home

The Media Downplays West Virginia , Focuses on Obama and McCain

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    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
    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 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
    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 / 2) (#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
    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
    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 / 0) (#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
    The more of an echo chamber I see... (5.00 / 8) (#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 / 6) (#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 / 4) (#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
    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

    No, we're not all democrats anymore (none / 0) (#153)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:03:57 PM EST
    Sorry.

    Parent
    Personally (none / 0) (#155)
    by IzikLA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:05:00 PM EST
    I don't really think the voters have "chosen" Obama.  The popular vote at the end will be all but even.  The SD's will have chosen Obama.  However, I will clench my teeth and vote for him.  I will hope that he wins me over between now and November because if he can't then we're doomed.  

    I appreciate Carville's saying he will give money to Obama, but then again he has plenty of money and is a good Democrat.  I am a good Democrat too, always vote that way, but I will not give him my money.  Kerry maybe got $100 from me in '04, Clinton got $400 from me this primary season but Obama will not get my money.  

    Like I said though, I will vote for him.  I don't want a McCain presidency either.

    Parent

    The media isn't good at (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by daryl herbert on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:33:19 PM EST
    telling people what to think.

    But it is good at telling people what to think about.

    Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:30:01 PM EST
    was great on Tweety's show - she pointed out that when Hillary pointed out that Obama does bad with white working class voters, she was just repeating FACTS which Chris Matthews himself has pointed out, that no one that knows Senator Clinton's body of work on behalf of the African American community could ever call her a racist.

    It was a ray of truth shining through the wall of anti-Clinton propaganda.  Tweety was making absolutely no sense.  But then he rarely does.

    Posts summary (1.00 / 2) (#109)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:31:38 PM EST
    I am madder today at Obama, his supporters and the media than I was yesterday, I was really mad yesterday.  I am going to vote for Obama less today than yesterday, and even less tomorrow than today.  

    Why mad? (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:35:44 PM EST
    Why?
    What's Obama supposed to do?
    He knew he would lose WV. Everyone did.
    He has moved on because the nomination is his.
    If for some reason the Super Delegates change over to her then so be it. But why are you mad?

    I mean, he beat Hillary in Kansas by 70% to 24%. Were you mad at Hillary for some reason then too?

    Parent

    He's an Obama supporter (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Nadai on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:03:46 PM EST
    making fun of Hillary supporters.  It's a Unity thing, I think; I wouldn't understand it.

    Parent
    You may have missed (none / 0) (#131)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:43:57 PM EST
    my dry wit

    Parent
    Of course, we low-info folks always do (none / 0) (#163)
    by katana on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:19:17 PM EST
    You may have missed my dry wit.

    Oh, is that what it was?


    Parent

    The delegate count is reasonably even, equal. (none / 0) (#172)
    by wurman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:31:02 PM EST
    The Green Papers (link)day-to-day count doesn't seem to support your creative mathmetics.  Try changing to simple arithmetic.  

    "Alternative" Delegate Votes
    (no sanctions)
    Need to Nominate 2,209.0
    B Obama             1,943.5
    H Clinton             1,889.0
    (available)              497.5
    Uncommitted            55.0
    J Edwards                32.0
    No Preference            0.0
    Total                  4,417.0

    Sen. Obama is not even close to having the nomination sewed up.  If, if, if, if . . . .

    And if he's depending on the superdelegates to solidify his apparent "win," that group can evaporate in NYC minute when the winds change.

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:54:36 PM EST
    media. Helping Obama lose. I think WV will show a backlash against the media. Maybe people are sick to death of being told who to vote for.

    More like (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by standingup on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:11:26 PM EST
    the media helping the Democrats lose.  All the Obama campaign/supporters continue to keep their heads in the sand since it helps Obama secure the nomination.  I can't think of a more depressing situation than what we are seeing happen yet again with the Democratic party.  

    Parent
    I couldn' t (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:19:13 PM EST
    quite figure it out until this year.

    The media either do just enough damage to the most qualified  or super popular candidate, or they bury that person.

    The more I look at recent history the more I have to think that Bill Clinton was a complete fluke.
    Obama isn't Dukakis even. He's Paul Tsongas plus the AA vote. Carter was probably a fluke the year he won too. Reagan was just a correction in the market.  Kennedy ensured that correction by splintering liberal voters and Carter was buffeted by events beyond his control.

    Parent

    Driving straight off a cliff, IMO (none / 0) (#64)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:19:12 PM EST
    I have not been able to watch (none / 0) (#3)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:55:29 PM EST
    Jeralyn.  But maybe there will be a backlash effect to all of this...If she could get Montana and/or South Dakota they will have to pay more attention.

    Richardson just said (none / 0) (#112)
    by bridget on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:32:06 PM EST
    we have to end this - the sooner the better

    Oh Please!!! 15 minutes of fame?

    (sorry, but Bill Richardson is starting to annoy me ... his beard doesn't help at all ;-)

    But I like Terry McAuliffe - looking good still and always in good spirit and fun, esp. when Hillary is expected to have a good day. I thought it was fun when he said Hillary would give the best speech ever later. Even tweety went along with it.

    BUT Sour Olbermann - whose sense of humor has completely deserted him if he ever had some - had to go on and on and mock it. People like KO are so transparent. They don't even try to be professional anymore.

    Parent

    wow (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:55:32 PM EST
    what a surprise

    I was looking forward to them (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:56:05 PM EST
    spinning a 30 point loss.
    silly me.
    why spin it when you can ignore it.


    Parent
    He is simply superior... (none / 0) (#77)
    by carlosbas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:23:24 PM EST
    I am a man and would have loved to vote for a woman for president of the United States. My problem with Hillary is that she has shown to have either a)a war mentality, judging by her vote on Iraq, her vote on Bush's Iran resolution, her language, i.e. "obliterate Iran"; or b)a politician mentality to say what is convenient depending on the circumnstances. In addition to this, I didnt like her negative campaigning, her insufficient inspirational skills and her mockery of Obama's, her lack of a constant message, she seemed like there were 12 Hillary's out there from beginning to end.
    Gender and race should not be the criteria to select your preferred candidate, if you are a Democrat and if you feel that real change is needed, the person is Barack Obama. Hillary would have been ok hadnt there been a person such as him and I am sure she would have gone on to be a good president, but a conventional one and probably, very probably leaning right on foreign affairs. We are all Democrats and it is time to support Barack, I am sure you will.


    Awwww. That's so sweet! (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:27:13 PM EST
    You know.  I was all in favor of Change when I joined the Draft Gore movement.  I just happen to like Change that I can measure, and a Changer with a track record.

    Obama - long on ideas, short on results.  And you don't want to know how I characterize "bi"partisanship.

    Parent

    Long on ideas? Long on rhetoric! (none / 0) (#124)
    by jawbone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:36:51 PM EST
    Idea, presented well, with plans and actual proposals, might have won me over.

    Parent
    Track record, precisely! (none / 0) (#130)
    by carlosbas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:42:36 PM EST
    That was always my problem about her. I used to say, I dont think she is Democrat enough, but hell, she'll do a fantastic Clintonite campaign over who ever is the Rep candidate. But she was flawed as per my standards. Regardless of her "experience", in fact maybe BECAUSE of her experience. Until that sensational guy came along. And dont be confused, I am not one of those idealistic 20 somethings any more, being way past 50 but please understand, he was able to re-ignite hope, trust, the idea that much more than winning an election, we can make this country better! This goes way beyond the candidate!

    Parent
    Sensational? (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by wasabi on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:48:42 PM EST
    Really?  sensational?

    Parent
    Reagan: Morning in America! (none / 0) (#142)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:51:46 PM EST
    Bush 1:  A Thousand Points of Light

    Hillary Haters:  WWTBQA?  "claws" "periodically...feeling down"

    For some reason, I just don't want to hang with the people who think it's funny and appropriate to attack a person on their gender instead of their ideas.  Call me gender centric, call me over sensitive if you like but I prefer to vote for someone who doesn't insult my sisters.

    Parent

    How? (none / 0) (#161)
    by IzikLA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:10:47 PM EST
    How? Please, somehow, help me learn HOW?!!  I can barely take this schtick anymore.

    The funny thing is you used the word that first made me question him: "idealistic".  That is the word that came to my mind right away after I read both of his books.  I enjoyed the books but found his mindset to be incredibly idealistic.  And naive.  His actions have only solidified that and added some bad qualities into the mix as well.

    Parent

    Um, how? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Evie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:27:02 PM EST
    Everybody likes hope, trust, making this country better, etc., etc.

    But HOW is Obama going to do all this? By damning universal health care? By crafting foreign policy based on his Indonesian childhood? By voting for Cheney-esque energy bills?

    Obama's record shows that he talks a good game, but that he ends up standing on the sidelines while other people fight the good fight.

    Parent

    Obama is a Dem for convience only (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:31:36 PM EST
    and without a resume of any substance. But thanks for trying . . . .

    Parent
    He is simply not my choice. (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:31:49 PM EST
    But thanks for patronizing me.


    Parent
    Funny thing about this whole primary (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by standingup on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:45:07 PM EST
    I am seeing the Democratic party in an entirely different light.  So to answer your question, no, I am no longer considering myself a Democrat and I am not ready to support Obama.  

    Good luck with your argument of superiority even though you only managed to address Clinton's negatives instead of any point on which Obama is deserving of a vote.  I get the impression you are voting against Clinton rather than for Obama.

    Parent

    I would like... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Marco21 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:53:10 PM EST
    an Obama supporter to finally explain his ever-changing stance on how he would have voted for the war (3 different stories?) and why he continues to fund a war he was so smart enough never to support.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Another brand new poster (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:58:14 PM EST
    yawn....I'll ignore the sarcasm, yawnnn....I'll ignore the insulting of Clinton, I'll ignore the faux unity schpiel and (yawn) play your game......

    What exactly (yawn) is your candidate going to change (hope) and how is it going to (dream) be changed?

    I have asked this same question for a year and not one Obama follower has been able to answer it. As to your final words... I'm sure you will.... well you can dream and you can hope and you will be disappointed at the end.  :)


    Parent

    We need to hope! (none / 0) (#160)
    by carlosbas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:09:53 PM EST
    The best candidate ought to be the one that ignites your desire for change. Because reason alone doesnt move you! This nation would have not gone to war with England without that element.

    Also, look at his campaign funding compared to Clinton's, his grassroots approach means he is less indebted to the very rich who might have interests that clash with the common peolple's. This is going to enable him to be a better president.

    Parent

    Hope comes from hard work (none / 0) (#168)
    by lambertstrether on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:28:08 PM EST
    Not listening to speeches from a motivational speaker.

    Parent
    No offense (none / 0) (#173)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:36:54 PM EST
    But ... ugh.

    hope, ignites, desire, change, move you, war with England?  funding (ah yes, greed makes the world go round) grassroots approach (Axelrod's astroturfing?) common peolple's, enable.  

    I'm usually very polite and I this may get deleted, but...

    Give it a rest already.  You just wrote a bunch of syrupy/sappy BS and refuse to answer the question......  this is just so boring and trite any more.... let's play one more round of 'Lookoverthere'....

    What is it he is going to change?  and how is he going to do it?  yaaaawwwnnnn.  You already know the answer.  This is just so boring and trite any more.  He's going to change nothing.  He has done nothing, he believes in nothing, he will do nothing.  He's dull, boring, monotonous and has nothing to offer and still manages to come across as a snob.  If that's what you want to take in to the GE, go ahead.  Truth be told, I think he would be a disaster.

    Parent

    Are you (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by camellia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:26:11 PM EST
    delusional?  Do you need help with your meds?

    Parent
    That's not nice. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:29:19 PM EST
    They are entitled to their opinion even if you don't agree with it.

    "delusional" and "off your meds" is insulting and entirely uncalled for.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#116)
    by carlosbas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:33:10 PM EST
    Thanks for the laugh. (none / 0) (#151)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:03:41 PM EST
    Hillary is much more articulate and knowledgable than Obama---and far more passionate too.
    She is now one of the best candidates I have ever seen.

    Parent
    I was a democrat (none / 0) (#156)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:07:04 PM EST
    but I have come to realize that the kind of 'change' that Obama is offering is nothing that I want.

    Parent
    I hope we all come together (none / 0) (#174)
    by carlosbas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:39:42 PM EST
    I know how you all must feel because I myself said I would never vote for her. But I guess with time until November I would have healed, hopefully (oops, the h word slipped in). I have many friends in the Clinton camp, we can discuss without insulting. I have not tried to make anybody feel bad, at least not on purpose. I will have to leave now, great having discussed with fellow Democrats.

    Parent
    Parallels to Mississippi. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:24:36 PM EST
    WV is following the Mississippi Dem Primary model of coverage, in which an apparently demographically predetermined race is being followed by what it is seen as more momentous (in MS' case: PA), and is thus almost entirely swept under the rug in favor of "big picture" reporting.

    Brit Hume is a cryogenic specimen. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:26:58 PM EST
    Does that man have any spittle of life left in him?

    I got a vibe from Terry McCaulliffe (none / 0) (#91)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:27:01 PM EST
    Who was just on CNN, that the DeanNC is screwing over the Clinton campaign because of the Deaniacs conspiracy theories of the Terry Mcaulliffe and the Clinton-built DNC sabotaging them in 2004.
    Anybody else get that?

    Hey Jeralyn (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:30:16 PM EST
    It's McAuliffe, not McCauliffe.  Just sayin'.  :)

    Surprise! (none / 0) (#102)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:30:30 PM EST
    Fox projects Hillary as winner 2-1.

    CNN called it (none / 0) (#106)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:31:02 PM EST


    Fox calls it (none / 0) (#107)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:31:16 PM EST
    says exit polls show she won 2-1 across all demos.

    you beat me!waaaaaa! (none / 0) (#121)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:33:56 PM EST
    i had my television turned off. that's why! i didn't say they'd call it that soon.

    Parent
    J. Carville (none / 0) (#114)
    by Faust on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:32:32 PM EST
    is backing way WAY off. Blitzer was practically begging him to say something negative about Obama and he just talked about what "great candidates we have running" and how "we will wind up with a strong nominee."

    Fox calls it for hillary! (none / 0) (#115)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:32:57 PM EST


    ABC just called it for Hillary (none / 0) (#127)
    by Rhouse on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:38:27 PM EST
    and the asked George S. what does it all mean?  Morons, they're all morons and they want us to worship them since they only speak the truth.

    CNN (none / 0) (#157)
    by Donna Darko on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:07:59 PM EST
    The WV race has been all over CNN since 6pm! Lou Dobbs, now Wolf Blitzer.

    I find myself strangely bored (none / 0) (#159)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:08:39 PM EST
    by you and your predictably petty jabs.

    Heh (none / 0) (#176)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:43:47 PM EST
    Jamal called out as patronizing towards Clinton by letting the 'woman stay in the race' if she doesn't ding up the eventual nominee.

    Obama loses his core voters (none / 0) (#178)
    by itsadryheat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:01:23 PM EST
    Obama lost in every category of "his core" voter except African American and the exit polls did not include them.

    Now we know why he is in such a hurry to crown himself.  He can see in Pa and now Wv that his losses are growing among young, educated, liberal, wealthy.  She took them all.  Hillary won the "Very Liberal" group 70-27 tonight! She won Independents 53%, over 100,000 income, 51%, males, 58%. religious 66, non relegious, 63 and on and on.  Fox is showing a ticker called "Obama loses core voters",  not the others.