Saturday Night Live Pulls One Out for Hillary

(Updated to include video). Comments now closed.)

Do not miss the You Tube of Tina Fey's commentary on Saturday Night Live last night when it comes out. It was incredible. My DD has a rough transcript of the last part.

Tina Fey:I want to say something about those calling Hillary a b*tch...

Yeah, well she is...So am I, so is she (pointing at Weekend Update news host Amy Poehler.) Deal with it.

B*tches get sh*t done (Amy says yeah and starts nodding her head in rhythmn and saying more yeahs,uuh huhs and a you go girl.)

Like back in grammar school, they could have had priests teaching you but no, they had tough old nuns who sleep on cots and can hit ya and you HATE those b*tches. But the end of the school year you sure knew the capital of Vermont

So come on....Its not too late Texas and Ohio, get on board... B*tch is the new Black!


At Fey's first sentence, mentioning that Hillary was running for President, the audience started clapping. They laughed and clapped throughout. Who would have thought, an SNL audience that is not loudly pro-Obama. Maybe there's hope yet.

Also on the show during Weekend Update and very funny: Mike Huckabee. He pretended that he didn't know Republicans didn't have superdelegates who could vote for him. He said then he'd rely on miracles. When asked if he was staying in the race, he said at the right time, he'd get out with class and grace. Then he didn't leave the set when the anchors tried to prod him that his time was up. The YouTube video is up here.

Maybe McCain will implode. Maybe Obama won't pull it off. What a fun race that would be, Huckabee vs. Hillary. Of course, Republicans won't let it happen, they'll keep sending Independents to vote in Democratic primaries so Hillary doesn't get the nomination.

The Washington Times reports:

[recent] polls showed Mr. Obama was leading among independents by double digits in Texas and Ohio, the fastest-growing voting bloc in the electorate. Independents made up 22 percent of the vote in the 22 contested Democratic primaries held thus far, and Mr. Obama has won them by a margin of 64 percent to 33 percent, according to a tabulation conducted by the Associated Press.

Who's really picking our Democratic nominee? If it's the Democratic youth or African American voters, I'm okay with that. That's fair. If it's Republicans, I'm not. We'll get trounced in November. Without reliable stats to show Obama's support is from those who will for the Democrat in November, I'd say the best way to ensure Republicans stay out of our race and don't steal another election from us is for Dems to vote for Hillary to be the nominee.

As Tina Fey said, Get on board, Texas and Ohio.

< Can Obama Win the Red States? | Why Was Ralph Nader On My TV? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm on the West Coast (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by lisadawn82 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:10:51 AM EST
    I usually don't stay up this late but I guess tonight will have to be the exception.  Really want to watch SNL now.

    if you are a Hillary supporter, you will cheer (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:13:47 AM EST
    Stay up, for sure.

    Fantastic SNL (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Grey on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:40:00 AM EST
    Tina Fey was incredible!

    The opening skit was fantastic, too;  it took the media to task for loving Obama and, while recreating the last debate on CNN, said they were all "in the tank" for Obama.

    Great stuff tonight.

    The opening sketch was hilarious! (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by diplomatic on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:44:23 AM EST
    They did a re-enactment of the CNN debate and mocked the media for their ridiculous bias in favor of Obama.

    One of the questions to "Obama" was "Can we get you anything?" And another: "Are you mad at me?"

    At one point "Hillary" tried to interrupt and they scolded her and told her she owed everyone  an "Obamapology"

    The funniest moment for me though was when the woman playing Campbell Brown had just finished listening to one of Obama's answers and she looked to be having a very intimate uhhh reaction like a tingle in her leg, some might say.

    Yes! (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Grey on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:47:12 AM EST
    It was pure comedy platinum.

    It was doubly good, because the media had been saying that Clinton was benefiting from SNL not being on air because surely the show would kill her.  Yeah, not so much with that, eh?

    Looks like the media were wrong.



    I thought that also (none / 0) (#14)
    by diplomatic on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:48:37 AM EST
    Maybe they will make up for it next Saturday and treat her like dirt.  I'll be honest:  I was one of those people who expected that they would try to make her look very bad and Obama very good.

    Also: there was a cameo by Obama-girl (none / 0) (#10)
    by diplomatic on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:44:54 AM EST
    3 points (none / 0) (#16)
    by Grey on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:54:57 AM EST
    That was actually funny, and I can't stand Obama Girl.

    (I also loved Clinton's 3-point plan response to her song!)


    Did they? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:41:52 AM EST
    THAT I would like to see.

    Well I chucked a bit at this Tina Fey bit, it did nto strike me as all that good a bit.


    the opening is available (none / 0) (#100)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:45:41 AM EST
    via the NBC link in a post below.  it's darn funny.

    if the tabloids have their way (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by thereyougo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:44:53 AM EST
    Obama is having a Reversal of fortune. I hope he's ready. Hillary is a tough old lady. Don't count her out just yet.

    I'm happy to hear Hillary stay on message and not let the rumors that her advisors want her to go negative.

    Actually (none / 0) (#36)
    by marcellus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:47:57 AM EST
    Hillary is trying to provoke Obama into a mistake.
    The conciliatory gesture at the Texas debate, and then the "shame on you"/Karl Rove/Bush attacks a few days later, for an offense she knew about prior to the Texas debate.  Completely off message, but if she can get him to blow up in the Ohio debate it's her best chance.

    Happens (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by tek on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:58:31 AM EST
    to also be the truth. Although Obama's people falsely attribute those tactics to Clinton, it really is Obama who's following Rove's strategy.  Interesting, it also works on liberals. The articles bragging about how well Obama is "framing" the campaign testify to Obama's devotion to Rove.

    Speaking of tough old lady (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:05:09 AM EST
    Did anyone watch the Black State of the Union.  Man, I watched it and it was a tough crowd, but she sure came through.  I wonder if Obama could ever withstand being in a group that offered a myriad of minefields and do as well as she did.  I have to give it to her.  She was clear, brave and true to her sefl.  

    BSotU (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Grey on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:20:48 AM EST
    I watched all day and Clinton was so good that she won over the crowd over by the end of the Q&A.

    She is an impressive person.


    Character (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:12:10 AM EST
    It takes character to talk to a crowd you know is against you.

    MO yelled at Obama's advisors to make sure he never has to.


    Watched it (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:32:43 AM EST
    My Lord, she was brave. Most of that audience made up their minds for BO I'm sure but she just got up there and presented.

    Travis Smiley kept saying "glad you showed up"...


    2nd year in a row Obama didn't show (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:38:52 AM EST
    at the State of the Black Union.  Last year, he just happened to schedule his campaign kickoff then . . . although it would seem that even so, he might have been able to fit in two events in one day.  It has been known to happen, huh?

    Or why wasn't Michelle Obama available to be there to say she is proud of the state of the Black Union?  


    It (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by tek on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:45:52 AM EST
    seems unclear why Michelle Obama didn't go to it. The offer was made. In the coverage I saw, Tavis Smiley didn't respond to the offer of Michelle and instead began to criticize Barack for not going. So, maybe they didn't want a substitute, or maybe she was afraid to be on the same stage as Hillary. She certainly has made some scathing remarks about a woman who was a great First Lady.

    Btw, turns out that Michelle Obama (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:05:16 AM EST
    used the "first time I've been proud of my country" line not once but twice in Wisconsin -- in Madison as well as in Milwaukee.  It wasn't a misstatement.

    It was a big, big mistake.


    Turned her down (none / 0) (#161)
    by delandjim on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:43:01 AM EST
    She offered to do it but they turned her down.

    Smiley is taking heat for Obama's decision! (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:51:38 AM EST
    Smiley has been vocal about his disapproval of Obama's decision.

    "I think it's a missed opportunity on Mr. Obama's part," Smiley told CNN. "Now, I am not interested in demonizing him for his choice, but I do disagree with it." Video Watch a report on the controversy »

    But Smiley's criticism has also prompted many people to come to Obama's defense. The talk show host told The Washington Post he has been inundated with angry e-mails and even death threats.

    "I have family in Indianapolis. They are harassing my momma, harassing my brother. It's getting to be crazy," Smiley told the newspaper.



    I watched it all (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:16:57 AM EST
    start to finish and boy, it was more than a tough crowd...I'd say a lot of hostility in that audience...set up by Al Sharpton and others prior to Hillary's arrival.

    It is evident to me that a significant portion of the AA audience, if not their whole community, now feel some sort of entitlement to an Obama win in this primary...that if he doesn't win, it will only be because Hillary 'stole the election.'  That meme was set up re questions to her about superdelegates and Fla and Michigan, etc...primed by Sharpton & others.

    Not. Good.

    If Hillary wins, she'll have to put him on the ticket to keep them on board.


    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by Foxx on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:58:59 AM EST
    I think riots are a real possibility if she should win the nomination.

    How I wish I could say the same of women if he gets the nomination.


    Stellaaa, are you getting (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:15:58 AM EST
    any sleep at all over there?  You are omnipresent here, complete with links.  Impressive, espec. you Alinsky stuff.

    I don't sleep in my time zone (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:26:09 AM EST
    when I am in other time zones...I don't either.  I got a good wireless connection and managed to watch the event on cspan.  It was very interesting, but I was amazed at her courage, she is something.  

    I lived the Alinsky stuff.  Best part is that we would say, community organizers got coopted sometime in the early 90's, they distract communities with process, while politicians sell the ground right under them.  That is what I think of the Obama organizing style.  


    Your comments on Alinsky made it (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:28:19 AM EST
    quite clear to me why speak out on Rezko's community redevelopment scams.

    Thank you.....!! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:35:48 AM EST
    that is why in my core I don't buy the Obama story.  He has done so little and that which he has done, well is not that good.  

    Well then luckily... (none / 0) (#48)
    by marcellus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:46:39 AM EST
    ...Obama did his main community organizing in the 80's before it got coopted?? :)  In the 90's, he was president of the Harvard Law Review, civil rights lawyer, lecturer in constitutional law at the Univ. of Chicago, and a state senator in Illinois.
    What are your main concerns about the ineffectiveness of his community organizing?  Do you think he's naive? incompetent? corrupt?

    Simple (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:56:45 AM EST
    As a community organizer he should have known when the Rezko deals were going under and not said that it was the "neighborhood demographics" that made the projects go under.  He stood by his donor and threw the community under the bus.
    His answer below tells me that he stands for nothing and will stand up for nothing.  
       Q: Many Rezmar government-financed housing deals have ended up in legal battles, including foreclosure. Several Rezmar buildings are now boarded up, and others are in need of major repairs. Taxpayers have lost millions of dollars on these deals. While Senator Obama has called Mr. Rezko a legal client, campaign contributor and a friend, there's ample evidence that Mr. Rezko was a slum landlord. Was the senator aware then that Mr. Rezko's projects were deeply mired in physical and financial problems? Does the senator think it is fair to characterize Mr. Rezko as a slum landlord?

        Answer: Housing partnerships in which low-income-housing tax credits are syndicated frequently struggle financially. The reasons for the problems such partnerships struggle are complex but frequently include urban crime, demographic changes and social factors outside the control of any developer or owner. Senator Obama was not otherwise aware of financial and physical problems attributable to misconduct by Mr. Rezko

    sun times

    An enterprising reporter (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:04:43 AM EST
    would go looking for the 'community organizers' who were active in his state senate district while Obama was in the legislature.

    If low-income housing was going belly-up in my legislative district, everyone from Community Action to the County Commissioners and Dept. of Health would have been all over it with our legislators...raising alarms and demanding action.  

    A legislative district isn't that big and any representative or senator who professes not to know about such a huge issue in his own district is either incompetent or insensitive...or possibly, corrupt.  Those are the only explanations.  So, which is it?


    Ok, thanks (none / 0) (#119)
    by marcellus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:59:45 AM EST
    I'll keep this in mind.

    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by tek on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:42:40 AM EST
    on all counts.  If I thought he were a good man, I might vote for him. I'm from Illinois, I know better.

    I'm also from Chicago (none / 0) (#123)
    by marcellus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:02:46 AM EST
    and I disagree.  I've seen too much evidence that he is a good man, and I know what it takes to survive sometimes.  I'll look into the corruption charges in more detail.

    I watched (none / 0) (#37)
    by marcellus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:52:28 AM EST
    the BSotU and Hillary did very well.  
    I have also seen Barack Obama perform well under hostile situations-dealing with fervent anti-abortionists for example.

    This was a good day (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by facta non verba on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:18:57 AM EST
    for Mrs. Clinton. First the shame on you Barack Obama  speech in Cincinnati and now this.

    I've been on the fence really since Edwards left the race. I clearly dislike Obama but that did not translate in support for Hillary until now.

    Sending her cheque on Monday.

    Well, I'm headed to bed now (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:21:28 AM EST
    So you all carry on and I'll see you tomorrow. Thanks for stopping by so often, we're getting a great community here.

    You will have to clean up the comments (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:40:07 AM EST
    There was both Clinton and Obama personal attacks that I jettisoned.

    That was good, instant classic (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:32:22 AM EST
    You don't have to be a Hillary supporter to like this episode of SNL - it was the funniest in years.

    It's still on out here, I gotta go.

    Mean-spirited, substanceless attacks ... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by cymro on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:41:28 AM EST
    ... have been the media's standard response to Hillary throughout the campaign, and for years before that too. If all her supporters went to DK and complained like this every time it happened, those adoring posts about Obama would be few and far between indeed.

    Now that the media has annointed Obama as the "front-runner" (even though in reality the race is far from over), you'd better get used to it happening, and not be so thin-skinned about it. But come back here and sing that song again when it starts happening to Obama fify times a day, and we may think it's a movement. Then we'll greet you with a more sympathetic response, like "Welcome to the club"!

    OK (none / 0) (#54)
    by marcellus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:14:00 AM EST
    As an Obama supporter I'll hold you to that if and when it's decided...

    For all of you that that link didnt work for like (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:45:40 AM EST
    me, here is another link to a Utube of the skit....

    Drop PEnnsyvania (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:29:57 AM EST
    Hillary does better there.

    As she does in Ohio and Florida.

    This is a big problem.

    I am in Penna and that will tell the story (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:47:20 AM EST
    I know the open primaries are a problem. Only Dems and Republicans can vote in our primary. I happen to live in a Republican county, Wayne. The only reason Carney beat Sherwood was that Sherwood was such a scum that when my staunch Republican friends voted, they just did not vote for either. But trust me, they would vote for McCain. There is no way they would vote for Hillary or Obama. Unless, you know the scenario. BTW, and this might be a lame question but I do not know the answer. Who decided for these open primaries? The State's Democratic Parties?

    Youtube video (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ghost2 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:36:00 AM EST
    Come on, Tang -- in Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:42:57 AM EST
    Clinton got more votes than all GOP candidates combined in Wisconsin this week.  She got more than 125,000 more votes than Kerry did in Wisconsin in 2004 (453,000 to 328,000) -- more votes than both Edwards and Dean got in Wisconsin in 2004.

    I know those results, so I know you're wrong on my state, so I can only presume you're wrong on the others unless you prove/link otherwise.  

    let's be candid, shall we? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by frankly0 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:31:55 AM EST
    The point of insults is to get those in the middle, who are not already firmly committed to one side or the other, to see the opposite side as defective.

    No one seriously expects to convert dedicated followers of the other side. The point is always to get at those in the middle, to build on their pre-existing doubts, and to get them to turn away from the other side.

    Can we allow at least that much subtlety in our thinking?

    let's look at Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:51:18 AM EST
    unfavorable ratings, too, then.

    To pretend that he is universally adored by everyone except a few rogue "elderly women" at TL is incredibly naive.  

    Obama repeatedly called Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:15:25 AM EST
    "Bush-Cheney lite".  I suppose that's just fine eith you?

    Fey's Tirade was Tired! (1.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Politigirl26 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:23:25 AM EST
    Fey's tirade just reminded me how out of touch SNL really is.  Plus, it was just a bit heavy-handed --  why not give the American public credit enough to come out overwhelmingly for Obama without either being "duped" by the press or being somehow misogynistic? B*tch is the new black?  Really?  This proto-feminist affirmative action plan for Hillary is insulting to thinking women -- why not give her credit for simply running an awful campaign?  

    Stick to comedy... (1.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Dadler on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    ...Never known a b*tch who got anything done.  Just like I've nevr known a d*ck who did.  Unfunny, uninsightful, irrelevant.  Pathetic is the better word.  We know absolutely NOTHING about either of these candidates besides what they are willing to show us, which, at this point, is almost nothing.  B*thches get things done?  Right.  Fey seems to stupid to realize that when she things she's doing satire she's merely REINFORCING the stereotypes she thinks she's breaking.  Par for the Hollywood course.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#4)
    by Korha on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:23:52 AM EST
    Your theory seems unlikely. Obama now has a popular vote margin of 925,000 (300,000 including MI/FL). Can this really be explained by a Republican conspiracy to destroy Hillary Clinton?

    It's possible that democratic-leaning independents just like the guy.

    As for "reliable stats" concerning electability, obviously that doesn't really exist this far out before the election. However, the closest thing we have to that, polling, shows Obama doing significantly better in a number of important swing states.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by sas on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:02:45 AM EST
    it can be explained by a Republican conspiracy.

    Registered Democrats have voted for Hillary over Obama.  

    Some primaries allow Republicans, independents, and
    Democrats to vote in any primary they want.

    They know Obama will be the weaker challenger.  As Pat Buchanon said, it'll only take about two weeks to bring him to the ground.

    Remember Daily Kos' pitch for Democrats to vite for Romney over McCain in Michigan?  It worked.

    Oh, by the way, Obama is NOT doing better in Ohio , Florida, and Pennsylvania -three states the Democrats need.


    It's very (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by tek on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:50:03 AM EST
    troubling.  I wondered how the Republicans would steal yet another election and now we know.  How sad and even sadder that the Democrats once again have not been smart enough to counter this corruption. Instead, they've divided and damaged their own party to make it even easier for the Republicans to win.

    Wonder if we ran Hillary on an independent ticket? Couldn't hurt and at least half of the Democrats (former Democrats) wouldn't have to feel that we are compromising our vote.


    Yes and No (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:05:14 AM EST
    The problem Lies that he has won were people other than registered Democrats are allowed to participate.  The Democrat for a day effect.  Also, if you are to believe exit polls, aside from the AA vote and maybe the youth vote he is losing among the rest of the Registered Democrats demographics.  A conspiracy no if you think of a conspiracy as sitting around a table and planning.  But having sites and people urging Republicans and Independents to be Democrats for a Day in hopes of bringing out the Anti-Hilary voters that I've seen.

    Speaking of reliable stats (none / 0) (#102)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:46:27 AM EST
    I really don't get yours in your first sentence.  Explicate them more, please?

    Like Florida, and Ohio? (none / 0) (#117)
    by annabelly on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:58:47 AM EST
    'Cause he's lost one, and the other hasn't even happened yet. So I guess we'll see.

    You are misrepresenting that GOP group Jeralyn (none / 0) (#5)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:32:49 AM EST
    did you bother to click around there a bit?

    Yes, they are urging Republicans to go out and vote for Obama in the primary,


    From their most recent post before the one you link:

    "HELLO MY FELLOW CHRISTIANS REPUBLICANS i plead to you that we vote for change this year our party has let us down they have lied to the american people and have involved us in a war that should have never been authorized, i belong to the national baptist convention which we are over 9 million strong, and half of them are dem, i personally have changed from rep to dem to vote for obama, he represents change and he represents hope for america i dont want INSANE MCCAIN leading the country he is just another BUSH in the white house, so we republicans need to stand together to get obama elected, we have a saying in my church OBAMA FOR JESUS AND OBAMA FOR PRESIDENCY IN 2008 please give me your thoughts on this matter "

    Hey, I'll take votes from wherever....

    But thank you for disproving your point.

    Huh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Korha on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:41:44 AM EST
    Didn't even notice that, but you're right.

    However I do have to admit that site is pretty wacked.


    yeah, and to that point (none / 0) (#11)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:44:56 AM EST
    there have been links to several anti-Obama sites here recently, to make the point about the Obama "fever" breaking or something...

    Are we forgetting that having a website does not a group make? One nut job with too much time on his or her hands can make lots of political-looking websites, saying lots of different things, and giving themselves all kinds of fancy names.

    I imagine we will be inundated with this stuff this year.


    Did you watch SNL? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by diplomatic on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:47:22 AM EST
    Speaking of fevers, in the opening sketch they said that John King character was having a "Barack Attack" and there were references to other kinds of Obama-sounding diseases.

    I think there is a danger for Obama that this fever/cult narrative is catching on.


    You know... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Siguy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:54:47 AM EST
    Winning independents is not a bad thing. It's especially important against Mr. Fake Independent John McCain. It expands the party.

    I still don't understand (none / 0) (#27)
    by fuzzyone on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:45:22 AM EST
    the Republicans want Obama to win so they can vote against him in November theory.  Every major republican I have seen speak on the subject says they would rather face Hillary, which makes sense since she will energize their base in a way McCain won't.  What is the evidence that the independents won't vote for him in November?  What is the evidence Hillary is more likely to win?  He has better numbers v. McCain in all the polls I've seen.   I just find the whole argument bizzare

    Fanstasy (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:12:22 AM EST
    Anything that predicts the General Election at this point is fantasy and a war of nerves.   I don't believe the polls saying Obama would win or that Hillary would lose.  Remember, after the primaries the Dems were predicted as blow out winners from Dukakis on, look how well they did.  

    I do contend that they are wrong on the Bradley effect.  Democratic Californians voted for Bradley in the primary, in the General Election, that is when the Bradley effect took place, people saying they would vote for an AA candidate, but then in the end voting for the Republican. I don't trust the indie and Republican voter to cross over.  


    We should not (none / 0) (#35)
    by marcellus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:35:40 AM EST
    let the fear of Republican bigotry influence our choice of Democratic candidate.  

    It's not fear... (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:16:41 AM EST
    it's knowledge and experience.  This voter has both and I always allow them to influence my choice of candidates, from county sheriff to presidential nominee.

    And BTW...bigotry, like misogyny, is not limited to Republicans.  It's everywhere...and that's the problem.  To deny this is to deny reality.

    Voters' reality in the general election is not the same as in a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY where a female and a black can lull us into a dreamworld where the rest of the electorate is more like us than not.



    Didn't (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by tek on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:01:10 AM EST
    occur to you that the Republicans are lying that they would rather face Hillary because they really are afraid of her?  Have you ever known the Republicans to show their hand to the opposition to make themselves vulnerable?  It's simple reverse psychology.

    there is no evidence (none / 0) (#28)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:59:04 AM EST
    it is a faith-based argument.

    If you look at the polls (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:02:06 AM EST
    Obama is the new Dukakis.

    Why Hillary Clinton isn't doing better (none / 0) (#30)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:13:43 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton, assuming the Democratic nomination was hers, designed her campaign for the general election, running as "Republican"-lite. Along came Barack Obama, who understands the human psyche very well, and who also wants to be president. He shadows Hillary Clinton's moves. He votes, with exceptions where necessary, for what she votes for, against what she votes against. Therefore she cannot attack his voting record without attacking her own. She doesn't know what to do. In desperation, she attacks his eloquence, and thus praises him. She calls his words empty. He does not react like the other Democrats would. He does not cry out "Shame on you!" He doesn't threaten to tell his mommy. Instead he highlights the emptiness of the Washington establishment, thus turning Ms. Clinton's words against her. John McCain gets sucked in, too, calling Obama's words empty, just as his own hypocrisy and tendency to lie is put on display by his reaction to the NYT story. And it doesn't stop, situations like this keep happening, and Obama goes with the flow.

    Maybe she is not doing so bad.. (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:37:27 AM EST
    delegate math

    Washington establishment:  Kennedy, Kerry..etc...etc.  The hand picked candidate of the establishment, packaged to confuse the innocent as the outsider by Axelrod and Company.   Looking for authenticity still a struggle when it comes to the wunder kind that was anointed by the MSM, blogs and the establishment as the agent of change illusion, but preserving the corporatist status quo that is America on the backs of the working class.

    Just curios, if he is so different, why are 90% of his advisers ex Clinton advisers?  I would have thought he had scoured the coutry for new faces, new voices.  Just satisfied with copy and paste.


    Good SNL (none / 0) (#34)
    by marcellus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:32:54 AM EST
    Tina Fey is funny.
    Republicans picking a weak candidate is a stretch because there's no consensus as to which opponent is weaker.  If you had to pick one, follow the money...and judging from the funding difficulties, Clinton is the weaker candidate.

    Well (none / 0) (#51)
    by marcellus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:07:01 AM EST
    It is in NY and it was funny.  Al Gore as kind of a modern day Gerald Ford?  Well he is/was stiff and that writes itself.
    Why all the personal-characteristics Hillary hate from you though?

    AS a friend of mine once responded to (none / 0) (#56)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:22:31 AM EST
    being called a *ITCH, "you ain't seen *ITCH yet...."

    According to the Chicago Tribne (none / 0) (#61)
    by marcellus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:45:48 AM EST
    Jan.23, 2008
    "And a Tribune review of land and court documents and law firm files as well as correspondence and other records related to Obama's eight years as an Illinois state lawmaker supports his contention that he did not directly represent Rezko's development firm. Instead, the records show, he represented non-profit community groups that partnered with Rezko's firm."

    "Law firm partner Judson Miner said that, over several years, Obama did a total of five to seven hours of billable work on Rezmar-linked projects. He mainly filed incorporation papers for the non-profit groups under the supervision of more senior attorneys, Miner said."

    This is misleading (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:48:13 AM EST
    The bills went to the non-profit but were paid by Rezko.

    This is a non-issue, there is nothing wrong with having done perfectly appropriate legal work for Rezko in that time period.

    Hillary's attack was wrong, but then so was Obama's Wal-Mart attack.


    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:10:42 AM EST
    I think it matters because the man who is running on transparency, good judgment and high moral character is playing politics as usual.

    The centerpiece of the Obama campaign is that he is a man of uncompromising character and good judgment.  The issue here is not who paid what bill, but the fact that Obama is, in fact, just another politician playing the political game.

    Same with the plagiarism, same with the healthcare and NATO mailers.  

    You cannot at once be above it all while you are still in the gutter slinging attacks.


    land and court documents (none / 0) (#64)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:55:37 AM EST
    are not billable hours.

    So you're saying (none / 0) (#75)
    by marcellus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:05:28 AM EST
    this partner is lying or not releasing some other information?

    I am saying he is playing a game (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:48:47 AM EST
    HE did not say WHO paid for those bills. IT was Rezko I assure you.

    I am not saying that anyone is lying (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    I am saying release his billable hours so we know exactly how much time Obama spent on Rezko business.

    In the debate, he said something about "that individual" when in fact, the individual was a close friend.

    Later, Obama said he'd seen the man maybe a couple of times a year.  An FBI mole said that Obama routinely visited Rezko.

    Obama wrote letters supporting Rezko and popped in on business meetings to show that Rezko had the support of a US senator.

    I'm not making charges of lies or underhandedness, I'm saying if Obama is for transparency, then transparency starts at home.

    To demand Clinton's as yet unfiled tax returns, to start the rumor that somehow the 5mm was tainted, is dishonest.

    Again we have an instance where Obama is asked tough questions and his response is to say, "But Clinton did...." (fill in the blank)

    If-IF-he makes it to the ge, who is he going to use as his straw man then?  


    In case Youtube takes down the clips (none / 0) (#62)
    by stillife on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:48:47 AM EST
    both the Tina Fey clip and the Yes we CAN take sides! debate skit are available on NBC's website.

    Lets just say she has not had to (none / 0) (#65)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:57:55 AM EST
    resort to disenfranchising voters a la Obama.

    LOL (none / 0) (#176)
    by Raheem on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:51:54 AM EST
    Obama disenfranchised Florida voters... LMAO...

    I was not talking about Fl (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    Link I was talking about when he was running for state office in IL

    an issue to whom? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:59:34 AM EST
    The Obama campaign?  Marcellus, you are smarter than this and you have surely been told this information before.

    Hillary Clinton was paid 8mm for her last book.  She is a millionaire in her own right.  She does not need to "borrow" the money from her husband.   She has stated that the 5mm is a loan to the campaign.  By law, she has to charge interest.  She will not collect this debt until the campaign is over.

    I didn't say she would release her tax returns on 15 April.  I said that she will release them when she is a presidential contender, as is the historical pattern.  

    Her tax returns are a false issue and to keep bringing them up again and again as if they point to some nefarious dealings is misleading.

    Now, what do you, marcellus, say to my question about Obama's refusal to have records of his BILLABLE HOURS released?

    I'm not looking for anything nefarious (none / 0) (#77)
    by marcellus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:13:20 AM EST
    Also I know she's earned plenty on her book, plus Bill gets a lot for speaking and joint money is joint money.  What I'm more interested in is keeping a budget and bookkeeping -- and more for the campaign than their personal lives.  But being a presidential candidate there is a historical precedent for using that personal information to base a judgment also.

    Ok, this is my last whine about taxes (none / 0) (#87)
    by marcellus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:34:06 AM EST
    And then I'll let it go. Please feel free to ignore because it's anti-Clinton.

    The reason I feel uncomfortable about the issue is because I know from behind-the-scenes PBS pledge drives that they bring up the hard sell, and proverbial "little old ladies" think they have to give their last bit or the channel will go off the air, while in reality PBS has lots of money.  This reminds of the loan, and infomercial, and mentioning the website at every speech..

    I promise I won't bring it up again.


    marcellus (none / 0) (#135)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:12:11 AM EST
    honestly, you are free to say whatever you like, just as I am.  We can disagree with each other and it's not the end of the world.

    They (none / 0) (#76)
    by sas on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:11:40 AM EST
    are not running.

    Grouping Hillary with Bill as you do, shows you do not think her apart from her husband.

    If he would run again, would you use the term Billary?

    I deleted Willie Starks sexiist comments (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:32:52 AM EST
    SNL (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jazzharp on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:28:54 AM EST
    Just read some of these comments, and I have to say I'm surprised at the foolishness.  Example, Republicans voting for Obama cause they want him to be the nominee.  I live in Wisconsin, and just the opposite was true.  The right wing radionuts were pushing the "Vote for Hillary" meme pretty strongly, because they think she is the easiest to beat.  I saw SNL last night and was surprised at the obvious pro Hillary spin.  Mind you, I like Hillary and will vote for her in the election, but cheeeses christ that was bad.  Almost as bad as Cookie Roberts this morning on Steponallofus saying "Young people will not vote in the national election."  These round tables have very sharp edges!

    You may be the only commenter (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:39:36 AM EST
    from Wisconsin who says that?  There are several other Wisconsin residents here who say "vote Obama" was the message of the day for republicans.  It certainly is "vote Obama" for them here in Texas.

    You may be the only commenter... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Jazzharp on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:47:47 AM EST
    Anyone out there from Milwaukee?  This was even reported in the papers!  Help me out here, cause this is the first I've heard of any "Vote Obama" Repub push in Wisconsin.  I don't know about Texas, but I do know what I heard on the radio, and read in the papers.

    Here we go again (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:20:46 AM EST
    The Wisconsin conservative blogs are replete with advice for Indies to go for Obama, with commenters saying they would or did do so; the conservative squawk shows (Sykes, Belling) pushed him as the one to beat, etc.  

    And on the front page of the conservative Journal Sentinel, the Sunday paper with the leading statewide circulation to millions, this topped the story headlined "Advantage for Obama,"  Maybe it's too subtle for you, so you didn't decode it?  It is obvious from the returns, though, county by county.  See my previous posts, especially on solid-red Waukesha County going two-to-one for Dems, especially for Obama, and as it is one of the most populated counties in Wisconsin -- filled with white-flighters from Milwaukee, as you no doubt know.  

    Those Repubs read the following on the front page before the election -- again, for just one example:

    "The most likely beneficiary of that [crossover] nario appears to be Democrat Barack Obama, who has consistently done better than rival Hillary Rodham Clinton with independent voters in this year's primaries and caucuses.

    "'If those independents cross over into the Democratic primary, they really could add to Obama's support,' said Charles Franklin, an expert on polling data and trends at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    "'Voting by independents is often going to be a case where . . . they have McCain and Obama (first), in various order,' Franklin said. 'They probably have her (Clinton) third in that group.'

    In a recent national poll of U.S. adults by the Pew Research Center, McCain and Obama were the only two candidates in either party rated favorably by more than half of self-identified independents - McCain by 53% and Obama by 62%. . . ."

    "Both candidates do very well among independents. The question is, in an open primary, who gets the lion's share of that vote?" said Pew's Carroll Doherty before McCain rival Mitt Romney dropped out Thursday, raising doubts about how much interest the state's GOP primary now will attract.


    Here we go again (none / 0) (#154)
    by Jazzharp on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    Too subtle for me?  Seems dismissive.  I would say what my Republican friends are saying. (and there are nothing BUT here in Stoughton)  They don't want the Bush crap to continue, and they like Obama.  That is why the crossover.  I don't doubt you, when you recite your facts, but Lee Rayburn was quoting Milwaukee right wing radio.

    Cream City is from Milwaukee (none / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:56:23 AM EST
    and she reported the opposite of you.

    Cream City (none / 0) (#144)
    by Jazzharp on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:19:34 AM EST
    may have reported the opposite, but does that mean she trumps me?  I'm not making this up to trash Hillary, whom I like, I'm just saying it was news around here.  The reason I mentioned Milwaukee is because Lee Rayburn reported it on The Mic.  A station saved by a progressive populace.

    Of course, I don't trump you (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:35:20 AM EST
    I don't know you, where you're from, never saw you here before now.  But the evidence trumps you -- see upthread, see earlier posts on returns and reports.

    Feel free, though, to provide other evidence for your point.  I would be delighted to feel better about my state that keeps doing stupid stuff and calling it "maverick" -- as in 1964, when Wisconsin gave George Wallace his big vote in the primaries.

    (I wasn't old enough to vote then, just old enough to help my mother and a family friend, a war hero lionized by the locals, go to our local city hall then in one of the towns that gave Wallace first place -- and I watched them take down the American flag and replace it with a Confederate flag. . . .)


    It was (none / 0) (#175)
    by Jazzharp on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    Big Tent whom I was responding to.  Your evidence trumps me.  You win.  Guess I'm not relevant since I've never been here before.  I'll go back to my shell now.  I guess I shouldn't listen to Lee Rayburn either, since he's been trumped as well.  Too subtle for me.

    Keep your comments on topic (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:36:35 AM EST
    IF you are rpelying to a particular comment, attach your reply to the comment.

    As is, it is off topic and will be deleted.


    Keep your comments... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jazzharp on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:41:19 AM EST
    I was replying to most of the comments.  Sorry, I'll try to be more specific in the future.  

    Thanks (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:44:00 AM EST
    Reply to SPECIFIC comments. That way I can zero in on off topic and candidate personal attack comments, which I am trying to eliminate here.

    I deleted Willie Starks sexist comments (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:32:23 AM EST
    Sorry for those of you who responded.

    We do not tolerate sexist or racist comments here.

    Keep ypur comment ON topic (none / 0) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:35:42 AM EST
    Tano, Frank Rich's column was NOT on topic.

    Wait for an Open Thread to insert your blasts.

    SNL (none / 0) (#103)
    by dem08 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:47:24 AM EST
    I was impressed with how clearly the show was rooting FOR Hillary and AGAINST Obama. And then they gave a great feature to Huckabee, too as you say.

    The only other comedian who directly urges his audience to vote for a candidate is Rush Limbaugh.

    It will be interesting to see how much SNL will actively campaign for Hillary and against Obama.

    Fred Armison, who is one of my favorite cast members, was an embarrassing failure as Obama. He delivered about a dozen words total and looked like even he knew he was bad

    Tina Fey (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:55:43 AM EST
    is the driving voice of SNL so it seems clear that she had a pro-Hillary agenda last night.

    But from what I can tell a lot of it was in reaction to the sexist Media coverage she has seen.

    Her reaction seems understandable to me.


    Tina Fey (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jazzharp on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:59:10 AM EST
    whom I like, is not on SNL any longer, so how can she be the driving voice?

    For this episode (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:04:26 AM EST
    IT seems she was.

    she used to be the head writer (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:14:35 AM EST
    for SNL and a lot of her friends are still there.  She was also the guest host, was she not?  Which gives her some power.

    The fact is, the woman is hilarious and they'd be crazy not to listen to her.  Those sketches were GOLD.  Reminded me of way back when I used to actually like watching SNL.


    Was (none / 0) (#148)
    by Jazzharp on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:24:35 AM EST
    ain't is.

    This show (none / 0) (#158)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:40:10 AM EST
    she was on right?

    I assume she had a hand in it.


    Yes, she had a hand in it (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:55:18 AM EST
    unless someone is suggesting that an evil-doer behind the scenes put words into Tina Fey's mouth?

    I mean...wtf?  This stretches incredulity even for Obamaphiles.

    Tina Fey is a brilliant woman, a comedic genius, with one of the most popular shows on television.  She is an excellent writer and was head writer on SNL for years.  Are you saying that she was somehow "tricked' into doing that monologue?

    This is just ridiculous.


    Your (none / 0) (#181)
    by Jazzharp on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:56:26 AM EST
    original post said she is the driving voice of SNL, not the show last night.  That is what I was responding to.  (And yes, I'm sure she had a hand in it last night!)

    SNL (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jazzharp on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:50:24 AM EST
    I agree with you.  Did they choose Armison on purpose?

    Reversal of Fortune eh? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Mystic55 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:00:02 AM EST
    Well see, a lot of us who are democrats, who are not Hillary fans are angry.  Very angry.  And we were willing to forgive Hillary on Thursday when she offered a conciliatory tone, and we weren't happy about this Shame on Obama/Karl Rove crap.  

    You keep talking about registered democrats supporting Hillary more, but see we have different polls that say that more support Obama.

    And given that we are the youth, what you should care about is that we're going to clean out the entire party, especially the super delegates and replace them with another generation.  Our enthusiasm isn't going away, and unless you've got the fountain of youth, our enthusiasm isn't just going to go away...

    We CAN forgive, but we are never going to forget.

    If she loses on the 4th, she'd better drop out, because at that point, there will be no forgiveness either.

    Being that we were the youth of the 60's (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:05:09 AM EST
    who were out to reform both parties and ended up with more corruption in both parties" I wish you LUCK"

    No (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:05:35 AM EST
    There are NO polls that show Obama leading among registered Democrats. That is false.

    HE has led in polls of Dem. primary participants, but not by much.

    His lead is based on Independent and Republican support.


    we all need to forgive (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:06:14 AM EST
    because what will be truly unforgivable is if we get another four years of GOP presidency.

    Who's asking for any forgiveness? (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:09:46 AM EST
    Before cleaning out the entire party, perhaps you should take over your local precinct and start there.  Personally, I think this may go right to the convention.  Since it's come this far, maybe the voters in PA would like their say in this?

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:13:37 AM EST
    The guy up top said that there won't be any forgiveness.  I replied said that there needs to be lest McCain win.  Is there something wrong with my statement?


    Thnx! (none / 0) (#143)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:19:23 AM EST
    sometimes it's hard to figure out who's reply to whom.  Thanks.

    Sorry, my comment (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    wasn't to you.  You're perfectly reasonable from my perspective.

    I really don't know when running for president became an offense which required forgiveness on the part of either candidate.  Since neither candidate will get a sufficient majority of delegates to win outright, I'm not sure why either should drop out before the convention.  But it may look different after the 4th.  I still think it should run through PA so those voters are not disenfranchised.


    Like me, (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:51:18 AM EST
    In Pennsylvania.

    And my friends in Florida who are annoyed at their vote not counting?


    Your comment is off topic (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by herb the verb on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:45:37 AM EST
    but in case it isn't deleted, if you are upset about the Rove/Obama comparison, maybe you should hope that Obama's campaign would stop using those tactics against another democrat. Makes more sense than being upset that Hillary would push back against it.

    I will admit that it was awfully gracious of you to be "willing to forgive" Hillary when you felt she was sufficiently conciliatory. After all, a woman does have to know her place, right? Kind of the theme these days apparently.


    Rovian tactics indeed. (none / 0) (#195)
    by fuzzyone on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:13:01 AM EST
    How about this from Hillary

    The attack was the Obama flyers (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    repeating retracted media misquotes, misrepresenting, etc., as we have seen too often from Obama.  Clinton responded, exposing the lies -- you're just not used to it, being young and because she has been ignoring those same flyers sent out in other states.  (A mistake; I think she should have exposed the lies sooner.)

    Wait 'til you see what the Repubs have ready.


    Excuse me (none / 0) (#182)
    by Mystic55 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:57:53 AM EST
    But Obama said the exact same thing in the debates, and she didn't get all outraged then.

    Did you WATCH the debates?

    Where was the rage?


    He quoted the Iowa student newspaper (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:03:43 AM EST
    and Newsday's misquotes in the debates?  I watched 'em all, didn't see that.  I did see him claim that Clinton's health care plan constituted "garnishment," which was odd for a lawyer to say, as he ought to know the legal requirements for that.

    And Clinton did state, repeatedly, that he was incorrect.  But you must have missed that.


    Yes (none / 0) (#192)
    by Mystic55 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:07:24 AM EST
    Yes, she did say he was incorrect.

    But she didn't show rage.


    They saw (none / 0) (#186)
    by Raheem on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:00:09 AM EST
    what they wanted to see at the debate... just delusional

    What substance? (none / 0) (#151)
    by jere on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:28:26 AM EST
    Hard to find substance where there isn't any.

    But this is just another example (none / 0) (#159)
    by fuzzyone on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:41:18 AM EST
    of Obama out politicing Hillary.  He released his return and was able to make an issue of her not releasing hers.  By not releasing them she makes it look like she has something to hide.  Just another unforced error.

    But, doesn't this prove (none / 0) (#167)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:45:51 AM EST
    that Obama is more Politics as usual?

    Oh I see (none / 0) (#187)
    by fuzzyone on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:00:22 AM EST
    there is nothing Hillary can't do, but when Obama is smart enough to raise a real issue, where do the candidates get their money, it politics as usual.  Why would we want to vote for a not fully veted candidate the HRC supporters always say.  Why wait till the general to find out what is in her return.  More bad decisions which is why she is losing.  She is running a bad campaign and no reason to think she would be better in the GE

    don't misunderstand but (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:09:49 AM EST
    When you base your campaign on change and not being the old style Washington Politician.  It becomes suspicious that you keep using the same old Washington Style Politics to attack your opponent.  Specially when a lot of them are tactics or attacks already used by the Republicans and/or the Health Insurance Lobbyists.  This is not the first time Obama has demonstrated his willingness to use old style politics to gain an advantage.  I'm just saying that he is not as much for change as he claims that is my opinion your entitled to yours.  By the way I am neither for him or her since I am a Registered Republican and did not vote in the primaries and will be voting for whoever the Democrats chose as I did in 2004.  I would had preferred Edwards though.

    Cooling Down (none / 0) (#160)
    by Mystic55 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:41:47 AM EST
    I agree. We should cool down and be positive.

    And I'm more than willing to that again. Now.

    But if we get more 'shame on you' lies, then don't expect that to last.

    No lie in the 'Shame on you' (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:47:01 AM EST
    If Obama stops shilling RW talking points ala Harry and Louise, then maybe there won't be any more.  Otherwise ...

    Comments Now Closed (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:19:08 AM EST
    This thread has devolved into insults and gone way too far off-topic. I'll clean the comments later, for now they are closed. We're almost at 200 anyway which is the usual limit.

    Thank You Jeralyn & Tina Fey (none / 0) (#202)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:41:42 PM EST

    Thank You Jeralyn & Tina Fey.

    I discussed the Tina Fey Weekend Update skit at some length in response to BTD's post: "SNL's Obama Love Debate Skit".

    In summary, the Tina Fey skit was particularly bold and risky, and so are you Jeralyn for your on-going willingness to 'go there'.

    The Obama skit was also a breath of fresh air. Perhaps the most spot-on element showed Obama's tendency to reach over and encroach into Clinton's personal space. Too bad SNL didn't include the bit from the Austin debate where Obama (in an overly 'gallant' gesture) nearly pulled the rolling chair out from under Clinton's ass. Evidently, Obama is still over-compensating for his snub of Clinton at the SOTU Address.

    Stay strong.

    since YouTube is down, (none / 0) (#203)
    by kangeroo on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:21:26 PM EST
    you can see the clip here.