17 PM EST


    Although my friend who recently (none / 0) (#162)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:02:15 PM EST
    switched from Clinton to Obama recently told me with a straight face their positions are identical.

    Parent
    we know nothing about his positions (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:08:32 PM EST
    What is change? What does it mean? McCain is also change. Wanna know why people are still voting for Hillary in larger numbers. She has a plan(s) not rhetoric.

    Parent
    I just like Senator McCain better (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by TalkRight on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:54:42 PM EST
    I am no faithful of a said party.. I will vote for the BEST candidate.. and I believe it would be Senator McCain after Hillary based on the same points I would have given Hillary my vote. I cannot change my priorities just because the person is a democrat.

    McCain is no traditional Republican .. and is more closer to Democratic party than republican party. His own party calls him a democrat..

    Yep (none / 0) (#186)
    by Mari on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:45:22 PM EST
    At least, he is the legitimate Republican nominee.

    Parent
    okay (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ccpup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:55:16 PM EST
    he apparently has The Magic Number, so Hillary will probably not concede, but take a break and allow him to pivot into GE Mode.  She'll keep her promise to MI -- and try and change an awful precedent which was set -- by fighting for their Rights when the Credentials Committee meets and then, perhaps, realize the Dems have no intention of winning this year, she'll just back away and let Obama and Brazile do whatever they can do in the General.  In effect, let it be their mess to clean up.

    And what about the Party?  Ah, that's where Hillary can be brilliant.

    Most people by that time will understand what we all here on TL already know:  this Nomination wasn't the Will of the People, but a select few at the DNC.  Furthermore, by most logical accounts and EV maps, the Nominee is almost a certain loser.  A President McCain, for many people, won't be such a bad idea after taking a long, hard look at what the Democrats are offering.

    So, Hillary focuses on getting out there and campaigning for Downticket Dems State-by-State.  The crowds she'd get, the money she'd raise, the sense of love and fidelity she'd earn ... her efforts to support the Party (a promise she's made time and again regardless of who the Nominee is) may do a lot to save the Dems from a total blow-out this year.  We won't get the White House, but we'll protect our House and Senate numbers.

    Because of this, she becomes a very popular Dem figure and, post-November Election as we march toward a McCain Inauguration with the Media doing their usual "how idiotic is the Democratic Party" post-mortem and finally offers the facts and figures we're all familiar with here.  

    And people around the Country will be absolutely livid that, much like Gore in 2000, the BEST candidate was essentially robbed of the Nomination (or Presidency, in Gore's case) due to the actions of those who wield power.

    In other words, Hillary becomes the Gore of 2012 and, unlike Gore, is more than willing to get into the next fight.

    So, I stand by my prediction that Hillary will be the first woman President of the United States.  Only it'll be after a McCain Presidency, 4 more successful years in the Senate, watching Obama not only become an Also Ran and suddenly unpopular member of the Senate, but also a future trivia question and after continuing to engender the respect, admiration and support of the American People ... something many would not have predicted a year ago.

    If you're a first time poster (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by stillife on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:55:22 PM EST
    how are we your friends?

    You may be proud of your party, but I don't even know my party anymore.  Yes, Democrats are the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy but they're also the party of Clinton - or they were until recently.  

    Allow us to wallow in our "minor disappointment" and spare us the "hand-in-hand" crap.  


    hillary should avoid obama like a toxic plague (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by londonamerican on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:58:45 PM EST
    there is nothing in it for her-- or for america -- to run on the same ticket as obama. either in august or in november, the man will lose and lose big. he is toxic.

    best possible outcome would be for the democratic party to come to its senses and avoid yet another repeat of 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 and put someone who actually can connect with working americans as the presidential nominee instead of the re-warmed stevensonian and thuggish chicago pol barack obama.

    failing that, let the democrats yet again go down in flames and run in 2012. a mccain presidency would be better than bush and no worse than the damage that obama would do to the country (under the stealthy guise of being a "progressive.")

    why DO the people running the democratic party never, ever learn?

    Obama is going to wish (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by OxyCon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:00:40 PM EST
    ...the media was still attacking Hillary in a few weeks, because once they round all of their attention on him, Obama will have no one else to blame or attack.
    With Hillary still in the game, she draws all of the media's hatred and attacks. But without her, they are going to turn on Obama.
    For my own selfish reasons, I want to see Obama go through all of the BS attacks the Clintons have had to endure for the past 16 years, due to the way Obama has denigrated the Clintons every chance he could. I want to see him walk a mile in their shoes. Scratch that. I want to see him walk a million miles in their shoes. Then I want to see if he still thinks his you know what doesn't stink afterwards. He needs to be humbled.

    Same here. (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by AX10 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:12:00 PM EST
    Though, I highly doubt Obama would survive a week of that kind of treatment.

    Parent
    This night is turning into a disaster (4.50 / 8) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:13:55 PM EST
    mostly, again, because of the media.

    I'd Feel Bad for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:36:46 PM EST
    if they hadn't invited it onto themselves.  Because I hate the media more than anything.  But lay down with dogs, get up with fleas.

    Parent
    The media don't love Obama, they hate Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:01:56 PM EST
    Think about the coverage, it's fawning for McCain, and hateful for Hillary.  Obama has benefitted from the coverage of Hillary.

    Now he's up against the media's true love.

    Parent

    I went with the narrative too (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:18:18 PM EST
    Ol' Rove was expecting to be up against Hillary. I'm sure they didn't want all the hard work to go to waste.

    I liked Howard Dean in 2004. I thought alot of what he said made sense. I thought the media made a big deal over nothing with his "scream." I loved the 50 state strategy. That said, his handling of this election cyle can only be labeled inept. Why he would not see that the historic firsts could be an angle that the GOP could and would not exploit is beyond me. His handling of Florida and Michigan was beyond stupid and his inabilty to keep surrogates like Donna Brazile tightly reigned IMO is going to cost the Dem party both in the long and short term. I hope whatever money he has collected and lists Obama brings to the table are worth it.

    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by dk on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:41:42 PM EST
    Seriously, I think all he would have had to do...pretty much...was make a statement like the one BTD made in his open thread below at the outset, and stuck to it.  

    My bet is that BTD is keeping his fingers crossed that Obama will start saying such things now, but it is way too late.  Obama had his chance at the outset not to ride on the misogyny, but he didn't take it.  Trying to pivot now on that just looks lame.  He'll have to think of some other strategy.

    Parent

    Too Late Now (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:44:59 PM EST
    He'll be up against the media's love, Real Man John McCain.  He should've done it when he was still against Hillary because they wouldn't turn on him in fear of helping her.  

    Parent
    If the Obama campaign were savvy, it (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:50:53 PM EST
    would hire BTD to be the conciliator.

    Parent
    Imagine (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:45:28 PM EST
    This had all been done differently.

    Suppose that, in victory or near-victory, he let this be her day. He praised and eulogized her.

    He spent his air time (he'll be getting plenty of air time, anyway) talking about her achievements.

    Not.

    I like it this way. As someone said below, Keep the sexism going.  No sweeping it under the rug.

    Parent

    BTD, I'd like a response on nominating (3.66 / 3) (#3)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:15:05 PM EST
    someone who peaked in February, losing each successive month of the last four in a protracted primary.  He won only 40% of the contests since February.  Hillary, 60%.  And, the states she won...well, what do you think of all that?

    Was it my decision? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:15:49 PM EST
    No, but isn't it bizarre? (none / 0) (#7)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    He was the choice (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:17:22 PM EST
    of the Democratic Establishment.

    Parent
    Manning up! (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:20:09 PM EST
    Thank you for stating the fact.  Now for opinion (mine):  Is there misogyny in the DNC?

    Parent
    Awwww c'mon (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:24:51 PM EST
    BTD is already on the record as noting there is misogyny. That said, I think this is less about misogyy and more about the green stuff. Oh and an inability to change when the situation changes. We're going to follow Obama off a cliff because the DNC is too slow to respond to the fact that Clinton is the stronger pick based on the evidence.

    Parent
    And he possesses two "tennis" balls; (none / 0) (#32)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:29:17 PM EST
    she doesn't.
    (Sorry, Jeralyn.)

    Parent
    But, what about the people? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:20:20 PM EST
    Um, the majority voted for Hillary (none / 0) (#19)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:23:15 PM EST
    To be more specific, (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:24:46 PM EST
    last Saturday proved that in the DNC, the people don't matter.

    Parent
    How many times (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:25:55 PM EST
    in the early part of the year did we hear over and over "Billary" and how They are the Insiders?

    How many times did I hear "corporate" and will do Anything to Win and lobby money and Penn and racist and polarizing and potential scandals ruining the White House again and oh so many  other things hurled at Hillary that fit him!

    His supporters do not see the projection, I guess.  But it is sure there from my viewpoint and it was constantly frustrating to me.

    btw:

    I sure wish "No Quarter" wasn't attacked and taken down by  obama hackers tonight because I could sure use some cathartic venting right now.

    Parent

    No Quarter is available (none / 0) (#110)
    by Boston Boomer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:48:55 PM EST
    at the moment.  


    Parent
    I thought SHE was the establishment candidate (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:30:28 PM EST
    That's what every Obama supporter kept telling me, anyway. He's "change". She's "establishment".

    Parent
    Of course she was the establishment candidate (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Y Knot on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:42:21 PM EST
    And he was the upstart.  Think back, she started this campaign with an absolutely HUGE lead in super delegates, and a former President on her team.

    You have to understand that most of the supers are not leaders.  They're followers.  They go with the trends they see.  Hillary had an enormous establishment advantage to start, but as Obama started winning contests the momentum shifted to him. Once that happened, they all started shifting towards him.

    Clinton's problem is not that she's not 'establishment' or that there was some plot to oust her.  Her problem is, that she lost the momentum and was never able to get enough of it back to change the dynamics of the contest.

    Is there misogyny in the democratic party?  Of course.  While it's better than it has been in the past, there's misogyny everywhere and there will continue to be for quite some time. (Note: I could make the exact same statement about racism.)  

    But to simply say that the reason Clinton didn't get the nomination is because she's a woman, I think is simplistic and dishonest, and frankly, diminishes her.


    Parent

    It's also untrue (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:55:42 PM EST
    I will believe to my dying day that the reason that Clinton didn't get the nomination is that Axelrod used the race card to convince the world that Clinton was a racist in order to gain sympathy votes for Obama. The sexism is a separate issue. It was quite real, however, and it needs to be addressed.

    Parent
    The Democrats need to (none / 0) (#149)
    by Grace on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:58:53 PM EST
    replace misogyny with miso soup.  

    It tastes better and isn't as filling.  

    Parent

    Seems there is (none / 0) (#53)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:38:24 PM EST
    the "old" establishment and the "new" establishment.

    Parent
    Choice of the Democratic Establishment (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by uncledad on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:43:03 PM EST
    Choice of the Democratic Establishment
    I don't see how you can say that, they basically split the popular vote, they are effectively tied, Someone has to lose, the rules say the delegate count is the tiebreaker, what is so unfair and establishment about that, these are the rules, they were set before the election began. We have a nominee, you can either support him or not, but I feel many on this site are being childish in their refusal to acknowledge the results of this election as legitimate.

    Parent
    He is not leading in the pledged delegate (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:44:44 PM EST
    count. he is being putt over the top by party insiders just like he was given 59 delegates in SAturday by party insiders.

    Where do you think he would be right now if they had not done that?

    Parent

    Where do you think he would be right now if they h (1.00 / 1) (#122)
    by uncledad on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:51:21 PM EST
    He has 2112, so 2112-59=2053
    She has 1912 so 1912+59=1971, last time I checked 2053 is still more than 1971, oh and by the way party insiders "superdelegates" are part of the rules that they all agreed to when they filed the papers to run in the first place. Get over it lose with some dignity!

    Parent
    Probably? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Y Knot on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:52:50 PM EST
    He'd be about 3 days from securing the nomination, instead of 3 hours.  

    I didn't like the MI decision, and I said so at the time, but no other decision was going to change the end result of this contest.*

    * Unless maybe they gave Clinton all the delegates in both states.

    Parent

    Now that we have a nominee (none / 0) (#92)
    by Gabriel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:45:56 PM EST
    I suspect Hillary will work hard to get Obama elected and the party will unite. Some people will be upset but that's life.

    And if Obama picks her for VP think of all the Kossites that will be angry about that!

    :)

    Parent

    And Rove (none / 0) (#10)
    by Davidson on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:18:39 PM EST
    Feel the unity.

    Parent
    Which is ironic (none / 0) (#18)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:22:06 PM EST
    since he ran on a platform against the dem establishment.

    Parent
    but the media's narrative is (none / 0) (#87)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:45:26 PM EST
    >>>he was the choice of the Democratic Establishment

    "a little skinny kid beat the Establishment candidate" - HAHAHAHA!
    News Hour panelist said this primary was mild compared to others and Dems will all come together, etc.
    Michael Beschloff (?) presidential historian was asked about other primaries involving dissension in the party - and he said Ford and Reagan in 1976. Nothing about Kennedy and Carter, and Kennedy never made nice.
    Media pundits creating historical narratives....

    Parent

    Live by the sword ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by suzyqueue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:34:12 PM EST
    They lived by the sword of MSNBC's Clinton obsession; now they're dying by that sword, at least for tonight.  They're (He's) so narcissistic they can't cede any of the spotlight.  Knowing the Obama crowd, though, they'll cut into her speech, knowing the media will cut away to him, and steal her thunder.  Magnanimous? Not.

    Madness (none / 0) (#57)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:38:49 PM EST
    I watched Tweety for a bit tonight.  What I don't get is he doesn't seem as happy as I expected.
    Whattup with that?

    He's about to lose his Jean Valjean. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:42:17 PM EST
    heh (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:45:52 PM EST
    BTD I can't believe you still watch Obama network! (none / 0) (#81)
    by TalkRight on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:44:31 PM EST
    It is more of a comedy show.. !

    Voters LIKE Hillary, Media Bubbleheads don't (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:46:47 PM EST
    Therein lies the credibility gap.

    The Dem convention will be the Titanic Crying Party of buyers' remorse.

    I think that's close... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:51:17 PM EST
    ...but in honesty I think it's more accurate to say that Hillary voters like Hillary (and there are a lot of them), while the media loves to watch her fall.

    I don't know if voters in general "like" her -- personally, in the mid-Atlantic/deep South, I happen to know that many voters on both sides absolutely do not -- but I don't believe the level of hate is prevalent in any significant sense among non-Hillary voters we'll need in November. It is, in an argument about November, a non-issue in my mind. Or at least mitigated by the people she appeals to and who like her.

    Parent

    This has to be today's silliest argument ... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:56:12 PM EST
    ... and today's been jam-packed with idiocy.

    The recoil factor on Obama is so magnificent people who were neutral or somewhat supportive are actively considering McCain.

    That's one toxic candidate.

    Parent

    I feel like you're being melodramatic... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:59:55 PM EST
    ...and not responding to what I said, instead trying to make it a comment about Obama rather than Clinton, in fact. I said that any Clinton-hate that exists (and it does, I know personally it does) is trumped by her pro-Clinton voters. How that is the silliest statement of the day. I'm disappointed that you so misread my comment.

    Parent
    IF.. (none / 0) (#111)
    by TalkRight on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:49:49 PM EST
    Obama network... IF OBAMA CAN TAKE THE BLACK, THE YOUTH AND THE DEMOCRATS.. HE WILL WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION...

    VOW WHAT A PREDICTION.. BUT THE QUESTION IS CAN HE? AND THEY WON'T ANSWER THAT.

    Let me state (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:50:54 PM EST
    I hope you stick around.

    One of our most important rules is to post on topic to the post.

    Your comment was not on topic. But I felt it was sincere so I will make the exception to the usual rule - which is deletion.

    Please keep that in mind.

    Delegate Countdown (none / 0) (#134)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:55:01 PM EST
    On CNN? I mean, really, how necessary is this?

    Every five minutes, we are reminded how far away Obama is from the nomination number.

    Earlier, much to my amazement, Wolf Blitzer actually interupted a panel session to announce the BREAKING NEWS: he got ONE more superdelegate endorsement.

    I tend to think this is counterproductive ... a slow insertion of the spear ... inch by inch ... into the hearts of Clinton supporters and the Clinton campaign.

    On a side note: Some dude on CNN is expecting "the finest political speech" in history tonight from King Obama. Urgh. Spare me.

    Another food taster comment on CNN this time. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Teresa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:59:09 PM EST


    Does anybody here think Hillary's an idiot? (none / 0) (#167)
    by cygnus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:04:44 PM EST
    She's not going to run with Obama.  Nobody can mask his unelectablity.  Why would she associate herself with someone who will be rejected by the people? She has too much too offer.

    It's all about propaganda. Most issues we talk (none / 0) (#180)
    by my opinion on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:20:57 PM EST
    about are just their tools. They convinced most Americans that we needed to go to war in Iraq. They are currently on the brink of getting their way in the democratic party primary. That may disturb you, but if you don't realize it, you have been fooled. Have fun.

    It's all about propaganda. Most issues we talk (none / 0) (#181)
    by my opinion on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:23:20 PM EST
    about are just their tools. They convinced most Americans that we needed to go to war in Iraq. They are currently on the brink of getting their way in the democratic party primary. That may disturb you, but if you don't realize it, you have been fooled. Have fun.

    Unbelievable (none / 0) (#187)
    by djcny on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:46:55 PM EST
    Fox news is actually viciously blaming Hillary for stealing Barack's thunder on this holiest of days with the VP comment. Of course they are never to blame...it's all Hillary, all the time.
    Simultaneously they're saying that he understandably does not want her as a running mate and never would. Why she would want to subject herself to this unrelenting abuse from the media, it's hard to imagine. I want this media love fest for Obama to be over so they can get on with the business of campaigning against McCain and losing in November.
    Me bitter?.......no.

    I hate NBC (none / 0) (#188)
    by IKE on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:47:56 PM EST
    I hate them, I hate NBC, BOY I HATE NBC.