The Truth Hurts

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

The Obama network and Obama blogs are no doubt upset that Ed Rendell told the truth:

I think during this entire primary coverage, starting in Iowa and up to the present -- FOX has done the fairest job, and remained the most objective of all the cable networks. You hate both of our candidates. No, Iím only kidding. But you actually have done a very balanced job of reporting the news, and some of the other stations are just caught up with Senator Obama, who is a great guy, but Senator Obama can do no wrong, and Senator Clinton can do no right.

(Emphasis mine.) Of course, Rendell was not kidding when he said Fox hates both Clinton and Obama. The difference is NBC hates Clinton and worships Obama. That was Rendell's point. Hilarious that Josh Marshall takes offense. He is a NBC clone.

BTW, the Fox dope Doocy gets off a great line at Tweety's expense at the end of this video.

< SUSA KY Poll: Clinton By 2-1 | Double Standards: Part 1 Million One >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    faux is at least (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:36:31 PM EST
    equal in their hatred. never thought they'd be more legitimately fair and balanced than msnbc, daily kos, and tpm. can't wait to read boehlert's book.

    Not sure that's true (none / 0) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:47:28 PM EST
    1st half hour of Greta van Susteren, who doesn't usually do a lot of politics, has been all Rev. Wright all the time since the story first broke.  And she's only behind O'Reilly in ratings, I think.

    even if that's true (none / 0) (#46)
    by Turkana on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:00:55 PM EST
    that's just one show.

    A study was conducted concerning election coverage (none / 0) (#75)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:15:45 PM EST
    You can find the study here.

    Now, I doubt the accuracy of this study. The organization that conducted it is officially a nonpartisan research organization; however, it was founded by Pat Buchanan in the 80s, and it receives a significant portion of funding from other conservative groups, according to SourceWatch.

    This being said, I do not doubt that Fox News hates both Democratic candidates equally. In that regard, they're quite fair.


    Rendell (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Tove on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:37:29 PM EST
    Rendell called out MSNBC when he was on Charlie Rose a few days ago. He said that Keith Olbermann should be on Obama's payroll.

    He should be (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:41:43 PM EST
    That was a good interview (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:46:01 PM EST
    Thank You !! (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:49:44 PM EST
    I thank Rendell for speaking my mind and my feeligns.. I am a fox convertible .. who thinks it is far more fair and balanced vis-a-vis MSNBC "shiver up the legs" Anchors & CNN's disguising un-biased analysts !!

    I used to watch CNN (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by stillife on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:48:58 PM EST
    but I've turned it off during this election.  I stopped watching KO long ago, before the election b/c his show is like an echo chamber. Even when I used to agree with him, I got a creepy feeling b/c I like to be challenged a little with diverse views.  You don't get that on "Countdown".

    Now I'm back to getting most of my news from the good blogs like TL, but I've gotta admit that I have tuned into Fox a few times lately and I agree with Rendell's "joking" comment that they hate both Clinton and Obama equally.  In judicious doses, I find it to be a welcome antidote to the 24-hour Obama lovefest on the other news channels.  I guess that just goes to show how bitter and frustrated I am about this election.  Sometimes I wonder if I'm going to morph into a Faux-lovin' Republican by November.  /jk

    Do my eyes deceive me? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:50:00 PM EST
    Did you actually write in the above post that "Josh Marshall is an NBC clone"? Is this actually your bona fide opinion?

    NBC is a corporate network which on a daily basis spews either non-news or distortion. Josh Marshall is a fairly intelligent blogger who does his best on a daily basis to counteract the noxious influence of the Big Media. His articles are well-researched and his commentary, unlike Big Media, does not infantilize the reader.

    Josh Marshall represents everything that we're fighting for in the quest for better media. To compare him to NBC is like comparing FDR to Mussolini.

    last year you might have said that (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:53:09 PM EST
    and gotten some agrement.  now, he's an Obama shill and a shameless one at that.

    You must be joking (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:56:06 PM EST
    You must be absolutely joking.

    Really? (none / 0) (#85)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:33:32 PM EST
    I find that hard to believe after the defense he gave to MSNBC over their sexist coverage of Hillary and Chelsea.  Do you read TPM on a regular basis?

    Dude! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:06:16 PM EST

    I clicked the link and found myself at Total Pony Manure!

    Warn a guy next time, okay?

    Well, was it at least (none / 0) (#74)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:14:39 PM EST
    shiny Total Pony Manure?  ;)

    Yikes again.... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:08:49 PM EST
    are you people that dense (sorry I know it's an insult).   Does the whole world have to be simplified to "good" vs. "evil".  It's muddled, enjoy the muddle and make up your own mind.  MSM is MSM.  Blogs are starting to mimic MSM qualities.  

    If they were so progressive they should have been pushing progressive agendas and not cheerleading.  

    Yes, many commenters are partisan.  We come here cause when we do discuss it's not a free for all.  BTD and Jeralyn have standards.  We come here cause we were cussed, insulted and trivilaized when we tried to raise different point of views.  

    Do we get partisan?  Yes, but we don't throttle the opposition cause we are not allowed to do it.  So, we come here, cause there are Roolz.  

    ha...ha...used the roolz bit.  

    Atrios is mad at Rendell (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:59:58 PM EST
    for his comment above, because he says it "legitimizes Fox News".

    Nooo, instead, I think it DE-legitimizes networks like MSNBC.  They are currently WORSE than Faux News, if that is imaginable.

    Once again (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by joyce1 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:21:06 PM EST
    Hillary has proven that she is willing to face ANYBODY, even Scaife. She IS a fighter and is afraid of no one! She has done several press conferences, unlike Obama, and is willing to answer ANY question. Her knowledge on the issues is remarkable, she is amazing!

    Wrong again (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Publicus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:37:35 PM EST
    <<The difference is NBC hates Clinton and worships Obama.>>

    The difference is that Obama is a much more attractive and successful candidate, and the right-wingers at Fox want to run against Clinton - the weaker of the two.  

    Then why in the world (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:42:34 PM EST
    would they have equal coverage of the two?  If you're right, wouldn't they be bashing Obama more than Clinton?

    Recent polls (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:45:52 PM EST
    totally refute that claim. Something like 87 percent of republicans would rather go up against Obama...if Clinton were soooo easy to beat, you really think that would be the case? I don't think so.

    Clinton scares the republicans because she always comes back to life when they think they got rid of her. Also, I have a feeling she would get lots of republican women, particularly elderly republican women, in the general election who would want to be part of history. Remember, Kerry lost the women's vote to Bush...I have a feeling Obama will lose it also. He has pissed a whole lot of women off. Plus, her campaign has John Mccain on video saying she would make a great president =)


    The lost soccer moms (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:47:18 PM EST
    This one's for you: (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:20:16 PM EST
    Remember last election? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:13:52 PM EST
    No one talks about them this one.  I want to bring back the soccer mom.  I want to know the soccer mom and creative class connection.  Can a soccer mom be a member of the creative class?  Or are they just knitting hipster moms with tattoos.  Can soccer moms have tattoos?  Can hippster dad's be married to a soccer mom?  

    Lazio (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:53:17 PM EST
    Some GOPers remember what she did to Rick Lazio.  The GOP and MSM in New York claimed she had a 40% base and wouldn't move above that level in the election.

    She beat Lazio with over 55% of the vote and even managed to carry several upstate Republican counties.

    She won by hard work and a thorough knowledge and understanding of the issues.


    Even people that (none / 0) (#34)
    by 1jpb on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:48:20 PM EST
    work at Fox (Wallace) think that their coverage of BO has been unfair.

    Dobbs just covered it (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:17:58 PM EST
    and pretty much put it at the feet of the O Camp. Especially the cries for her to quit. And his poll question tonight is about the media bias . . . .

    No way can this hold up through Nov. He's gonna be toast in the GE.


    Was Lou (none / 0) (#78)
    by 1jpb on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:20:26 PM EST
    Cotton ... ?

    You may be surprised to know that Lou Dobbs likes to stack the deck.  I'd be shocked if he had a balanced panel.  


    One from each campaign and (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:58:40 PM EST
    Howard Kurtz (?)

    Davis and Zogby. Zogby was an a**, imo. Just kept trying to get those negative talking points in. Dobbs cut him off a couple times to 'clarify' a few things, which was amusing. I don't know how anyone can stand to be around Zogby. I'd prob smack him one ;)


    I think Wallace's (none / 0) (#86)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:35:49 PM EST
    comments were specific to the "typical white person" coverage - not to FOX's coverage of Obama in general

    Hah (none / 0) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:40:46 PM EST
    You fell for that one.  

    Um (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:41:25 PM EST
    That does not even address what I wrote.

    It's called reverse psychology... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:49:36 PM EST
    ...Fox, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter all act like they are pushing Clinton because they want Democrats to think they don't want to face Obama. They're not that dumb: they're licking their chops for Obama.

    Oops (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:56:37 PM EST
    I misread your post.

    Yes, exactly. I agree.


    You (none / 0) (#42)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:56:11 PM EST
    Give republicans wwwaaayyyyyy too much credit.

    They are really not thinking that hard about this...I had dinner with a friend who works on McCain's campain two weeks ago and he said they could not wait to get started taking Obama down in the general...he believs Obama would be MUCH easier to beat and he says that reflects the general feeling...

    Put up a war hero next to a guy who couldn't even bother to hold a single committee hearing on the foreign relations committee and now wants to be commander-in-chief....

    I don't think so....

    Clinton has had an impossible time becuase of the Clinton rules and the crazy media bias. McCain will not be handicapped in this way.


    you know what reverse psychology works? (none / 0) (#92)
    by ghost2 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:24:38 PM EST
    When Bush critized Obama in February (IIRC), after another high level person had done it.  None of you saw the point.  I don't exactly recall it, but it was a soft ball.

    The point was to get Obama to respond directly to Bush and make him look presidential and a stronger opponent for Hillary.  

    There are many reasons for drawing attention to a person.  These guys don't play at grade level, not even Bush.  Yes, democrats love to say Bush is not intelligent, but he is a really good politician, just not interested in governing.


    Please don't throw me in the briar patch! -NT- (none / 0) (#99)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:12:58 PM EST
    Maybe its not ordinary reverse psychology (none / 0) (#108)
    by mbu on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:56:08 PM EST
    Maybe its double reverse psychology.  They don't want to face Obama, but they are aware that if they use reverse psychology, it will be too transparant.  Don't put it past Karl Rove to pull something like this -- the greatest trick the devil (Rove) ever pulled was convincing the world (Democrats) he didn't exist!  If you think about it this way, the 2006 elections played right into his hands.  We have an ineffective congressional majority that spent a year trying to end the Iraq war and accomplished nothing, and is now a laughingstock.  Now McCain is poised to destroy us in the general, and ONLY OBAMA CAN SAVE US.  He IS the chosen one.  Chosen by the democratic voters.  And He will lead us to the promised land of the white house.  And then, hopefully, He will find it in His heart to forgive all of you.

    Actually, I think the Republicans just want a long (none / 0) (#109)
    by RickTaylor on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 01:24:19 PM EST
    drawn out race. If it was neck and neck with Clinton in the lead, I suspect they'd be saying nice things about Obama, like they were when the process started.

    Should Clinton get the nom., (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:25:46 PM EST
    Rendell would be a lot more interesting VP pick than Obama.  

    Or Wesley Clark (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:58:51 PM EST
    At this point, without Cuomo's plan (none / 0) (#3)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    I don't see how they can be together.. too much negative campaigning.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:34:22 PM EST
    Plus Cuomo is the shuck and jive Clinton surrogate.  He won't be convincing Obama of anything anytime soon.

    That's Andrew, not Mario. (none / 0) (#10)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:34:53 PM EST
    Is that a distinction w/a (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:36:20 PM EST
    difference?  That "surrogate" net is cast pretty wide re Clinton.

    Not sure why... (none / 0) (#88)
    by DudeE on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:46:47 PM EST
    ...he can't use shuck and jive but Obama can use bamboozle and 'okie doke'

    Rendell (none / 0) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:28:58 PM EST
    I like that guy, you can have some bourbons with him and hear some great stories.  Enough with the beer metric for politicians.  Good old fashioned party guy.  Scratchy voice and all.  I can relate to the tingling...(LOL)

    I think Rendell will get all the (none / 0) (#11)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:36:12 PM EST
    older ladies votes, he is really great...Downright sexy LOL...(thought I would throw in Barbara Walters line from The View....)...I 2nd him as VP...

    Would that be the (none / 0) (#18)
    by lisadawn82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:40:36 PM EST
    Fred Thompson kind of sexy but with a little more brains and charisma and....a pulse?

    Nothing sexy about a right winger (none / 0) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:45:52 PM EST
    Sorry (none / 0) (#39)
    by lisadawn82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:50:10 PM EST
    It was meant to be a bit snarky.  I've GOT to remember to put the snark tag on my stuff.  Drat!

    I wasn't on line (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lahdee on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:32:49 PM EST
    when the story broke, but I could hear the howling from here. Yes, Fox hates Democrats, but sadly so do some MSN and some lefty blogs. Senator Clinton is still a Democrat, right?

    Oh My.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:33:02 PM EST
    That dig at Tweety was to die for.

    I adore Rendell (none / 0) (#6)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:33:35 PM EST
    Not quite sure what it is, he just seems so real to me...I instinctively trust him to fight for me.

    Clinton is lucky to have him on her side, actually, both him and Mayor Nutter.

    Old and New economy (none / 0) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:37:26 PM EST
    Remember the dot.coms?  Well, sort of like that.  When the dot.coms went bust, owning stock in something like Coca Cola seemed to make more sense.

    No, don't trust Rendell (none / 0) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:44:43 PM EST
    Am I the only one who remembers he, as Dem. Party chair, was the first one to go on TV and tell Gore to concede in 2000?

    In a weird sort of way sexy, yes.  Not even a little bit trustworthy and clearly not a fighting Dem.  I expect he will be the first supposedly strong Hillary supporter to call for her to get out.



    I actually agree with you (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    Rendell will be the first one to stab Clinton in the back.

    Probably (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:46:25 PM EST
    I was waiting for you to weigh (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:13:45 PM EST
    in on your Gov.

    what about? (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:27:30 PM EST
    All the compliments here. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:35:58 PM EST
    I already have a set opinion of him (none / 0) (#81)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:41:37 PM EST
    which is neither glowing nor terrible.

    I can't correct all of the people here who are stupid about politics.


    Ooh, who'll approach Mikey af the Don's funeral? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:21:21 PM EST
    Jeez who needs soaps when this level of back-stabbing is the undertow to the news? When it comes to epic buddyism and operatic plots, I gotta hand it to republican power-structures as a matrix for these storylines of grand betrayal. ::snivel:: My people, invented that. And decent coffee and sweet tables.

    BTD: It'll be Rendell. He'll do the takedown.

    Random Dem: I'd have guessed Clemenza, whichever one had the canoli ...

    BTD: Nah. Rendell always was the smarter one. [/Michael]

    Elle: But he's still bringin' canoli, right? Or else I've gotta call that pimp Tataglia to get some when he picks up the biscotti.

    Meh, give me transparency, today's Corriere and a sidewalk table at a Milano cafe anyday.


    Thanks for sharing (none / 0) (#31)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:47:03 PM EST
    ...I was not aware of that about Rendell...I will do more research before falling for him =)

    Didn't say not to fall for him (none / 0) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:49:45 PM EST
    just not to trust him. ;-)

    I haven't trusted him since he (none / 0) (#60)
    by jes on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    essentially cleared the field for Casey Jr.'s 06 run. I swore up and down I'd never vote for Casey till the day I did.

    Does it bother you (none / 0) (#24)
    by 1jpb on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:45:01 PM EST
    that he said WJC was wrong to make the Jessie Jackson comment in South Carolina?

    Should it bother you (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:49:23 PM EST
    that I said so too? Will that ruin your image of me?

    No, (none / 0) (#44)
    by 1jpb on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:57:55 PM EST
    because I came down on that issue differently than the "standard" BO perspective.  You and I each stepped away from our "party line," but we just canceled each other out anyway.

    Me too. (none / 0) (#94)
    by ghost2 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:29:09 PM EST
    Rendell seems to be in the same mold as Hillary. He has substance, knows what he is talking about and doesn't regurgitate talking points.

    Plus, my new thing is that I find liberated men very sexy: Wes Clark, Ed Rendell, Joe Wilson, BTD, ..., the list goes on.


    He's absolutely right (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:33:55 PM EST
    I feel as though I'm living in bizzaro world these days.

    And the leg tingling line: heh (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:39:49 PM EST
    I really think (none / 0) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:34:19 PM EST
    that the reason why Faux will always do well and MSNBO will always be on the bottom is because Faux knows who the enemy is(n't).  NBC doesn't.

    How hard would it have been to have fair coverage that only *leaned Obama*.  The obvious hate toward Hillary only hurts them.

    Rendell should float idea of Independent run.. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:46:27 PM EST
    That's right, threaten to pull a Lieberman and run as an Independent. I'm thinkinig something along the lines of him saying "If two of the five largest Democratic states are not allowed to vote, the nominee will simply not be legitimate, and Senator Clinton MAY have to explore taking her campaign outside of the Democratic party in such an event." I bet that kind of threat would get the DNC moving realllll quick.

    Fox is unfair to both Dems (none / 0) (#40)
    by AF on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:51:27 PM EST
    A week's worth of Wright coverage, followed by a week's worth of Bosnia sniper coverage:  disgraceful.  

    Let's not forget who the enemy is here.

    Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:56:09 PM EST
    It's better than (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:02:35 PM EST
    One week's worth of "we shouldn't judge Obama by his association with wright" followed by one week's worth of "Clinton is a liar."

    Yep.  FNC > MSNBC at this point.

    That's a fact.


    I don't disagree (none / 0) (#51)
    by AF on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:05:26 PM EST
    But the words "Fox" and "fair" should never be uttered in the same sentence, without the word "not."  

    Right now (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:23:58 PM EST
    I'll settle for ballanced.

    me 2 (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:45:10 PM EST
    and as i've watched some of all 3 cable networks, before i swore off them all, fox's news coverage was certainly more balanced.

    Growing up in a Republican (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:55:56 PM EST
    household, I can watch Fox and filter the repub out of it. I only watch a bit of it, generally pop over there after being overdosed on the other networks. It helps me understand that not everyone has gone nuts ;)

    Balanced unfairness (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:58:18 PM EST
    Rendell made his point. His "i am kidding" meant nothing.

    Balanced unfairness (none / 0) (#48)
    by AF on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:03:09 PM EST
    Is not fairness.

    I hate to see anyone kissing up to the enemy.  I put this in the category of Bill Clinton calling John McCain a moderate -- not particularly helpful.


    You don't? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:06:40 PM EST
    So Clinton should spend her time attacking NBC then? That would be ok with you?

    Not sure (none / 0) (#57)
    by AF on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:09:21 PM EST
    What you're referring to, but I have never claimed that NBC is fair to Clinton or that she should refrain from calling them out.  

    I am not sure what you are (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:17:57 PM EST
    referring to then.

    How can you NOT know what I am referring to?


    Like praising Reagan? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:06:52 PM EST
    I know...cannot stomach that.  

    Reagan is dead (none / 0) (#56)
    by AF on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:08:01 PM EST
    He's not the enemy any more.

    Plus, Obama didn't praise him any more than Bill or Hillary have, but we don't have to go there again.


    I get it (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:10:04 PM EST
    the symbol of the right wing revolution is dead.  Long live the revolution.    Obama logic.  

    Kidding on the Square (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:07:47 PM EST
    sez Al Franken.

    Uhm, could you close the link (none / 0) (#49)
    by jes on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:03:53 PM EST
    after "this video" - in Mac/Safari I couldn't even make a comment because everytime I click anywhere on the page it sends me to TPM.

    Sprry (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:04:46 PM EST
    Clinton would lose to McCain - Obama might not (none / 0) (#87)
    by jegmister on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:44:32 PM EST
    I ask myself all the time - is it just me?

    Whatever all Clinton supporters may pretend, after all the smears and pointed attacks on Obama have all finished, this contest boils down to one thing.

    Who is most likely to beat McCain? Every poll I have seen shows Obama with a higher percentage vs McCain than Clinton. Isn't it interesting that Republicans are gleefully urging Clinton to continue in order to prolong the race and help their candidate?

    Clinton supporters always point to Michigan and Florida as evidence that their candidate could be ahead in the nominations before the super-delegates vote. But why should these states be allowed to be counted or to re-vote - they broke the rules. Or doesn't that count for anything any more?

    Clinton has always felt this candidacy was hers by right - and now she has come across a tough opponent she has resorted to every low blow you can think of against him. Who was it that really turned race into an issue in this campaign Hilary?

    I can tell when someone is so desperate to win that they will do anything possible and I don't trust Clinton one inch.

    maybe it's you. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:58:26 PM EST
    this map has TX (none / 0) (#93)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:24:46 PM EST
    barely GOP against Obama.  that's utter bullsh#t. Obama will get killed in TX.  :-)

    in the Clinton map they show Arkansas weak GOP.  McCain will get his head handed to him by Hillary there.


    Yes, and Ohio (none / 0) (#96)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:49:30 PM EST
    is shown as tied, but she is stronger than that here.  I would say Hillary by 6% or so over McCain if I was placing a bet.

    oh and Obama was the race baiter (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:19:52 PM EST
    for the record.  it's still subtly happening.

    it's defintely you (none / 0) (#90)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:18:51 PM EST
    because once the RNC smear machine gets through with Obama, he'll be lucky to win dogcatcher in Illinois

    sure. just keep telling yourself that (none / 0) (#103)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:58:47 PM EST
    The Right Wing Noise (none / 0) (#100)
    by dem08 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 09:24:07 PM EST
    and Smear Machine can be fought.

    They have been successful, but they can be fought.

    I am not criticizing people for naming the Right Wing Machine, but to say somehow Democrats and Americans cannot fight them is overstatement.

    John Kerry was not a good campaigner and President Bush was a Sitting President in the midst of an ongoing war. According to Historians BEFORE the 2004 election, "No sitting President had ever been defeated during a war."

    A toast by the way to LBJ. I am chasing 60, and his Presidency changed the actual color of my town's City Hall between 1964 and 1968. Viet Nam did him, and a great part of America's optimistic soul in. He announced 40 years ago tonight he "would not seek and will not accept" re-nomination. Then MLK is killed in April, RFK in June, and the Convention in August, accompanied by the "Police Riot" set us on the course to the America we live in today.

    Obviously, de-industrialization, the rise of the Age of Information, Global Markets, etc., were important, but our Soul died piecemeal in 1968. (IMO...if it isn't obvious.)

    Rendell Right On Target (none / 0) (#106)
    by lyzurgyk on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:16:29 PM EST

    That's my guv!

    This is another reason Obama should be glad Hillary is hanging in.   As soon as she's out of the race, he's Faux News Enemy #1.

    Makes me think of that old saying (none / 0) (#107)
    by splashy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 11:58:28 PM EST
    "I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally!"