home
The Blogosphere Has Its Comeuppance? Boehlert's Revenge | 219 comments (219 topical)
When the blogs have treated Hillary like a Repug (5.00 / 13) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:26:53 PM EST
especially regarding the Media, hard for them to complain when she goes after Obama.

Well, hard for them to CREDITABLY complain.

[ Parent ]

Well, under the Obama rules (5.00 / 5) (#6)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:30:52 PM EST
Hillary deserves it and he doesn't.

But the fact that the Obama rules are real makes your argument for him compelling. Let's see what this looks like from the distance of next weekend.

[ Parent ]

You'll see (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:32:20 PM EST
PA will be explained away.

He is a Media Darling. I am telling you.

[ Parent ]

Bay Area Repubs agree, media darling (5.00 / 1) (#128)
by catfish on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:27:29 PM EST
This was a big topic in letters to the editor in today's SF Chronicle. Apparently, earlier in the week two Hillary supporters complained about the editorial cartoonist's unfair depictions of Hillary. Here's a snippet of just one Repub's letter:

Welcome to the club. Now you know how we Republicans feel.

Mr. Rackow's assertion that you ignore "St. Barack's" peccadilloes is correct, just like you ignored the Clintons' peccadilloes for years when they were the liberal media favorites. Now that there's a new liberal media darling, the Clintons are yesterday's news and it's OK to bash them because they're an impediment to Barack Obama's ascent to sainthood (and the presidency).



[ Parent ]
I'm thinking that PA (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:35:49 PM EST
is NH and NV replayed, and NC will be SC all over again.

I think there's an outside chance that Obama could survive an 18 point loss in PA.

[ Parent ]

Except Indiana Votes the Same Day (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by BDB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:40:36 PM EST
So Obama probably won't have two wins that day.

[ Parent ]
Good point (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:42:40 PM EST
Expect to hear all about THE MATH that night.

[ Parent ]
Something Like This? (none / 0) (#18)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:47:12 PM EST
But J. Richard Gray, the mayor of Lancaster and an Obama supporter, said that this is not what Mr. Obama meant. In his view, Mr. Obama was trying to say that Republicans take emotional matters like guns and religion and try to use them to divide people.

"I don't think he's demeaning religion or guns," Mr. Gray said. "He's saying the use of those issues as wedge issues plays on the bitterness that people have and diverts attention from the real economic issues, like the disparity between the wage earner and the rich."

Mr. Gray also said Mr. Obama was right that voters are bitter, although he said he would have used the word angry. He pointed to a recent poll that found 81 percent of voters believe the country is on the wrong track. He said that Mrs. Clinton sounded like "a Pollyanna" in saying that workers were optimistic. "I don't know who she's been talking to," Mr. Gray said.

NYT

[ Parent ]

He can (5.00 / 5) (#24)
by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:06:11 PM EST
WORM all he wants on behalf of his candidate, as he should, but I am not stupid - I know what I heard. He did not say anything about republicans using this as a wedge issue, because in that case these DEMOCRATS would not vote for Hillary either.

He was responding to a question about why he was not getting working class votes in PA, and his response was partially, that these people are bitter and they "cling" to guns and religions because they are bitter, as well as have anti-immigrant sentiments. That has nothing to do with what the republicans use politically, he was explaining his view of what he thinks those foolish small towners in PA do.

WORM away, you just might get away with it in the primary, bu that won't happen in the general.

[ Parent ]

Guess the bus ride was a real (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:20:37 PM EST
eye opener. Days on a bus driving through Central Pennsylvania. I guess charm did not work this time.

[ Parent ]
people know when they are being (5.00 / 4) (#34)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:30:06 PM EST
patronized no matter how charming the person is.

People prefer Clinton.  They see her as hard working, that is a BIG DEAL in this state. LOTS of older women in PA want a woman president and they want that person to be Hillary.  There is nothing wrong with that.  I will wring my hands about it when she is getting 86 percent of the women's vote...

[ Parent ]

"Obama's bitter taste of own words" (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:44:06 PM EST
Baltimore Sun - http://tinyurl.com/5znf7s

Great article and comments by Vilsack.

[ Parent ]

President Hillary you go girl! (5.00 / 2) (#96)
by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:06:16 PM EST
We do know who is right for the President and it is not BHO. I know BHO did not get the kind of reception that he was looking for. And I live in a smaller town than you do. Basically he was calling us bias rednecks but trying so eloquently to answer the question of why he can not win over all the people in PA. My neighbor was in NY overnight and I asked her when she got back if she heard what BHO said. She said he saw it on TV this morning in her hotel and was flabbergasted.

[ Parent ]
er (none / 0) (#38)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:36:25 PM EST
Older women? Do you think that is who Obama was referring to? Religious anti immigrant, god fearing, working class gun toting mamas?

Don't think so.

Here is something from the other side:

Once, blue-collar males were the bedrock of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal coalition. They became "Reagan Democrats," helping to propel Ronald Reagan into office in the 1980s. Bill Clinton won many of them back to the Democratic Party in 1992. Two years later they were "angry white males," resentful of affirmative action and the women's movement, who helped Republicans capture Congress.

WSJ via Protein Wisdom


[ Parent ]

where did I say Obama was refering (none / 0) (#123)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:22:34 PM EST
to older women?

[ Parent ]
OK (none / 0) (#134)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:33:43 PM EST
I wasn't sure why you brought up older women. Seemed like a nonsequitur but now it is clear that you were just doing an OT plug for Clinton.

[ Parent ]
we lost the south (none / 0) (#130)
by anna shane on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:30:51 PM EST
and some blue collar men over civil rights, our party went to the mat on that one and we lost a hunk of our previous demographic.  the only reason we have it back is that America isn't that racist anymore, especially younger people, males and females. We have a much more integrated, much more interested-in-diversity society and our party has always supported equal rights, and racial justice. Barack is a consequence of this shift, and it's great.  He's a 'professor' type-guy and he thinks he knows more than he does, so he'll probably always have some idea about something that will turn out to have little relation to reality and may make him look goofy and out of touch. this statement was very dismissive of the entire party base, so he needs to meet a larger variety of people so he can learn empathy and to mistrust his own possibly cherished opinions.  

[ Parent ]
A Freedom Ride, (none / 0) (#101)
by mg7505 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:22:00 PM EST
Obama-style. To go along with all the other false comparisons of BHO to Civil Rights leaders.

[ Parent ]
I was late to this round (5.00 / 4) (#37)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:34:46 PM EST
so thanks for providing that context.  I didn't know he was explicitly responding to why he was not getting votes over Clinton. Really makes it sound like a stock answer pertaining to Republican voters, and like he hasn't given any more thought than that as to why he is losing  those voter to Clinton.

He is toast in the general.

[ Parent ]

but it is worse (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:04:17 PM EST
because the people were also asking him what to expect when canvasing for him when they came to PA.  It was a two part question.  And since we have closed primaries he was telling them what to expect from democrats.  They wouldn't be canvassing republicans.  This is what he thinks of democrats in PA who are not voting for him.
Forget that maybe they just prefer Clinton for positive reasons.  Because just a minute before that he said thes people also don't trust 46 year old black men and everyone laughed at the remark.

AFAIAC he was again blaming racism for the reason someone was not voting for him.

anyway I do not mean to be off topic.  This election has cured me of so many things.  My liberal white guilt is gone.  I finally understand why republicans accuse us of elitism and are able to make it stick.  
I ended up supporting Clinton because the arguments her were always so brain dead.  I used to beg people to go ahead and oppose her but at least say something smart, accurate, real about why.  And they couldn't do it, not 90 percent of them anyway.
The other reason is that the treatment of Clinton supporters on line was rancid and I thought they deserved better.  So I defended them and became one of them.

[ Parent ]

Don't forget (5.00 / 4) (#57)
by sickofhypocrisy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:04:49 PM EST
that he also took the time to throw the Clinton Administration under the bus by saying these people were left behind during those years.  

[ Parent ]
Whaaa (none / 0) (#26)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:12:49 PM EST
Why do you think that this demographic has been voting R against their economic interests? What else could he have been talking about?

His delivery was the problem not the content.

[ Parent ]

his delivery was not the problem (5.00 / 4) (#32)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:25:46 PM EST
the content was.  

[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0) (#33)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:29:29 PM EST
And what content is that? That many working class whites have been voting R and it has been working out for them so Obama should not bother?

[ Parent ]
why are you making stuff up (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:32:55 PM EST
?

[ Parent ]
Making Stuff Up? (none / 0) (#43)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:42:51 PM EST
What? Not sure what you are talking about. I have made nothing up.

[ Parent ]
What you're making (5.00 / 3) (#68)
by rooge04 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:17:08 PM EST
 up is that all working-class Whites vote for Republicans. That is simply not true.  They are a large portion of the Dem base. Always have been.  You cannot win an election without them.

And to clarify, 1994 was NOT a referendum on Bill. It was the culmination of 30 years of Republicans building their machine, redrawing districts to their advantage and getting their base engaged again after 30 years in the wilderness following Goldwater.  It was NOT Clinton voters that turned on him. It was the Republican machine rising after 30 years quiet.  That is a falsehood perpetuated by Republicans and apparently, now, Obama supporters.

[ Parent ]

What You Are Making Up (none / 0) (#70)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:21:23 PM EST
I never said anything like this:

all working-class Whites vote for Republicans.

Such obvious lying does not help your argument.

[ Parent ]

Your implication is that (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by rooge04 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:23:53 PM EST
those dumb working class white people vote against their own best interests.  You are implying that that is what the majority of them do. That is simply not the truth.  They are the largest part of the Democratic base. Tricky I know...when you want to look down on them.

[ Parent ]
Yes But (none / 0) (#78)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:28:08 PM EST
Not only working class, more than half the country voted for GWB twice. At best these voters were easily manipulated, by a swaggering fake cowboy act. Call it whatever you want, I am sure that some smart people were fooled as well as idiots.

[ Parent ]
Typical (1.00 / 0) (#107)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:46:41 PM EST
Everyone is an idiot except Squeaky and those who agree with him.

[ Parent ]
Uhhh (5.00 / 0) (#122)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:19:08 PM EST
Your Pal Bush is at the lowest rating of any president, ever. 81% of americans believe that they the country is on the wrong track.

I am not surprised to see that you are still hanging with the 19%ers, who still believe that Bush can do no wrong.

[ Parent ]

PPJ doesn't believe that there can be rational (none / 0) (#178)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:13:13 AM EST
criticism of his Fearless Leader:

If you want to deny the news reports, and disbelieve Bush, then there is no argument that can change your mind.

Some call this BDS, I believe Bush Haters At Work - BHAW - is more accurate.

And BHAW are those who don't agree with the wisdom that PPJ has seen fit to dispense to us on irregular occasions.

[ Parent ]

Right Track/Wrong Track (none / 0) (#187)
by cal1942 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:33:20 AM EST
is not the same as Approve/Disapprove.

People can hold the belief that the nation is on the wrong track but still approve of the sitting President. It depends on who you want to blame for the wrong track. Still other people simply don't make the connection between President and the direction of the nation.

Approval ratings were lower than Bush's at least at some point for Truman and Nixon. Truman had even lower ratings than Nixon during some of 1952 and I believe he may have had even lower ratings just after he canned MacArthur.  I'm a living witness to the MacArthur business.  You would not have believed the fury.  Even my father, a Democrat to the deepest level of his soul, was angry.

The distinction Bush has is the long stretch that his approval ratings have been below 40%.


[ Parent ]

What! (none / 0) (#182)
by cal1942 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:17:33 AM EST
"Not only working class, more than half the country voted for GWB twice."

No.  In 2000 Gore won by more than a half-million votes.

I remember a few of the demographics from 2000 and if my memory is correct, Gore won 60% of union households in 2000.


[ Parent ]

Yes I Know (none / 0) (#185)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:25:57 AM EST
I am talking about the ones that voted R and the ones in PA.

In the final election results from 2000, Bush won 55.5 percent of the vote in rural counties in the 17 states, while Gore captured 44.5 percent.

NPR

[ Parent ]

I Exaggerated A Bit (none / 0) (#190)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:45:36 AM EST
For the sake of PPJ aka Bushlicker, a regular TL Bush supporter.

The poll I was referring to is this:

The latest Gallup poll finds that President Bush's approval rating has fallen to 28 percent -- "a record low" for his administration. Bush's approval is "lower than that of any president since World War II, with the exceptions of Jimmy Carter (who had a low point of 28% in 1979), and Richard Nixon and Harry Truman, who suffered ratings in the low- to mid-20% range in the last years of their administrations."

think progress

[ Parent ]

Oh, And (none / 0) (#192)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:47:26 AM EST
PPJ belongs to the 19% who think that the country is doing just fine, and on the right track.

[ Parent ]
classy! gotta remember that one :) (none / 0) (#90)
by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:48:09 PM EST
>>>They are the largest part of the Democratic base. Tricky I know...when you want to look down on them.


[ Parent ]
Good commenter, out-of-line comment n/t (none / 0) (#82)
by rilkefan on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:31:55 PM EST


[ Parent ]
you said this (none / 0) (#206)
by Fredster on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:23:36 AM EST
Why do you think that this demographic has been voting R against their economic interests? What else could he have been talking about?

so which demographic were you talking about?


[ Parent ]

Working Class White Males (none / 0) (#222)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:26:31 AM EST


[ Parent ]
Why do you think they have been voting R? (5.00 / 4) (#109)
by badger on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:51:25 PM EST
They haven't. PA went blue for Clinton (twice) and Gore and Kerry. WI and MN the same. MI the same (I think - haven't checked). IA for Clinton and Gore. OH for Clinton. He's whining because he lost big in OH, he'll lose big in PA and can't afford to allow MI to vote. He already won WI, MN and IA.

He was referring to the midwest and PA - that's the midwest and PA.

Second, who are you to decide people have vote their economic interests? They don't care about the war? Health care or education for other people's children? Security for the nation? 2nd amendment? If I voted my economic interests, I would have voted R instead of D most of my life. Was I wrong to vote for Dems? Will Obama criticize me for that (actually, I wouldn't be surprised, considering the extent to which he criticizes other Dems)?

And the content was belittling and insulting - don't pretend it wasn't. "Bitter", "clinging" - that's an uplifiting message.

[ Parent ]

Besides (none / 0) (#30)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:22:59 PM EST
I was responding to this:

PA will be explained away.
He is a Media Darling. I am telling you.

Seems to me that the NYT was working it for Obama aka media darling.


[ Parent ]

Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#81)
by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:30:37 PM EST
went blue for Kerry, so they were not voting against their economic interests. Just because they are not likely to vote for Obama, and vote for HRC again, does not mean they cannot tell what is in their interests or not.

If he keeps insulting people, though, you can bet they will vote against their economic interests in November. Nobody wants to vote for somebody who they believe doesn't respect him or her.

[ Parent ]

Well Isn't That The Point (none / 0) (#92)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:52:03 PM EST
He made a gaffe. And this is another test of the staying power of his media darling status.

I think it will get spun into something like the quote from Grey in the NYT.  Don't vote R.

And yes Pennsylvania went blue for Kerry, but not the people that Obama was speaking of. The rural vote went for GW.

[ Parent ]

Also Clinton in 92 & 96 (none / 0) (#99)
by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:17:19 PM EST
And Gore in 2000. Doesn't sound as if we were part of that George Bush vote you were talking about. BHO did not make any new friends with his Penna small town talk down.

[ Parent ]
The Dems Lost The Rural Vote (none / 0) (#100)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:19:38 PM EST
In PA which is the context of the gaffe.

[ Parent ]
Ooops (none / 0) (#114)
by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:02:53 PM EST
Guess I did not notice the one bank, one Post Office, 2 restaurants, 1 gas station,1 funeral home and 1 hardware store makes us a city. Oh wait, we are not a city. We are a small rural town. We do not even have ONE stoplight. But, we like Hillary and we voted for Kerry. I know what you are saying about the rural vote, but how many Democrats were in central PA anyway? BHO is probably annoyed that he had to ride a bus for several days and travel where he was not adored.

[ Parent ]
Not the bitter but the cling (none / 0) (#91)
by lambert on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:49:43 PM EST
Or -- since sauce for the goose, and all -- did Obama "cling" to Reverend Wright all those years?

[ Parent ]
I like the the new latest talking point (none / 0) (#159)
by voterin2008 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:55:29 PM EST
WORM around.  Is this formed from the constant shifting of Clinton's campaign.  Is it called worming now?

[ Parent ]
WORM (none / 0) (#164)
by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:00:59 AM EST
What
Obama
Really
Meant

it's an acronym...they're meant to be clever.

If you want to assign one to Hillary...go for it.

WORM apparently is what happens when Obama gets off script and says stupid stuff that the campaign headquarters tries to clean up behind him after he makes a gaffe.

It happens frequently enough to engender an acronmym...deal with it.

[ Parent ]

seems like gray is a moron (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:22:20 PM EST
or just trying to explain away Obama's comments.
Now he is insulting my intelligence.  

[ Parent ]
Hahahahah (1.66 / 6) (#31)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:24:42 PM EST
From what I gather, given your comments here, all Obama supporters are insulting your intelligence.

[ Parent ]
Notable midwestners, (none / 0) (#44)
by zyx on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:43:47 PM EST
not just a few bloggers who take time off from their spring weekends' wanderings to check their computers, are upset with what Obama said.

Snark at us if you want to, but you might read this, too.  These people are Big Names In Small Towns.

Tom Vilsack

The mayors of Scranton, Sharon, Bethlehem, and Wilkes-Barre.

http://tinyurl.com/5znf7s

More, too, if you use Google News.

[ Parent ]

Not Snark (1.00 / 1) (#49)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:51:06 PM EST
IMO, TeresaInPa feels most, or all Obama supporters are morons going by her comments here at TL.  Besides, I voted for Clinton. But if you mean by "us" people whose candidate is akin to a Saint, I am not part of the cult.

[ Parent ]
All the talk, all the context (none / 0) (#62)
by blogtopus on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:09:41 PM EST
goes out the window with a 30 second attack ad.

Do the Math, squeaky. This is not the first time that he has put his hallowed wingtip in his holy pie-hole. He has sunk his own campaign.

He still has to show how he will survive a hostile media, and you KNOW it will be hostile. It's a choice between a condescending liberal or a war hero; again, do the Math.

Hillary has proven she can attract voters from all walks of life, Obama has proven there is no demographic he can't offend.

[ Parent ]

We'll See (none / 0) (#97)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:10:49 PM EST
Your opinion is noted. Will this sink him? That is the question posed by this thread. Will his teflon armor aka media darling status remain intact?

Stay tuned. My bet is that he will get a pass.

[ Parent ]

do not put words in my mouth (none / 0) (#213)
by TeresaInPa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:45:34 AM EST
  You will not speak for me, I am capable of doing that myself.  That is something both Obama and his followers need to learn.

when you put what Obama said in context it is even worse.  He was asked why he is having trouble in PA with DEMCORATIC voters.  We don't have an open primary here, and his answer was to characterize democrats in PA in the most insulting terms.  It was all about his ego.  People aren't voting for him in PA so they must be racist gun toting religious nut-jobs.  He is imply that all of his support comes from the cities and Clinton's all from the rural districts.  He could not be more wrong.  Take Scranton for example and Pittsburgh and probably Erie.  Lots of City folk and liberals and union voters and intellectuals prefer Hillary too.

[ Parent ]

Not Putting Words (none / 0) (#223)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:48:27 AM EST
In your mouth, I would not dream of it. As I said, based on my observations, imo, your comments here belie your distaste for Obama supporters. Mostly you have questioned their intelligence, you were even scratching your head about your siblings who are otherwise smart.

And I am not an Obama supporter, I voted for Clinton, but I do like Obama and will support the democratic nominee, whoever that may be.

And the rest of your diatribe seems off the mark, to me. At worst Obama said something that can be used against him by his enemies. I do not think he was in fact being elitist, and I do think that his remark was made because he truly believes that if he were elected President he can help those who have become bitter due to loss of hope.

And Clinton, for the sake of an easy shot, claimed that there are no bitter people in PA. Well I think that she believes that she can help the same people that she talks about here:

"Our American workers work harder and are more productive than anyone," she said. "And yet for too many, here in North Carolina and elsewhere, that hard work doesn't seem to be paying off."

Better phrasing for sure, but pretty much the same demographic. Obama was more specifically implied that he was talking about men, though.

[ Parent ]

Actually, Obama is the one (none / 0) (#141)
by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:50:13 PM EST
insulting people's intelligence, asking us to take him as a qualified candidate for the Presidency. Then he proceeds to eat shoe leather in various venues across the country. As for his supporters, well, "'Every one to their own taste', said the old lady as she kissed the cow."

[ Parent ]
can we now pronounce... (none / 0) (#131)
by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:31:48 PM EST
your media darling theory officially in pause mode if not complete stop mode?

I have noticed...
lead story on local news
lead story on CNN
big story in newspapers tomorrow across the country

I will bet that this will be the primary topic on Sunday talk shows (as opposed to Iraq and awful testimony by Petreus/Crocker this week).

This story is gathering steam and not at all going away.

[ Parent ]

It may be explained away but (none / 0) (#132)
by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:32:54 PM EST
That doesn't mean the voters are going to buy the explanation. We shall see what they say in the voting booth. The media can say whatever they want about what the candidates say, it's the voters who are going to decide who they agree with, not the media. And Obama has alienated a lot of voters. He thinks his charm and rhetoric can smooth it over, well, think again. He can't unsay what he said, no matter what it was.

He keeps trying to do that, with the full and vocal chorus of his supporters as an accompaniment. That still doesn't change what he said. And the more he explains himself, the deeper he digs himself in. He doesn't seem to be able to see that. He gets mad when people don't take him at his own valuation. Claims they don't understand change or can't see the hope he brings. Well, calling people too dumb to see or understand what he stands for is a really stupid way to try to get their votes.

By the time he gets finished nibbling on his own feet, he won't be able to get re-elected to the office he holds now, never mind the Presidency.

[ Parent ]

and (none / 0) (#66)
by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:11:56 PM EST
Let's not forget, the same people who will be discussing this in the media are of the same demos as the ones who laughed at obama's remarks in san fran.  Millionaire pundit class.

it never ceases to amaze me to hear the nantucket crew talk about "real americans".  Based on overnights in des moines during the caucuses.

[ Parent ]

This may be "just politics" (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:48:39 PM EST
but it's fair game.

He said it, Hillary and the media went after him on it.

[ Parent ]

And she got blamed (none / 0) (#103)
by mg7505 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:26:08 PM EST
for going after him. It became a referendum on Hillary instead of BHO. I wish McCain had laid it down so Hillary would be out of the line of fire. Of course then the major networks would just make up another reason to go after her.

[ Parent ]
From the incomparable DailyHowler (none / 0) (#145)
by ghost2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:59:50 PM EST
That's why democrats lose elections.

Peter Daou really gets it - May 2006


WE DON'T TRY HARDER:

WE DON'T TRY HARDER: In this morning's New York Times, John Harwood authors a fairly standard piece about John McCain's current advantages. But at one point, Harwood offers an unintentional, stinging indictment of liberal and Dem Party leadership:

HARWOOD (3/24/08): Democratic operatives have prepared a sustained attack against what they call myths underlying Mr. McCain's reputation for straight talk. ''It's going to take a while to tear that down,'' said Jim Jordan, a consultant who will lead a Democratic Party advertising campaign to aid its nominee. Lamenting the Clinton-Obama fight, Mr. Jordan added, "That's why it would be nice to get this over with as soon as possible."

That highlighted statement is revealing--and sad. Speaking of McCain's undeserved "reputation for straight talk," Jordan makes this pitiful statement: ''It's going to take a while to tear that down.''

...

The RNC (and the rest of the conservative world) would never have tolerated the sanctification of some Big Major Democrat of McCain's type. But liberals and Dems have stared into space as McCain has been endlessly vested with sainthood. By any normal interpretive standard, our liberal/Dem elites just don't seem to care. Judged in any normal way, they don't care who wins our elections.

We'll be exploring these themes all week. We've been number two--and we haven't tried harder! Why is that? we'll ask all week. Why is Jordan gearing up for a fight about McCain's public profile long after the fight has been lost?

It is no accident that Bob Somerby has the utmost contempt for the liberal columnists and liberal bloggers.  He once wrote that it's not the job of the candidate to take on the press; it is the job of the liberals in the media and blogs to fight back.  It's a point I agree with.  How many times can Gore or Clinton push back against the media?  It's not their job, and it makes them look petty.  

[ Parent ]

The Blogosphere Has Its Comeuppance? Boehlert's Revenge | 219 comments (219 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft