What Digby Said About Russert And NBC

By Big Tent Democrat


The country wants change. They want Washington to stop all the partisan bickering and they want a different tone. They want their government to be serious and deal with real problems.

Can someone please explain to me how that can possibly happen until something is done about the reprehensible political press? . . .

Judging by their silly questions tonight, Russert and Williams obviously know nothing about health care policy, Iraq, Islamic terrorism, economics, global trade or any other subject that requires more than five minutes study to come up with some gotcha question or a stupid Jack Bauer fantasy. It's embarrassing.

< The Ohio Debate's Farakhan Segment | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    the dummest one is Tweety (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:03:41 AM EST
    who immediately after the debate while they were still shaking hands on the stage went off about how silly it was to have a discussion about health care and how nobody really care about the "so called" differences in their plans.
    I am quickly reaching the point I was at after George Bush won in 2000 when I had to completely stop watching cable news for about a year.

    you'd think (none / 0) (#5)
    by Nasarius on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:12:26 AM EST
    That after the issue has caused real conflict in the past, and Hillary forced the issue in the last debate, that asking pointed questions on health care would stir up some interesting disagreements. Have they forgotten how to sell conflict? It's not that difficult, as both candidates have their soundbite accusations of the other's plan. It's also one of the few areas where both candidates are talking about some pretty drastic changes in the lives of every American.

    I Couldn't Agree More! (none / 0) (#94)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:32:18 AM EST
    Tweety is the worst, but Russert is, nonetheless, contemptible.

    But speaking of Russert . . . (none / 0) (#96)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:34:43 AM EST
    . . . Lawrence E. Spivak must be tossing and turning in his grave!

    I agree with Digby (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by vigkat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:08:30 AM EST
    The "reprehensible political press" was in fine form last night, giving an unbelievably hyperbolic "gotcha" performance.  I personally have never seen anything quite like it.  Shameful is the word I would use to describe Russert's performance.  And he was proud of it!  Verbally strutting around in the after-talk sessions.  I would love to be there, somewhere, when he watches the replay of his performance.  If he still thinks he hit it out of the park, well, he's worse off than we can imagine.

    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by sas on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:02:22 AM EST
    about Russert.

    I watch him - red face, intense, packed into his suit like a sausage - and think he is about to explode at any minute.

    Another thin that irritates me about him - he does a little research and finds a "gotcha" - and then badgers the candidates about it. Usually it's something they dis/said years ago when circumstances and times were different. Then he interrupts them, particulary Hillary, as they answer.

    His 'gotchas' don't have all that much depth sometimes.


    Gotchas fed to Russert by his GOP masters (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ellie on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:30:42 AM EST
    They're always obviously, shamefully phrased precisely like the RNC talking point of the hour, too. I have to look away when Russert licks his chops to savor every inch of his malevolently self-congratulatory smirk.

    The Rovian era's Pile-On's On!!! call for a new(s) event as manufactured as a frat kegger* is why the rocketship containing the "leaked" photo of Obama in heritage dress, which (pic) had been public for ages, could launch off Drudge at sunrise and hit Prime Time in mere hours, hurting both Team Obama and Team Clinton.

    The Rove / RNC baloney machine knows who'll jump to catch a piece of their tossed rancid meat and pretend it's prime access: jerks like Russert who'll happily get punked rather than let the opportunity go to be at the front of the swarm.

    The same opportunity could be used to correct the record but what fun is that? (By evening David Gergen was saying crap was, "Well according to Matt Drudge ... " )

    And no one's going to go back even a few hours when there's new rancid stuff being tossed. [/rambling]

    *too towel-snappy?


    He was just happy (none / 0) (#9)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:16:09 AM EST
    he got her to admit the Iraq vote was a mistake.  Not happy, giddy.

    Why? (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:59:32 AM EST
    Russert acted as if she's never said that before.  Does he not watch the other debates?  Has he never heard her interviewed?  Did he not pay attention when he talked to her on MTP when she said, "Sure, I would do it differently if I knew then what I know now."  

    I suppose nothing short of nailing herself to the cross and begging for his forgiveness will convince him.


    And even that (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by vigkat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:12:11 AM EST
    Would probably not be sufficient.  A dog with a bone, tireless.    

    "If I knew what I knew now..." (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:18:34 AM EST
    That is one b.s. answer.  We knew enough THEN to vote no, but she went along anyway.  Millions of people knew then what she only knows now.  I'll vote for Dem in the GE, but right now they're both making it hard to do it with passion.

    If I knew what I knew now...amazing.  Life would just be so peachy if that was an acceptable answer.


    She was lied to (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:21:33 AM EST
    just like the rest of us. Intelligence was cherry picked.  Colin Powell LIED to the U.N.

    I am just amazed at how fuzzy people's memories can sometimes be.


    Did anyone (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:36:20 AM EST
    back in the days right after 9/11 really have any idea how awful, how truly, relentlessly, stupidly awful Bush and Cheney were going to be? I was against the war and said so. I had nothing but disdain for George Bush. But I know that I did not back then ever think for a moment that he would be the disaster that he has been for this country and for the world.

    If Senator Obama and the people that can never forgive Senator Clinton for her vote saw beforehand what George Bush and His Handler aka Dick Cheney were going to do to this country I wish they would have spoken up and let the rest of us in on it. Although to be perfectly honest, I would never have believed how relentlessly corrupt and criminal they have been.

    Of course they wouldn't have gotten away with any of it if they wouldn't have had an equally corrupt media to tell their lies and hide their corruption. It was a twofer for the Bush Administration and yet somehow, the one most vilified for it seems to be Hillary Clinton.


    I think I did know (none / 0) (#122)
    by vigkat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    On an intuitive level.  I remember feeling physically ill during that entire period, and inconsolable, but I could not have told you exactly why.  Some part of me knew, but my brain was unable to fully grasp it.

    Yes Many Of Us (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:45:41 AM EST
    Knew that they would be beyond the pale and capeable of the worst things imaginable. Attacking Iraq was on their minds for at least 10 years. The PNAC states quite clearly, that all they needed was another "pearl harbor" type event to unleash a war in the mideast.

    by whole bunch (none / 0) (#65)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:56:25 AM EST
    you of course mean the 20% of Americans who opposed the war?

    Let me get my calculator--roughly:  240mm supported and  60mm opposed

    I wouldn't even call that a half bunch.


    I knew that the Bush's were lying (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:22:06 AM EST
    We watched Powell's infamous appearance before the UN, and I was able to debunk most of his words with WaPo stories.

    However, it wasn't just politically inconvenient to vote against the war at that time, it was POLITICAL SUICIDE.  You would be deemed a traitor and you might as well just pack your bags and move away.

    9/11 changed everything, you know.

    How conveniently some Democrats (not you) forget this absolute truth, because it suits their purpose.  It's easy to forget when the truth doesn't suit their candidate.


    And BTW (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:24:50 AM EST
    Part and parcel to that suicide of voting against the Iraq invasion was that the media would have ripped you to pieces....especially if you were a quite visible senator from New York.

    The media wanted Iraq.....


    Fractured Intellectual Elite (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:14:09 PM EST
    Much of our "intellectual" elite bought the idea as well.  Columnists Jonathon Alter, Richard Cohen, Mary McGrory (RIP), the Moustache, etc., etc.,bloggers Josh Marshall, Matthew Yglesias, foreign policy "intellectuals" Michael O'Hanlon, Kenneth Pollack, etc., etc.

    And these were the "liberals".

    Their "reasoning" was way past stupid.

    But so far as the vote in Congress was concerned there are some dynamics at play that many of us seem to either forget or ignore and I confess that I'm one of them.  

    Like so many other ordinary people I was against it based on all the usual factors - Iraq was contained and deterred, couldn't possibly be a threat, secular dictator couldn't possibly be aligned with al Qaeda, invading a 'made-up nation' a huge blunder opening Pandora's box, etc., etc. and on and on.

    BUT. The rest of us weren't US Senators and Representatives and did not have their responsibilities.  With elections on the horizon Bush (unlike his father in the Gulf War) demanded that a vote be taken BEFORE the elections.  So if you're an elected official what do you do in an environment where much of the nation is still smarting after 9/11 and what if there really is a danger, even a small chance?  The vote after all was not to go to war but to authorize the use of force if need be. And then the Washington Post, the news division of the New York Times, the broadcast media and even liberal foreign policy "intellectuals", were all but lobbying for a war.

    Still stupid I believe and the worst of it was surrendering war making decisions to the executive.

    But, it's important to put these matters into context before making the harshest of judgements.

    I'm not ready to condemn out of hand any elected official for their vote but at the same time I can't forget the 'intellectuals" who influenced those decisions without the grave responsibilities of an elected official.

    I can't be smug because I was against the war.  I was not an elected official with responsibilities. And Barack Obama shouldn't be  smug about his opposition.  He did not have the responsibilities of a member of the US Congress and in fact represented a district that was anti-war. His "I was right from the start" rhetoric is, given the circumstances, a cheap shot at best and a window into his "character." It was easy for so many of us and for Barack Obama to be 'right from the start.'

    It would have been a lot easier for HRC to have apologized for her vote as my candidate John Edwards did.  I credit her with honesty and the fact that she'd end our involvement if elected is an admission of error and a willingness to correct that error, a prerequisite for a very good President.



    Let me guess, they're not prescient? (none / 0) (#78)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:07:21 AM EST
    and 20% of the people will oppose anything?

    Please provide a source (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:29:17 AM EST
    where Blix opposed the AUMF.  The AUMF was supposed to be a stick to induce Saddam to let Blix do his work.

    Here is a link (none / 0) (#108)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:07:02 AM EST
    with some analysis of the context at the time.  It isn't as black and white as people paint it now that we know Iraq didn't go well.

    What really gets me is that the same media that led the war cheers now has the chutzpah to question a well intentioned vote.  It's like they are trying to wash away their guilt or something.


    The point is (none / 0) (#125)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:04:03 PM EST
    At the time Blix was asking for a credible use of force.  Blix says that the AUMF resolution wasn't incompatible with a peaceful resolution.  Kerry and Kennedy defended the vote for the AUMF.  It is good that you knew they were all wrong but you can't deny that they had plausible reasons for their position.

    Kennedy Voted Against The AUMF (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:07:44 PM EST
    Kennedy defended Kerry's AUMF vote in 04. (none / 0) (#133)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:17:57 PM EST
    They were in in 11/2002 (none / 0) (#114)
    by tree on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:25:47 AM EST
    in part because of the AUMF in October 2002.

    We once thought they were (none / 0) (#79)
    by vigkat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:08:36 AM EST
    Smarter than us.  A "whole bunch" of us were wrong about that, many more than a mere twenty percent.

    Not To Mention (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:56:36 AM EST
    Every Dem knew Bush was not to be trusted, ever, even with a slingshot. The vote was to pander to her perceived constituents.

    I was one of the 20% (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:05:37 AM EST
    openly vocally repeatedly and to with the result of huge amounts of abuse from the other 80.  it was a very scary time.  but I would not say I ever imagined how Bush would abuse the power given to him.
    and the other question would be, how would it have helped us, or even the troops, to have lost dozens of seats in the house and senate that year?
    the country was on a blood bool.

    over half the dems (none / 0) (#116)
    by tree on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:34:28 AM EST
    supported the AUMF, including Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, and 26 others.

    going back (none / 0) (#101)
    by manys on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:40:18 AM EST
    If you're like me, you didn't. If you're like me, you just didn't think it was reason enough for war. If you're like me, you suspected they were exaggerating, if not lying, but since Scott Ritter and Hans Blix were the only ones who knew what they were talking about, they got drowned out as the rush to war increased. Pessimism is always rewarded, but I don't think that means that the future was predicted.

    I have changed my mind (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:52:21 AM EST
    I just realized that I didn't support the authorization from the beginning and I was vocally against the war.  I even gave a speech to my dry cleaner.

    I mean, how do you know this isn't true?  Just ask my dry cleaner.


    Hindsight of course is always 20/20. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:56:10 AM EST
    I don't blame Clinton, Kerry or Edwards for voting as they did.  I don't question their motives.  Their reasons for supporting the AUMF were honorable and valid.

    I admire Clinton for sticking by her vote unlike Edwards.  It would have been easy for her to follow Edwards example.  That she didn't, contradicts the meme that says she will do or say anything to get elected.

    Bush and Rumsfield mismanaged the war completely but this wasn't evident until later.  Had he not been so incompetent, it is likely we would be having a different discussion. McCain is about to make the argument that the problem was not strategic but tactical (i.e. the surge is working).  It is possible this will be effective with the portion of the American public that would have welcomed a quick victory.  We need to figure out how to counter this argument effectively.


    That is one b.s. answer (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:23:07 AM EST
    I was pissed off at the vote also.
    and said all the same things Obama did about it.  over and over and over.  but the truth is, at the time, anyone who voted any other way, who was not in a completely safe sea,t would like have lost that election and I dont see how that would have helped anyone.  even the abused troops.
    and I honestly dont think anyone could have predicted the extent to which Bush would abuse the power given to him.

    what you are calling a b.s. answer (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:27:33 AM EST
    is MY answer about how I felt at the time.  It is the answer of the majority of Americans who, as you might recall, supported going to war because we were all LIED to by the Bush administration.  It never occurred to me as an American citizen that my own government would stoop to such levels, but NOW I KNOW because I have seen that they are capable of far worse.

    That being said, I commend you on your prescient powers.  It seems very strange to me that only one candidate in this primary is allowed to make mistakes.  As someone who made the same mistake, and who now admits that if I knew then what I know now, I would have been livid, I can relate to Clinton's choice.


    That's the point (none / 0) (#128)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    I was trying to make in an earlier post. I was damn well against the war but, and it's a big but, as much as I did not like or trust Bush I never would have believed how truly corrupt and criminal he has been.  I just wouldn't have believed how bad things would really get.

    If others were more presicent than I was good on ya. Take your victory lap, you deserve it.


    Prescient (none / 0) (#131)
    by tree on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:17:33 PM EST
    I think that some people are only "prescient" in hindsight.
    Either through faulty memory or the stopped clock.

    Just like in 1974, when it appeared  that more people voted for McGovern than Nixon in 1972 (according to polls taken in 1974 after Watergate)
    I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people who were not only against the war from the start but also "knew" it was going to happen anyway and be a royal clusterf**k were about 50% of the public, according to their own recollection.Memory is a funny thing.


    Daler, (none / 0) (#53)
    by ding7777 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:45:01 AM EST
    Saddam needed a "stick" (the 2002 AUMF) in order to allow the inspectors to have unfretted access...  Bush abused the power of the AUMF, not the Senators who voted for it.

    Also, if Saddam did have WMD or more to the point, had Bush been successful in managing the post-invasion, no one would be praising Hillary for her YES vote.


    At the time, I also supported AUMF (none / 0) (#89)
    by Manuel on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:25:12 AM EST
    I thought Saddam would back down and let the inspectors have full access.  

    Manuel (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:35:14 AM EST
    exactly.  The threat of force has been, in the past, a useful tool for the US.  To bring it back to the debate, I would liken Clinton's comments (and Obama's agreement) that the threat of the US pulling out of NAFTA would be a threat that would get things done.

    And for those of you who claim Clinton's vote for AUMF was political--I think you should also admit that Obama's tacit support of the war when Kerry was running was political as well.


    Russert (none / 0) (#109)
    by Athena on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:09:54 AM EST
    Like a hunter stalking prey.  His morbid excitement came right through the screen.

    Does Russert need health care? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:10:46 AM EST
    No.  Tweety?  No.  Williams?  No.

    I beg to differ (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by vigkat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:25:07 AM EST
    Russert appears to be in need of some sort of anger management intervention.  I thought he was going to have a stroke.  I couldn't watch much of the post debate show, but I listened to it for a bit.  A bunch of guys sitting around congratulating themselves on having taken down Hillary Clinton, sort of like a group of hunters talking about the big buck they just felled, the one with the full rack that they had been unable to get a clear shot on before then.  My impression:  they have spun themselves totally out of control and no longer are tethered to any plausible sense of reality.  (I know you meant health care insurance, but I couldn't resist.)

    The next hunt (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:46:55 AM EST
    So now they'll take a short break before the next big hunt.

    And golly gee, I wonder which candidate they'll track mercilessly and kill next time?  Will it be their decades-long favorite, McCain, or could it be the newcomer, the guy who keeps promising to change the system the big media outlets all want to preserve?

    It won't serve America or small-d democracy, but it will make one peachy story line for their ratings.

    (Yes, I'm assuming Obama will get the nomination.  I just don't see any reasonable set of circumstances where Clinton can overcome the media, the math, and, yes, some of her campaign's own mismanagement, to win this thing.)


    her campaign's own mismanagement (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:49:27 AM EST
    it is the most frustrating thing since the pathetically run Kerry campaign.

    I am not sure (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:44:08 AM EST
    that there is a good way to run a campaign when the media is opposing you and your party lets it happen. Gore had the same problem and so did Kerry, although to a lesser extent. Unlike Republicans, Democrats sat back and let this happen. Even with Hillary the only big push back was over the sexism.
    Bob Somerby at dailyhowler has documented this for years. His focus is on Democratic leaders, but the rank and file have been passive about it too. Republicans push back all the time and it has worked very well for them. They do not leave it up to their candidate to do it - this always looks defensive and therefore, weak.

    Rank and file democrats (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:58:41 AM EST
    are not only passive in the fact of lousy attacks by the press.  A good portion of them actually support and encourage those attacks, when it seems to help their own preferred candidate.  Then they only become surprised and outraged when the attack hits their side.

    Republicans always push back on media attacks on a fellow republican, usually regardless of which candidate is hit.  That's one reason you will never see a republican slimed by a debate moderator like they did last night.

    Bob Somerby is correct and I don't think Democrats will learn any lessons from this cycle either.  If anything this cycle has been worse then previous because the so-called progressive blogs have not been passive but havve vigorously taken part in the sliming.  



    Not so sure (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:06:45 PM EST
    it was the pathetically run campaign so much as it was the windbag Nominee. (And yes I did hold my nose and vote for him.)

    But after the betrayal of 2006 the Democrats can no longer rely on my vote. I have voted for a Democrat in every election since 1968 even when I didn't like them or even think they would make a very good president. I just always thought they would make a better president than the Republican.

    But after 2006 I'm no longer sure.  


    I think this primary (none / 0) (#30)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:51:51 AM EST
    will be studied for years to come for what went right and what went wrong.

    where do they get these people (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:54:50 AM EST
    and how do I get a job running a campaign?
    I can tell you one thing.  I would have had a plan for after super tuesday.

    This (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by sas on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:04:41 AM EST
    is why I do not watch MSNBC anymore.

    It's a frat party.  Matthews, Russert, Olbermann (yes, progressive misogynistic Keith), Scarborough, Carlson......

    what a bunch of losers.

    Their coverage is revolting.


    I think Olberman (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:12:09 AM EST
    has demonstrated pretty clearly that most, if not all, of the things we liked that he has done in the last few months were for the purpose of carving out  a ratings niche.
    its sort of disillusioning. (if thats a word)

    If he still thinks he hit it out of the park (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:12:55 AM EST
    he is like Bush in that no one is allowed to burst the bubble.
    thank god for SNL.

    As an American that desperately needs (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:18:25 AM EST
    health care, I find it reprehensible that they can act like details are unimportant...I bet if they were in my shoes, they would have the details memorized at this point....The one thing for sure is that my cancer won't be in remission forever...:-(

    Your illness (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by wasabi on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:20:53 AM EST
    I will send gentle thoughts your way and hope that it does stay in remission.

    Thank you very much..... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:25:31 AM EST
    athyrio (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by carolyn13 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:33:42 AM EST
    Remember, if Obama wins, Hillary will still be in the Senate and she will fight for her version of health care. Don't give up hope. All of us here are sending you our best wishes and this nomination isn't over yet.

    True Carolyn but my problem is that (none / 0) (#91)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:27:41 AM EST
    after the MSM turn on Obama (which they will surely do after he secures the nomination) he will not be elected....IMO....

    so sorry (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:27:35 AM EST
    I am in a fairly high income bracket but only  got health coverage a couple of months ago when I took a full time job specifically for that reason.  
    since I have high blood pressure and high cholesterol I was unable to buy it.
    it is a disgrace.

    I have a state job (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:39:08 AM EST
    my plan is way too expensive for the coverage I get.  If we weren't having another child I might have taken a HSA.

    I am (none / 0) (#64)
    by tek on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:56:06 AM EST
    in a similar position.  We are in a high income bracket, but not high enough to take advantage of Dubya' tax breaks (under 60,000 or over 1 million).  My husband is retired and has Medicare (the original) so he's covered anywhere.  I am not yet retired, we have state of IL health coverage, and I can't get Medicare for five more years.  Meanwhile, we are retiring to FL and I have to choose to either keep a plan that will force me to go back to IL for all healthcare, or choose a plan that will deprive me of preventive care.  Of course, one Cat Scan would set us back years financially, so it's no choice.  Wait til I have some dreadful disease, and then go to the doctor, I guess.

    I think Obama's plan is unrealistic.  He keeps talking about making healthcare affordable, but for people who are wage earners, it never will be.  When I see how hard it is for us to make it on a good salary, I don't know how lower middle class people get by.


    I hear you tek... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Rainsong on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:45:09 PM EST
    tek:  think Obama's plan is unrealistic.  He keeps talking about making healthcare affordable, but for people who are wage earners, it never will be.

    I been working as health system economist, policy analyst etc for nearly 20 years. Obama's plan is Republican-Lite. Unfortunately, Hillary has been unable to communicate effectively in a 60-second soundbite slogan. But then it is complicated.

    I have enormous number of issues, but, at its most simplistic, Obama's plan does little to address the HMOs or structure of the industry and how services are delivered.

    All Obama's does is subsidise an extra portion of the US population, to have the same crap BS coverage the rest of the population (who have inadequate coverage) are already pissed about.

    Clintons (and Edwards and other Dems), makes a start on industry regulation.

    In other countries, where there is a "mixed" health insurance system, ie both public and private insurance sectors, the private health sector is heavily regulated by govt. eg. they can't discriminate, they must cover whoever asks for it, and can't play games on pre-existing conditions. Secondly, they are forced by law to underwrite each other, to protect themselves from unexpected large payouts (like other insurance companies do), and all their products and plans must adhere to nationally agreed clinical standards. In other OECD countries its called mandatory corporate 'risk-sharing' or 'funds pooling'. They have to place a percentage of their capital into a central/regional or State pool to cover each other.

    The only way this works, is for everyone to be covered. Hence the mandate is critical.

    The USA-based HMOs, have reached the max in fleecing the American population, and are now keen to expand into overseas markets. Many OECD countries are struggling desperately to "hold the line" on their own public health systems against the multinational insurgence.

    Obama's plan helps this, just as much as Republican free-market capitalism, his plan just subisidises extra Americans to buy into it,
    His scheme is all voluntary, optional on people, but especially on the HMOs (and the employers) being "encouraged" to "do the right thing".

    Obama's is corporate welfare. Full stop.

    Even such minimal "baby-step" regulation as Clinton and Co are proposing, will hurt the HMOs profits, and big employers I suspect too, as they have to report by law on their behaviour, they have to be accountable. Somebody bought out the US media this primary season, coz they sure as hell dont want the Clinton (and other Dems) plan.

    Mike Moore, as much as I often like the guy,  unfortunately can blather in foolish ignorance sometimes, I felt like smacking him when he pontificated last month.  


    The Next White House Can Do Something About This (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by PSoTD on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:23:06 AM EST
    Just because a reporter works for MSNBC or the New York Times or the Washington Post shouldn't automatically mean they should get White House press access.  The White House credentials reporters.  There should be a public process on this credentialing, and there should be an ballyhooed invitation to smaller news organizations that are not based in Washington to have greater access and visibility to the White House than AP or Reuters or an MSNBC feed.

    If this is a change election, bring it to the news media as well.

    I dunno... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:03:02 AM EST
    as deplorable as the press is, I am very uncomfortable by the prospect of "banning" reporters.  Helen Thomas was banned for a short period, and I'm sure that the folks who did it thought they were taking out a bad seed.

    We have to remember that, if we get to be in charge, it's not a forever thing.  Whatever we do now can later be used by the other side.  This short-term thinking was, I think, one of the biggest mistakes the Bush White House made.  Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had had those "privileges"?  He would still be president.


    Is anyone better? (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:25:25 AM EST
    We had a test and failed.  A test to see the blog media provide an alternative.  But alas, the bad habits pay and they pay well.  Hence we have major blogs falling into the Cable media standards.  Sensations, pandering and lack of critical analysis.  Pathetic all over.  Time to change them as well.  

    Russert and Matthews work for (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by sancho on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:36:37 AM EST
    General Electic. They are paid to do what they did last night. The complete trivialization of health care by Matthews after the debate ironically highlightd his employers' committment to making sure that policies that would benefit large numbers of Americans were not discussed. As BTD said last night, the debates are a farce. They are meant to be. Russert is the "star" of NBC news because of, not despite, his anti-democratic posturing. We got an inkling of what will be done to Obama in the fall. The last two elections were arguably stolen. Last night was a small part of how it happens and will continue to happen until something dramatic (that I frankly cannot imagine) happens to change the process by which a candidate (someone named McCain this time) gets "affirmed" as president.

    what will be done to Obama in the fall (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:44:21 AM EST
    I keep telling people, Obama supporters, the honeymoon will end when he is no longer running against a Clinton.
    it will give me no joy to be proven right.

    You got that right Capt (none / 0) (#50)
    by Daryl24 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:43:03 AM EST
    I was on a blog where a couple of days ago where the folks flew into a blind rage over the Hillary video  in Rhode Island where she pokes fun at Obama's come together rhetoric. I mentioned that it was pretty mild and Republicans are not going to be so kind if Obama gets the nomination.

    They didn't want to hear that.


    the state of our press (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:19:03 AM EST
    once I thought the blogosphere might save the political world.
    no longer.  the majority are becoming just as bad.

    No Quarter (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:28:41 AM EST
    has some interesting information on Farrakhan:

    Obama's Illinois State Senate district consisted of prime Nation of Islam territory, including Hyde Park, home to Farrakhan's mansion. It is not possible, Illinois politicos say, to win that district without the blessing of the NOI leader. NOI members, including consultant Shakir Muhammad, held important roles in the Obama state senate campaign. ...


    I keep getting mail (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:33:36 AM EST
    about this.  apparently there are several people involved with the Nation of Islam in his campaign and his senate office.
    at least many people seem to think so.  I have not verified this but the mail keeps coming.

    I have gotten a ton of mail, too (none / 0) (#49)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:38:57 AM EST
    Makes me think it's coordinated--usually my forwards are full of cat photos and porn (I've got a weird cousin).  

    I meant to say in my above "consider the source" on the quote, but it seems odd to me that so many current and ex Obama campaign staffers refused to go on record.  I mean, it's a tacit admittance to not come out and say, "Of course I'm not a member of that hateful group."

    There are some TL'ers who live in Chicago.  Maybe they have an opinion on this?

    It's one thing to have lobbyist working on your campaign.  Quite another to have Farrakhan devotees.  Very troubling, and just a whiff of this is all the republicans need to call for blood.


    I am from a family of elected democrats (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:44:10 AM EST
    in the blue collar midwest.  because of this I am on lists and get mail from a lot of democrats who would not be in my "circle" or would be people that I would necessarily hang with.
    in other words, the people who will decide the election in many states.  they are freaked.

    this is so very, very bad. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    Romney is a perfect example of why religion matters in these races.  The guy was a perfect conservative with a gorgeous family, all the right credentials and all the other trappings that the repubs usually lick up. Religion derailed him.

    And I have to admit, I need an explanation about some of the Nation of Islam crap that is coming up.  I consider myself fairly liberal, but there is no excuse for Farrakhan.  At first, I treated his "endorsement" the same way I treated Coulter's "endorsement" of Clinton: what a joke.  Now, this stuff comes up about Obama having staff members who are active in NOI?

    I hope I have been posting here long enough so that folks know I am not some goober concern troll on this issue.  Yes, I am a firm Clinton supporter, but this has nothing to do with Clinton.  If Obama ends up with the nomination, and he does not explain these entanglements to me...I am just very, very concerned.  He needs to address this right now.

    And, BTD, hats off to you, buddy, because I didn't see the import of Russert nailing him down on this last night, but now I understand what you mean about the sea change in press coverage.  This is not good.


    at least Tweety asked him (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:58:20 AM EST
    about his nutjob preacher last night.  that guy is pretty scary.  the Farrakhan stuff is not the only crazy things he has said.
    I was happy to recently hear Obama say he was retiring very soon.  I doubt that is a coincidence.
    just as the complete redesign of the website of his church was not.
    both smart if he is the nominee.  it is good to think he may at least be trying to get out in front of some of this stuff.

    I could be wrong (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:14:26 AM EST
    but I dont think that is the name of the person I was talking about.
    in any case saying glowing things about Farrakhan is nuts.
    whoever said it.  and like I said thats not all.  if I was not working I would find some quotes.

    Cat Photos (none / 0) (#69)
    by tek on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:58:26 AM EST
    Hilarious!  I get that, too.

    We need a list of their advertisers (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by lily15 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:36:03 AM EST
    and phone numbers and email addresses.  I have found that advertisers are the most sensitive to this type of sexist criticism especially.  I also advocate talking about a boycott of whatever products are appearing on shows with blatant sexist displays.  Once advertisers learn how upset women are now with what has happened this election season on the cables wherein they advertise...they may take action if there is an economic disincentive.  Don Imus was not removed by the network.  The advertisers demanded it.  The women here represent major consumers.  We must punish those advertisers who are perpetuating the behavior we witnessed last night.  Beginning with NBC, also the former home of Don Imus, would be a beginning.  Even talk of a boycott by women on blogs might have some impact.  We can at least send some message.  Emailing the stations themselves seems to have no impact.  And I am furious that outrageous behavior towards the woman is continuing unabated and may have swung the election.  We must take action.  We need names of the corporate advertisers...and emails to the right entity to express our concern.  Corporations that depend on consumrs will GET it.

    Sign Me Up (none / 0) (#62)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:53:29 AM EST
    I am with you, and will DEFINITELY boycott advertizers that support this kind of sexism.  And blogs, too.  I have already given up on Huffington Post, and Daily Kos.  So - how can we get this info?

    Sign me up too (none / 0) (#121)
    by Foxx on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:43:54 AM EST
    I have been wanting this for awhile, wondering how to make it happen. How do we make it happen? Start our own webpage?

    Old Man in the Sea (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by AF on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:14:57 AM EST
    Did anyone catch Chris Matthews gushing after the debate how Tim Russert had finally "reeled in his marlin" like the fisherman in Old Man in the Sea when he got Hillary to say she wanted her Iraq vote back?  

    That is so revealing in so many ways of what's wrong with those people. (1) Political journalism is fishing: waiting and straining for the big gotcha moment. (2) They're the fishermen, the candidates are the fish: it's all about them. (3) They're enamored by the dated, sexist, Hemingway-esque macho schtick.

    It also reveals why they love McCain.  He is a kindred soul.  

    And Obama is decidedly not.  So it will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the general.

    They said she was "floundering" like (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:48:45 AM EST
    a fish in the "bottom of a boat." It was greeted by big grins, chortles, as they literally leaned back in their chairs like good ol' boys and enjoyed the imagery. It was so appalling.

    I'm just going to go for it (none / 0) (#120)
    by vigkat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:40:47 AM EST
    And call it how I saw it:  abominable and disgusting.

    interesting is one word for it. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:18:26 AM EST
    tragic might be another.

    I love Hemingway ... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:33:33 AM EST
    but I'll admit THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA isn't one of my favorites.

    But it's an odd reference to make.  Because  Santiago (The Old Man) reels in his Marlin, but on the way back to shore it's eaten by sharks, leaving only the tail.

    Tweety could have been suggesting that Russert's supposed "get" was ultimately pointless.

    But somehow I doubt it.


    Robot (none / 0) (#99)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:36:58 AM EST
    Ha!  I was thinking the same thing...only in the context that Obama will get eaten by the sharks.

    But, I doubt very seriously Tweety has even read the Old Man and the Sea, let alone understood the story.


    The fish was eaten by sharks (none / 0) (#104)
    by AF on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:52:38 AM EST
    But the point of the novel is that the manly nobility of the pursuit.  Whatever you think of Hemingway, that sort of tragic macho sensibility is misplaced and absurd in contemporary American politics.

    Yup, I think ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:13:04 AM EST
    that was Tweety's point.  I don't think it was Hemingway's.  But this isn't an American literature blog.

    But given Kathy's comment above, I'm also reminded of the vultures in "The Snows of Kilimanjaro."


    Hahaha! (none / 0) (#115)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:31:23 AM EST
    Too true.

    Ack get Tweety some Old Man Pants to sniff already (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ellie on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    Did anyone catch Chris Matthews gushing after the debate how Tim Russert had finally "reeled in his marlin" like the fisherman in Old Man in the Sea when he got Hillary to say she wanted her Iraq vote back?

    Talk about a Papa complex -- and not Hemingway worship either, which would be somewhat excusable -- but just a desperate, pathetic need for validation from any old shambling wheezing old fart from the Old Boys Club.

    After all, Mitt "Old Spice" Romney's gone. Fred Thompson's asleep on the porch somewhere with a ring of flies trying not to get sucked into the vortex of his snore.

    And this leaves poor huffing-addict Chris Matthews without a crotch or a codpiece to sniff so it's no wonder he's on Russert like glaze on a ham.


    What kills me (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jen on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:36:31 AM EST
    about this race is that so many on the left, that used to be "with us" in fighting and criticizing the media, are now -- for the most part -- all too happy to cheer them on and agree with them. Beyond disgusting.

    Even The Exalted Are Lame (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:56:33 AM EST
    I'll never forget Ted Koeppel's words (not exact) when talking about debates, interviews, etc.

    'When they start to talk about policy my brain just turns to mush'

    I have a feeling that the mush was there long before the policy discussion.

    Another tale in the story of our lame, dysfunctional intellectual elite.  

    He was just happy (3.66 / 3) (#7)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:14:33 AM EST
    he got her to admit the Iraq vote was a mistake.  Not happy, giddy.  

    Russert (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Athena on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:07:35 AM EST
    Like a hunter stalking prey.  His morbid excitement came right through the screen.

    This is exactly (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by tek on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:49:02 AM EST
    what I expected over the Iraq exchange.  Obama supporters have said all through the campaigning that Hillary needs to say her Iraq vote was a mistake, then she'd be palatable to the far left.

    So, she said it.  Now what do we hear from the Obama camp?  He's "giddy" that she admitted she made a mistake.

    Wonder if she went back years and tarred him over his cocaine use as he went back 16 years and tried to tar her over stuff that happened in her husband's administration.

    On one hand, Obama says Hillary's First Lady experience is not valid.  On the other hand he criticizes her for things that happened while she was First Lady.  He totally mischaracterized her quest for universal health care and stated that she quarreled with her own party so he can try to paint himself as the unity candidate.  I would love to send him back in time and put him in the Clinton administration and see how well he would do under those circumstances.

    This the THE thing I can't stand about Barack Obama.  He's a three-year first term totally green senator and he has the temerity to completely trash the accomplishments of a great Democratic president, the only two-term Democratic president since FDR.  If that is UNITY, then I'm the Queen of England.


    Obama is extremely clever (none / 0) (#112)
    by vigkat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:23:49 AM EST
    In the way he plays "gotcha," because much of what he does is visual and not subject to quotation.  I was fascinated by his body language last night.  It was constantly shifting, particularly his facial expressions, which ranged from dismissive, superior, petulant, and put upon.  There were times when he adopted the demeanor of the uber victim, folding his hands together under his chin and looking down in embarassment.  It was quite a display and has been, as far as I can tell, thoroughly overlooked in the analyses of their performances.  Obama is the master of these types of nonverbal cues, but I give him no points for it.  It is an insidiously provocative means of dissing an opponent without the use of words. We will see how McCain deals with it.

    This is incredible (none / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    she said EXACTLY what she ha said may times over.

    Your Tweety imitation is uncanny.

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

    When Tweety pulls this crap on Obama I admit I will be laughing inside at people like you.


    Sorry. By this I mean (none / 0) (#4)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:11:15 AM EST
    they already have it.

    and of course (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:14:57 AM EST
    and to only clip being played and replayed this morning was the Hillarys off handed comment about SNL.
    of course.

    It was the only true slip up by either candidate (none / 0) (#10)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:17:42 AM EST
    Obama recovered his rather deftly.

    it's too bad (none / 0) (#12)
    by Nasarius on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:19:32 AM EST
    If she had saved it for another ten minutes, it would have been perfect.

    Maybe, (none / 0) (#15)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:24:08 AM EST
    I think it only really failed because of the timing.  But it was awkward.  I half expected to hear Russet say "Barrack would you like a pillow?  Senator Clinton some cheese with your whine?"

    Along Those Lines... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by AmyinSC on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:48:48 AM EST
    Obama's santimonious response that his campaign has been negatively targeted by Clinton but you haven't heard HIM whining about it was just one more example of him lying through his teeth.  HIS campaign has been INCREDIBLY negative, sending out these mailers for months REAMING Clinton in every single speech Mr. Hope and Change gives, misrepresenting her policies, STEALING her policies claiming SHE Is plagarizing John Edwards the day after he warmly shook her hand and smiled at her in the debate when she said what he accused her of stealing (sorry for the roundabout sentence - Clinton said, "Whatever happens...Whatever happens, we will be fine."  Because no one in the WORLD had EVER said those two things together but John Edwards!), and then he has the audacity to get on his high, arrogant, patronizing horse about HER running a negative campaign???

    All I can say is if he succeeds in getting the nomination, with the MASSIVE help from the media (particularly MSNBC), I am SO writing in Hillary's name.  I will not vote for this man.  He's just another Dubya, IMHO.

    Sure wish Clinton had not changed her mind about debating on MSNBC - Russert CLEARLY has an ax to grind with her, and has treated her boorishly in each one.  That this one was no exception is not a surprise to me.  I sure hope it is her last on that liberal Fox News.


    i read the digby post on the site. (none / 0) (#20)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:32:52 AM EST
    what i found most interesting, and the reason i went there to begin with (to make sure that nothing was left out by BTD), was what digby left out:

    the political press is repulsive, but only to democrats. you haven't and won't see russert, matthews, et al acting this way during a republican debate, regardless of who the candidates might be. they only do this to democrats, period.

    this failure on digby's part to recognize this is surprising, since it's so obvious.

    btw BTD, i'm not in any way suggesting you might have left out something intentionally, just that perhaps you didn't feel the need to copy/paste a 3 foot long post here.

    They are afraid (none / 0) (#56)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:47:14 AM EST
    of the Republicans. I have heard journalists say that it is very intimidating to be inundated with complaints (from the right wing) even if you know that they represent only a minority of people. The squeakly wheel and all that. Add that to the corporate control of the media and it makes it all that much harder for Democrats. We need to be a lot more effective in making sure the media hears from us instead of just complaining among ourselves.

    There is some hope as (none / 0) (#22)
    by Baal on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:38:14 AM EST
    all of the Dems refused to debate on Fox and Obama seems to determined to freeze them out forever; it looks like Hillary is doing the same thing.  It sets a good example for how to deal with propagandists posing as journalists.

    Having said that, I am concerned personally that Hillary went onto the Christian Broadcasting Network -- the 700 Club!! -- to do an interview.  The viewpoints expressed by there almost daily are as toxic to a free society as anything said by Farakhan.    

    Obama did it as well.. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:42:01 AM EST
    you are right (none / 0) (#29)
    by Baal on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:50:09 AM EST
    I weep for my country

    like it or not (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:46:08 AM EST
    evangelicals are a very large voting block and many of them are democrats.  I know, they are not supposed to be but trust me.
    and many are very unhappy with Bush and the republicans.

    But (none / 0) (#71)
    by tek on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    isn't it a little bit interesting that the Dem candidates would be invited to CBN?  In 2000 or 2004 I don't think that would have happened.

    I think that is partly because (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    they were far less interested in voting for a democrat in those years.  many in my family are evangelicals (I certainly am not, dont worry) and they are all yellow dog democrats.
    there is also the fact that there is now an evangelical environmental movement.

    Something has to happen (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:12:37 AM EST
    with the state of our press.  I attempt to give them the benefit of the doubt at times on other issues but when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan I just turn my ears off.  They are going to propagandize this and not even mention that.....surging in Baghdad is working ummmmm errrrr while many of the people who were the problem in Baghdad have moved into Northern Iraq regions where they can be more influential and soldier offing is a less challenging endeavor as well - but who wants to know about all of that nonsense outside of the BBC or McClatchy?

    NYT had an article recently (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:55:25 AM EST
    about post-Brit Basra.  Good article.  Not a peaceful place; more like Sicily or Naples under Mafia influence.

    I rememnber when Bill Moyers (none / 0) (#72)
    by Daryl24 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:00:48 AM EST
    asked Russert why he didn't investigate the Plame story or Iraq for that matter. Russert said that he would have but nobody called him.  

    Why NBC didn't fire him right then and there I'll never know.

    Forgot link (none / 0) (#118)
    by tree on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:38:43 AM EST
    btw, (none / 0) (#126)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:04:17 PM EST
    sen. clinton commented on her AUMF vote nearly 4 years ago, saying virtually the same thing. why anyone with a brain functioning above grapefruit level wouldn't know that (and i include russert and obama) is a mystery to me. oh, wait, there is "studied ignorance" to account for it.

    she's responded to that identical question multiple times since 2004, the exact same way each time. what is it the rest of you don't understand?