The Blogosphere Has Its Comeuppance? Boehlert's Revenge

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:18:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This:

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein is now upset about the Media coverage. Obama is getting hit so it bothers him now:

It's not damaging because we think it foretells him doing something harmful to the country. It's not damaging because it suggests his policy agenda is poorly conceived, or his priorities are awry. If you think of policy and politics as two circles in a Venn diagram, this is damage that only exists in the politics circle, and doesn't even come close to the area of intersection.

Indeed. Funny how Ezra Klein, noted health care blogger, has not a WORD of concern about how Hillary Clinton was falsely smeared on the Trina Bachtel story. Even though Hillary Clinton was actually making a substantive point about an actual issue (indeed, one Ezra claims to care a great deal about), health care. Paul Krugman noticed. Ezra Klein chose not to. To complain now about this standard issue crappy political journalism after standing silent for all the BS that has been thrown at Hillary Clinton on a substantive issue makes Ezra Klein not credible. I do not respect him or the Left blogs precisely because they have stood by and said nothing about the media coverage in this contest. As Eric Boehlert said:

What’s happening online now is potentially dangerous: HRC has gotten dreadful press, not fair, “gotcha,” and so on — there’s a portion of the blogosphere that has ignored that and there’s a portion that has encouraged that.

It’s dangerous because the media criticism has to be consistent and relentless, and we can’t very well say, “You can’t go after our candidates … except this one.” I get nervous about pushback regarding disingenuous coverage - our response needs to be, “You can’t treat Democrats this way.” When people in the left blogosphere are quoting an anonymous Matt Drudge source, it makes me nervous.

It is incredibly selective of Ezra Klein, noted health care blogger, to NOW care about the media coverage of this contest. When health care was front and center, Ezra did not care. Because it was Hillary Clinton getting bashed. Sorry Ezra, your media criticism comes too little and too late and on the wrong subject now. You have no credibility for it. Eric Boehlert warned you.

Comments closed.

< A Difference of Opinion: Not Every Top Blog "Has Had It" With Hillary | Late Night: Factory Girl >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

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

You are one of the few people (5.00 / 16) (#1)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:22:43 PM EST

in these parts who has clean hands on the issue.

When the blogs have treated Hillary like a Repug (5.00 / 14) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:26:53 PM EST

especially regarding the Media, hard for them to complain when she goes after Obama.

Well, hard for them to CREDITABLY complain.

[ Parent ]

Well, under the Obama rules (5.00 / 5) (#6)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:30:52 PM EST

Hillary deserves it and he doesn't.

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

[ Parent ]

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

PA will be explained away.

He is a Media Darling. I am telling you.

[ Parent ]

Bay Area Repubs agree, media darling (5.00 / 1) (#128)
by catfish on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:27:29 PM EST

This was a big topic in letters to the editor in today's SF Chronicle. Apparently, earlier in the week two Hillary supporters complained about the editorial cartoonist's unfair depictions of Hillary. Here's a snippet of just one Repub's letter:

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

[ Parent ]

I'm thinking that PA (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:35:49 PM EST

is NH and NV replayed, and NC will be SC all over again.

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

[ Parent ]

Except Indiana Votes the Same Day (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by BDB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:40:36 PM EST

So Obama probably won't have two wins that day.

[ Parent ]

: Good point (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:42:40 PM EST

Expect to hear all about THE MATH that night.

[ Parent ]

Something Like This? (none / 0) (#18)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:47:12 PM EST

But J. Richard Gray, the mayor of Lancaster and an Obama supporter, said that this is not what Mr. Obama meant. In his view, Mr. Obama was trying to say that Republicans take emotional matters like guns and religion and try to use them to divide people.
"I don't think he's demeaning religion or guns," Mr. Gray said. "He's saying the use of those issues as wedge issues plays on the bitterness that people have and diverts attention from the real economic issues, like the disparity between the wage earner and the rich."
Mr. Gray also said Mr. Obama was right that voters are bitter, although he said he would have used the word angry. He pointed to a recent poll that found 81 percent of voters believe the country is on the wrong track. He said that Mrs. Clinton sounded like "a Pollyanna" in saying that workers were optimistic. "I don't know who she's been talking to," Mr. Gray said.

NYT

[ Parent ]

He can (5.00 / 6) (#24)
by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:06:11 PM EST

WORM all he wants on behalf of his candidate, as he should, but I am not stupid - I know what I heard. He did not say anything about republicans using this as a wedge issue, because in that case these DEMOCRATS would not vote for Hillary either.

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

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

[ Parent ]

Guess the bus ride was a real (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:20:37 PM EST

eye opener. Days on a bus driving through Central Pennsylvania. I guess charm did not work this time.

[ Parent ]

people know when they are being (5.00 / 5) (#34)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:30:06 PM EST

patronized no matter how charming the person is.

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

[ Parent ]

"Obama's bitter taste of own words" (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:44:06 PM EST

Baltimore Sun - http://tinyurl.com/5znf7s

Great article and comments by Vilsack.

[ Parent ]

President Hillary you go girl! (5.00 / 2) (#96)
by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:06:16 PM EST

We do know who is right for the President and it is not BHO. I know BHO did not get the kind of reception that he was looking for. And I live in a smaller town than you do. Basically he was calling us bias rednecks but trying so eloquently to answer the question of why he can not win over all the people in PA. My neighbor was in NY overnight and I asked her when she got back if she heard what BHO said. She said he saw it on TV this morning in her hotel and was flabbergasted.

[ Parent ]

er (none / 0) (#38)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:36:25 PM EST

Older women? Do you think that is who Obama was referring to? Religious anti immigrant, god fearing, working class gun toting mamas?

Don't think so.

Here is something from the other side:

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

WSJ via Protein Wisdom

[ Parent ]

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

to older women?

[ Parent ]

: OK (none / 0) (#134)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:33:43 PM EST

I wasn't sure why you brought up older women. Seemed like a nonsequitur but now it is clear that you were just doing an OT plug for Clinton.

[ Parent ]

we lost the south (none / 0) (#130)
by anna shane on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:30:51 PM EST

and some blue collar men over civil rights, our party went to the mat on that one and we lost a hunk of our previous demographic. the only reason we have it back is that America isn't that racist anymore, especially younger people, males and females. We have a much more integrated, much more interested-in-diversity society and our party has always supported equal rights, and racial justice. Barack is a consequence of this shift, and it's great. He's a 'professor' type-guy and he thinks he knows more than he does, so he'll probably always have some idea about something that will turn out to have little relation to reality and may make him look goofy and out of touch. this statement was very dismissive of the entire party base, so he needs to meet a larger variety of people so he can learn empathy and to mistrust his own possibly cherished opinions.

[ Parent ]

A Freedom Ride, (none / 0) (#101)
by mg7505 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:22:00 PM EST

Obama-style. To go along with all the other false comparisons of BHO to Civil Rights leaders.

[ Parent ]

I was late to this round (5.00 / 4) (#37)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:34:46 PM EST

so thanks for providing that context. I didn't know he was explicitly responding to why he was not getting votes over Clinton. Really makes it sound like a stock answer pertaining to Republican voters, and like he hasn't given any more thought than that as to why he is losing those voter to Clinton.

He is toast in the general.

[ Parent ]

: but it is worse (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:04:17 PM EST

because the people were also asking him what to expect when canvasing for him when they came to PA. It was a two part question. And since we have closed primaries he was telling them what to expect from democrats. They wouldn't be canvassing republicans. This is what he thinks of democrats in PA who are not voting for him.
Forget that maybe they just prefer Clinton for positive reasons. Because just a minute before that he said thes people also don't trust 46 year old black men and everyone laughed at the remark.
AFAIAC he was again blaming racism for the reason someone was not voting for him.
anyway I do not mean to be off topic. This election has cured me of so many things. My liberal white guilt is gone. I finally understand why republicans accuse us of elitism and are able to make it stick.
I ended up supporting Clinton because the arguments her were always so brain dead. I used to beg people to go ahead and oppose her but at least say something smart, accurate, real about why. And they couldn't do it, not 90 percent of them anyway.
The other reason is that the treatment of Clinton supporters on line was rancid and I thought they deserved better. So I defended them and became one of them.

[ Parent ]

Don't forget (5.00 / 4) (#57)
by sickofhypocrisy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:04:49 PM EST

that he also took the time to throw the Clinton Administration under the bus by saying these people were left behind during those years.

[ Parent ]

Whaaa (none / 0) (#26)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:12:49 PM EST

Why do you think that this demographic has been voting R against their economic interests? What else could he have been talking about?

His delivery was the problem not the content.

[ Parent ]

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

the content was.

[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0) (#33)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:29:29 PM EST

And what content is that? That many working class whites have been voting R and it has been working out for them so Obama should not bother?

[ Parent ]

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

?

[ Parent ]

Making Stuff Up? (none / 0) (#43)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:42:51 PM EST

What? Not sure what you are talking about. I have made nothing up.

[ Parent ]

What you're making (5.00 / 3) (#68)
by rooge04 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:17:08 PM EST

up is that all working-class Whites vote for Republicans. That is simply not true. They are a large portion of the Dem base. Always have been. You cannot win an election without them.

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

[ Parent ]

What You Are Making Up (none / 0) (#70)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:21:23 PM EST

I never said anything like this:

all working-class Whites vote for Republicans.

Such obvious lying does not help your argument.

[ Parent ]

Your implication is that (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by rooge04 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:23:53 PM EST

those dumb working class white people vote against their own best interests. You are implying that that is what the majority of them do. That is simply not the truth. They are the largest part of the Democratic base. Tricky I know...when you want to look down on them.

[ Parent ]

Yes But (none / 0) (#78)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:28:08 PM EST

Not only working class, more than half the country voted for GWB twice. At best these voters were easily manipulated, by a swaggering fake cowboy act. Call it whatever you want, I am sure that some smart people were fooled as well as idiots.

[ Parent ]

Typical (1.00 / 1) (#107)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:46:41 PM EST

Everyone is an idiot except Squeaky and those who agree with him.

[ Parent ]

Uhhh (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:19:08 PM EST

Your Pal Bush is at the lowest rating of any president, ever. 81% of americans believe that they the country is on the wrong track.

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

[ Parent ]

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

criticism of his Fearless Leader:

If you want to deny the news reports, and disbelieve Bush, then there is no argument that can change your mind.
Some call this BDS, I believe Bush Haters At Work - BHAW - is more accurate.
And BHAW are those who don't agree with the wisdom that PPJ has seen fit to dispense to us on irregular occasions.

[ Parent ]
: Right Track/Wrong Track (none / 0) (#187)
by cal1942 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:33:20 AM EST

is not the same as Approve/Disapprove.
People can hold the belief that the nation is on the wrong track but still approve of the sitting President. It depends on who you want to blame for the wrong track. Still other people simply don't make the connection between President and the direction of the nation.
Approval ratings were lower than Bush's at least at some point for Truman and Nixon. Truman had even lower ratings than Nixon during some of 1952 and I believe he may have had even lower ratings just after he canned MacArthur. I'm a living witness to the MacArthur business. You would not have believed the fury. Even my father, a Democrat to the deepest level of his soul, was angry.
The distinction Bush has is the long stretch that his approval ratings have been below 40%.

[ Parent ]

What! (none / 0) (#182)
by cal1942 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:17:33 AM EST

"Not only working class, more than half the country voted for GWB twice."

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

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

[ Parent ]

Yes I Know (none / 0) (#185)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:25:57 AM EST

I am talking about the ones that voted R and the ones in PA.

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

NPR

[ Parent ]

I Exaggerated A Bit (none / 0) (#190)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:45:36 AM EST

For the sake of PPJ aka Bushlicker, a regular TL Bush supporter.

The poll I was referring to is this:

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

think progress

[ Parent ]

: Oh, And (none / 0) (#192)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:47:26 AM EST

PPJ belongs to the 19% who think that the country is doing just fine, and on the right track.

[ Parent ]

classy! gotta remember that one :) (none / 0) (#90)
by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:48:09 PM EST

>>>They are the largest part of the Democratic base. Tricky I know...when you want to look down on them.

[ Parent ]

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

you said this (none / 0) (#206)
by Fredster on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:23:36 AM EST

so which demographic were you talking about?

[ Parent ]

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

[ Parent ]

Why do you think they have been voting R? (5.00 / 4) (#109)
by badger on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:51:25 PM EST

They haven't. PA went blue for Clinton (twice) and Gore and Kerry. WI and MN the same. MI the same (I think - haven't checked). IA for Clinton and Gore. OH for Clinton. He's whining because he lost big in OH, he'll lose big in PA and can't afford to allow MI to vote. He already won WI, MN and IA.

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

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

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

[ Parent ]

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

I was responding to this:

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

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

[ Parent ]

Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#81)
by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:30:37 PM EST

went blue for Kerry, so they were not voting against their economic interests. Just because they are not likely to vote for Obama, and vote for HRC again, does not mean they cannot tell what is in their interests or not.

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

[ Parent ]

Well Isn't That The Point (none / 0) (#92)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:52:03 PM EST

He made a gaffe. And this is another test of the staying power of his media darling status.

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

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

[ Parent ]

Also Clinton in 92 & 96 (none / 0) (#99)
by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:17:19 PM EST

And Gore in 2000. Doesn't sound as if we were part of that George Bush vote you were talking about. BHO did not make any new friends with his Penna small town talk down.

[ Parent ]

The Dems Lost The Rural Vote (none / 0) (#100)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:19:38 PM EST

In PA which is the context of the gaffe.

[ Parent ]

: Ooops (none / 0) (#114)
by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:02:53 PM EST

Guess I did not notice the one bank, one Post Office, 2 restaurants, 1 gas station,1 funeral home and 1 hardware store makes us a city. Oh wait, we are not a city. We are a small rural town. We do not even have ONE stoplight. But, we like Hillary and we voted for Kerry. I know what you are saying about the rural vote, but how many Democrats were in central PA anyway? BHO is probably annoyed that he had to ride a bus for several days and travel where he was not adored.

[ Parent ]

Not the bitter but the cling (none / 0) (#91)
by lambert on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:49:43 PM EST

Or -- since sauce for the goose, and all -- did Obama "cling" to Reverend Wright all those years?

[ Parent ]

I like the the new latest talking point (none / 0) (#159)
by voterin2008 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:55:29 PM EST

WORM around. Is this formed from the constant shifting of Clinton's campaign. Is it called worming now?

[ Parent ]

: WORM (none / 0) (#164)
by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:00:59 AM EST

What
Obama
Really
Meant
it's an acronym...they're meant to be clever.
If you want to assign one to Hillary...go for it.
WORM apparently is what happens when Obama gets off script and says stupid stuff that the campaign headquarters tries to clean up behind him after he makes a gaffe.
It happens frequently enough to engender an acronmym...deal with it.

[ Parent ]

seems like gray is a moron (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:22:20 PM EST

or just trying to explain away Obama's comments.
Now he is insulting my intelligence.

[ Parent ]

Hahahahah (1.66 / 6) (#31)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:24:42 PM EST

From what I gather, given your comments here, all Obama supporters are insulting your intelligence.

[ Parent ]

Notable midwestners, (none / 0) (#44)
by zyx on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:43:47 PM EST

not just a few bloggers who take time off from their spring weekends' wanderings to check their computers, are upset with what Obama said.

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

Tom Vilsack

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

http://tinyurl.com/5znf7s

More, too, if you use Google News.

[ Parent ]

Not Snark (1.00 / 1) (#49)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:51:06 PM EST

IMO, TeresaInPa feels most, or all Obama supporters are morons going by her comments here at TL. Besides, I voted for Clinton. But if you mean by "us" people whose candidate is akin to a Saint, I am not part of the cult.

[ Parent ]

All the talk, all the context (none / 0) (#62)
by blogtopus on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:09:41 PM EST

goes out the window with a 30 second attack ad.

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

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

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

[ Parent ]

: We'll See (none / 0) (#97)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:10:49 PM EST

Your opinion is noted. Will this sink him? That is the question posed by this thread. Will his teflon armor aka media darling status remain intact?
Stay tuned. My bet is that he will get a pass.

[ Parent ]

do not put words in my mouth (none / 0) (#213)
by TeresaInPa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:45:34 AM EST

You will not speak for me, I am capable of doing that myself. That is something both Obama and his followers need to learn.

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

[ Parent ]

: Not Putting Words (none / 0) (#223)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:48:27 AM EST

In your mouth, I would not dream of it. As I said, based on my observations, imo, your comments here belie your distaste for Obama supporters. Mostly you have questioned their intelligence, you were even scratching your head about your siblings who are otherwise smart.
And I am not an Obama supporter, I voted for Clinton, but I do like Obama and will support the democratic nominee, whoever that may be.
And the rest of your diatribe seems off the mark, to me. At worst Obama said something that can be used against him by his enemies. I do not think he was in fact being elitist, and I do think that his remark was made because he truly believes that if he were elected President he can help those who have become bitter due to loss of hope.
And Clinton, for the sake of an easy shot, claimed that there are no bitter people in PA. Well I think that she believes that she can help the same people that she talks about here:

"Our American workers work harder and are more productive than anyone," she said. "And yet for too many, here in North Carolina and elsewhere, that hard work doesn't seem to be paying off."
Better phrasing for sure, but pretty much the same demographic. Obama was more specifically implied that he was talking about men, though.

[ Parent ]

Actually, Obama is the one (none / 0) (#141)
by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:50:13 PM EST

insulting people's intelligence, asking us to take him as a qualified candidate for the Presidency. Then he proceeds to eat shoe leather in various venues across the country. As for his supporters, well, "'Every one to their own taste', said the old lady as she kissed the cow."

[ Parent ]

can we now pronounce... (none / 0) (#131)
by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:31:48 PM EST

your media darling theory officially in pause mode if not complete stop mode?

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

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

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

[ Parent ]

It may be explained away but (none / 0) (#132)
by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:32:54 PM EST

That doesn't mean the voters are going to buy the explanation. We shall see what they say in the voting booth. The media can say whatever they want about what the candidates say, it's the voters who are going to decide who they agree with, not the media. And Obama has alienated a lot of voters. He thinks his charm and rhetoric can smooth it over, well, think again. He can't unsay what he said, no matter what it was.

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

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

[ Parent ]

and (none / 0) (#66)
by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:11:56 PM EST

Let's not forget, the same people who will be discussing this in the media are of the same demos as the ones who laughed at obama's remarks in san fran. Millionaire pundit class.

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

[ Parent ]

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

but it's fair game.

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

[ Parent ]

: And she got blamed (none / 0) (#103)
by mg7505 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:26:08 PM EST

for going after him. It became a referendum on Hillary instead of BHO. I wish McCain had laid it down so Hillary would be out of the line of fire. Of course then the major networks would just make up another reason to go after her.

[ Parent ]

From the incomparable DailyHowler (none / 0) (#145)
by ghost2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:59:50 PM EST

That's why democrats lose elections.

Peter Daou really gets it - May 2006

WE DON'T TRY HARDER:

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

HARWOOD (3/24/08): Democratic operatives have prepared a sustained attack against what they call myths underlying Mr. McCain's reputation for straight talk. ''It's going to take a while to tear that down,'' said Jim Jordan, a consultant who will lead a Democratic Party advertising campaign to aid its nominee. Lamenting the Clinton-Obama fight, Mr. Jordan added, "That's why it would be nice to get this over with as soon as possible."
That highlighted statement is revealing--and sad. Speaking of McCain's undeserved "reputation for straight talk," Jordan makes this pitiful statement: ''It's going to take a while to tear that down.''
...
The RNC (and the rest of the conservative world) would never have tolerated the sanctification of some Big Major Democrat of McCain's type. But liberals and Dems have stared into space as McCain has been endlessly vested with sainthood. By any normal interpretive standard, our liberal/Dem elites just don't seem to care. Judged in any normal way, they don't care who wins our elections.
We'll be exploring these themes all week. We've been number two--and we haven't tried harder! Why is that? we'll ask all week. Why is Jordan gearing up for a fight about McCain's public profile long after the fight has been lost?

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

[ Parent ]

But BO's comments do suggest (5.00 / 7) (#2)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:26:34 PM EST

his policies (since we're not sure about them, as weren't we told just yesterday by his people that it's about politics, not policies?) and his priorities.

Obama's policies and priorities would not be favorable to a huge swath of us in the fourth of the country's population in the Midwest -- with even more when it takes in (on some maps) western Pennsylvania, western New York, etc.

How do we know? Because he doesn't really know us. And historically, those who don't know us keep foisting on us policies that look good on paper on the coasts but don't work for the heartland . . . and often do more damage.

Give me a real Midwesterner -- give me Clinton.

Well (5.00 / 6) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:29:52 PM EST

I think his statement is a political gaffe. that is what it is. the reporting has been accurate. You can not tell people how they should feel about it. They will react as they react. Obama should not have said it, imo, not because it means anything policywise, but because it was politically stupid.

What I can not stand is Ezra Klein's smarmy newfound concern about media coverage after he stood silent as Hillary was falsely smeared by the Media and Left blogs on the Trina Bachtel story - a story with very serious policy implications about an issue Klein claims to care about - health care.

Sorry, on this, Ezra comes across as a clownish cartoon to me. He is no better than a Wingnut.

[ Parent ]

First, they came for the Clintons... (5.00 / 12) (#9)
by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:33:13 PM EST

and I said nothing.

Then, they came for the clowns...

[ Parent ]

But who (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by magisterludi on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:37:57 PM EST

will care for the balloon animals?

[ Parent ]

: perhaps a junior senator from IL (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:46:12 PM EST

will need a hobby soon...?

[ Parent ]

Exactly -- the reaction re the Bachtel story (5.00 / 4) (#20)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:58:43 PM EST

told me that, with health care one of my priorities, and with her policy being the best . . . had Obama stepped up and allied on this issue and said that what is important is that a mother and child died -- but nope. He played politics over policies again.

What you call a gaffe, as it is, I see something larger and worse -- I see it as comments revealing exactly who Obama is and is not. So he's not for me, as this episode only reaffirmed my thoughts about him. Not feelings, btw; I, for one, am not determining this on emotions but on an entirely rational basis.

(As for Klein, I didn't weigh in on that; I don't read him much and now see even less reason.)

[ Parent ]

How old was Ezra (5.00 / 3) (#77)
by zyx on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:26:51 PM EST

When Kerry ran for President? How old was Ezra when Gore ran for President?

If he was busy thinking of other things, there are books about the media coverage in 2000 and 2004.

One of the things about this election that makes me squirm is that we're supposed to embrace Obama because of all these young voters who are enthused about him. I feel so cynical--I kind of think they need to start learning that things don't always come up roses when they fill out that first voter registration card and cast that first ballot.

Sorry if that makes me a terrible person! You know, why shouldn't they walk uphill, in the snow, five miles, both ways...

[ Parent ]

Amen on the young (none / 0) (#104)
by mg7505 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:30:51 PM EST

voters argument. I mean, we shouldn't trust young voters on blind faith about politics any more than we should trust them on art, music, fashion, literature, romance ... Every superdelegate who votes Obama because 'their child(ren) made them' should be obligated to dress, act and speak like their child until the general election.

[ Parent ]

Every superdelegate that votes for Clinton should (1.00 / 6) (#165)
by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:01:34 AM EST

explain why they support a lier on campaign promises, free trade supporter, divisive, kitchen sink throwing, win at any cost including destroying the democratic party, completely unelectable candidate.

Sorry if you take this the wrong way but oh well!

[ Parent ]

To balance: (5.00 / 1) (#193)
by Regency on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:56:52 AM EST

Every superdelegate should have to explain why they support a democratic ideal-screwing, backroom-deal brewing, accountability delegating, patently poisonous amorphous blank slate of a candidate and expect the rest of America to jump on board that Titantic's maiden voyage. Living in America is already a gamble, you shouldn't have to worry that the guy in the White House might accidentally bomb your street because its name sounds like one of those countries he's never been to, but that he's sure is dangerous. (Not to worry though--he was against that war that we were in before the other 3 he got us into.)

Sorry if you took that the wrong way, but who cares!

[ Parent ]

I would take it the wrong way (1.00 / 1) (#207)
by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:33:34 AM EST

but you just made those things up, I brought up factual points not talking points spinned together to pin down a candidate who is the first true leader we've seen since Bill Clinton.

So don't take it the wrong way but my statements are true yours are morphed from hate, divisivness and a need to justify why your candidate must tear us down to build us back up. Also work on your arguments more the points you made up are kind of ridiculous and weak in that fact.

[ Parent ]

: No you didn't bring up factual points (none / 0) (#224)
by tree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:02:42 AM EST

You brought up your opinion. And every one of your opinions could be used to describe Obama's campaign just as easily, so why is it that only Clinton voting super delegates must justify their vote? You've bought the Obama campaign's talking points. We've all got that point from you, but if you can't see where your candidate has lied, broken campaign promises, thrown the kitchen sink and said anything to win then why should we consider your arguments as valid?

[ Parent ]

These young voters perhaps? (none / 0) (#110)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:52:41 PM EST

I found this link when I went to the Obama blog to see what kind of hate they were spewing. The guy that posted the link wanted people to spread it so it would go viral . . . at first I thought it was a joke . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czyZ3tFJCKw

[ Parent ]

: Oh hurl... (none / 0) (#126)
by zyx on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:23:47 PM EST

that video is icky. My children probably do dreadful things, too. OTOH, a few years ago my older son spent a junior-year semester in Vienna. He phoned one day and was just bubbling over with excitement at having seen "Turandot" at the Vienna Opera the night before. (Standing-room tickets are just a Euro or two, and he went pretty often.) I remember thinking, hey, is this partly something I did?

[ Parent ]

Wait until Obama is the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:57:37 PM EST

(assuming he is)

Ezra is gonna be really upset when the media starts treating Obama like a Democrat.

After all, John McStain is their true love.

[ Parent ]

Thank you for telling it like it is. (none / 0) (#147)
by ghost2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:00:55 PM EST

right on (5.00 / 9) (#4)
by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:29:36 PM EST

Two months ago I posted on MY's blog that progressives couldn't have a double standard and cheer when hrc was getting dumped on because soon enough it would happen to obama. Well they all dismissed that with a "but she deserves it".

I wish I could be outraged at unfair coverage of obama (if, indeed, this is unfair) but I just have to laugh at the BO bloggers naivete and/or duplicity.

It is not unfair (5.00 / 10) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:31:36 PM EST

in that any pol who said it, well any Dem pol who said it, would catch hell for it.

It IS stupid coverage of course. But it always is. And standing silent when Hillary was unfairly and falsely smeared on the Trina Bachtel story disqualifies Klein from talking about the media to me.

[ Parent ]

: Hear, hear (5.00 / 5) (#23)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:00:54 PM EST

again on the Obama non-reaction re the Bachtel story. Same as with the MSNBC "pimping their daughter" story -- a leader who lived up to what he claims to be would have come forward.
And he might just have won me by doing so. But so far, nope, he's got nothing for me -- because he has done nothing for me but diss me and my concerns, such as the tragic status of health care access in this country.

[ Parent ]
: sure (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:57:17 PM EST

But it is funny to see the "skins" go nuts for the kind of coverage they cheered when it was happening to the "shirts". (To use somerby parlance)
I've been shocked by how many obama supporters have argued - with a straight face - that there is no media bias. Wonder if they will continue to think that?
(Of course they will likely just continue to blame clinton because ... Well she must have activated a chip in obama's head for him to say such things. Not that those things are wrong. And, really, it's good for the media to cover it to illuminate voters. But they shouldn't cover it because it helps clinton. Because she's pandering to voters. Which will hurt her because voters want to be talked to straight up like obama did. Of course, he misspoke. Or something)

[ Parent ]

My low information brain (5.00 / 2) (#79)
by Practically Lactating on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:28:51 PM EST

is only capable of holding one rancorous emotion at a time, and bitterness currently occupies the spot. Sorry, no room for outrage here.

[ Parent ]

Poor Ezra... (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:34:55 PM EST

His 'guy' was never gonna get a fair shake from the main stream media in a general election anyway...he just didn't care because the media was clobbering Clinton and that made him happy.

Niemöller told this story better than anyone and of course Eric Boehlert is right...where were you when?

Kudos to Eric Boehlert (5.00 / 10) (#12)
by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:36:37 PM EST

for being a voice in the wilderness. I read his book "Lapdogs" a year or so ago. Good stuff!

We need more like Boehlert and Bob Somerby. And thank you, BTD, for shining a light on the biased media coverage.

I get e-mails from Media Matters, and I've noticed that the great preponderance of their complaints about biased coverage focuses on anti-Obama or pro-McCain coverage. They are, for the most part, strangely silent on Clinton bashing. For me, and I suspect many other Clinton supporters, this intellectual dishonesty trivializes the real and serious issue of media bias and turns it into a political game. Obama supporters, listen up: I'm not inclined to cry me a river when your candidate gets a taste of what Hillary has endured for months.

I did appreciate MM posting this fact (5.00 / 9) (#19)
by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:54:13 PM EST

Obama supporters are STILL saying Hillary answered "as far as I know" to the question on 60 Minutes that Obama was not a Muslim.
Even posting the YouTube link is futile - the propaganda is cemented in their brains. And of course pro-Obama blog owners don't confuse their users with pro-Hillary facts.

Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. You can time it yourself by watching the clip at YouTube.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002

[ Parent ]

: Yes (5.00 / 4) (#21)
by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:59:12 PM EST

that was an excellent column by Boehlert.

[ Parent ]

It has been said (5.00 / 7) (#14)
by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:41:43 PM EST

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

And an Obama supporter has used that to refute the argument being made here by BTD.

Problem is. The particular consistency being advocated for here is not foolish.

Indeed the party divides without it.

Score another point for BTD here.

And remember. This goes back to Obama saying that while it wasn't all Clinton's fault all those attacks in the 90s, they still existed, and that was why she would not be able to unite the country the way he can.

Obama never said those attacks were wrong, and indeed he wants to appeal to Republicans who refuse to admit that those attacks were wrong.

So this is something that has not only revealed the clownish aspect of A-least bloggers, but the candidate himself.

One of the odd consistencies of the (5.00 / 12) (#15)
by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:44:56 PM EST

Obama supporters is that they insist on defending EVERYTHING about Obama, without exception, rather than supporting the man with all his flaws.
I certainly don't see the same irrational thinking in Clinton supporters.
I mean.. have you noticed how many Obamaphants are instant experts on small towns in PA today?
Who would have thought it! They now extol Wright, for the most part. And so on.

[ Parent ]

You haven't? You are refusing to see then. (none / 0) (#108)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:50:50 PM EST

Obama supporters is that they insist on defending EVERYTHING about Obama, without exception, rather than supporting the man with all his flaws. I certainly don't see the same irrational thinking in Clinton supporters.

I see it at least once a day, every day. Both candidates have some partisans who do it.

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

Not really. Every day, STILL, you (none / 0) (#111)
by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:53:28 PM EST

see diaries at Mydd and DK saying how great Wright is, for example. What Hillary partisans are saying Hillary was absolutely right about Tuzla? No one.
It's definitely something about Obama. For instance, Edwards' supporters weren't like this at all.

[ Parent ]

Actually there were (none / 0) (#124)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:23:29 PM EST

HRC partisans defending Tuzla- god bless their partsian fevortoo

Ha ha (none / 0) (#217)
by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:41:58 AM EST

My husband was one of them ;) You should hear a soldier tell you how the Tuzla misunderstanding happened. You would believe him ;)

[ Parent ]

can he post here or can (none / 0) (#219)
by TeresaInPa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:48:13 AM EST

you link to something he has said.

[ Parent ]

I don't have anything to link to (none / 0) (#220)
by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:18:35 AM EST

he doesn't blog. The military discourages it but even if they didn't I don't think he would blog, it just isn't his style. He explained though that security was probably confident about the immediate area of the airport but that most likely they were all cautioned to spend as little time as possible out in the open while greeting each other. And that sniper fire probably existed in the area and that when they moved from the airport to vehicles they probably were told to jog and keep their heads down on the way to the cars.

[ Parent ]

: We just rewatched her comments on Tuzla (none / 0) (#221)
by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:33:37 AM EST

to refresh ourselves with it all and as far as landing using evasive maneuvers, that would have also been common practice on the front lines and it is practiced everyday for every take off and landing in Iraq as well. It amounts to spiraling in and out of the airports to make it harder to hit the aircraft with rpg and various other not nice artillery. My husband has done take offs and landings in many C-130s into and out of Iraq and promises that if you are civilian you won't forget your airplane spiral experiences. He considers them a necessity and if you're a pilot and have faith in this flying stuff you might even think it is fun but the rest of us....probably not.

[ Parent ]

I never thought (5.00 / 8) (#16)
by Lil on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:45:16 PM EST

the left blogs, radio personalities, commentators, that saved my sanity, especially since Kerry lost, would get checked off my list. I have been r

The Blogosphere Has Its Comeuppance? Boehlert's Revenge

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

Contributors

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Stats