home

The Media Downplays West Virginia , Focuses on Obama and McCain

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:51:52 PM EST
Tags: West Virginia '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Update: The first discussion of West Virgina I've heard is happening with Terry McCauliffe talking to Chris Matthews. He says Hillary will win W. Va. by 2:1 and by possibly 200,000 votes. He expects she will be ahead in the popular vote once KY and Puerto Rico vote, counting the 2.3 million votes in FL and MI. He says she will give the best speech ever tonight, he's seen a copy. He says the superdelgates will go her way once they realize she's better to beat McCain. He still expects the race to be decided in June.

****

The media is focused on Barack Obama. Even his flag pin is more important than the West Virginia primary. MSNBC is running Obama's delegate numbers at the bottom of the screen. Fox News is reporting on various state elections. My local news is talking about Roy Romer's endorsement of Obama today. [More...]

Matthews even says Obama's speech tonight was bad. Olbermann mocks McCauliffe's characterization of her speech.

CNN analysts discuss Obama's speech. MSNBC is discussing McCain and Obama. Olbermann says to the Governor of West Virginia, "lets look past W. Va." The Governor, who is an uncommitted superdelegate, wants to talk about how high the voter turnout is. Olbermann responds by asking what West Virginia has to change to be able to have a November win for Obama.

The media is diminishing West Virginia reporting mostly how white, rural, poor and uneducated the voters are.

Polls close in 45 minutes. I wonder if they will even report the results as they come in like they've done with every other primary. I suspect they'll call the race for Hillary at 6:31 pm and then go back to discussing Obama.

< Early W. Va. Exit Polling | For The Record . . . >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Media Downplays West Virginia , Focuses on Obama and McCain | 172 comments (172 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I.Hate.The.Media. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:53:38 PM EST
    n/t

    Obama last in WV; Hillary second from last - MCM (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jawbone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:57:21 PM EST
    A commenter somewhere I visited today wrote this -- was it here?

    Struck me as absolutely spot on re: our vaunted free press (controlled by corporatists, of course).

    [ Parent ]

    Actual Yahoo Headlines (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by eleanora on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:48:54 PM EST
    "Clinton wins large but symbolic victory in W.Va."

    "CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Hillary Rodham Clinton won a large but largely symbolic victory in the West Virginia primary Tuesday over Barack Obama, still the leader and closing in on the Democratic presidential nomination. The Associated Press made its call based on surveys of voters as they left the polls. "

    "Obama Focuses on November, Clinton on West Virginia"

    "May 13 (Bloomberg) -- Today's primary in West Virginia matters so little to the Democratic presidential nomination race that front-runner Barack Obama will spend the day in Missouri and Michigan, two battleground states in the fall's general election.

    They can't give her any credit, can they? We'll by G-d have Unity, so you Clinton people just sit down and STFU.

    [ Parent ]

    Corrente (none / 0) (#53)
    by bodhcatha on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:15:26 PM EST
    I think I saw that on correntewire, only it said "Obama wins second place, Clinton is next to last!".  they'll use different words (maybe), but that sums up the media coverage.  I loathe these people.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks--you're correct. Much more clever (none / 0) (#80)
    by jawbone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:24:07 PM EST
    Than the way I remembered it, capturing just how relentlessly the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) has been trashing Clinton.

    It was even a post! or became one. Anyway, here's the link.

    Kudos to myiq2xu. Too good.

    [ Parent ]

    Olbermann (none / 0) (#117)
    by vigkat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:33:11 PM EST
    Just made the call for Hillary.  Punkinhead is now explaining the math and why it means she CANNOT overtake Obama.  Ever.  KO is taking the opportunity to diss McCauliff's characterization of Hillary's speech as one of the greatest he has ever read.  The math, the math, the math.  I think they have now finished with this election.

    [ Parent ]
    Now one of the commentators (none / 0) (#125)
    by vigkat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:36:59 PM EST
    States that the Clintons have been living in a parallel universe and must come to terms with reality at some point.  He's mystified by her determination in the face of inevitable defeat.  I need to turn to the cooking channel now.  Oh, the ballroom where Hillary will give her great speech is being described as "empty."  Oh geez, KO is such a hateful man.  He had to get in yet one more nasty comment about Hillary's "greatest speech in the world," dripping contempt with each syllable.

    [ Parent ]
    Ditto (none / 0) (#175)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:42:16 PM EST
    One would expect this kind of coverage from the MSM. The thing that absolutely drives me crazy is the almost non-stop Hillary Bashing and Obama Spooning from the so called "Progressive Media". I live in Portland, OR and our Progressive Talk station is so vitriolic towards Hillary ad nauseum. At least Thom Hartman has the integrity to not endorse a candidate and call the Obamaphlies on there disinformation. How will Olbermann, Ed Shultz, Randi Rhodes, et al, ever survive should Hillary get the nomination? But, as has often been said, they won't because the "Fix is in the bag". That's the kind of "Change", read Chicago Politics, that Obama will bring to Washington.

    [ Parent ]
    Castellano on CNN just said (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:55:40 PM EST
    Obama would have to hire a food tester if he chooses her as a VP.  In what nation in the world would these people qualify as commentors.  

    I don't believe you (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:57:20 PM EST
    Not that what you say is false, it is just that my brain refuses to accept it. I am rejecting reality and substituting my own.

    [ Parent ]
    Good luck...I tried (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:58:14 PM EST
    turned off all media for one week.

    [ Parent ]
    I've had it off for months ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:20:29 PM EST
    I'm much happier.

    The important stuff still filters down to me, but in a much less hysterical tone.

    And I've gotten caught on the stack of DVDs I had to watch.

    [ Parent ]

    Me too, I just can't take it anymore!!! (none / 0) (#73)
    by nashville on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:22:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I've stopped watching KO, glance at Tweety (none / 0) (#103)
    by jawbone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:30:30 PM EST
    only occasionally.

    Next, I'm going to try to cut off broadcast news (altho' I sometimes think it's important to know what the opposition is doing and saying...).

    I actually cancelled my extended cable bcz I couldn't not watch CNN and FOX. I cancelled when CNN refused to use the word "alleged" when reporting on the poor Arab and Arab descended med grads driving to FL for their residencies. When a waitress thought they were planning another attack, reported them to authorities, and highways were shut down in FL to catch them.... Poor guys.

    I couldn't take the hysteria, and CNN abetting it.

    Over, done, haven't watched CNN or FOX since then.

    [ Parent ]

    I love my cable too much to downgrade (none / 0) (#154)
    by Just another person on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:04:30 PM EST
    But I did child-lock my CNN channels and have been very happy since. No inadvertant switching to CNN by the husband or me.

    [ Parent ]
    I know - but the pundits are really pushing the (none / 0) (#133)
    by bridget on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:46:33 PM EST
    boundaries of decency in this primary when they talk about Hillary and Bill Clinton

    come to think about it I can easily imagine Carl Bernstein saying something like that, too. Not long ago he was considered a legendary reporter. Sigh.

    [ Parent ]

    I saw that. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:57:43 PM EST
    Getting ready to blast CNN via email . . .
    after switching to the food network!

    [ Parent ]
    Poison (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:09:20 PM EST
    is a woman's weapon, you know.

    [ Parent ]
    George Bush Nation (none / 0) (#8)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:56:38 PM EST
    but I don't think that exists any more so he better look for a job.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:00:46 PM EST
    Well, he is a Republican, after all.  I wouldn't expect him to be any better than that.

    Now, you would think self-proclaimed progressives would stop and think when they find themselves making the same nasty comments about Hillary that the Freepers make.  But it doesn't seem to actually work that way.

    [ Parent ]

    Not just a Republican (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:02:59 PM EST
    he wrote and produced the racist "hands" ad for Jesse Helms.

    [ Parent ]
    At 3:50pm Pacific on Situation Room (none / 0) (#139)
    by itsadryheat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:49:14 PM EST
    He repeated what David Gergin said in last week's election coverage on CNN.  Nobody called them on it at all.  Horrendous! On staged with Alex were Blitzer, Jack Cafferty, Gloria Borger and nobody said a word of rebuke.  

    We need to let CNN hear from us on this and on that number 2025.  It is wrong. The number is 2209 and nobody, no matter the math, is the nominee until the convention votes if there is any other candidate who has not conceded!  Jimmy CArter was a sitting President and he had collected way more delegates than the magic number, but his challenger would not concede... not in May or June...not until the convention vote!

     Ted Kennedy knows Obama is perpetrating a fraud by crowning himself the nominee May 20 and the lazy press is abetting.  Ted Kennedy did not care about math or futility when he took it to the convention floor against Carter.

    Explain to people how illegitamate his coronation is at this point.  He doesn't play by the rules now.  What if he were President?  Haven't we been there?

    Note: The magic number is derived by taking the total of all delegates credentialed and seated at the convention, dividing by 2, adding 1.  Since the credentialling process is not yet complete, we must assume the maximum possible. 2209.  

    Chairman Dean and even the Obama campaign have assured us that Michigan and Florida will be seated.  Maybe there will be reduced numbers or half delegates, but they will be seated. Therefore the number has to go to 2209.

     Please ask John King and Chuck Todd and the others to correct their graphics and the math in them.  Timmeh and Chris both just stated that Hillary had to winn 80% of what's left to win.  This is a fraud.  Make them stop.

    Nominee is person who is selected by convention vote.  The presumed nominee is the only person left in the race after all the competion has conceded.  Neither of those conditions has happened or will have happened by May 20.  To say so is not playing by the mighty rules.
    Superdelegates don't even seem to know the rules.  How can we educate them?

    [ Parent ]

    Chuck Todd just said Obama needs 18 delegates (none / 0) (#143)
    by itsadryheat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:51:57 PM EST
    Todd says Obama will claim he is the nominee because by May 20 he will have won by pledged delegates, as though that is a category of victory.  He is now saying Obama only needs 18 more pledged delegates to win the nomination.  We have to make them correct this lying meme.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess I haven't been following (none / 0) (#158)
    by Just another person on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:08:24 PM EST
    but how is it only 18 delegates? Wasn't Obama at least a couple of hundred behind, even if you took the 2025 number?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, he invented a new category to win. (none / 0) (#179)
    by itsadryheat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:00:28 AM EST
    He says he has a majority of pledged delegates.  Don't know how he figures that . Pledged is made up .  The rules set up 7 kinds of delegates and they are being awarded all the time and all have equal status and one secret ballot vote in August.  Not a one has voted yet.

    [ Parent ]
    And to think I used to make fun of Republicans (5.00 / 13) (#7)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:56:21 PM EST
    "whining" about media bias and say to myself "they are just angry they can't get their own way."

    What an eye opened this primary has been. And to think the internet, instead of becoming the great equalizer has become the domain of astro-turfing and home made attack and propaganda videos.

    Is it too late to go back to the days of the town crier?

    "Stop, you're hurting America"... (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by BoGardiner on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:17:37 PM EST
    ... said Jon Stewart to Media.

    But where have our liberal media critics gone?  They have become the Thing they mocked.

    [ Parent ]

    What else can they do? (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:57:48 PM EST
    Admit that Tim Russert and his fellow bloviators at MSNObama were wrong?

    That HRC's support is strong and growing while Obama's star is fading?

    That they have absolutely no effect on the voters of America, who make their own decisions?

    That they are not, in fact, the powerful figures they think they are, but are just a bunch of ill-informed, highly-paid buffoons who are emphatically NOT smarter than a fifth-grader?

    Surely you jest. ;-)

    Heh (5.00 / 15) (#14)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:59:11 PM EST
    You know who the "elitists" are?

    If you go around saying that less-educated voters are stupid or less able to make good decisions, then guess what, you just might be an elitist.

    If you understand that less-educated voters might, on the whole, have different concerns and care about different issues than those who are better-educated and better-off, then congratulations, you might actually be on the way to understanding people.

    This is what Bill Clinton means (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    when he says that "people who need a President vote for Hillary." Not a very artful thing to say, but the movement/solutions division deserves some consideration.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps I'm not understanding (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:06:28 PM EST
    what you mean. Bill Clinton's comment means "every person in this country needs a president". He believes the president is there to work for everyone.

    [ Parent ]
    I think he is saying people (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:08:05 PM EST
    that are well off don't really need a President as much as people who might be struggling more.  The people disproportionately impacted by the bad economy, need a President more...that is my guess.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, I interpreted it as Hillary would be the (none / 0) (#78)
    by NCarolinawoman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:23:50 PM EST
    advocate for people having a hard time just making ends meet. Kind of like FDR. People that were struggling needed the activism and real solutions of FDR. Not the pie in the sky nebulous idea of "change".

    I wish more African Americans agreed with that.

    [ Parent ]

    It's absolutely the truth, too (none / 0) (#164)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:22:11 PM EST
    I rank needing a president because you're on the edge of foreclosure as more important than because it makes some kind of abstract statement.

    [ Parent ]
    As far as I know... (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:03:59 PM EST
    ...i've never heard a left wing European party say "low info voter". The nearest you hear is a Tory saying oiks or unwashed or something like that.  At least the right in Europe is openly self consciously snobbish. Here the left is obliviously upper middle class.

    Does that mean the Democratic Party is not left wing?  Or that it's just lost it's bearings?

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#58)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:16:55 PM EST
    In my book, there is a substantial difference between the two parties, but that doesn't mean there is an actual left-wing party in American politics.  Find me another country where the "left-wing" party doesn't even believe in single-payer health care.

    Be that as it may, the latte-drinkers don't understand the little guy and never will.  Year after year, it's like "why aren't they intelligent enough to see things as we see them, and vote as we vote?"  Basically, they see everyone who isn't a defense contractor as a natural Democratic voter, and it amazes them how so many people get bamboozled into voting "against their interests" in election after election.

    [ Parent ]

    without single payer... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:24:38 PM EST
    ...there's not much to be interested in. The Dems rallying around Obama (Bill Richardson) indicate that they are Wet Tory's mouthing about social justice but not quite meaning it really.  

    Seeing the  GOP in charge of all branches shows they are close to but not quite fascist.  So thank the stars the House/Senate is Democratic.  

    [ Parent ]

    True 2004 Primary Story (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:20:17 PM EST
    A man I knew was getting his PHD in, get this, Political Sceince. He liked what he read about Dean but changed his mind when he saw him speak. The reason: He didn't like the way Howard held his neck.

    Now that is sound political reasoning. There may have many reasons not to select Dean, but someone's neck?

    [ Parent ]

    He's right though, (none / 0) (#72)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:21:59 PM EST
    Dean does have an odd way of holding his neck. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    he has no neck (none / 0) (#85)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:25:22 PM EST
    he's a cage fighter.

    [ Parent ]
    Dean was the spitting image (none / 0) (#87)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:25:35 PM EST
    of the nine year old boy across the street, I had a hard time voting for him cause I just had a hard time taking him seriously.  

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#76)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:23:20 PM EST
    Maybe you picked the wrong person to tell that story to.  Howard Dean will always be The Man With No Neck to me.

    [ Parent ]
    In MO We Vote For Dead People Instead Of (none / 0) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:48:24 PM EST
    someone who is completely wrong on the issues. Well some of us do anyhow. I can't believe that anyone would vote against a person who shared their views just because of their neck.

    [ Parent ]
    They keep lying that he did not contest (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:59:35 PM EST
    he spent loads on advertising.  

    Russert (none / 0) (#26)
    by IzikLA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:04:37 PM EST
    says he ignored it so it must be so, right?

    Oh, and even better, you know why he ignored it?  It's 95% white voters so it's the perfect state for Hillary.  That's just about a direct quote.  

    I'm really starting to believe we're doomed in November.  I hope not, but Obama's actions and those of his supporters and the media are not inspiring any confidence.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank Goodness (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:07:50 PM EST
    white voters will be in the minority in November!

    [ Parent ]
    Don't you remember (none / 0) (#57)
    by standingup on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:16:45 PM EST
    the people need to see Obama in person, have the light come down on them to give them the epiphany?  It just doesn't work via the tv.  

    [ Parent ]
    How is a panel with Jamal (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    and Donna fair?  

    Donna (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:03:56 PM EST
    the backer of all losing Dem candidates. Her threats of leaving the party would be met with cheers from me. Heck, Donna thought Dukakis was a great candidate. Why anyone even listens to her stupid opinions is beyond me.

    [ Parent ]
    A serious question (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:08:16 PM EST
    What has she achieved for the Democratic party?

    I can't think of anything, but I don't know what she did before 2000, so I might be missing something.


    [ Parent ]

    read a book n/t (none / 0) (#45)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:11:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    what is the old cheer (none / 0) (#27)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:05:23 PM EST
    Na na na hey hey goooood byyyyyye!

    [ Parent ]
    this is why I stopped watching (none / 0) (#22)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:03:06 PM EST
    CNN is terrible, MSNBC is worse.  They never have anyone on Hillary's team on their dumb panels. And they have at least two Obama supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    and a republican who thinks (none / 0) (#23)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:03:30 PM EST
    she would poison Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    That's just backwards, isn't it? (5.00 / 12) (#19)
    by Emma on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:02:52 PM EST
    The Governor, who is an uncommitted superdelegate, wants to talk about how high the voter turnout is. Olbermann responds by asking what West Virginia has to change to be able to have a November win for Obama.

    Is it just me, or is that a weird way of putting it?  

    That seems to be, I dunno, putting the cart before the horse.  Is it incumbent on WVA voters to change in order to vote for Obama, or for Obama to change something to attract WVA voters?

    That's unfortunate. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:06:56 PM EST
    I've seen that attitude amongst some Obama supporters: if you don't support him, there's something wrong with you, and you need to change.

    It simply doesn't occur to them that Obama might have to do something differently.


    [ Parent ]

    Or that (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:09:18 PM EST
    maybe the voters see something fundamentally wrong with Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    oh yeah (none / 0) (#169)
    by rghojai on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:28:59 PM EST
    I've a sister like that. She's smart, educated if generally a little too tightly wound, but she's 'round the bend for Obama to a point that he/the race/media coverage cannot be a topic of conversation... and I've never partaken of mindless bashing, said I don't like him because of the shoes he wears, used offensive language, related things w/o facts to back them up, etc. Anything--anything--is "bashing Obama."

    Sure.

    Obama, the campaign people, supporters often enough come across to me as "Won't you like Obama? Please? Obama likes you. Many people like Obama. They'll like you, too. Well, it's sad that you don't like him. It's sad that you're an ignorant racist, and determined to destroy the party and lose in November."

    [ Parent ]

    No that's right. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    we are the ones who must change. Remember we are voting for change. Or something like that. Obama represents the change we are waiting for.

    Hey, I'm trying here! lol!~  

    [ Parent ]

    we are the change (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:11:00 PM EST
    that we voted for ....Barack of the Dead.

    [ Parent ]
    We have the change (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by wasabi on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:34:16 PM EST
    We have the change he is waiting for!

    [ Parent ]
    Abolish the people (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:07:12 PM EST
    Change them to something new.

    [ Parent ]
    My thoughts exactly. (3.00 / 1) (#37)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:08:14 PM EST
    This is EXACTLY what is wrong with Obama.

    If you don't vote for him, you have to change because there's something wrong with YOU.

    WTF? You work for us, you arrogant SOB! I don't have to hire you if I don't like your resume!

    [ Parent ]

    Well, he sure doesn't want an undeclared SD (none / 0) (#42)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:10:29 PM EST
    announcing his alliance to Clinton, now, does he?

    [ Parent ]
    People really expect (none / 0) (#47)
    by lilburro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:11:26 PM EST
    that everyone is going to go out and get a degree by November.  

    The key, obviously, is better messaging.  And the right VP.  Obama needs to transform the way Clinton has since January.  That's four months - fits in just perfectly for August-November.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:18:02 PM EST
    Every morning on my way to the train station, I walk by the University of Phoenix and get a warm feeling, just thinking about our can't-lose electoral strategy for November.

    [ Parent ]
    bwahahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by lilburro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:19:38 PM EST
    "Look mom!  I got my B.A. in Obama!  I got my B.A. in Obama!"

    [ Parent ]
    My suggestions: (none / 0) (#74)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:22:17 PM EST
    Obama

    Stop obsessing about himself.  We aren't voting for a biracial kid who lived in Indonesia and was raised by Grandma.  We are voting for a President.

    Get a grip! - on the Issues.  Voter want to know what you will do for them in concrete terms.  Shiny rhetoric will only go so far.

    Get skin like a rhinoceros hide.  Obama is too sensitive.  Republicans would like nothing more that to make Obama an Angry Black Man.  It may be a racist stereotype, but it's a racist stereotype that works.

    Stop alienating core constituencies.  Driving voters into the welcoming arms of the Republicans is a great way to lose.

    [ Parent ]

    agree (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by aquarian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:32:09 PM EST
    The fact that an AA and a woman are viable contenders for the presidency is to be celebrated.  But those milestones only get you into the White House front door.  If you want my vote, you have to tell me what you will do once you take up residence.

    Issues, Issues, Issues.
    And then there is tone.  Never underestimate tone.  When you anger a constituency, it is a long tough road back into the fold.  

    [ Parent ]

    Juan Williams on Fox (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:02:59 PM EST
    true, it was in response at how the media will treat Obama in the fall said it depends if we keep buying the Obama narrative which is: "You can't question him on policy, you can't mention Michelle, you can't mention Wright or Ayers, and you can't mention that people see him weaker on national security than McCain because if you do you are a racist pig." So, one good thing came from watching Fox.
    I also have picked up the meme that Hillary's # indicate what Obama has to "work on" in the fall. blech.

    I hope voters in WV (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    do watch those shows tonight.  All those people who voted for Hillary will be very confused to find out what Obama is going to pander to them to win their votes in the fall - all this after they think Hillary crushed him.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw that -- it was stunning from an AA (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:15:46 PM EST
    commentator, but he has been sensible a lot lately.  And did he and the others say this was a discussion of some op-ed piece in the New York Times saying this?  I can guess which columnists would not write it.

    As for the print media, Google news' top story is that Clinton will win "symbolic votes" in WV.  Uh huh.  WV is just holding a straw poll, not a state holding an election like any other?  But gosh, if it was a caucus, then it would be really representative?

    Pffft on the lot of them.  I'm actually learning a lot from watching Fox.  More things I never would have said only a month or so ago.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama rules article (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:37:40 PM EST
    Here.   I was just imagining the Repubs getting going on the Obama rules meme.  It started with them mocking Obama's new politics last week, this new article.. by next week I expect them to be in full ridicule mode using the official roolz from Corrente.

    [ Parent ]
    Juan Williams wrote the op-ed (none / 0) (#100)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:29:58 PM EST
    in the NYT. Someone posted a link to it on this site -- it called for the Obama sect to "get over" the meme that white people who don't vote for him are racist and start finding ways for him to connect with them. It was a good article.  I've been watching a lot of Fox lately (I know, I know -- but I seriously cannot stomach MSNBC or CNN anymore) and Juan Williams has always called Obama on his sh_t -- with the "Bestest Speech Evah" he said, flat out, it didn't answer why he stayed in that Church for 20 years. I don't know if he is a Republican, but he seems pretty fair.

    [ Parent ]
    On the post of mine talking about the racist (none / 0) (#140)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:51:02 PM EST
    bar owner, I did mention the Hillary comment down thread, in the comment where I called the guy a douchebag (I hope that doesn't offend you) and a moron.

    Of course implying that he wished Hillary Clinton had been brutally murdered is reprehensible. I really am not thatevil, Cream. The AJC opened a blog on which people here in GA actually applauded the guy, so I wanted to gauge the TL crowd. I knew the Clinton comment was off the charts; I was curious if anyone would think the t-shirt was cute. Fortunately, noone did.

    And no, I do not--and will never--own a Hillary nutcracker; those things are very low-class, and as you know, we Obamabots are all upscale. ;o)


    [ Parent ]

    On the post of mine talking about the racist (none / 0) (#141)
    by halstoon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:51:28 PM EST
    bar owner, I did mention the Hillary comment down thread, in the comment where I called the guy a douchebag (I hope that doesn't offend you) and a moron.

    Of course implying that he wished Hillary Clinton had been brutally murdered is reprehensible. I really am not thatevil, Cream. The AJC opened a blog on which people here in GA actually applauded the guy, so I wanted to gauge the TL crowd. I knew the Clinton comment was off the charts; I was curious if anyone would think the t-shirt was cute. Fortunately, noone did.

    And no, I do not--and will never--own a Hillary nutcracker; those things are very low-class, and as you know, we Obamabots are all upscale. ;o)


    [ Parent ]

    douchebag is offensive when used as an insult (none / 0) (#177)
    by DFLer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:46:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    another gem from Juan Williams (none / 0) (#52)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:15:13 PM EST
    "the elite [SDs] have made the call for Barrack Obama."

    [ Parent ]
    I hate to say it - but it's about money (none / 0) (#65)
    by Benjamin3 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:19:12 PM EST
    from Obama's PAC, which he has used to line the pockets of those SD's.  Obama is simply the DNC's cash cow - and elected SD's can't get to get access to Obama's private date base of small donors (those less than $200).  What a great system we have!

    [ Parent ]
    I meant to say (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Benjamin3 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:20:10 PM EST
    that the elected SD's can't WAIT to get hold of that database.

    [ Parent ]
    Fox is covering it (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:05:53 PM EST
    They are covering it in terms of what Obama needs to do.  Clinton is doing great, Obama is slipping in his core groups.

    Rove: Sad for Clinton a speed bump for Obama.

    I am watching closely for language to appeal to Clinton supporters.

    And about Appalachia, the Fox analyst (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:19:06 PM EST
    went to pains -- and it took some research, what a concept -- to point out that many of the same voters who have been voting against Obama did vote in Virginia for Doug Wilder as governor and in other areas for other AAs.  The conclusion is that Obama's failure to win votes in the Appalachian areas is not about race.  It's about him, "he can't connect with the culture, they can't connect with him and his," etc.

    [ Parent ]
    The fox spin... (none / 0) (#96)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:29:03 PM EST
    the fox spin should be the most interesting...

    I expect that it will be all about the arrogance of Obama and the DNC, and how huge swaths of Democratic voters are not satisfied with Obama as the Democratic nominee, and the party, and Obama, are treating them as if they don't exist.

    The subtext, of course, is "you have been abandoned by the Democrats, and John McCain understands you and wants your vote.

    Speaking of which....if I was McCain, I'd be touring West Virginia for the next week or so...


    [ Parent ]

    The elite have picked Obama (none / 0) (#136)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:48:33 PM EST
    Here you are... 'the Party 'Elite' made the decision, they picked Obama.'

    Yes, yes, yes Obama is elitist, supported by the party elites, the working class voted for Clinton while the elites picked Obama.  Also discussed how Obama put on his pin/patriotic meme... didn't convince voters in WV though.  So far, he's elitist and unpatriotic.  I think I will start a list of how the refer to Clinton voter and how they refer to Obama and how those two will never come together.

    You like the numbers... they were discussing historical polls of how McCain supporters weren't going to support Bush, how how that shook out... how many did/didn't and why.  Making the point that Obama has a bit more of a problem than Bush.

    [ Parent ]

    And thus McCain goes green (none / 0) (#79)
    by BoGardiner on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:23:56 PM EST
    And it ain't easy being green... if you're GOP.

    Right-wing radio has gone berserk today over McCain's endorsement of global warming theory and cap-and-trade.  The screaming and sputtering is hilarious.  They say it is a signal to disaffected Democrats.  

    Too bad his proposals are a transparent ploy with little substance.

    [ Parent ]

    Another genius (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:06:34 PM EST
    Roland Martin.  

    Is he crying? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:10:44 PM EST
    Another poster said he looked like he was going to cry.

    [ Parent ]
    As a mom (none / 0) (#48)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:11:42 PM EST
    I diagnose pink eye.  

    [ Parent ]
    Allergies perhaps? (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:14:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The more of an echo chamber I see... (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:08:18 PM EST
    ...in the media, the more amazed I am that Clinton's been able to get nearly half of the votes in the Dem primaries.

    Seriously, how can anyone doubt she'd be the stronger candidate in the general election?

    One thing about media coverage... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Benjamin3 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:29:50 PM EST
    When they bash Hillary and try to run her out of the race, it just fires up and inspires Hillary's base.  That has been true this whole season, going back to New Hampshire.

    [ Parent ]
    No mention of WV or Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:12:08 PM EST
    in Obama's speech, according to Fox.

    Claire McCaskill says that people in small communities "just don't know" Obama enough.

    I'd say they know him a little too well.

    I wish I could answer Olbermann (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by Benjamin3 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:13:07 PM EST
    Olbermann responds by asking what West Virginia has to change to be able to have a November win for Obama.

    Change the candidate to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    Remember... (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:15:38 PM EST
    ... when the Democrats were the party of the working class and middle class of all races in all states? When we didn't look down on other people because they didn't vote for our preferred candidate?

    That was awesome.

    WV's Governor reported (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Benjamin3 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:16:11 PM EST
    that turnout is OVER 400,000 - the most ever for a primary in the state.  THAT SHOULD get somebody's attention.

    They said on Fox (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:18:14 PM EST
    it's the biggest primary turnout ever for WV.

    [ Parent ]
    Especially for a state that's been (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:19:48 PM EST
    told over and over that they don't matter.

    [ Parent ]
    WV (none / 0) (#88)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:25:53 PM EST
    will not be ignored -- good for them!

    [ Parent ]
    Important note... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by IzikLA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:55:25 PM EST
    If they are voting 2-1 for Clinton and turnout is over 400,000, won't the big story be a net gain of over 200,000 in the popular vote?  Wiping out his NC gain?  Not that the media will talk about it, but I think that is a fairly important story.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (none / 0) (#170)
    by IzikLA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:29:22 PM EST
    Not over 200,000 -- but over 100,000 at the very least.  Wow my math sucks.

    [ Parent ]
    And speaking of Advertising and being off topic (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Rhouse on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:17:03 PM EST
    this little gem is up over at Politico:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10315.html
    It's about Obama's plan to keep independent Democratic advertising groups moneyless so he can control them.  In effect,   he wants to control the money flow for the whole party as well as cutting off Clinton associates (real or ex.)    Old style Politics -control the money, control everyone's message, and allow no dissent, red unity Ponies for the Party.

    Not Just Advertising And Clinton's Money (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:39:38 PM EST
    I have heard from several sources that the Obama campaign is sending out signals to donors, specifically at last weekend's Democracy Alliance convention, to stop giving to outside groups, including America Votes. The campaign also circulated negative press reports about Women's Voices Women's Vote, implying voter suppression. Matt Stroller - HoffPo

    Obama is taking over the party and cutting out everyone who isn't in his camp. He believes in post-partisanship (this doesn't contradict having Daschle as your bud, y'know). Money flow is going to come mostly from Obama going forward, unless he loses the election. The independents-folks like MoveOn, ActBlue, the netroots, etc... are being cut out or marginalized, whether they realize it or not (and I know that some don't.) Obama doesn't feel he really needed them (sorry MoveOn), and he isn't planning on giving them any real say or power.
    Link

    He wants to eliminate funding for outside groups that could evidently oppose him too.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (none / 0) (#75)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:22:40 PM EST
    And people think it's worse to elect McCain than it is to elect this guy?

    He's dangerous.  Period.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah (none / 0) (#84)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:25:10 PM EST
    I don't have a link, but Matt Stoller said the other day that he'd heard the Obama campaign was discouraging people from donating to VoteVets.  I mean, of all the organizations!

    [ Parent ]
    All your donations belong to The One! (none / 0) (#120)
    by jawbone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:33:54 PM EST
    See the light; have the epiphany; click to pay.

    Cult, anyone?

    [ Parent ]

    Not a cult. (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:01:27 PM EST
    The second coming of Tom DeLay maybe.

    DeLay was venal and corrupt, but he know how to keep people in line.  Loyalty is nice, but threatening people's political careers is so much more efficient.

    [ Parent ]

    the funding of issue networks (none / 0) (#86)
    by boredmpa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:25:22 PM EST
    is a huge issue for the future of the left, and this election has shown just how badly focusing on candidates can destroy progress for common political goals.  as soon as my account at DD finishes its silly wait period, that's one of the key things i wanna blog about.

    [ Parent ]
    That turnout is (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by camellia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:24:34 PM EST
    probably all women, and you know how THEY are -- periodically (winkwink) they get all funny, and maybe that's what's happening now.  

    CNN (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Cal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:27:45 PM EST
    CNN interviewed a woman in WVA earlier, a Hill supporter.  Wowza, she very articulately burned the party but good, and ripped Jay Rockefeller up one side and down the other.  These women are extremely pi**ed!

    Hell hath no fury (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by camellia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:30:32 PM EST
    like a woman p***ed!

    [ Parent ]
    Funny how people still need to learn that ;) (none / 0) (#119)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:33:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I can't wait for her speech. (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:28:23 PM EST
    I bet it'll be spectacular.

    The walking dead (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:28:27 PM EST
    Sad to say, I never even knew what he looked like until a month or so ago - but I've been driven to Fox by the noxious coverage on MSNBC and CNN.

    answer to Olbermann (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by DandyTIger on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:29:31 PM EST
    on his question about what WV has to change for a GE win: simple, the candidate. It's becoming clear to everyone with these states that Obama can not win them. He has a serious problem. I'm not saying it's impossible, just extremely improbable.

    Meanwhile he's off campaigning on MO, ignoring WV, and pulling a classless pre-primary victory speech to change the subject. What's amazing to me recently after listening to some pro-Obama pundits and surrogates is that I'm starting to realize the go after republican states wasn't just a clever hack/ploy to win, but they actually believe it. Seriously. They're going to be working on MO, KS, etc. while ignoring OH, PA, WV, FL, etc. for the general.

    All I can say is, Hillary'12!! Unless of course the SD's and DNC come to their senses. Not holding my breath on that one. Just when, after 2000 and 2004, I didn't think the dems could disappoint me further, they pull this off. Stunning.

    Will you vote GOP (none / 0) (#129)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:40:13 PM EST
    The voters have chosen Obama. Why are you refusing to accept this fact? And when you say 'the Dems' just who are you refering to? I'm a Democrat and I support Obama. There are many of us. You're a Democrat and support Hillary. There are many of you. Good work. But we are all still Democrats, right?
    Even Carville has said he will give money to Obama if he wins the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    We WILL be assimilated (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:47:13 PM EST
    by Obama!  Resistance is Futile!

    I guess West Virginia didn't get the memo.

    [ Parent ]

    Resistance is futile (none / 0) (#150)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:02:10 PM EST
    resistance is futile.

    or as Salo puts it  St Funity.  SFTU Unity.

    [ Parent ]