home

Slate's Proposed Springsteen Ad For Hillary

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:03:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It's Friday night. Time to lighten up. It's very funny.

This is an open thread.

< How Obama Could Lose PA and the Nomination | Alan Abramowitz's Red Herring Reply To Paul Krugman >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Slate's Proposed Springsteen Ad For Hillary | 86 comments (86 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Mmm...mmm...mmm (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:56:23 PM EST
    what a sexy, sex man.  And y'all know I don't mean Obama.

    Hillarious "commercial."  At least some folks still have a sense of humor out there.

    (3 hours, 4 minutes until B! S! G!)

    I thought it was terrific. (none / 0) (#20)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:26:29 PM EST
    Bruce Springsteen Hates the Working Class!1111!!!!

    At least someone's having fun. I'm busy developing an ulcer. ;-)

    Parent

    Brooooooce! (none / 0) (#62)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:56:34 PM EST
    (They're not booing, they're calling his name!)

    Parent
    Hey, Check This Out (none / 0) (#96)
    by flashman on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:27:27 AM EST
    Sorry for the O/T.  I thought this was important:

    Someone is finally talking about media bias

    Parent

    Help a sister out? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Klio on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:27:08 PM EST
    Kathy, what's BSG?  I've seen it several times now and I'm in the dark.  

    Parent
    I'm guessing (none / 0) (#24)
    by tree on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:29:52 PM EST
    Battlestar Galactica.

    Parent
    oh, gosh (none / 0) (#27)
    by Klio on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:32:14 PM EST
    now I know I'm an old lady.  Last week Lost at Shakesville, this week Battlestar Galactica.  These are tv shows, right?

    Parent
    Battlestar Galactica (none / 0) (#25)
    by jerry on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:30:43 PM EST


    Parent
    TV show??!?! (none / 0) (#44)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:59:12 PM EST
    Madam, you jest!  BSG: Greatest Story Ever Told!  So say we all!

    Parent
    I'm loving (none / 0) (#90)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:54:41 AM EST
    the BSG too Kathy but sorry, I still love the mighty woman of the Starship Voyager, Seven of Nine, B'Lanna and Janeway best of all.

    That said; BSG is frakkin great.

    Parent

    Janeway (none / 0) (#92)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    Best captain of any starship ever.

    Parent
    Kathy...I love ya and all (none / 0) (#93)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:15:11 AM EST
    but my Probama nephew is a BSG fan, he annoys me with how great it is, I refuse to watch it because of who he is.  

    Parent
    Celine Dion was the give away. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:59:49 PM EST
    If someone gave me a Celine Dion CD, I'd use for a frisbee.  I've got a whole collection of female singers & songwriters I like better than her.  

    I have an appreciation for pop music, but I prefer it on the radio, not in my music collection.

    Parent

    Would it be asking too much.... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:06:33 PM EST
    ...that Tweety not put together a panel that consists solely of hardcore Obama supporters.

    I'm looking forward to Sunday. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:15:56 PM EST
    Between the debates, Obama quitting debates and his loyal band of boycotters, there ought to be a variety of interesting commentary and meta-commentary on the networks.

    The funny thing is that I probably won't see any of it live - just reviews on the internet and clips on YouTube.

    Parent

    Are you sure (none / 0) (#16)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:19:11 PM EST
    there wasn't at least one McCain lover there?

    Or are they all still pretending to lurve Obama?

    Parent

    I didn't think it was so bad (none / 0) (#42)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:56:23 PM EST
    today. At least, he's got her winning Tuesday 57-43!

    Parent
    He Was Awful (none / 0) (#91)
    by flashman on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:12:27 AM EST
    In the panal discussion, Hillary and Bill was bashed mercilessly. He said this campaign has ruined Bill clinton's legacy.  His panel was more than happy to bob thier tiny heads at every inslut.

    Parent
    Huffpo newsflash (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:10:09 PM EST
    At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn.org in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.

    "Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

    Good for her. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:15:03 PM EST
    I was incredibly p***ed when they endorsed Barack Obama over HRC.

    In my view, progressive bloggers and organizations like MoveOn.org should have waited until the GE to put all of their considerable powers to work for whomever the Dem nominee turned out to be. But no, they had to pick sides. Why, why, why!!!!


    Parent

    And their poll left out Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by LHinSeattle on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:39:33 PM EST
    And their poll came out some time before Edwards withdrew.

    That was enough to make me quit. I emailed them and told them exactly why.  

    Parent

    Because they thought (none / 0) (#37)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:46:41 PM EST
    they could pick the candidate. Same arrogance as Obama, in my opinion. And they are going to lose people from the party because of it. Obama has been the most divisive candidate in the Dem party that I can remember, and I remember 1964 elections. And now that it's looking like they can't, they are imploding all over themselves. I think that blogs should, by membership and comments, lean one way, gently. Or have two polite people, like BTD and Jeralyn leading a civilized discussion. We each have our pick for the election, and we talk about it. But I don't think anyone here thinks that what is said or written on this blog will dictate the policy of the Democratic party, and it sure won't decide the candidate. Some blogs do think they can do that. So does MoveOn. They are wrong.

    Parent
    Oh, Lordy! (none / 0) (#41)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:55:34 PM EST
    I don't think anyone here thinks that what is said or written on this blog will dictate the policy of the Democratic party

    Bless 'em, BTD tries!  Hahaha!

    I don't know that I find Clinton's comments particularly inflammatory or untrue.  I wish she'd said something about MoveOn stabbing her in the back when she voted against censure over that absolutely stupid ad.

    I suppose the folks who'll get ticked off are the folks she's talking about, who pretty much weren't going to vote for her anyway, so...yawn.

    Parent

    Moveon (none / 0) (#82)
    by Dave B on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:38:59 AM EST
    I was getting increasingly embarrassed by moveon.  I quit them because every time it seemed that Democrats were making progress on something, moveon would come out with some ridiculous statement that the Republicans were able to jump all over and change the subject.  Just like the betrayus add.  Focus of the press was all over the "radicals" at moveon instead of the issue of Iraq.

    I joined moveon back in the 90's, and quit them recently.

    Parent

    Sounds pretty true to me. (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:16:33 PM EST
    The reports of intimidation at caucuses are too numerous to not be a least partly true.

    Parent
    Of course it's true. (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:17:42 PM EST
    They behave the same way in person as they behave online. Intimidation and thuggery.

    Parent
    Sounds pretty true to me.... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:28:20 AM EST
    you are correct at least with regards to the mess in Texas. Over 2000 complaints and the Texas Democrats quit counting caucus results because in Obamaworld 40% is the new majority...Easy to undrstand as this is Bush Country and evidently stupidity trickles down....I'm a life long democrat and I've probably lost a few IQ's living down here....

    Parent
    Oh NO!!!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:28:57 PM EST
    Hillary's going to alienate MoveOn and Obama supporters. That's going to cost her Pennsylvania. <snark>

    Parent
    Jonathan Singer at MYDD just (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by BlueMerlin on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:33:44 PM EST
    did a kind of critical hit piece against Hillary for this, charging that she has criticized "Democratic Activsm" but really I agree with Clinton.  "Activism" can mean many things.  

    If it means rolling up your sleeves and rebuilding houses in New Orleans, then I'd say we can all get behind that.   But if it means ganging up against and bullying citizens who happen to support a different candidate, issueing threats, flooding them with hate emails, and the like, then it's not exactly laudable.

    That's the behavior Hillary is talking about, and she stumbled by calling it "the activist base"  (the paragraph is quoted below).   She should have found some other phrase.  

    Face it, no one with a brain can help but see there was something funky about those caucuses.   As for "moveon.org" they pulled a dirty trick against their membership.  They sent e-mail giving us 24 hours to "vote", and it was like 9 am on a Thursday (as I recall) which means a lot of people never saw the poll in time to vote.  

    ------------
    Clinton's (supposed) statement:

    "Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."


    Parent

    Yes - it's more drama from pro-Obama blogs (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:06:36 AM EST
    needing more traffic perhaps?
    Hillary wasn't dissing MoveOn but rather Obama activists who have used bullying and thuggery to "win" caucuses.
    MoveOn lost members last summer during their campaign railing against an anti-environmental Senate coal bill. But they never mentioned a presidential candidate was the sponsor - Obama.
    MoveOn's truthiness signaled they were compromised then - and several months later they endorsed Obama.

    Parent
    The argued (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:47:54 PM EST
    For a non-military response to 9-11.

    That's a fact!

    Pantsuit Style!

    Parent

    Moveon (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dave B on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:05:45 PM EST
    They are denying that they argued against Afghanistan.

    Parent
    Well Sure that's what they're gonna say now (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:10:38 PM EST
    But the most accurate statement one can make is that they argued against a military response to 9-11.

    If they made an exception for Afghanistan I missed it.


    Parent

    I made this comment to Kos' Story (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Dave B on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:28:07 PM EST
    I joined back in the 1990's when they were first formed. I quit because I felt like they were bashing Clinton. Clinton defended them against the resolution in congress about the Betrayus ad when Obama opted out of the debate. This site is no longer about promoting Democrats, it's about bashing them. Liberals and conservatives are two gangs who have intimidated rational, normal thinking beings into not having a voice on television or in the culture.
    I was threatened with troll ratings. One guy was offended with my sig line in italics above. That sig line is a quote from John Stewart on the Daily Show. So, now they are offended by John Stewart.

    Parent
    The people who started Moveon (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:15:20 PM EST
    Wrote this:

    "Our leaders are under tremendous pressure to act in the aftermath of the terrible events of Sept. 11th. We the undersigned support justice, not escalating violence, which would only play into the terrorists' hands."


    Parent
    Just as karl rove... (1.00 / 2) (#73)
    by jor on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:48:45 AM EST
    ... told you. Edgar08, is obviously either a paid hillary robot or someone very delusional. MoveOn, the organization, was never against action in Afghanistan.  This is something karl rove made up one day, and you are now repeating. You should be utterly ashamed of yourself.

    Parent
    They argued against (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:28:03 AM EST
    A military response to 9-11.

    Don't demagogue.

    Tell me I'm wrong, and provide some evidence that they supported the military response in Afghanistan, you pathetic fool.

    They argued against a military response to 9-11.

    Parent

    I've always thought of Moveon as centrist not (none / 0) (#28)
    by jerry on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:33:38 PM EST
    necessarily liberal or progressive, despite how the right wants to paint them.  Move-on refers to their wanting to censure Bill and "move on".  I think that was the Lieberman position.  (I am most likely wrong about this.)

    Parent
    You are right (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:47:08 PM EST
    That was how they began back in 1998.

    Some links:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_MoveOn.org

    Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, MoveOn launched an online campaign calling for "justice, not escalating violence." It collected 30,000 signers for a statement that argued: "To combat terrorism, we must act in accordance with a high standard that does not disregard the lives of people in other countries. If we retaliate by bombing Kabul and kill people oppressed by the Taliban dictatorship who have no part in deciding whether terrorists are harbored, we become like the terrorists we oppose. We perpetuate the cycle of retribution and recruit more terrorists by creating martyrs." Eventually, this led to them working on behalf of Eli Pariser's similar 9-11peace.org petition.[1] Pariser later joined MoveOn currently serves as its executive director.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Pariser

    Pariser's rise to prominence as a political activist began when he and college student David H. Pickering launched an online petition calling for a nonmilitary response to the attacks of September 11th. In less than a month, half a million people had signed the petition and in November of that year, Moveon.org founders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades asked Pariser to join their organization.[1]

    I don't know if they're centrists or not but they clearly argued for a non-military response to 9-11.

    Instead of denying that, people should just say they agreed with them.

    I always did think it was silly "I'm against the Iraq war" and one adds "but I was for Afghanistan."

    Why?  Does one say that just to inoculate themselves against the charges of pacifism.  Or do they really believe it or what?

    I used to run into folks on dailykos who would bravely say "I was also against Afghanistan."

    I'm not sure if that's the consensus.

    But no one really ever discusses it.  "I was for Afghanistan" is always spoken within the context of anti-Iraq war activism.

    I want to know how many of those people were actually saying "We now have to invade Afghanistan," in the weeks following 9-11.

    Parent

    I'm making it very clear (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:39:48 PM EST
    They argued against a military response to 9-11.

    If you're saying Afghanistan wasn't a military response to 9-11, well OK, we can disagree on that.


    Parent

    A non military response (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:59:12 PM EST
    inclusive of the military response then.

    Ok.

    Let me ask, is there any record of them supporting a military response in Afghanistan?  And I mean that support should have been able to occur before the military response in question.

    I say that because once that was over and Iraq became the central focus, I really do get the sense a lot of people were very quick say "But I supported Afghanistan!!"

    I was alive back then too.

    I don't remember any overt support for the Afghanistan military response.

    The statement I have quoted still exists sans qualification.  A blunt unspecific statement, to be sure.

    No.  They never said "We should not invade Afghanistan."  And there was no anti-Afghanistan movement organized.

    They said a military response to 9-11 would be wrong.  If they were running the country I believe they would have done nothing in Afghanistan.

    That's my understanding.  Are you saying my understanding of all this inaccurate?


    Parent

    Huffpo newsflash... (none / 0) (#76)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:20:06 AM EST
    Well it looks like someone might be alluding to the mess in Texas....That is exactly what happened here, and it was a debacle because she won like 95% of the state but the MINIONS over ran the caucuses. Over 2000 cpmplaints of voter fraud and intimidation. Chased one precinct captain ( HRC supporter ) to the police station.....Great ad and a funny jibe at Penn/Jersey rivalry. I'm glad she's speakin up about the mess. Thanks for the post.

    Parent
    Isn't Celine Dion (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:22:19 PM EST
    Canadian?

    Worse-- (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:57:29 PM EST
    French Canadian!

    Parent
    San Francisco (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by boredmpa on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:33:59 PM EST
    I can't believe the ridiculous crap at america blog that kos links to.  Pointing out that Obama made his comments in a major city in another state in front of wealth billionaires is highly appropriate.  And ridiculing clinton over being anti-gay is ridiculous--did she or did she not take the stage with gavin?  

    Such blogging is just a mirror of the lameness of the 24 hr MSM news pundits.

    I live in san francisco, and I am offended that Obama had the audacity to make those remarks in the bay area after being afraid to be seen with gavin newsom.  I am not offended that Hillary pointed it out; his gaffe, his stupidity, his responsibility.  It a double insult by Obama to the people of san francisco.  

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:06:03 PM EST
    There's no "Billionaire's Row" in Ohio that I know of so when kos got all men- er ah um - cranky over Hillary making San Fran comments, I really had no frame of reference.

    Perhaps somewhere in the Rust Belt there's a "Billionaire's Row" or wealthy people buying up land so they can have a "ranch", but as far as I know, the tres riche don't live en masse around here.  

    Parent

    Mayflower Wotsit (none / 0) (#61)
    by bumblebums on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:51:57 PM EST
    has said that the people at that gathering aren't billionaires and aren't particularly rich.

    Parent
    Some were, some weren't more than likely. (none / 0) (#70)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:19:48 PM EST
    The ones that weren't were prob posers/wannabes. Same (adopted) attitudes. I have enough SF living under my belt to prob accurately predict the people there while sitting on the other coast  ;)

    I also know that 'hood well from different experiences. Inside the homes and out.

    Parent

    Why oh why? (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Dave B on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:03:14 PM EST
    Why can't I help myself?  I still check into dkos about once a day.  I just looked there and they are bashing Clinton over comments about Moveon.

    I quit Moveon yesterday because of their Clinton bashing.  I was a member since they first formed back in the 90's.  Screw them, they will never see another penny from me.

    I have seen the enemy (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by nellre on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:43:30 AM EST
    I have seen the enemy and he is us.
    I am horrified that "we" include a Michael Savage clone like Kos. I have posted a couple of diaries there that got considerable response. Almost all trolls.
    I can't identify with this. I don't know who I can identify with anymore. I guess, according to Kos, I'm not a dem. I know for certain I'm not a neocon. I once enjoyed Huffpo, but I wont even follow a link there anymore.

    So I'm left with the pogo thing. I have seen the enemy and he is us.

    Parent

    check out (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:04:30 PM EST
    Riverdaughter's response at Confluence to the Obama supporter that descended on their blog today.

    Perfect! (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:31:52 PM EST
    And so many times we have all tried to say it here:

    Rest assured, we know what your position is (anti-Clinton) and we can predict with relatively good precision what you would like to say.  So, there is no reason to belabor your point here.



    Parent
    ObamaTrolls are SO not the change they want to see (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:03:52 AM EST
    (I outlined some of their modus operandi here, Some read the polls, I also read the trolls, on a near-full thread. I'm back-linking to save some local stomach linings and to save on wasted breath.)

    Their "cunning" strategy of changing their approach, hour-to-hour, all for naught, frequently makes for sinus-clearing, beverage-inhaling, monitor-cleaning fun. If you must respond, send them off to prove what they claim before responding to their continual goalpost shifting and deflecting. If they swat away points you've made without saying "Uncle" but demand new research, a simple FOAD expressed more elegantly and non-deletably will also give the poor eedjits some busywork.

    (Remember, you are helping them Be The Change They Want to See in the World!)

    Oh, my, here they come again in a honking gaggle:

    • the Concerned Ones,
    • the clutterbucks who just want to shut down a thread because ... because ... people are talking amongst themselves, which is wrong and stuff
    • the harrumphing ones demanding to know where people got the information being discussed!! (that likely was linked the TL blogpost they didn't bother to read (never mind taking a moment to read the link)
    • the info-trolls, who never saw each other before in their life, yet who mysteriously independently selected a different poll to erode the confidence and will of HRC supporters
    • the shaddap and make me a sandwich trolls who post with an online sense of someone wearing a tense rictus smile while barely containing their rage that That Woman entered the contest at all and isn't backing down at their threats and bullying
    • the kick it down a notch Lazarus Sockpuppets who re-register after a failed strategy and come back professing, up front, to be pro-Obama, only more reasonable and Nice than the more "passionate" trolls from a past troll-life. And it goes a little something like this ...

    Look, we don't hate Hillary or anything, we just think that it's best for all concerned that she should [shaddap and make me a sandwich] before [taking a dive] and perhaps [find her way off the planet while she's at it]. In support of this sound, measured opinion, not founded on hatred at all, [coz we hate her with good reason]. It's not sexist or anything. She objectively is [a Bad Monster Lady Who Lies].

    (Okay now just the ladies! :-) )

    There's a strong reason behind the Rethug reptile brain going after John Edwards early and hard, when the primary was anyone's game. It's longterm strategy based on the same budo of going after Howard Dean early and hard: they feared him. Edwards really could peel off disgruntled Repugs.

    It's the same reason they've been pumping up TeamObama's ballooning egos on their Unity mantra, so self-flatteringly (and dismally) reliant as it is on the slam that HRC is "divisive" for being a longtime target of the right wing. (That's so fundamentally galling on so many true-blue Democratic levels, I don't know how it ever got past anyone with two synapses to spark together.)

    Why should Repugs bother trashing Obama? He's so busy doing their work for them, slamming his own party and breathing new life into shopworn RNC squawking points while cutting off a dangerous candidate with a rock solid record of beating them straight up. Obama's "plan" for success is to run into waiting Repug arms for a group hug because his Charisma is so magically delicious, they'll swoon right over.

    Alas, quel fromage, Obama's anticipated BFF McCain is already informing his fans in the media that Obama is a liar.

    TeamO will no doubt get stompy and orange-faced about the gross unfairness of it all when the media run with the news, but who do you think will win that said/he said in the playoffs? The Straight Talking Maverick Johnny McC? Or Charisma-oozing Obama?

    Hint: when was the last time reporters gave Obama the royal treatment? I don't mean laid off criticizing him, but brought Obama his favorite kind of doughnuts while "objectively" covering his campaign as journalists?

    Parent

    The more I hear (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:17:43 PM EST
    people/media outlets complain about the ABC debate, the more I support Hillary.  Where were you, oh fellow "Dems," when Hillary was getting the most absurd questions one could possibly offer, when attacking her was the focus of all discussions?  Where were you on any number of non-debate attacks?  Oh, nowhere.  Now I realize it's not because you don't care what the media thinks.  It's just because you don't care about us, that is, Hillary supporters and women.  It's just because sexism doesn't matter.  I mean, c'mon we all know the incredibly hip David Schuster meant "pimpin" in its colloquial sense when talking about that oh so colloquial relationship of Clinton and her DAUGHTER??  

    Please.  I guess any/all conversations this nation "should be having" need to come from Obama and no one else.

    The hypocrisy is completely absurd.  I know, even as I support Hillary, sent some $$ her way tonight, that I need to be ready to support Obama if he's the nominee.  And I know I can and I'll be happy to.  But this stupid odds game and sanctimonius B.S. has to stop.  You'd think these were old track hands, the creative class bloggers.  3:1 odds?  I'll take it!  When you bet on a horse, you look at the horse.  Look at your d@mn horse, Obama fans.

    Where were you fellow dems... (none / 0) (#79)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:46:25 AM EST
    This one was agreeing with you. Unfortunatley OBAMESSIAH
    has some real problems that need some splainin' and the kis gloves are comin off...

    Parent
    MarKOS on Bill Maher (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:26:57 AM EST
    I watched him last night and I thought he was rather flat and banal.  He did look like he pop a vein.  

    Keep those insults coming (none / 0) (#2)
    by nellre on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:58:11 PM EST
    Second of all, you know those rabid Clinton supporters who think everyone is a sellout because of inadequate Hlllary worship (like this site, Keith Olbermann, Howard Dean, Stephanie Miller, etc)? Well, they might as well add Colbert to that list after last night's show. It was an Obama lovefest, despite Clinton's brief cameo in the show.

    rotten orange

    Hmm, He's feeling it I guess.

    actually, I felt that Colbert (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:03:04 PM EST
    was pretty balanced.  I suppose that someone from Team O might not understand or remember what balanced looks like, but it seemed apparent to me.  Lookit, I know my girl isn't perfect, but I trust her to be able to take the hits and come back up swinging...not whine the next day while she's brushing invisible dirt off her shoulder and saying somebody's twisting a knife in her back.  I thought she did a great job.  Though, Edwards beat the pants off both of them, it must be said.  He was hilarious.


    Parent
    For any still sad past Edwards supporters (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:13:44 PM EST
    out there, my Aunt sent me a funny today.  It's a past open letter from John Cleese advising the United States it has now forfeited its independence and letting us know we will now be paying British prices for gasoline.  It's currently very fitting.

    Parent
    Has Colbert ever (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Fabian on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:09:45 PM EST
    really deliberately shredded someone?

    Perhaps he has(Teh Speech), but I can't see him doing that but rarely.  

    Parent

    I have taken a hiatus (none / 0) (#89)
    by magisterludi on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:47:44 AM EST
    from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Haven't watched regularly in months.

    I can't remember when or what it was exactly that Colbert said about Hillary, but it had to do with being evil and hair or eyes on fire- he basically equated her with the devil. I believe it was before the writers' strike. I really didn't want to end up resenting Colbert, so I decided to give it a rest until after the primary. John got caught up in the net for me more because of the strike. He was wallowing there alone and it was too painful to watch.

    Anywho, anyone else remember what I remember?

    Parent

    I must have missed that (none / 0) (#99)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:33:49 AM EST
    but I certainly have noticed what you're talking about on TDS, which I mostly stopped watching after Jon mocked Hillary for declaring a victory in Florida.  That, plus his constant invoking of Obama's name to get cheap applause, really turned me off.  It was during the writers' strike so I suppose he went off the deep end.  

    I find Colbert to be more balanced.  I will love him forever for his speech at the White House correspondents' dinner.  I've always thought he was funnier than Stewart, although  I know some people (my husband for instance) don't get his humor.

    Parent

    Geez, I wish I could remember when it was. (none / 0) (#101)
    by magisterludi on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:36:54 AM EST
    I want to think it was around the Oprah! spectacle. I remember distinctly him talking of Obama in glowing terms and then threw in the Hillary stuff. At first i thought it was a joke, but then he repeated it. I don't hate him for it, but his intent became clear to me.

    Parent
    Sorry I posted this (none / 0) (#8)
    by nellre on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:07:10 PM EST
    I missed that BTD had blogged already

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#17)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:21:03 PM EST
    that's funny.  I love the end.  Wonderful!

    And the remarks of Clinton at the fundraiser are interesting.  Money really...gets one to talk, doesn't it?  At least she voted in favor of MoveOn though.  Says a lot about her.

    OMG... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by workingclass artist on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:41:44 AM EST
    Lilburro...I agree, but then I thought it said alot about her when she sat down with Arkansas Profect Scaife in Pittsburgh. She's classy and gutsy. I think she can and will take on anybody and after 8 yrs. of insanity we need it.

    Parent
    wOOt (none / 0) (#32)
    by Klio on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:36:40 PM EST
    Sonics will move to Oklahoma City!  We're uptown now!  

    We loved loved loved having the NoLa Hornets here after Katrina destroyed their arena.  This is going to be great!

    Good riddance! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by NWHiker on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:48:49 PM EST
    At least that's one sports stadium we won't have to pay for.

    Yes, I'm still bitter about, and paying for, the other two.

    Congrats to Oklahoma, I'm glad you're happy to have 'em.

    Parent

    Can they take the Seahawks with them? (none / 0) (#55)
    by LHinSeattle on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:36:12 PM EST
    don't let the door hit ya on the way out!

    Parent
    Disgraceful..... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:27:21 AM EST
    The people of Seattle refuse to be extorted, so THEIR team is pulled out from under them by conniving ownership and a greedy league.  For shame.

    Nothing against OKC, the way you all supported the Hornets shows you deserve a team, but don't cheer too hard for stealing somebody elses.  Ten years from now when you don't want to subsidize a stadium that you might not even be able to afford to enjoy, they might up and abandon you.

    The Colts, the Browns, the Sonics...your team could be next.  Sports fans need to wise up....we are some of the biggest suckers in all of consumerism, and that's saying something.

    Parent

    You do realize that ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Tortmaster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:05:10 PM EST
    ... the video was for Obama and against Clinton right?  

    Also, if you look at HRC's remarks, what is she actually saying about her supporters? Did she really mean to imply that they wilt at the sound of an "Obama" chant? Is she hinting that, if someone in a room stands up and says, "I'm for Obama," her voters run out the back door?

    I don't see how telling her big donors that her support is weak will help her.  

    Leave Barack Aloooonnnnnee (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:42:04 PM EST
    the whining and crying is getting too boring for words.

    Parent
    No, what she's saying is (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by echinopsia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:58:26 PM EST
    that Obama's supporters acted like thigs at the caucuses. And it's true.

    I'm over 50 and a woman, but NOBODY makes me back down. If I had not been there to speak up, the Obamanasties would have shouted down all of the older, nonwhite, and/or female Hillary supporters at my caucus.

    They are bullies.

    Parent

    Not thigs, THUGS (none / 0) (#67)
    by echinopsia on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:59:06 PM EST


    Parent
    THE boss and barry (none / 0) (#71)
    by drewohio1 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:58:40 PM EST

    what ? the boss forgot the glory days of William Jefferson Clinton !!! does he really think barry can handle it if he couldnt handle abc and the stupid questions they posed?

    Clinton will repair asap all the f u ked up things w and his rats changed after 9-11. I have no trust in barry to get that or anything done.

    BSG thoughts (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:15:32 AM EST
    Tonight's episode was depressing.

    Well of course.  Really what I'm getting at is I saw the episode and then SciFi replayed the episode where they succeeded in a tactical maneuever to obtain access to tilium from season 1 or 2.

    Ron Moore, I believe this was the episode he called a Big Mac episode.  It's about giving the people what they want, and in many respects the story arc has similiarities and interacts viscerally with the audience the same way the movie Top Gun interacted with it's audience.

    A big part of that episode centered on Lee trying to live up to the legend of Starbuck, Lee also connecting with his father.  A lighter of all things.

    This was character development and great fulfilling drama all at once.  

    This 4th season is, and it is what it is, but it's too involved in plot explication.

    That and it's beginning to devolve into the dramatic idea that character development can only be obtained through tragedy.

    It's still the best TV going, but I hope they give us at least one fun episode in this last season 4.

    BSG (none / 0) (#84)
    by rooge04 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:59:43 AM EST
    Lee was annoying me...always trying to start trouble! Even if in the name of democracy.  I can't believe the Tyrol/Callie situation. Tory is evil!!!

    Parent
    Lee has always annoyed me (none / 0) (#88)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:41:42 AM EST
    He's a little whiny.  I don't like Kara freaking out so much, but I'm sure that won't last long.  Callie getting the green button was okay with me, because she was so annoying the whole ep and I've never liked her.

    I agree about Lee standing up and challenging Rosalyn.  What does it accomplish to play his hand so early like that?  And why is he being such a puppet?

    I hope the skin jobs aren't really dead.  

    Has anyone else noticed that in the cylon hierarchy, it's basically come down to the boys vs the girls?  Very interesting...

    Parent

    Blah... more association trivialization... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Exeter on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:38:03 AM EST
    That's the larger point of this. See -- like Reverend Wright or William Ayers, you could even twist Bruce Springsteen's words out of context.

    Nice opening pic of Barack-No Mas!-Obama (none / 0) (#86)
    by ineedalife on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:11:30 AM EST
    Looks like he is throwing in the towel and running away from more debates with Hillary.

    How is the guy that is reduced to a whimpering, quivering, lump of jelly after one round of tough questions going to lead the country?

    Poll Dump no help (none / 0) (#87)
    by barryluda on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:16:50 AM EST
    Our favorite pollster, SUSA, released a poll dump of McCain versus our two potential democratic nominees in 14 states.  Clinton wins while Obama loses in two of them, Ohio and Missouri, while Obama wins with Clinton losing in two of them, Wisconsin and Iowa.  

    They split the other 10 with McCain winning against both in five states: Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, New Mexico and Virginia.

    The good guys win versus McSame (or McAged) in California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Oregon.

    As I said in a prior post, this is not the GE so things will no doubt change.  But these seem very relevant to our Supers and, unfortunately, don't seem to help us distinguish much between the two (unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible).

    You (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:31:54 AM EST
    aren't gonna win any friends among Seniors by calling John McCain "McAged". Seniors don't like seeing age used as an insult.

    Pointing out he's an old doesn't make friends with old "Geezers" like me. There are those just cranky enough to say "up your young patootie" and you could lose votes that way. Add that to the fact that there are lots of people that simply do not regard John McCain with the same amount of loathing that they have for Bush and insulting any potential voting block is kinda dumb.

    I read something an Obama supporter wrote yesterday about watching out for the "Geezer" vote. Finally one thing that an Obama supporter and I can agree about.

     

    Parent

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by barryluda on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:41:32 AM EST
    Very good point, and I'm sorry.  But I do think his age will likley be an issue that he might not be able to get around as easily as Reagan did.

    Also, I'm fairly old too!

    Parent

    Liberty's strange bedfellows.... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:32:34 AM EST
    Ron Paul and Barney Frank...think they have nothing in common?  Think again

    Hopefully the Republican and Democrat flavored authoritarians in the House don't kill these pro-liberty bill...and the authoritarian in the White House doesn't veto.

    Paul and Frank..a couple of the very few D's and R's I could vote for.  They love and respect liberty...and that's enough.

    The ad was funny. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Inky on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:40:13 AM EST
    I couldn't care less that it could be interpreted as anti-Clinton ad by some. I believe, however, that it was intended as a much needed bit of levity. I'm a huge Springsteen fan (or at least I was 20-30 years ago) and I'm not bothered at all by the fact that some people I admire have endorsed Obama. Kos, Olbermann, et al, however, are another matter, since they've gone beyond mere support into acute CDS.

    Here's another bit of levity, for those who can stand it:

    Slate's Proposed Springsteen Ad For Hillary | 86 comments (86 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment