home

Obamaland

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:14:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Chris "Tweety" Matthews, speaking from the ObamaLand that is the Obama News Network, NBC, is talking about Hillary Clinton living in "HillaryLand." It is one of the more amazing "news" broadcasts one has ever seen.

Forget for a moment that indeed Hillary Clinton has at best a very long shot to win the nomination. This is true imo. But is that REALLY the only story of the night? (In ObamaLand, Tweety is predicting a "surprisingly close" Kentucky result.) Remember this is supposed to be a NEWS network. Not a propaganda arm for Barack Obama. [More...]

The problem that has not passed the lips of anyone on the Obama News Network - the "presumptive nominee" lost by 40 points in a primary. Has this EVER happened? How could it have happened? What does it mean? Nothing to question or concern yourself with this result according to the Obama News Network. What a "performance." Certainly this is not a news network.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Hillary Clinton's Victory Speech | Childers Wins MS-01 Race >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obamaland | 171 comments (171 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    No More MSNBC (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:16:10 PM EST
    That's why I watched Greta tonight.  Her opening line: "She clobbered him."

    As pointed out in the below thread (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:18:07 PM EST
    Chris Matthews also denied ever calling for HRC to drop out, insisting to Terry McAuliffe that he wants this to go all the way to the convention etc. because it's 'exciting'. Apparently they drink a lot of Kool-Aid in Obamaland... do they really think we can't remember anything from one minute to the next.

    Surprisingly a few people at CNN were able to process the facts you were talking about, BTD. It was a refreshing surprise.

    I'm sorry to be so dense... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:18:15 PM EST
    but, really, how in the world is the MSM not asking the question....why is he still losing at this stage in the primary?  If he is the presumptive nominee, how can he lose like this - across all demo groups.

    I want an answer.  

    P.S.  I love the new ad that the woman's PAC is going to run for HRC.  She speaks for us!

    James Clyburn was coaching a willing (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:29 PM EST
    Keith Olbermann tonight explaining that Clinton's win was something akin to an hommage to the good things the Clintons have done for the people of West Virginia.  Olbermann's follow up question was, "So we shouldn't read this as a vote against Obama?"  Clyburn said no of course and went on to talk about what a great public servant Clinton is and how happy he was to see her have such a wonderful show of support from voters she has helped.

    This was what is known as the spinners buying into their own spin which is a major reason why I continue to be very worried about the Dems' prospects in November.

    [ Parent ]

    He's really trying to thread (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:42:16 PM EST
    that needle after he came out with all those comments he had to walk back.

    [ Parent ]
    Stopped watching them (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:18:53 PM EST
    many months ago.

    Don't know what they say and I sure as heck don't care.  I sent them one email to tell them why.

    The once glorious peacock is now just a big pr***.

    McCain is pulling +50 margins ... (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:19:59 PM EST
    ... in his residual contests, and that's considered a bad sign.
    P.U.M.A.
    McCain will be over 70% tonight (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:27:43 PM EST
    and Chris "Creative Class" Bowers thinks that shows a problem for him.  Obama  <crickets> :-)


    [ Parent ]
    Bowers is full of crap (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:46 PM EST
    John Kerry won several ending primaries with ~75% of the vote in 2004, including Pennsylvania, which he then went on to win.

    Obama's crippling defeat in WV today is far beyond that.

    [ Parent ]

    You couldn't be more right (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:45:46 PM EST
    OpenLeft has been scarily delusional lately.  That whole thing of Stollers about Obama taking over made him sound like "Dear Leader" or something.  Weird.


    [ Parent ]
    I read that too and felt creepy (none / 0) (#102)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:31 PM EST
    It was bizarre that he thought it was all good!??

    [ Parent ]
    How is Rosenberg holding up there? (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Scary isn't it? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Lahdee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:20 PM EST
    Our presumptive nominee got his head handed to him in a state we should win in November. How does he get those voters to come with him?

    Is it time "Hard Hat Unity Pony?" Fearless pinto of politics, bringer of betterment to the masses, someone who isn't willing to destroy the Democratic party because Hillary is Hillary?

    [ Parent ]

    Compared to Tweety (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:20:37 PM EST
    Wolf and John King were brilliant on CNN.  Wolf kept asking if anyone had ever seen anything like this before and what did it say about Obama's candidacy.  John King said he didn't recall anything like this.

    For just a moment, Wolf looked like he wanted to say what I was thinking, that this is horrible for the general election.  God I want Hillary to somehow pull this thing out.

    And Campbell Brown was in Donna's (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:25:45 PM EST
    face at least twice, calling her on stuff.  

    [ Parent ]
    I was shocked by Brown (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:24 PM EST
    She's been sassy before, but never like this.  I think they're seeing Donna's true colors after last Tuesday's meltdown.

    But, at least Blitzer asked the question, because I think it's a very important one.  This late in the contest, you cannot discount Obama's huge and crushing loss tonight.  I don't know about the 40% (who knows where this will end up) but we also need to count "protest votes" for Edwards.

    This is just so shocking, and I think more folks are going to be asking questions.  It'll be interesting to see what the fundraising looks like overnight.  Though some want to believe people only vote with their minds, they also vote with their hearts.  Heck, everyone does everything with a tad bit of emotion (which explains these idiotic pundits who can't even report without shading it for their side).  I hate to sound like Scarlet O'Hara here, but tomorrow is another day.

    [ Parent ]

    Has a candidate ever lost ALL counties (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:49 PM EST
    in a state's primary?  It looks like that is how it's going to go in WV.  Absolutely amazing. . . .

    And before anyone raises racism again, please note the point made by the Fox analyst about Appalachian voters -- that those in the same region but next door in Virginia voted strongly for Doug Wilder, first AA governor of that state.  As the analyst said, these are voters who can and do vote for AAs, just not this AA, Obama.

    The analyst had a good term for these voters, getting away from demographics such as race:  They're cultural conservatives but economic populists.  And Obama is neither.

    And, btw, from the WVers I know, the anti-Washington message from Obama wouldn't work.  To them, Washington is their beloved and powerful Robert Byrd -- and thus Washington has been good to them.

    [ Parent ]

    Wolfie is a good guy (none / 0) (#89)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:11 PM EST
    and he's interviewing Hillary tomorrow.
    Think it's the Situation Room.  Ck local listings.

    [ Parent ]
    He said (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:03:45 PM EST
    6pm EST tomorrow.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:21:14 PM EST
    people who listen to Matthews and think he "knows" something are being led down the primrose path to electoral defeat. The fact that pundits are papering over Obama's likely loss in a general election due to his demographic liabilities are doing him no favors.

    Wolf Blitzer on CNN did bring it up. He said has a "presumptive nominee" ever been defeated by 40 pts in a primary? No one seemed to know and I would consider it unlikely.

    Perhaps Matthews is embarrassed to admit that he's been wrong time and again. Heck, all these stupid media people have been wrong time and again. I'd rather have a candidate who fought these people than one that was dependent upon them. They are so out of touch with what's going on in this country that it's pathetic.

    Apparently being liked by the media hasn't really been able to help Obama that much. If you have a "presumptive nominee" and a challenger that the media has all but declared done win by 40 pts. then they obviously don't have much influence over the electorate.

    By all accounts Chris Matthews is actually (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Virginian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:27:20 PM EST
    fairly astute, and at the least gives a stream of conciseness analysis (which gets him into trouble from time to time)...Mathews isn't what bugs me on MSNBC, it is KO, Gregory, and others who seem to be half as smart as they want everyone to think they are...with KO and the "ponzi" scheme remark tonight, I mean really...either he 1) doesn't know what a ponzi scheme is 2) knows what it is but is too much of a hack to give "just the facts" and adhere to some form of journalistic responsibility or 3) knows what it is, and made the remark specifically to mislead his viewers and assumes that they are all rubes he can fool...basically he's either incompetent or dishonest...

    [ Parent ]
    they are talking much more openly (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:51 PM EST
    on fox about the clinton democrats walking because of obama. of coure the guy from politico pretended that wasn't so. i started yelling at the tv again. i guess my neighbors wonder who it is i am fighting with all the time.

    [ Parent ]
    Did they (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:41:08 PM EST
    mention that we feel like Obama is being shoved down our throats?

    [ Parent ]
    no, but they are coming closer to it right now (none / 0) (#155)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:15:54 PM EST
    than any other network.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:53:44 PM EST
    at this point, I think that this primary has turned into a rebellion AGAINST the media.  This is a very dangerous place for the media; already there are massive layoffs in newsrooms all over the country.

    This was their chance to prove their worth.  This was their chance to show what they can do that the party pundits and bloggers can't.  They blew it, and there's no reason their corporate masters (who are probably Republicans), won't, as Faye Dunaway said so memorably in "Network," "sack the f***ing lot of them" after the elections.

    [ Parent ]

    The Emperor Has No Clothes (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:21:27 PM EST
    this is what nobody wants to say - not the media, not many of the Super Delegates.

    Obama has a giant general election problem. Pointing to Colorado and Virginia isn't going to solve it.  

    But, hey, let's just ignore it and hope it all works out in November.  

    You know (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:28 PM EST
    what? I wonder if the party elders would sit him down and say "We can nominate you but it's obvious that you can't win the general election." What do you think Obama would say? I would think that he wouldn't care. He's in such a bubble that he wouldn't realize that all is lost until the polls showed him losing the day before the election.

    [ Parent ]
    The party elders would have to (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:53:18 PM EST
    include all the Super Ds, including those who have publicly committed to Obama as nominee.  Of course, then his money supply wouldn't be flowing their way, so would they do it?  Who knows.  Depends how safe their districts are I guess.

    [ Parent ]
    People have a lot of reasons for (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:59:50 PM EST
    objecting to the super delegate system having to do with how "un-democratic" they are.  I have a problem with them because they won't have the guts to make the kind of tough decision that they were empowered to make.

    [ Parent ]
    The Golden Rule (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:56:36 PM EST
    The DNC has been bought -- Mark Halperin in Time blog reported that the DNC has set up some kickback scheme with the Obama campaign.

    They want the money and they want his rolodex (whether the money will continue to roll in is another question).  

    The DNC/SDs are no longer free people. It's the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

    [ Parent ]

    How good (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:05:43 PM EST
    is it going to be if all that money can't win an election? It's pretty obvious now that there's no amount of money that will make Obama electable.

    And how many are going to be disappointed when Obama loses and not want to donate money anymore?

    [ Parent ]

    Can't win the presidency (none / 0) (#166)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:42:20 AM EST
    but who says they care about that?  They are willing to gamble.  They want that new money base for future elections.  Control the money and the donor lists and you control the party and who gets elected.  The piece in which it was reported that the Obama camp was restricting supporter donations to other entities such a moveon (get under the bus) is just more of the same..... money and control.  It makes no difference to their work or their lives if they don't win the presidency.

    [ Parent ]
    All they'll get from this Golden Goose is goosed (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:53:43 AM EST
    Ex rectum: Party coffers aren't going to see much from the Obama Tour, which is a candidacy version of the storied Pentagon self-sucking ice cream cone.

    His young new Marshallow Peeps are personality-cult oriented more than party oriented. Whether they'll be as invested in going after McCain (as they were involved in the story arc of Bad Monster Lady) is completely up in the air.

    (TV Non Sequitur: OMFG, his speech was awful and his fans look sleepy; the fresh footage is bad -- clips of BO being followed by scrums look like he's hiding and dodging. That's up against HRC's lively speech and chatting with voters. Positive points about Obama are coming from surrogates and aren't matching his visuals. It's widening the credibility gap -- why can't he close? are we there yet? what's with all the math? -- while Clinton's footage gibes with her messengers' statements about listening to the voters, making sure she gets out there and earns every vote.)

    Clinton has made headway in ways that also bode well for the general, laying tracks that will make it easier for her to revisit efficiently (or family member or supporter) in the general.)

    Obama can't expect to walk as easily in those same footsteps, not because of race, but for addressing people that TeamObama and Donna Brazile dismissed as unimportant. It'll just double his "phony politico" smell when he comes around for a general election booty call.

    Polls are fun but I'd love to see (a) who's getting the bigger bang for cash money (b) who's getting better amplification from their gains.

    (LOL ... Just catching the eve. shows and Donna Brazile's in one foul mood.)

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:07:34 PM EST
    Your assumption is that we have some sort of "party elders."  Not in this party!

    [ Parent ]
    Obama should take the opportunity (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Palomino on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:57:21 PM EST
    presented by his coming humiliation in Kentucky to read the writing on the wall and withdraw gracefully for the good of the party. If he's lucky, Hillary may still be willing to put him on her ticket. That is the only situation in which I would vote for him.

    [ Parent ]
    The cries of racism (none / 0) (#131)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:29:19 PM EST
    would be heard across the land.  She can't win this unless he drops out.  Period.  Anything other than that will have the O-bots accusing her of having stolen the election.  It would be another hideous 8 years of Clintons being attacked...except this time it would be coming from their own party.

    Sick.  It's just sick.  

    [ Parent ]

    You know what? (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:03:20 PM EST
    The more I see of Obama and his operations the less guilty I will feel not voting for him in Nov. Does anyone want to hear "racism" screamed everytime something happehs? They won't pass my bill because they're racists. They won't come to a WH dinner because they're racists etc. Tiresome.

    It's also why he'll get a shellacking in Nov if he's the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    i heard on one of the networks that (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:17:41 PM EST
    obama is trying to set up the racism argument for the general. good luck with that!

    [ Parent ]
    are you kidding? (none / 0) (#169)
    by pdxarch on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:04:15 AM EST
    From the looks of it, the party elders are waiting to hand this thing down to him by constantly talking about non-existent rules and norms. Like how the super delegates should not overturn the will of the people for the candidate with the most pledged delegate nonsense. This party is just waiting to hand this thing over to Obama on june 4. I would be shocked if dozens of party officials dont either sit down with clinton to ask her to quit or get on the MSM and declare obama as the presumptive nominee on June 4 or 5.

    But lets face it. Clinton brought this on herself. It should have never come to this against a complete zero empty suit like Obama, who has absolutely not stood for or advocated for anything worthwhile in his 15 years of public life and has no achievements of any worthwhile kind to speak of. He was a mediocre state senator at best until he got huge favors from Emil Jones who was elected as senate majority leader just a year or two before he started running for US senate. The only thing he has consistently stood for is self-promotion to higher office at regular intervals, despite doing nothing worthwhile in the lower office.

    Right after NH it was glaringly obvious that the clinton campaign crew was inept in every possible way. I cannot believe she wouldnt revamp the campaign right then and there and put away this guy by Feb 5. Clinton campaign was clearly outhussled by Obama campaign with enormous discipline and clear strategy to win the smaller caucus states. Its as if the clinton campaign chiefs didnt have a clue on how to win caucus states and according to recent time account dismissed these states as unnecessary to win as early as spring 2007. It is really sad to see clinton campaign at the state at which it is in. I just cannot believe they couldnt bring in James Carville or someone else into the campaign early enough to change course. It shouldnt take 11 or 12 losses in Feb to change course. Oh well, the sad part is that It is hard to vote for a democrat if Obama is the nominee, because many of us on the progressive side were making the same empty suit argument against Bush in 2000, apart from ideology and policy differences. And at least Bush in 2000 had some executive experience

    [ Parent ]

    It's not just that he is trailing by 37 points. (5.00 / 12) (#13)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:23:29 PM EST
    When you consider the 7 percent that John Edwards got, 72% of the voters voted for someone else.

    Now it is true that the demographics in WV may be the worst for Obama out of all of the contests, and these were votes for other Democrats, not for Republicans. But to be the presumptive nominee and win only a quarter of the votes in a primary? Ouch.

    Ouch (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:29:09 PM EST
    doesn't even begin to describe the election disaster that Obama would be. Changing the map? Yeah, I guess if you liked the 1988 map.

    [ Parent ]
    WOW - great point! (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:32:57 PM EST
    Obama is toast in November!

    [ Parent ]
    This doesn't (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:39:19 PM EST
    say much for that pony, does it? It also proves that when you call people racist, white trash, uninformed hill billies, they will actually fight back.

    [ Parent ]
    A lesson I thought (none / 0) (#143)
    by denise on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:42:57 PM EST
    the Democrats had finally learned, but apparently not.

    [ Parent ]
    Obviously not (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:44:46 PM EST
    The non-stop vitriol from the Obama camp and his supporters has been unbelievable. Remember, we only need latte-liberals and African American voters. No one else need apply. So they haven't.

    [ Parent ]
    Yay Edwards! :) (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:04 PM EST
    He shouldn't have registered at this point and yet he did.  What that says to me is that Obama has not only missed the boat with more conservative working class voters, but he has also failed to engage more liberal Dems.

    [ Parent ]
    Chris Matthews - VILE LIAR! (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:24:08 PM EST
    Add Chris Matthews (well he's already in on it!) to the list of sexist haters who cannot cope with Hillary Clinton's strength & power. CM would rather see a FRAUD win than a women. Like Olbermann, he needs serious help. Do they have clinics to help those with extreme misogyny? CM needs some rehab - fast. He is losing it.

    http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net

    Let's not forget Obamaland correspondent Donna (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by lilburro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:28:25 PM EST
    Brazile, who is asking the candidates to make a deal now on MI/FL...a good two months after the opportunity to revote passed.  They should do a top/bottom split screen with footnotes for everything she says and her unspoken involvement in this campaign's debacles.

    But, but . . . where's the stampede . . . (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by wurman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:04 PM EST
    . . . to rally 'round the fearless leader who can now take the Democratic Party to new heights?

    Heights of fantasy.

    Peaks of ecstacy.

    Mountains of ego.

    Piles of drekkish.

    Somebody needs to re-send that memo, ayeh?

    Obamaland = Fantasy Island . . . (none / 0) (#154)
    by Palomino on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:11:00 PM EST
    constructed from lumps of highly compressed bullsh*t (h/t Gerard Vanderleun). Vote me off--please.

    [ Parent ]
    I see no difference between Fox and MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    There are only a couple of real reporters at MSNBC but they don't get much air time.  There is no genuine prime time news show, just propaganda.  At least at Fox Shepard Smith really does do a newscast, imperfect as it is.  I think we need to boycott MSNBC until they go back to being a news organization.

    Agreed... MSNBC is L-A-M-E (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mrwirez on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:13 PM EST
    I switched to
    CNN 65%
    FOX 25%

    thats fair AND balanced.

    CNN-I must admit Jamal and Roland are really grinding on me.

    [ Parent ]

    Jamal and Roland are going... (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by AX10 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:00 PM EST
    all out for their show pony Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    after the election there face time will be quite (none / 0) (#160)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:26:45 PM EST
    limited.

    [ Parent ]
    I hardly ever watch cable TV news (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:21 PM EST
    I worked at CNN too long.  But tonight, Tweety and Keith were something to behold.  Tweety got all huffy when Terry Mac said Hillary's speech should have sent a tingle up Tweety's leg.
    Then Olbernomann said Hillary was living in some kind of alternate reality because, in Hillary's speech, she vowed to continue her campaign.  Project much, Keith?  I actually started laughing.
    Tweety and Keith will both need stiff drinks when they knock off work tonight.
    One more thing.  
    I believe Tweety was quite upset that Hillary mentioned pundits in her speech.  Tweety has never said Hillary should drop out.  He says. ;)

    He was complaining about (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:40:31 PM EST
    bitter Hillary supporters the other day and we blame everyone else for her loss.  He really used the bitter word. He must be getting some emails!  Anyway, after I heard that I vowed to stick with CNN and Fox.

    [ Parent ]
    loose talk on MSNBC recently (none / 0) (#136)
    by DFLer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:37:08 PM EST
    of Tweety running for office in PA sometime in the future.

    I'd love to see the shoe on the other foot.

    [ Parent ]

    I could only tune in... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:32:14 PM EST
    ...for a couple seconds at a time before my fingers reflexively hit the remote, but Matthews looked like he'd been drinking stiffly for several days already, and he needed a haircut to boot.

    [ Parent ]
    I heart Terry Mac! (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:34:58 PM EST
    This morning on Morning Joe, he told Mika he was pleased to be on the show with her and "Obama Campaign Chair Chris Matthews" (Chris was filling in for Joe).  It was truly a priceless moment.

    On a separate note, I think a serious Bloat Alert needs to be issued for KO.  Is it just me or does he look a bit puffier than usual?  Maybe Obama's downward spiral is causing him to turn to comfort food.  tee hee.  

    [ Parent ]

    Some expert advice (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:54 PM EST
    back off the super tight shots of Russert.
    Oh please.
    Not flattering, okay?  

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MaryGM on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:54 PM EST
    Distance shots only, please.  In fact, move him out to the parking lot.

    Seriously, is there any woman on television that looks half as bad as he does?!

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, tonight confirmed what I have long believed. (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by masslib on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:45:52 PM EST
    Obama peaked in February.  He will not win the GE.  The Dem's can nominate him, but if they do, he will lose.

    What's just insane (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Raven15 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:47:13 PM EST
    ...is NO ONE in the media is talking about the popular vote anymore, and the  near certainty that one candidate will win the delegate race while the other will win the popular vote.  

    What passes for news these days... (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by citizen53 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:53:55 PM EST
    is a complete joke.

    We used to ridicule Fox and the other side, but now MSNBC and its supporters are a mirror image.

    Olbermann and O'Reilly seem much the same, yet Olbermann is celebrated.

    This is why this country is approaching a reckoning.

    If Obama takes over the Democratic Party in his image, then it will only accelerate the downfall.

    MSNBC has done it's job of (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by AX10 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:50 PM EST
    carrying Obama's water for him.
    Tweety and Olbamermann have shown "Fox-like" loyalty to Mr. Obama.

    Side note: One has to wonder if MSNBC wants Obama because of their parent company GE.  GE is in the nuclear energy business and Obama is a pro-nuclear energy hawk.  Where Hillary and McCain are for making Nuclear energy part of the energy solution, Obama is making it central.

    I noticed on NPR (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:20:43 PM EST
    that one reporter who was talking to McCauliff tried to tie it to the race issue as being the primary differential, but McCauliff was very very quick to not even answer that and pointed out that economic issues were the number 1 item re: the exit polls.

    Tomorrow's conference call should (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:48 PM EST
    be really interesting, as LA Times and NYT are also talking about race and quoting some voters who sd. that was the deciding factor for them.

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder how many they cut out... (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:39:28 PM EST
    who said that their concern was related to the economy...or gas prices.

    [ Parent ]
    Andrea Mitchell was beyond belief... (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by BluestBlue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:25:20 PM EST
    I haven't watched MSNBC for a while, so I was shocked at how much further they had fallen from journalistic grace, MSNBC in general and Mitchell in particular. I'm traveling and my news sources are limited, flipping thru the channels I found her and stopped.

    I think it was on Morning Joe on Monday, but the way Andrea Mitchell was spewing forth it seemed Hillary must have conceded, or died, either way, Andrea was sure she was ending her campaign. I couldn't believe the blatant bias, WAAAAY over the top! Someone should grab the video and post...

    I watched Fox News for the election results tonight. Cheering loudly for Hillary the whole time... the people in the hotel rooms surrounding me are probably wondering what is going on ;-)

    You Misunderstand General Electric's Motives (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Petey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:47:56 PM EST
    "Remember this is supposed to be a NEWS network. Not a propaganda arm for Barack Obama."

    You misunderstand General Electric's reasons for running their "news" operation.

    General Electric earns more than 20 times as much profit from their healthcare and financial divisions as they do from NBC.  Their "news" operation is a loss leader run entirely to disseminate propaganda designed to increase profits for the entire company.

    In this case, General Electric's "news" operation is being run to help the candidate opposed to universal healthcare and weaker in support of Social Security - Barack Obama.

    General Electric has been on a multi-decade long jihad against government social insurance programs.  This isn't personal for them, it's about their bottom line.

    Time to boycott GE (none / 0) (#164)
    by Foxx on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:00:20 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    i think you're on to something here. n/t (none / 0) (#170)
    by kangeroo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:05:51 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's simple (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:33:04 PM EST
    With all due respect, everyone is missing something very simple:  the Jeremiah Wright train wreck would have kicked any other candidate out of the running months ago.  If not by the party, then by the media.

    It didn't happen.  The party and the media were  too invested.

    But the REALITY remained the same.  An issue like Wright, and all the others coming up, makes a candidate unelectable.  Not because anyone is being mean, or racist, or whatever -- but because there's a lot about BHO that doesn't hang together and it's starting to show.

    The party was supposed to vet this guy.  The media was supposed to vet this guy.  Not now, a year ago.  They didn't do their job.  The voters are doing theirs.

    It's simple.

    it seems the voters in wv vetted obama. (none / 0) (#171)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:12:21 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I hope ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by lyzurgyk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:19:33 PM EST
    ... MSNBC keeps running interference for Obama against McCain.   We're gonna need all the help we can get.

    I'm sure we can count on KO but Punkinhead and Tweety are iffy.

    They won't. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:23:16 PM EST
    The GOP will bombard them with emails calling them the "liberal media" and they'll cave. Of course, with all the fawning over Obama they do, they'll deserve the title and the GOP will win that argument.

    [ Parent ]
    like I said below (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Virginian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:47 PM EST
    I wonder if it doesn't have to do with MSNBC trying to brand themselves has "hip" "creative class" i-phone using network...trying to establish a strong demographic or possibly broadcast to a demo they already have established...

    I am not sure you can manufacture MSNBC's poor journalism and poor journalistic ethics on the scale we see currently on their station all in the effort to win or build a demo group...but I can't help but wonder if that doesn't play into it at least in terms of scheduling, anchor combos, stories, etc...

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#75)
    by vigkat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:47:46 PM EST
    They can't resist the notion  of getting a piece of that new demographic (the "young voter") that Obama supposedly has charmed and is signing up in droves.  

    [ Parent ]
    What is the Biggest Story? (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:22:02 PM EST
    Which is bigger tonight? A huge win by Hillary in WV or the Dems adding another seat in Congress in Mississippi?

    With the Dem turnout in both states it looks to be a sweet November in clearing out the Bush followers.

    Since (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:20 PM EST
    Childers threw Obama under the bus then I guess that's the message that candidates need to do this to win if Obama is at the top of the ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    He threw him under the bus (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:59 PM EST
    then backed up and ran over him a couple of times.  He did what he had to do to win.  :-)


    [ Parent ]
    Funny (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by kmblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:22 PM EST
    I never saw Obama under the bus!
    I've been under the bus for weeks!

    [ Parent ]
    well, there are several buses now don't (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:21:43 PM EST
    you know due to demand!

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not up on this race...Childers (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:04 PM EST
    ...once supported Obama and then denied him so that he could win?

    A case history in the making for all Super Delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama endorsed him (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:41:41 PM EST
    when asked about it, Childers denied he had been endorsed by Obama, said he'd never met him, and had no contact with the campaign.  He was very emphatic that he did not solicit and did not want Obama's endorsement.


    [ Parent ]
    Not quite "renounce AND reject," but (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:27 PM EST
    pretty close.

    [ Parent ]
    It's true. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:03:08 PM EST
    Childers put out TV ads- "Obama who? Never met the man." It was all over the Memphis market.

    [ Parent ]
    I bet he was thrlled using his $$$ for them (none / 0) (#112)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:09:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Somebody should tell Jamal (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:08:48 PM EST
    he was using Childers as Obama's coat tail argument . . .  oops!

    [ Parent ]
    And Yet.... (none / 0) (#82)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:51:23 PM EST
    All the GOP ads tried to tie Childers to Obama, and yet in a congressional district that Bush won by 24% in 2004 it goes to the Dems tonight.

    Right now, the proverbial ham sandwich would win if placed on the ballot with a (D) next to its name. It's going to be a great year to be a Dem regardless of who is at the top of the ticket. I just hope both Clinton and Obama are on the ticket.

    [ Parent ]

    Those (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:56:30 PM EST
    ads don't work as long as you throw the candidate under the bus like Childers did. Now, if Childers had done nothing he would have gone down to defeat.

    [ Parent ]
    i didn't know they broke up. (none / 0) (#159)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:22:30 PM EST
    puppy love is so hard!

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's More BushBeGone (none / 0) (#118)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:31 PM EST
    In 2006 the GOP won this congressional district 66%-34%. Tonight the Dems win 53-47. That's a swing of enormous proportions. There isn't enough money for the GOP to hold onto seats in November.

    The Dems will continue to pick up seats with Clinton at the top of the ticket, or with Obama at the top of the ticket. In today's Bushbegone environment, it just isn't going to matter.

    Pull for Clinton because you like her more (which is how I lean), but Obama on the ticket isn't going to hurt either.

    [ Parent ]

    After (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:08:32 PM EST
    tonight's WV results I'm not so sure about having Obama on the top of the ticket. If he's having a problem with primary voters then we've got a problem.

    Of course, a lot of these voters could split tickets too. McCain for President but a dem on the lower ballot.

    [ Parent ]

    the night went great for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:29:36 PM EST
    I think she got pretty good coverage and the results from West Virginia got out there to the public.  I think the story was as big as Clinton could have hoped.

    [ Parent ]
    Turnout in WVA? (none / 0) (#40)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:59 PM EST
    Does anyone have any facts on turnout?

    [ Parent ]
    Only the number of votes so far. (none / 0) (#123)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:19:52 PM EST
    total number of votes for Dem candidates, 242,624 with 73% precincts reporting.

    [ Parent ]
    I really don't get MSNBC (none / 0) (#11)
    by Virginian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:22:04 PM EST
    and their infatuation...I wonder if it has to do with branding and viewer demographics...I know I stopped watching them, and probably won't ever again because of their horrible coverage...but I just don't get it...it is complete propaganda, and they are advocating a candidate that by all accounts treats the press fairly poorly...

    They really, really want McCain (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:22 PM EST
    to run against Obama.

    All else is noise.

    [ Parent ]

    Egh I don't know if I buy that (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Virginian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:19 PM EST
    their coverage of the Democratic primary was poor well before McCain was the apparent nominee...when the news networks were running his campaign's obituaries Russert was tag teaming with Obama, Edwards, and other candidates to take HRC down in the debates...

    I don't think this is their wanting McCain vs. Obama, so much as this is their wanting to "show the Clintons to the door"

    [ Parent ]

    They are themselves Obama's demographic (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:51 PM EST
    affluent white more or less liberals.  Olbermann, Tweety and Shuster are insecure men with small, um, fingers who are frightened by strong women.

    In addition, with Olbermann, it's calculated for ratings, since that younger crowd is what advertisers crave.  Tweety actually has a bit more integrity.

    But the really main problem is that Obama is just a better, more exciting story for them than Hillary, who is old news in terms of their limited horizon.

    [ Parent ]

    It isn't exclusive (none / 0) (#15)
    by Coldblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:25:31 PM EST
    to MSNBC.

    You yourself have said that Obama is a media darling.

    Such is the state of our 4th estate

    media darling gets you 28% tonight (5.00 / 10) (#25)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:21 PM EST
    Media Teflon gets Hillary electability.

    [ Parent ]
    I like that (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Coldblue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:32:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Make that 26% (as of 11:41 EST) (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:41:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    BTD -- How about this for a Unity Ticket? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:30 PM EST
    Obama-Clinton, with Bill promoted as Sec. of State? Bill, couldn't do it in a Hillary administration, but why not in an Obama administration? He would be perfect. Plus, having HIM inderectly on the ticket as well would be a brand name that many voters such as we saw tonight in WV COULD get behind.

    Did you not see the results tonight? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:51 PM EST
    The ticket has to be Clinton-Obama if winning in November is the actual goal.  But as a tepid McCain supporter, I almost don't care anymore.  West Virginia results tonight did renew my hopes for Hillary.  They show clear buyer's remorse against Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Ya Right (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:17 PM EST
    Obama calls Clinton a racist, tries to erase his legacy and he would want to be the secy of state for this guy why?

    Seriously, that is insane.

    [ Parent ]

    If Obama is the nominee, Bill (none / 0) (#68)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:45:44 PM EST
    doesn't want to go out this way. He would take it in a heartbeat. Obama needs Bill more than he needs Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I disagree (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:03 PM EST
    I think Hillary is just as-if not more-important than Bill now.  The millions of women who turned out to vote weren't voting on the Clinton brand; they were voting for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    That's true... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:53:13 PM EST
    I meant more of the known Clinton brand and assurance of experience that Bill Clinton could provide. But, you're right, many women who perhaps would stay home or vote for McCain would vote for Obama if Hillary was on the ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    Why would Hillary want someone (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:36:03 PM EST
    on her ticket that has spent the past year insulting her at every turn? Who has allowed his supporters to call her the nastiest names you can call a woman? Who doesn't have the experience to do the damn job? Whose wife is a definite detriment to her campaign? Who will probably spend the entire administration running for the next election? And who has some really bad baggage that will for sure be used against him, and her, in the GE?? I can't think of a single reason for her to ask Obama to be VP. He would not be an asset to any campaign. And I can't see either Obama or Michelle being enthusiastic about campaigning for Hillary. Can you?

    Oh, you meant Hillary as VP? Well, see above. Same thing applies. Why damage herself by hooking up with a divisive loser?

    [ Parent ]

    I couldn't agree more. (none / 0) (#144)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:44:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ah No (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:49:57 PM EST
    I worked on Clinton's campaign. There is zero chance he is going to do sh$t for Barack Obama. He has a long memory and he will never forgive. Ever.

    He will make public declarations in support of the democratic nominee but he will be laughing his ass off when Obama goes down in a electoral landslide loss.

    Bill Clinton doesn't need Barack Obama for anything.

    [ Parent ]

    Seriously, I don;t think the last 2 term (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:52:39 PM EST
    democratic president since FDR is worried about going out any way.  I expect Obama to lose, if he's the nominee, so he might worry about going out that way.


    [ Parent ]
    I don't know... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:13 PM EST
    I think a big part of Hillary's candidacy, for Bill, was to vindicate himself in the eyes of history for his impeachment. If the history is that he was impeached, but nine years later his wife was elected president, it can be easily remembered as what it was: a political stunt by right wing partisans.

    [ Parent ]
    Or Maybe (5.00 / 6) (#109)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:35 PM EST
    He loves his wife and thinks she is the best candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    That's obviously the case! (none / 0) (#113)