The Blogosphere Has Its Comeuppance? Boehlert's Revenge

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You are one of the few people (5.00 / 13) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:22:43 PM EST
    in these parts who has clean hands on the issue.

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

    Well, hard for them to CREDITABLY complain.


    Well, under the Obama rules (5.00 / 4) (#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.


    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.


    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).

    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.


    Except Indiana Votes the Same Day (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:40:36 PM EST
    So Obama probably won't have two wins that day.

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:42:40 PM EST
    Expect to hear all about THE MATH that night.

    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.



    He can (5.00 / 4) (#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.


    Guess the bus ride was a real (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    people know when they are being (5.00 / 3) (#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...


    "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.


    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.

    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


    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?

    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.

    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.  

    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.

    I was late to this round (5.00 / 3) (#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.


    but it is worse (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    Don't forget (5.00 / 3) (#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.  

    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.


    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.  

    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?

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

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

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

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

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


    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%.


    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.


    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.



    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


    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.

    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.

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

    so which demographic were you talking about?


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


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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?

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

    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.


    seems like gray is a moron (5.00 / 0) (#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.  

    Hahahahah (1.80 / 5) (#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.

    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.


    More, too, if you use Google News.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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."

    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.


    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.


    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.


    This may be "just politics" (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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.

    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: 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.  


    But BO's comments do suggest (5.00 / 6) (#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.


    First, they came for the Clintons... (5.00 / 11) (#9)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:33:13 PM EST
    and I said nothing.

    Then, they came for the clowns...


    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?

    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...?

    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.)  


    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...


    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.

    Every superdelegate that votes for Clinton should (1.00 / 5) (#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!


    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!


    I would take it the wrong way (1.00 / 0) (#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.


    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?

    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 . . .



    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?

    Wait until Obama is the nominee (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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 / 8) (#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 / 9) (#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.


    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.


    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)


    Poor Ezra... (5.00 / 3) (#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 / 9) (#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 / 8) (#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.


    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.  

    It has been said (5.00 / 6) (#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 / 11) (#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.

    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.


    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.

    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 ;)

    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.

    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.

    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.

    I never thought (5.00 / 7) (#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 reading Talk Left and My DD for years, and can't say how grateful I am that they didn't succumb. Through them I've discovered lots of other great blogs that have helped restore my sanity once again.

    The amazing double standard (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:00:23 PM EST
    As you mentioned many times before, for me, was:  don't say anything against Obama cause you will damage him if he is the nominee, yet, pile on if it's against Hillary.  

    For fun string together certain words and see how many of our friendly blogs show up:  Hillary or Clinton's with the following:   stoop, Provoke, Secretive, Hypocrisy, Liar, will do anything.  Use your imagination.  

    It's as if there was a concerted effort, which I believe there was, the isolate the Hillary in these words.  So, you cannot help it to not have these words pop up in any conversation.    

    And (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Lil on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:13:36 PM EST
    "their" seeming lack of understanding that they were hurting the Democratic party. As I've said many times, what will they do if she actually pulls it off? "They" will have to write a whole new script (character restoration). Their credibility will be tarnished for quite a long time and they put the GE at risk.

    OT, I know but (none / 0) (#47)
    by vigkat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:50:31 PM EST
    It is currently being reported in a diary on the recommended list on DKos, that Carter and Gore will deliver the necessary blows.  According to the source (the Scotsman) relied upon by diarist Poblano, they will either jointly announce an endorsement of Obama, or meet with Hillary to "deliver the coup de grace" by asking her to concede to Obama.  It's unclear whether this would come before the primary in Pennsylvania, or after. This is being greeted with great delight.

    Okay (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:55:24 PM EST
    so two white guys are going to deliver the "necessary blows" on the woman.

    If that happens, it seals the deal for me.  I will then never vote for a Democrat again.


    I'll believe it (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:00:57 PM EST
    when I see it.

    Until then I'm not worrying about it.

    It's just haka.


    My thought exactly (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by vigkat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:11:51 PM EST
    I couldn't bear to read the whole thing, or any of the comments, but it's clear this is being greeted as the answer to the Obamamaniac's prayers.  It's an ugly scene.

    deus ex machina (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:10:54 PM EST
    They've been clamoring for that miracle from before the Ohio primary, if I recall correctly.  By the time I read the sixth diary petitioning Saint Gore to Save The Democratic Party(and Obama's nomination), I had gone from derision to laughter to pity.

    The race is Obama's to win or lose.  Asking for divine intervention shows a remarkable lack of faith.


    I had to look that word up (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by tree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:24:25 PM EST
    but once I did I realized it fits perfectly: the Maori postural dance.

    I was comforted by (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:34:15 PM EST
    an unlikely source -- freepers.

    Yeah, Carter (whose presidential reputation isn't exactly perfect) and Gore (a failed presidential candidate) is going to tell the wife of the last 2-term president, and a pretty much tied presidential candidate in her own right, that she needs to step down?  

    I wonder how far she'll spew her coffee from laughing.

    Yes, they're both Nobel prize winners, but neither from anything they did in US politics.

    I loved them both, but won't like either very much if they gang up on her.  But I also, on second thought, don't think it'll have much impact.


    Won't make that much impact (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:54:59 PM EST
    First of all, Gore will lose a lot of book sales. I love Gore but I noticed every time he had a book or DVD out, he would make all the talk show appearances and smirk and get people excited that he might run because he would just not say no. So I believe he was teasing us to sell books. As for Carter, he makes a better x-President than he was a President. He is also an example of a 'new'non DC person who would bring us change. The problem is that he did not know how to play the game. Interestingly, Ted Kennedy was one of his biggest rival. And Carter was the first President I voted for. One term and people went for Reagan, especially Dems.

    I don't care about who Carter wants but I hope Gore will not jump in. I know it will not make a big difference in Penna because the people pretty much have their candidate picked. We should have voted a month ago. But as it nears, the excitement will grow again. Plus, now we have BHO making bad news again and it is against the people he wants to vote for him.


    And the comedy (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:34:34 PM EST
    is that Carter the voting rights activist says nothing about Florida and Michigan.

    And Gore who lost Florida because votes weren't counted says nothing about Florida.

    So to them, voting rights matter, except when it might favor Clinton?

    Not surprisingly, these "party elders," "statesmen," may be nothing but partisan shills when it comes to their own candidate.  


    Teresa, (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by ghost2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:09:44 PM EST
    That's frankly why I haven't put so much faith in those rumors.  This is the latest of many rumors in this cycle that Gore will endorse Obama.

    Now, I believe that what Al Gore went through in 2000 fundamentally changed him, and brought him in touch with his values.  It liberated him.  I hope that the recent praise hasn't got to his head!

    I really respect Al Gore, and I don't think he would (or should) ignore the issue of Florida/Michigan votes under any circumstances.  Already republicans are gleeful, and say, "remember, when democrats wanted to count EVERY LAST vote?  Apprarently, they now don't care about two whole states."  I have to agree with them.  

    What is happening in this cycle with respect to Florida and Michigan is a thousand times worse than Florida 2000.  


    seriously (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:43:40 PM EST
    How many times have we heard this?  Some deux ex machina (gore, carter, edwards, 50 superdelegates) will deliver obama from the horrible hillary.  

    We'll see.


    why does someone always have to save him? (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by MMW on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:04:04 PM EST
    Isn't he supposed to be the one saving our divisive...? Bringing us to the light and all?

    Good point (none / 0) (#117)
    by phat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:07:02 PM EST
    I would guess is that it's all these Knights in Shining armor have to stick by each other. You know, it's about that round table thing.

    They have no authority (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:01:57 PM EST
    to ask anyone to do anything.  It has been reported on teevee many times, that no one has the power to get Clinton to do anything.  She isn't going to quit and I truly have no interest in why they think Carter (come on) or Gore could get any candidate for any office to do anything.  It would make no sense for them to do it now.  sheesh.

    Gore would be unwise to do that (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:06:54 PM EST
    he would be the joke of Democratic politics and would surely lose a lot of respect, respect he never had as a candidate.  He would also be ravaged by the press.

    Both would lose their stature in the party and they would forever be known as the men who helped lose the 2008 Democratic election.

    It would be a very unwise move.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#67)
    by vigkat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:16:37 PM EST
    It makes no sense at all, especially in light of his recent indication that he would not be getting involved in this contest on any level.  I haven't read the sourced material, so I don't know on what it is based.

    War of nerves (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:09:10 PM EST
    They do that every once in a while to make the follower get a rush and us to get jittery.  

    "a source" says. (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:24:08 PM EST
    I learned something from the Judith Miller drama - did anyone else?

    quote of the day! (none / 0) (#152)
    by ghost2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:11:41 PM EST
    Oh, one of BTD's favorite posters. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:25:23 PM EST
    He had a fairly racist post several months ago about Hillary's Latino fund raising and really PO'd BTD.

    Desperate measures to induce her exit (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:23:44 PM EST
    Let's see all these "sure" endorsements on the record.

    The Obama insurmountables continue to rely on a series of if if if if and if's ALL rolling in his favor. There's a lot of counting of chickens before they're hatched here.

    Resolution of the MI/FL sagas. The delegates. The superdelegates. The actual votes (as opposed to very flattering readings of polls and other gossamer).

    It would "solve" so many problems for Obama if HRC just took a dive, stayed down and remained motionless through the count -- except to applaud his "win". It continues to look like that's not gonna happen (I hope).

    If he's won, declare it, and show the math and the workbook. If he hasn't these gambits are ridiculous.


    What I am going to enjoy, (none / 0) (#155)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:40:34 PM EST
    and I mean enjoy as in relish, chuckle with glee, grin ear to ear, and re-read ad nauseum, is the post where Kos eats crow and has to support the nominee, Hillary. I am going to really enjoy that. Really, really enjoy it.

    I need to stop reading comments (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:07:21 PM EST
    Little pearls of wisdom from a poster at the Klein piece:

    People don't trust politics. They (the little people) think of you (the person who erroneously found Obama's comments to be offensive) as liars. by lying (purposely finding offense) like this about what Obama actually said and meant, you  (who fails to understand the true intent of Obama's words) only confirm his (the One who tells the truth) point. I certainly lost a little respect for some of the bloggers (because you refuse to look through my partisan colored set of glasses) misusing what is a comment that we all readily agree is true- that Americans have voted their social views over their economic interests because they (those religious people) didn't think they (those gun toters) could trust us (Obama, and the rest of us high knowledge people.)

    I'm not sure if this is 'ugh' or 'sigh'

    Excellent summation! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:34:16 PM EST
    The only valid POV is my POV, your POV is not valid because of X, Y and Z.

    I can just feel the condescension oozing forth.


    Heh. Wish I'd read your succinct wrap up (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:51:02 PM EST
    ... before posting my rambling rant downstream.

    Of course, I don't have a pond.


    But you rant so well (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:05:15 PM EST
    you ranted at me once.  That was how I came to appreciate your wit.  :)

    Arggggh and yikes (none / 0) (#39)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:37:34 PM EST
    about covers it for me.

    Pro-Obama bloggers AWOL on fair coverage (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:38:01 PM EST
    I'm disappointed in the fostered attitude that egregiously unfair tactics like sexism in the media should be overlooked because We Like Obama.

    The double standard to benefit their preferred candidate, including the ridiculous posture that criticizing Obama's statements, actions and record  all of a sudden constitute some kind of unfair dirty politicking -- all generating from the Bad Monster Lady, whether the criticism actually came from her or not -- has become almost too moronic to address ... unless anyone cares about what's going to happen in the GE and afterwards.

    If a David Schuster had said Obama was pimping Michelle by putting her out on the campaign trail, would "progressive" voices be circling their wagons around Schuster and his defenders, and vilifying Obama because Schuster was punished?

    How about the hue and cry over Randi Rhodes' suspension for her gratuitous "f-cking wh0re" slam? Had it been a race=based slur aimed at Obama, would she be hailed as a free-speech martyr just doing comedy? Would this be used as an excuse to blame Obama because Rhodes esd called out on it?

    And what about brushing past Sen. Clinton's own words and deeds in her own record of service, but holding her responsible for official Clinton admin policies -- that she had no vote in -- AND using her as an excuse to rehash the totally irrelevent Lewinsky poli-porn?

    Boiling it down to the two remaining candidates for the Dem ticket, HRC is no more "ambitious" for still being in it and fighting s any candidate would than BO is "uppity" for doing so.

    I want their strengths and weaknesses fairly judged and any parties that thwart that to be taken to task transparently and based on actual events -- not smeared on attributes (like the Clintons themselves or their supporters are suddenly racists.)

    My number one issue is and has always been global human rights. It was at the core of the unconstitutional rush to war. It's been at the center of resisting the lawlessness of the Bush admin online and off. It's why I changed my reg after Dem voters mostly in black districts were disenfranchised in the '04 election and every single Dem didn't show up to protest.

    It's expressed in this primary and election by a narrow focus on FRANCHISE. We're all entitled to rule of law and a restoration of full constitutional rights.

    Any progressive voices that aren't neutrally for THAT first -- and not saddling us with a sub-standard candidate who can't tolerate routine questions about his tangible record and words -- are chewing off their own limbs and writing off their main reason to exist at all.

    After the Dem ticket is decided, my support and my vote will still be mine to give. The Dem party still has to go a long way to earn that. And should he be the pick, so does Obama.

    So white people are bitter and (5.00 / 12) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:44:46 PM EST
    black people are bitter (that is why Wright was mad), so why did Mr. Unity not unite everyone in their bitterness?  It's called class.  And Mr. Obama, wants to unite the people who are stuck in poverty, the ones, Edwards was talking about.  But what did he do, in order to get the votes in the primary, he had to pit them against each other some more.  Instead of making a truly populist candidacy, but wait, the creative class, does not like populism, they want the feel good talk.  So, by appealing to the upper income folks, he basically, left out the low income folks of all colors.  Oh, yeah, the hispanics as well.  

    Now, tell me, in a straight face this is a brilliant campaign?   No one had to pander to the creative class, they just wanted to vote against Bush.  The key was uniting the working and poor class around the Dems.  I tell you we are done for.  

    Agree (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by Coldblue on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:19:09 PM EST
    If he can't unite the Democrats, what does this bode for his message?

    They put together the wrong (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:24:40 PM EST
    Coalition, the coalition they put together divides rather than unites.  The Axelrod strategic flaw has the problem of claiming unity when it was built on breaking up some long time coalitions.  They have caused major damage to the party.  You don't break assured things to create new thing.  You work to add.  Mark my words, they damaged the Dem party the way Rove left the RNC in a little mess.  Now the claim is that Hillary did it.  Which is baseless.  She had the coalition on her side, Obama could only benefit by breaking away chunks.  

    PS. the blogo boyz (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:26:46 PM EST
    in their rush to be kingmakers created a bigger divide.  I never heard one of them. like BTD or Jeralyn, hold the position that they would vote for the candidate of the Dem party whoever it is.  

    The thing is (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by phat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:55:01 PM EST
    This strategy might have been the only way he could win the nomination.

    It's a calculated gamble. There is no way, I figure, he could have taken the same tack that Edwards did or any of the other candidates. He had to appeal to people outside of what was left of the New Deal coalition, as they were solidly behind Clinton. She was the odds on favorite for very good reasons.

    Insurgent candidacies always run this risk. Bradley did the same thing, as did Hart, to some extent.

    The questions that arise are whether or not it's worth it. Can Obama actually deliver any of his promises? There are Democrats all over the country in "caucus" states who are ecstatic over what they perceive as Obama's positive effects on their party building. But what happens when Obama says things that are insulting (whether they truly are insults) to people in those states?

    This whole thing will likely blow over and Obama will still be treated like a rock star. But it could ruin his general election chances in the very places he claims that he can make inroads for the party. On top of that, he loses PA, OH and MI in the process.

    Is he trying to win this battle and lose the war?

    This whole thing is just galling. I think it was predicted, too.

    I suspect it's inevitable given his attitude and those of the elites who have pushed him.

    This narrative writes itself.


    the creative class clings to HOPE (none / 0) (#60)
    by ding7777 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:08:00 PM EST
    Even as Obama failed to make believers out of the clinging bitter Pennsylvanians, the creative class clings to HOPE that he's the ONE who will UNITE us all.

    The way to unite people in bitterness (none / 0) (#106)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:39:58 PM EST
    is to nominate Obama and watch him get clobbered in November. He's got it all figured out.

    what never ceases to suprise me.. (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by miguelito on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:58:45 PM EST
    that "noted health care blogger" Ezra Klein doesn't happen upon this entry, realize his own blatant hypocrisy and correct it.  Yeah I know I'm being naive, it's bad enough a "health care blogger" didn't even support the candidate who actually has a decent plan

    "Has it With Hillary" (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Pat Johnson on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:10:37 PM EST
    Many of the blogs and the MSM have based her nonstop for the past 6 months.  It get into the atmosphere after awhile.  Obama is inexperienced for someone wanting to lead the US.  I would rather take a chance with Hillary who is the smartest person in the room than take a chance on him since we have little to base this "worship" on.  But the press has anointed him and short of a miracle I cannot see that changing. It is now evident that Donna Brazile is an Obama cheerleader and from my standpoint the fix is in.  

    They threw everything at her (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:23:11 PM EST
    including the kitchen sink, and yet she's running a close second in votes and delegates.

    If the media had been treating both Hillary and Obama equally (good or bad) this thing would be over and Hilary would be interviewing VP prospects.

    This one was fair game.  Imagine when Obama starts getting unfair attacks.


    Reader blogger unity (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:35:52 PM EST
    It was easy to be united against the Bush administration, the neocons and the war.  But now, the nuanced differences come into play.  The blogs had it easy, they had a built in audience that just wanted anti-Bush, anti war, anti- neocon stuff.  Heh, it's hard to build a following when the differences are not so marked.  They are used to the tool of antagonism.  It's like mother's milk to them.  

    Another perspective (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:36:15 PM EST
    If Obama can only muster 50% of the Democrat vote and a 45-45% split with mccain while the media is lovin' him, just imagine where he's going to be when  (not if) they turn on him.

    In the mean time, HRC has achieved parity with Obama with the media clawing at her constantly. HRC can only go up. Obama can only go down.

    A few more months (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:57:42 PM EST
    and we will all look at this Obama mis-speak as the point at which his sign went retrograde.

    Sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:40:20 PM EST
    I think that some bloggers and non-bloggers who tend to be more fair than not, but then express frustration at how Hillary keeps making them hear about awful politics really feel uncomfortable with how she is bashed.

    I have a male friend who really thinks Hillary is the better choice but he voted for Obama because he basically wanted to spare her the pain of being bashed daily in the press (yes, ridiculous, I know, she has clearly proven she is tough enough to take it). I think it is really uncomfortable to watch for most fair minded people, and so rather than fight to change the press (which is nearly impossible to do), he just voted for the other candidate so "Hillary" (but really he) would not have to suffer through months or years more of the Hillary bashing. And then once they have chosen the other side, they start to buy into the idea that maybe if so many in the press hate her, they have it right after all...

    Just based on anecdotal evidence, but I found this to be an interesting case.

    You could sell tickets to this entertainment (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:41:18 PM EST
    Over at the burnt orange they think the fact that McCain is criticizing Obama for these comments now instead of waiting until October means that he really wants to run against Clinton.  

    Honestly, you could not make this stuff up.

    I think it will only be a comeuppance if they (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:56:57 PM EST
    realize that they have been hugely hypocritical in their treatement of Clinton and Obama. You have to be a little self aware to get it. Many bloggers aren't there yet (if ever).

    Mudcat's view.. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:05:37 PM EST
    David Saunders, a Democratic strategist and rural advocate who advised John Edwards presidential campaign but is now neutral, said he believed Mr. Obama's comments would offend rural voters. "It could mean he's rendered himself unelectable," Mr. Saunders said. "This is a perfect example of why Democrats lose elections."

    tomorrow's NY Times

    Of course, the Obama supporters only started liking Mudcat after Edwards dropped out and he spoke favorably toward Obama. I guess he's a traitor now.

    "Mudcat" is just a different (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:04:14 PM EST
    side of the same coin as Obama. Just as it's dumb to go to some major city and talk about how rural folk are a bunch of bitter racists, it's foolish to go around calling urban Dems "opera lovers" (or any of the other ridiculous things "Mudcat" has said). I wish either one would clue into the fact that we can't afford a urban vs. rural fight. That's a battle this country has been having for about 400 years. And liberals tend to be on the losing end of it.

    Karma (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by nellre on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:14:05 PM EST
    If Clinton's tough on him what do you thing the GOP will do to him between now and November?
    If he'd used the word embrace instead of cling, all would be well. His choice of words implied these small town folks were using religion (guns, immigration etc) as a crutch.
    I know what he meant, and it wasn't evil... but turn-about is fair play. When are the pro-Obama sites going to apologize for parroting anti-Clinton right wing talking points? When I they going to say 'she said it awkwardly but we know what she meant'?
    Many vocal Obama followers have been parsing every word Hillary utters with such jaundiced eyes that I have been driven away from their blogs in disgust.
    This is what karma feels like.

    This gaffe is going to hurt him imho. It's being reported on everywhere.

    Good point about word choice (none / 0) (#121)
    by phat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:18:14 PM EST
    What makes Obama's faith something that he holds deeply and voters in rural PA cling to?

    How is he different?

    The more I think about this, the more worried I get.


    right on (none / 0) (#209)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:26:34 AM EST
    If he had dropped 'bitter' and used 'embraced' instead of 'cling', it would have been easier to swallow.  

    Anyway, you are right, and turnabout is fair play.  He could have easily thrown Hillary a lifeline on the MLK comments, but instead he chose to make it a week long attempt to call her a racist.  I wish we had stayed a positive, united party, but that episode tore it up for me.


    I actually think... (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Mrwirez on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:26:43 PM EST
    Fox news, (the VERY LITTLE I catch) has been more fair to Hillary than MSNBC, and in a calculating way I am sure, however NBC is now the network I won't watch. I even turned off Ed Schultz and listened to Sean Hannity on Sirius Satellite radio because of all the HRC bashing and the "grandioso" stance FOR BHO. I was actually hating Ed Schultz and waiting for Hannity to go off on a tangent about Obama. How is that NOT insane? I finally found this blog (Talk Left) that is at the very least tolerable towards my support for the Clintons. It is time to rally the troops or McSame will do the Texas Two Step into GW's old seat...... Get it yet?

    PS. Go Hillary

    NYtimes article is up now, and ends with (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:29:03 PM EST
    Saunders' quote

    It could mean he's rendered himself unelectable," Mr. Saunders said. "This is a perfect example of why Democrats lose elections."


    I honestly (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:35:48 PM EST
    think he has.  He's given himself as a gift to the Republicans in the general.

    Something is being missed (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by nellre on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:41:40 PM EST
    Or is it just me?
    The offensive word was not bitter. It was cling.
    As in crutch.

    "cling" (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:55:59 PM EST
    Agree. Tho I have seen a few others make this point too, but not enough.

    The other part that's getting missed is:

    They cling to .... anti-trade sentiment

    Errrr -- would that be clinging to anti-NAFTA beliefs? Because their jobs have been outsourced? Hmmm. So much for Sen. Unity's protests that he really, really would change NAFTA and that his top aide didn't really mean what he told Canada. Obama, your own words are tripping you up, talking to the SF affluent with your guard down.


    He may have been speaking from personal experience (none / 0) (#175)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:10:41 AM EST
    as in the reason he has clung to the church for over twenty years that the Rev. Wright pastored.  I wonder if that is also where he met a lot of bitter people "clinging to their guns and suspicious of those who were unlike themselves . . ." hmmmmm.

    Actually it's more than the clingy (none / 0) (#142)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:51:19 PM EST
    reference.  It's the whole condescending outlook on those poor rubes who don't get him.  It just fits too well into the elitist snob image that has been pounded on democrats by the GOP for decades.

    What will meet the press say about it (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by IKE on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:48:16 PM EST
    I can see it now, Tim Russert is not even going to touch this one. Obama made a gaffe that will hurt his campaign and Tim wants nothing to do with it. Remember when CNN didn't want to cover the Wright issue because it was a non-issue yet spend three weeks on the Bosnia deal?

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by sas on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:06:14 PM EST
    has "McGoverened" himself.

    I believe he is totally unelectable in the GE>

    the topic of JMM and fairness (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:10:34 AM EST
    has been covered several times of late and it is the general impression that TPM/JMM are unabashed Obama supporters made even worse by the fact that even though his coverage is entirely dominated by pro Obama statements, that Josh is incapable of honestly admitting this idealogy.

    Personally, I would prefer that if you intended to quote large sections of another site, that you at least make your own argument/summary of the posting so we can discuss it with you rather than some remote blog that isn't participating in the discussion.

    Just to make one point (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by frankly0 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:05:35 AM EST
    in response to this absurdly biased commentary of Skocpol's on behalf of Obama.

    She talks at the end as if the only way one might be a member of the elite is if you're a multimillionaire.

    Nothing could be more absurd. The worst elitists of all, the worst snobs of all, are almost always members of the "intellectual" class who routinely sneer at the rubes across the country who lack their "sophistication".

    These snobs rarely are truly rich themselves, though  they are typically very, very comfortable.

    And you know one place where you can find those kind of utterly patronizing twits in overpowering abundance?

    Why, in the faculty club of Harvard itself -- where this biased, preaching ninny Skocpol herself teaches.

    And it's worthwhile to (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by frankly0 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:18:18 AM EST
    remember about many of these "intellectual" elites that part of their very moral superiority, as they imagine it, derives from the fact that they aren't rich. Indeed, they look down on the rich because they pursue money, and they look down on the rubes because the rubes admire money more than they admire the sophistication that defines the lives of the "intellectuals" -- and that is very hard for the "intellectuals" to stomach.

    So equating "elitism" with being rich is, well, rich.


    Jesus Christ, Ezra (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:19:51 AM EST
    Ezra's own words, as excepted by Is Barack Obama the Messiah?
    . . . Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence. . . .
    Of course he thinks the media is biased.  The media isn't reporting that Barack Obama is Jesus Christ.  "We interrupt this broadcast to bring you the following breaking news:  Senator Obama is the triumph of word over flesh.  Now, back to you, Jane."

    Whose getting the Popcorn? (none / 0) (#80)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:30:31 PM EST
    if it weren't so sorry and pathetic, it would be very entertaining to watch the "top librul blogosphere" howling and screaming when the corporate media finally does go nuklear on Obama.

    WaPo Spin (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:31:46 PM EST
    But another Democratic strategist, who assessed the moment candidly on the condition of anonymity, said: "Ultimately, the case that McCain and Clinton will try to make that Obama is an elitist or out of touch has to be credible to the voter, and I don't believe it is. My sense is more people believe Obama, rather than McCain or Clinton, understand their lives and the challenges they face on a daily basis."


    Seems like this article is mostly spinning that he will be OK.

    I think he likely will be OK. (none / 0) (#115)
    by phat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:04:33 PM EST
    That just makes him lucky.

    Yeah but (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:44:00 PM EST
    the rest of us won't be .... when he loses the GE.

    Some people (none / 0) (#144)
    by phat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:57:56 PM EST
    think his luck will hold through November.

    I don't know either way, to be honest. I'm not a big gambler, especially when the stakes are as high as the Supreme Court.


    12 Reasons "Bitter" is Bad for Obma (none / 0) (#116)
    by Saul on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:05:57 PM EST
    Polictico.com has this


    Oh lord (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by phat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:10:24 PM EST
    "if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that..."

    The non-apology, apology, nice.

    Somebody please take the shovel out of that man's hands. He's dug the hole deep enough.


    Remember (none / 0) (#150)
    by sas on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:07:45 PM EST
    Molly Ivins' First Rule of Holes"?

    When in one, stop digging.......


    Front Page too (none / 0) (#154)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:32:12 PM EST
    not even tucked away in a blog.  Front page. Ouch.

    BTD (none / 0) (#133)
    by Korha on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:33:16 PM EST
    You are not nearly as unbiased or enlightened as you think you are.

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by rilkefan on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:21:17 PM EST
    you could flesh out your thesis a little with, well, anything?

    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Korha on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:44:44 AM EST
    BTD continually, vehemently, and personally attacks other pundits for their biases towards Obama. Fine. They are biased. But BTD's punditry itself is also clearly biased towards Clinton (this should be self-evident, but if you want evidence I point you to this list of his posts here). And look, everyone is biased, and that's also fine and inevitable--except that BTD has never acknowledged this bias of his and indeed has gone out of his way not to acknowledge it. Frankly it appears to me that BTD has done no introspection on this issue whatsoever. Otherwise he would notice that at the same time he's decrying Clinton's unfair negative coverage, his schadenfreude explodes whenever Obama gets unfair negative coverage. He wants to be the enlightened impartial analyst that puts the interests of the democratic party first, and yet he himself clearly views the presidential campaign through the prism of the Clinton campaign as if he is somehow invested in the political fortunes of Hillary Clinton herself. What else would move somebody to spend literally thousands of hours writing screeds decrying Clinton's campaign coverage?

    I wonder what would happen if one of BTD's favorite targets, Josh Marshall, decided to apply BTD's own methods of media criticism right back at him. The results would not be pretty.


    Yeah I almost spit out my water from (1.00 / 1) (#203)
    by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:57:38 AM EST
    laughing when Jeralyn mentioned during a video that BTD supports Obama.  He might but he has a backwards way of doing it.  I've been banned for a day or two because I've pointed out his bias and he assumes any questioning of his posts is outragious.  It's almost like Nazi Germany with how strict he is with only Pro-Clinton posts on his threads.  

    What else? (none / 0) (#210)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:36:31 AM EST
    What else would move somebody to spend literally thousands of hours writing screeds decrying Clinton's campaign coverage?

    Maybe a sense of justice?  Other Obama supporters are also able to put their partisanship aside and look at the coverage objectively.

    Besides that, BTD's stated reason for supporting Obama is that he thinks Obama is more electable in November. The coverage Clinton is getting is what makes her less electable.  Talking a lot about her unfair coverage is actually talking up Obama's chances.


    I would say that Hillary is (none / 0) (#136)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:35:22 PM EST
    going all in on this one:

    Hillary: I know how to shoot a gun!

    She discusses how her father taught her to shoot when she was a girl. She must know how badly it has turned out in the past when Democrats talk about their experiences with guns, but she is taking the risk because she is going for the kill in PA.

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:00:01 PM EST
    she has been saying this for awhile, not just since this whole thing started. When she first got to PA, right after OH, she was talking about how her grandfather and father took her and her brothers out behind the cabin and taught them to shoot a gun. This is one case in which her gender helps her, no one will expect her to show her chops with a gun.

    Oh, I don't know, it sure would (none / 0) (#162)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:59:01 PM EST
    settle the "qualified for Commander in Chief" argument.
    Scenario: Hillary and Obama in a shooting match, she knows how to shoot, he doesn't. So, who is more qualified to defend the country?? I want my President to at least be able to shoot back. Don't you??

    That would make a fun ad, wouldn't it?? LOL

    Sorry, I just get these inspirations sometimes. Just had to share that one.


    LOL (none / 0) (#212)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:44:47 AM EST
    Not sure she would win the shooting match - after all, Bill Clinton's continued presence among the living is probably a testament to the fact that she has not kept up her shooting skills.  

    Oh, I don't know.. (none / 0) (#215)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:32:58 AM EST
    you can shoot someone without killing them. Anyone seen Bill walking funny lately??

    As long as she is not (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:41:25 AM EST
    dressing up in cammies and pretending to go hunting now, when no one has seen her hunt in all her years in public life,  I think this is OK.

    Though a cammie pant suit would be funny.


    Who knew her dad was so bitter? (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:50:30 AM EST
    LMAO... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:03:11 AM EST
    (I don't mean this as an attack on the original poster, but that linked thread got me a little pissed.  I forget the name of the person who posted it, but this is not anger at you, just anger.  LOL)

    A:  TPM might as well be written out of Obama's HQ, it has zero credibility.  It would be like a Clinton supporter quoting Taylor Marsh, it probably won't fly very well.

    B:  Is all that BO supporters can do is insult Clinton by calling her a ho and bring up Ken Starr talking points?  How incredibly pathetic.  And anyone who even tries to argue is labeled a troll no matter what they say.  Good God are these Obama supporters 12 for christ's sake?  Are they going to lure me to a house so that they can videotape themselves jumping me or something?

    C:  As far as the Joker there with the KKK avatar, I'm sick, REALLY SICK, of being called a Racist because I don't support BO.  When he gets crushed by that dessicated corpse McSame, we better be hearing apologies not only for being called that but by letting a bunch of thugs and people who have been Democrat's for a few years (Kos, John Cole [btw John, how is all that blood on your hands working out.  Did you enjoy watching our soldiers die as you worshipped at the altar of Shrub?  Now you have found a new puppet master to blindly support no matter what, how very Regressive of you you POS] and John A. of Ameri-I-get-wet-panties-thinking-of-Obamna-blog).

    D:  What Obama said is as idiotic as Dukaksis in the tank and GHWB's not knowing the price of socks.  I like guns, does that make me an easily manipulable rube who doesn't understand reality?  Obama is a Harvard legacy, don't give me any bs about how "of the people" the guy is.  This will be played on an endless loop until November, you can count on it.  As I said on LG&M about a month or so ago (I beat you to it Eric-lol) although I will slightly rephrase it to avoid offense, once the media is done with our "B*tch", they will come after your "B*y", because the media exists to destroy Democratic hopefuls.  (Olbermann will be the likely exception, especially if BO wins.)  They destroyed both Gore and Kerry, two famous men who both served in the military in Vietnam, and foisted upon us a draft-dodging war supporter.  These men were much better candidates than Obama, moreso Gore as Kerry did have some weaknesses.  Obama will be destroyed by September, and then what do we do?  I've seen the Clintons in tight spots, and they always came out on top.  She won upstate NY TWICE, which is incredible for a Democrat.  Obama's one really tough election was the primary against Bobby Rush, which he lost.  Okay, he beat Alan Keys, I'm sure that was hard to do.  :)

    E:  As much as I am appaled by the vocal minority of his supporters in the blogoshere and their thuggish tactics, he'll have my vote, not that it will do him much good.  He basically put his (shifting) positions on gun rights on the table with this quote, and that is the death knell of this party.  1994 wasn't about "Contracts with America" or people being fed up with Clinton, it was people mortified that their guns would be taken away.  If that was not the case, then why did the Regressives LOSE seats in 96, 98, and 00?  Because people in two years all of a sudden started to love Bill Clinton?  No, although impeachment played a role in 98 obviously, it was because the percieved threat to gun owners dissipated over time, and the Regressives were exposed for what they truly were and are, pathetic power fluffers.  ;)

    F:  I urge everyone to vote for whoever the dem nominee is, we can't have John McSame.



    I can't wait until (none / 0) (#158)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:50:12 PM EST
    one of the A-listers or their druthers becomes "worst person in the world".

    It will be the commuppance of commuppances, and will be comedic to no end

    Clues (none / 0) (#160)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:57:20 PM EST
    When I know someone is a Hillary hater and not an honest analyst.  Easy, look at key words in this article:  
    Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama

    gaining a few days of lurid publicity

    she will need if she somehow claws her way to the nomination

    she desperately wants the nomination

    This passes for  commentary?   This is analysis?  Now please, when did BTD or Jeralyn post anything like this?  

    This is the funny part... (none / 0) (#166)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:02:21 AM EST
    she desperately wants the nomination

    And Obama doesn't?? Ok, then he can go home now, right??


    More funny (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:06:59 AM EST
    This has to be one of the few times in U.S. political history when a multi-millionaire has accused a much less wealthy fellow public servant, a person of the same party and views who made much less lucrative career choices, of "elitism"! (I won't say the only time, because U.S. political history is full of absurdities of this sort.) In a way, it is funny -- and it may not be long before the jokes start.

    This is great, you see, Obama is not elite, he did not go to prep schools, private colleges and Universities and then Harvard Law School.  He made "less lucrative carreer choices".  The Clintons made money after the Presidency, they did not even own a 1.9 million dollar mansion in Chicago.  To the people offended, they were all super achieving elites.  How clueless is this analyst?


    It's Josh Marshall (none / 0) (#177)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:12:24 AM EST
    nothing more needs to be said does it?

    Read the Pro-Clinton threads more deeply you will (none / 0) (#169)
    by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:05:23 AM EST
    find an abundance of it.

    These are threads (none / 0) (#172)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:08:59 AM EST
    Not some "analysis"  

    Then there's this mad spin as well (none / 0) (#186)
    by tree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:32:33 AM EST
    To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing.

    Yup, Obama was making a "humanly sympathetic observation"


    That one was over the top.... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:36:01 AM EST
    just what's needed to defend Obama (none / 0) (#168)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:03:47 AM EST
    from charges of elitism, a Harvard sociologist.  appropriate, but hardly effective.

    People pay all that money for that? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:08:25 AM EST
    This is a Harvard sociologist who wrote this?  

    tenured prof and an author (none / 0) (#176)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:11:11 AM EST
    though i don't think i'll be reading her books  :-)

    What does BTD call it? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:13:14 AM EST
    Hillary Derangement Syndrome.  

    indeed. and it's a very apt description :-) (none / 0) (#184)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:20:11 AM EST
    CDS? (none / 0) (#189)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:38:58 AM EST
    I believe it is CDS, meant to be inclusive of all things (Clinton) evil.....

    HDS was just the beginning (none / 0) (#196)
    by Regency on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:03:13 AM EST
    What's told is that it started with HDS (Hillary Derangement Syndrom)--she was too outspoken, too smart, way too independent, then Bill made his extra-marital gaffes, Hillary stopped the press from picking on her baby girl, and it became a family thing; and Clinton Derangement Syndrome was born.

    Well in the minds of Pro-Clinton folks like (none / 0) (#173)
    by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:09:48 AM EST
    yourself, GOP and McSame their is no defense.  This is an opportunistic attack based on a leader who is actually honest to the people of America.  Do yourself a favor and ask Clinton to start being honest to Americans as well.  I expect if from McSame and the GOP.

    Bosnia? (none / 0) (#181)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:15:00 AM EST
    Was not an opportunistic attack?  Of course not.  No opportunities were gained by painting Hillary as a liar and the piling on of the blog boyz and the MSM.  None whatsoever.  

    Not an opportunist attack lead my Obama (none / 0) (#191)
    by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:46:26 AM EST
    Clinton has put every single resource and surrogate she has and added the attacks to her speach.  Bosnia was simply a lie caught on tape that I admit the media took and ran with unfairly.  The difference is Obama didn't make Bosnia his talking points or try to use it to discredit Clinton.  How many people from the Clinton campaign spoke out that this could make Obama unelectable?  This is so hypocritical, if you people where not so blind off the Clinton love you would see that the elitest, condescending, opportunist in this election is your cadidate.  It's one thing to attack someone on issues, it's also another thing to not stand up for your opponent.  But I don't see Obama with full speaches, multiple surrogates, apparel if what I'm reading is correct saying.  "Dodge sniper fire", Hillary helped build nafta.  Bill and Mark like Columbia Free Trade and they are the two most powerful individuals besides herself.  It's plain to see that self interests are all Clinton cares about.  Just like NAFTA, just like Wright, just like shame on you, just like exagerating experience and on and on and on and on.  Sorry for the rant.

    Actually (none / 0) (#195)
    by nell on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:02:21 AM EST
    he did. Many reporters noted that the Obama campaign has been pushing this quite a bit behind the scenes, and you must have missed all those Obama conference calls where they refer to Clinton as a liar with a character gap who cannot possibly be trusted, and gee, what about her evil husband Bill, never mind the fact that the nation was much better off under him than Bush, but whatever. And let's not forget how racist the Clintons are according to that SC memo released by the Obama campaign. But you are right, none of these labels will hurt her in the general campaign, despite the fact that Obama campaign has hammered away day after day. Character gap coming from Obama does not hurt, but elitist coming from Clinton does...



    Please point me to the attacks that you (none / 0) (#202)
    by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:51:21 AM EST
    speak of with Obama saying these things. I've definitily heard from these calls statements saying they questioned her experience she claimed and in turn questioning her honest but never an all out assault or anything untrue for that matter. And yes SC was a racist comment meant to identify Obama as a black candidate.  I've never seen a direct attack that wasn't above board from Obama.  Be frustrated, frustrated that your candidates entire strategy is based on tearing another candidate down who is most likely going to be our democratic nominee.  That her self preservation trumpts the good of the party and in turn the good of the American people.  I challenge anyone to show me how Clinton's campaign has been anything less then twice as negative then Obama's.  And all the while claiming they don't understand the negative impression of her from a majority of Americans.  It just enrages me that obviously Obama has political turmoil with Wright and with these statements.  But instead of playing the high road which would utimately play in her favor she chooses to magnify the attacks if not carry them on.  A two for one sale, attempting to discredit Obama's electability while solidifying support against her from Obama and Independent voters who unlike you see through her motives.  Now we have two candidates who will have more then an uphill battle to be elected President.  

    waaaah (none / 0) (#183)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:18:06 AM EST
    they're politicians, that's practically liar by definition.  O screwed the pooch when he got taped telling his rich SF donors what he really thought.  attacking won't make that go away.

    Amen to that, the problem is that by Hillary (none / 0) (#205)
    by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:13:45 AM EST
    attacking she is putting herself in an awkward position.  First she is solidifying the negative image percieved by Obama supporters and independents.  Two she is saying that American people are not bitter and frustrated, an argument I believe will actually lift Obama into the Democratic nominee position.  Three she is putting a warped context on the statements which I would argue with any person here are completely true just not politically savy.  Hence perpetuating the idea that she has an issue dealing with the truth of things.  And last it shows her end game strategy (I'm the only one electable) for what it is, which if it is played should be hidden until the last second.  Everyone is aware of this but this weekends comments and speaches put action behind an ugly thing to a majority of Americans.  No don't vote for the nominee with the most votes and delegates as determined by voters, because I'm more electable.

    yes Obama is just being honest (none / 0) (#218)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:42:39 AM EST
    I am a small town democrat and I am not voting for him therefor I cling to religion, my guns and am suspicious of his 46 year old black persona.

    Tell that to my ex, who happens to be black, can tell you I do not cling to my religion or vote based on it and that I do not own a gun.  I have an eduction and I am quite sure I am a bit smarter than Obama who has a lot to learn about people.


    a comically overrated (none / 0) (#194)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:59:30 AM EST
    harvard sociologist and the author of "states and social revolutions", an ahistorical effort to determine the metaphysical laws of revolutionary movements.  i read her book, dropped out of sociology grad school, and never looked back.  the whole field of "historical sociology" is a colossal joke, populated by faux aesthetes living a fantasy that their academic careers actually help improve the lives of people they would never associate with.  no surprise that she would endorse obama.  

    Left bloggers thought it would never happen to BO (none / 0) (#199)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:11:10 AM EST
    because they thought he was a better candidate, had a better campaign and he would never make a mistake.  These left bloggers were happy to see HRC being attacked for gaffes.  Now that BO is suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes, they are on their own with no credibility as they cry "unfair".

    You must have missed the Wright two weeks (none / 0) (#204)
    by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:03:47 AM EST
    and FOX news every single day if you believe this nonsens.  Not saying certain shows are not clearly biased against Clinton because that is just non sense.  But it's an equal opportunity bias out there just depends on which channel or program your watching  No one is crying except maybe Hillary (no really, she might be!) I do believe the biggest issue is that the news is no longer reporting news, it's talk style commentators selling us on their perspective. The point that gets accross is more tied to who has the stronger surrogate and if the moderator is favoring one side more then the other.  And people assume that this is news.  Tell you the truth I don't really know where to go for news these days.

    Are you kidding me? (none / 0) (#208)
    by Susie from Philly on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:05:41 AM EST
    Of course campaigns talk about the demographics - that's not the issue here. The issue is, a person running for president SAID IT IN PUBLIC.

    If you can't tell the difference, perhaps you should take up coin-collecting instead of politics.

    Without much that is worth reading (none / 0) (#216)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:37:33 AM EST
    I do other things with my time.  Mostly I just read, shrug, sigh and move on.  Different blogs and different bloggers will rise to the surface after all this insanity comes home to roost and that's okay.  I can't believe how many "credible" bloggers and journalists have completely lost their way and their objective minds though this election cycle.