Shocked ! Shocked! To Find There Is Politics Going On

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:04:40 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This:

Todd Beeton skillfully skewers Obama supporter and math whiz Poblano on his shocking discovery that political campaigns engage in . . . politics:

Notice the loaded language [describing the Clinton campaign] ..."conspired"...[against the pledged delegate meme] Now, I'm not saying the milestone is entirely meaningless, all I'm saying is let's call it what it is: a meme pushed out by the Obama camp to influence superdelegates and the media and to manipulate public perception. . . . Look, the second it became clear that pledged delegates alone were not going to win the nomination for either Obama or Clinton, the use of psychological warfare was fair game; it's superdelegates' jobs to be influenced by things like popular vote, majority of pledged delegates and electability and as far as I'm concerned it's the campaigns' jobs to try to use any argument at their disposal to make the case to them.

MORE . . .

What I find remarkable is that the same people who are brazenly spinning this Obama talking point are ridiculing the Clinton campaign for spinning theirs. Again Poblano:

Yes, [Byron York] really did make this argument about Hillary Clinton and the primaries:

There have been four quarters in the Democratic presidential nomination battle. We're late in the fourth quarter now, and when it's over, Hillary Clinton will likely have won three of the quarters -- and won the most votes overall -- but lost the game.

Mr. York? Mr. York? There's a Mr. Wolfson for you on line four.

I'm not saying York was entirely artful about expressing it, but that argument is no more absurd or off limits than the majority of pledged delegates thing. . . .

One of the most off putting things about some Obama supporters, the Obama News Network (NBC) and the Obama blogs is their insufferable sanctimonious hypocrisy about all of this. Hell, they should actually be proud that Axelrod and Co. have played the political game so well. Of course, in terms of Media relations, running against one of the most despised Media figures in history, Hillary Clinton, made their job pretty easy. But that said, Axelrod played his hand extremely well.

I have one caveat - they have played it almost too well. NBC is now a discredited news organization. It is widely perceived by most observers as completely in the tank for Barack Obama. I am now skeptical that NBC will be of much help to Obama in the General Election. I also fear that CNN, ABC and CBS will fear being seen in the light NBC is now and may overcompensate against Obama. Fox of course is a GOP propaganda machine.

As for the Obama blogs, well, they are an echo chamber and when they can contradict themselves on Michigan and Florida so brazenly as Markos Moulitsas has, they really have little effect on the Media narrative (outside of NBC of course) now.

At some point, being a a shameless cheerleader leaves you looking like a . . . shameless cheerleader.

Speaking for me only.

< DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Members | Once Upon A Time . . . >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Shocked ! Shocked! To Find There Is Politics Going On | 137 comments (137 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Heh. (5.00 / 5) (#1)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:11:27 AM EST

When you say "shameless cheerleader" I automatically think of George W. Bush. ;-)

Anyway, great post. The Obama bloggers contort themselves into pretzels trying to support their candidate at any cost, then expect to claim some moral high ground over HRC and her supporters. It's ludicrous.

It really, REALLY annoys me when they scream about how HRC said the votes didn't count in MI and FL. She said exactly the opposite; it was Obama who said the votes wouldn't count.

Obama and Clinton have not changed their positions on MI and FL; Obama has always been wrong, and Clinton has always been right.

The Obamans' HDS has turned them into fools.

You're so negative madamab (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:17:19 AM EST

That's what happens though when you get old and jaded. It's a very yummy pretzel if only you would just give it a chance and a taste (if your taste buds aren't broken with jaded old age yet).......it's soooooo yummy.

[ Parent ]

LOL! (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:18:37 AM EST

When I was 12, like Kos, I thought 40 was old too.

;-)

[ Parent ]

He's 12? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:24:11 AM EST

Wow. I thought he was much younger.

[ Parent ]

I Thought 12 Was The Average Age of An (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:39:27 AM EST

obama follower.

[ Parent ]

: Movement... Change... (5.00 / 0) (#128)
by lambertstrether on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:11:24 PM EST

Why am I thinking diapers?
OK, OK, you heard it before.... Sorry...

[ Parent ]

And it's a very kewl pretzel (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:44:06 AM EST

and that is what is most important.

[ Parent ]

Tracy, I can still taste the pretzel, but I (5.00 / 2) (#99)
by Maria Garcia on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:33 AM EST

...can't chew it and its not so good when you have to gum it. ;-)

[ Parent ]

!! This is the quote I've been looking for!! (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by katiebird on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:20:56 AM EST

madamab: Thank you so much:

Your link lead to EXACTLY the quote I've been looking for -- and I intend to help spread it far and wide.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!

That

[ Parent ]

Many people said that FL and MI would count (5.00 / 7) (#17)
by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:23:26 AM EST

including one proprietor of an orange themed website.

[ Parent ]

could you be more specific? (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:26:33 AM EST

I think they have not been humiliated nearly enough.

[ Parent ]

IIRC Kos Did A FP Post Basically Saying That (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:37:17 AM EST

Obama and Edwards were stupid to take their names off the MI ballot to pander to IA and NH since everyone knew that FL and MI would eventually be seated. I don't have the link either and I won't click on DKos for any reason. Someone who still goes to that site may want to find the post.

[ Parent ]

Was that before or after (5.00 / 3) (#84)
by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:08:32 AM EST

he told Obama supporters to cross over and vote for Romney in the Republican primary?

So much for rules. And integrity.

Now Obama opposes counting the Michigan votes because some of his supporters followed Markos' stupid advice and he's upset that their votes won't be counted in the (wait for it) Democratic primary.

The Obama camp is just as Orwellian as the Bush camp ever was. They'll tell you whatever you want to hear, and after they win, they'll do whatever they please. They've studied the Republican movement and their method of winning elections and they admire and emulate it. Whatever they are accusing others of doing, they're really doing themselves. They lie and deceive easily and with no sense of shame. Winning is everything and it matters not who is hurt or destroyed in the process. They will cheat if that's what it takes. In fact, they'll cheat, and say they're playing fair, and accuse others of cheating instead. Up is down, war is peace...

[ Parent ]

The proprietor (5.00 / 2) (#112)
by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:51:35 AM EST

of the Site that Must Not Be Named actually created something of a disaster for Obama when he suggested that Democratic Michiganders should vote in the Republican race. There was no one who believed that people who voted in the Republican race ought to have a chance to vote a second time in a new primary. Since so many supporters of Senator Obama had done just that, Obama knew how dicey his chances were in Michigan; the second state of the man might actually have been worse than the first. He could not countenance a democratic process that would leave him in worse shape, so he had to veto every proposal to allow Michiganders to vote again.

[ Parent ]

: Good point (5.00 / 2) (#126)
by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:58:59 AM EST

So, will history someday conclude that the Proprietor of the Site That Must Not Be Named really screwed the 2008 democratic primary process, and that he is now the lefty mirror image of Rush Limbaugh who also ran a crossover-voting-mess-with-the-system scam?
Ah, sweet irony. The netroots.

[ Parent ]

The quote is somewhere (none / 0) (#27)
by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:29:00 AM EST

it's not at hand, though.

[ Parent ]

I know -- but I've wanted THIS quote (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by katiebird on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:28:57 AM EST

(copied below) To counter that oft repeated story about Clinton that she said "Michigan won't matter."

Not so fast, says the Clinton campaign. In a memo just circulated in response, the Clinton campaign denies the charge that it's planning to campaign in Florida; says the Obama campaign is pushing the Michigan-doesn't-matter line only because its efforts to get Democrats to vote "uncommitted" isn't working; and seems to be hinting that it may fight to have delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the convention after all.
"While Sen. Clinton will honor her commitment not to campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge, she also intends to honor her pledge to hear the voices of all Americans," the campaign says. "The people of Michigan and Florida have just as much of a right to have their voices heard as anyone else. It is disappointing to hear a major Democratic presidential candidate tell the voters of any state that their voices aren't important ... Sen. Clinton intends to be president for all fifty states. And while she will honor the pledge she signed and not campaign in either state, she intends to continue to give every American a voice during this election and when she gets to the White House."

[ Parent ]

: So it was Obama (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by andgarden on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:30:06 AM EST

who invented "states that don't matter." Who'd a thunk?

[ Parent ]
: Here's a link to an NPR version of same. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by wurman on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:03:36 AM EST

Interviews (link)
Clinton Says Michigan and Florida Should Count
Also, I've posted the text of the Clinton campaign press release about this at several places here.
Statement by Senator Hillary Clinton on the Seating of Delegates at the Democratic National Convention (link to official text)

[ Parent ]

We must punish (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:37:20 AM EST

Florida and Michigan sufficiently that they understand what the Democratic Party think of them. That will teach them to cross us ever again.

[ Parent ]

: Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by Grace on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:40 AM EST

we can get them kicked out of the union, do you think? I think there is a US flag design with only 48 states on it already on the books.
Who needs Florida and Michigan when you've got Idaho and North Dakota?
/sarcasm

[ Parent ]
: Hey... (none / 0) (#132)
by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:32:47 PM EST

Not doing the yearly carnacki this year...

[ Parent ]

Sooooo glad to be of service! :-) (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:27:47 AM EST

Don'f forget that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:39:23 AM EST

is very practiced at taking names off ballots--just ask Alice Palmer!!

[ Parent ]

obama Is So Sure He Is Going To Win The (none / 0) (#47)
by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:41:34 AM EST

nomination, they are reporting today that he is in "super duper stealth" mode already searching for a VP.

[ Parent ]

Dick Cheney! (none / 0) (#97)
by Fabian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:29:22 AM EST

How much more bipartisan can you get?

If Tom DeLay ever clears his name, he'd be almost as perfect.

[ Parent ]

: Now You Are Scaring Me! obama Seems To (5.00 / 1) (#113)
by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:53:25 AM EST

be a lazy guy, so having Dick Cheney do all the work for him would be right up his alley.

[ Parent ]

To be fair, she did say this also (none / 0) (#68)
by IndiDemGirl on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:57:29 AM EST

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange."

But no matter what either of them said or did at that time, it is now clear that the delegates must be seated.

[ Parent ]

: Isn't that (5.00 / 1) (#129)
by Evie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:20:55 PM EST

just acknowledging the present state of the matter? According to the DNC, FL and MI were not going to be counted.
She didn't have unilateral power to seat the delegates, but that does not mean that she agreed with it. Her press releases and statements at the time certainly indicated disagreement.

[ Parent ]

We tried (5.00 / 5) (#2)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:12:11 AM EST

to tell you that the "media darling" thing won't hold up and once the GOP starts calling CNN etc. the "liberal media" they will cave and talk about how horrible and unqualified Obama is and how terribly he treated Hillary Clinton. They will take no responsibility for their misdeeds, they will just blame it all on Obama and his campaign.

Then they'll start pumping up McCain. The straightalk express etc. It's so predictable and it's why I think Hillary is a far superior candidate because of the fact that she can win despite the media narrative.

What happens if Clinton wins the popular vote? Do we say that W. was really right and the roolz are more important than the voters? That seems to be Obama's argument. It's not the least bit funny to me that his campaign is legitimizing everything the GOP has done for the last 7 years. I think that Obama and his supporters really admire Bush and want to be like him. Or at least that's the impression I'm getting. Hence, I think it will be easier for McCain to win in Nov. due to the fact that he is actually in a lot of ways further away from Bush. And he can always pull out all the things Bush said about him in 2000.

: Nail, meet head. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:16:21 AM EST

What happens if Clinton wins the popular vote? Do we say that W. was really right and the roolz are more important than the voters? That seems to be Obama's argument. It's not the least bit funny to me that his campaign is legitimizing everything the GOP has done for the last 7 years.
Does Obama really, really think that argument will have any traction in the General Election?
I'm beginning to believe him when he says he's "not a politician."

[ Parent ]

NBC (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Lahdee on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:13:16 AM EST

It's good to be skeptical of NBC. Why would a company whose ownership benefits from the energy policies, and other positions, embodied by republican administrations want to be fair to Democrats?
Liberal media, baloney.

It's been pretty wild and crazy out there (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:14:31 AM EST

Unprincipled is now redefined as creative :) On second thought, that isn't redefined at all. That is exactly what my father called it when I was a teenager and "expressing" my fresh and untainted by old age theories of life :)

Yes, (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:17:45 AM EST

I find very little admiration for people who win by subverting the democratic process.

We used to call them Republicans.

[ Parent ]

: I call them dictators :) (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:19:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]

BTD, you keep talking as if Obama (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by rooge04 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:19:01 AM EST

has already won. He hasn't. This thing ain't even close to over.

Obama has what every Dem pol wants... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by pluege on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:05:16 AM EST

money.

From a dem pol perspective, let the GE and the country be damned. Clinton can't deliver the dough to them; Obama can - lots of it, ergo Obama is the new dem King.

[ Parent ]

We disagree (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:23:49 AM EST

: Question (none / 0) (#102)
by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:34:07 AM EST

It's clear that you believe Obama is the one who will win, but is it also true that you believe Obama is the one who should win?

[ Parent ]

Well... I think it's at least close to over. (none / 0) (#23)
by tigercourse on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:27:12 AM EST

This campaign has been going on for about a decade already. Only a short time left to go.

[ Parent ]

: It wasn't over when Jackson ran (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by rooge04 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:32:30 AM EST

It wasn't over when Kennedy ran.
I don't subscribe to the MEDIA telling me it's over. This thing is going to the convention. THEN it will be over.

[ Parent ]

The sound one hears (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by DCDemocrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:20:51 AM EST

when she or he reads Poblano, I think, is the wind flowing into the bag. One would not be dismissed as impertinent were he to not take Poblano too seriously.

I read a diary at MyDD the other night that suggested that the one unshakable number in the campaign was 1627, and that Obama had surmounted it. Unshakable. Like May 31 will never come, and no one could conceive of the Democratic Party actually seating any delegates from Florida and Michigan.

Unshakable.

: I stopped reading Poblano... (none / 0) (#134)
by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:45:59 PM EST

when he/she refused to revise his/her findings when I pointed out that his/her source for information wasn't as thorough as the LOC's Thomas.
He/she kept insisting that the source was far more reliable than the Congressional Record because it was ummm...non-partisan and therefore better than the primary text database that had all the pertinent information in it.

[ Parent ]

The one really unfortunate subcurrent.. (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by ineedalife on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:26:11 AM EST

is that the election will be "stolen" and there will "blood in the streets" if Obama loses. I don't believe this is solely due to hyperbole by Obama extremists. I think it is deliberately being injected to put pressure on the reptile brains of super-D's who do not want their Denver vacation besmirched by bad press. You do not get that kind violent sub-text from the Clinton side.

Unlikely I think (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:30:30 AM EST

If we didn't get to the streets in 2000 and 2004, I somehow doubt the Dem primaries alone are going to do it.

Someone on the last thread pointed out that something like 70% of Obama supports say they'll vote for Clinton in the GE.

IMHO a far more satisfying numbers than the much lower number (which I forgot) which he gave for Clinton supports ready to vote for Obama, which, excuse me for being frank, IMHO reflects very badly on them.

[ Parent ]

No, (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:34:17 AM EST

it reflects very, VERY badly on Obama that he cannot convince Clinton's supporters to vote for him.

When will you Obama supporters get a clue about this? It is not incumbent upon us to vote for him no matter what he does or says. He needs to earn our votes.

Most Obama supporters apparently feel that HRC has earned theirs. Which, although I'm sure they're very fine people, ultimately reflects very well on HER, not them.

[ Parent ]

Strawman (1.00 / 1) (#63)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:52:05 AM EST

Do you ever read what others write?

I'm not an Obama supporter. I don't like Obama. I have attacked him on DKos in February, long before you did, I suspect. I have not given him a dime.

I was an Edwards/Kucinich supporter, and it is supporters like you that make Clinton look very very very bad in our eyes.

(Fortunately for her you are well matched by Obamatons elsewhere.)

[ Parent ]

"Do you ever read what others write?" (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST

LOL!

I read what you have written here. It's full of vague generalizations, lies and smears.

Why don't YOU go to MY blog and see how recently I was pushing for a joint ticket? Oh, you don't have time to search through my entire oeuvre to try and guess what I said in February as opposed to what I'm saying now?

You did not address my point whatsoever, which does not surprise me. What argument could you possibly have?

It is, empirically, Obama's job to convince voters to vote for him. HRC has done that job with Obama's supporters better than Obama has with HRC's supporters.

The polls you quoted show that quite clearly, now don't they?

[ Parent ]

pants on fire (none / 0) (#92)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:20:49 AM EST

"vague generalizations, lies and spears" appear to describe your methods, not mine.

You certainly have lied about me.

If you're pushing for a joint ticket, that hasn't come across in your posts here, but if that is still the case, I applaud and am ready to support your efforts.

As for your point:

I blamed the supporters of either camp who said they would not support the nominee if he's not their present choice.

You blamed Obama for not succeeding in attracting enough Clinton supporters.

Fair enough.

I assume you equally blame Clinton for not attracting enough Obama supporters? That would be logical, no?

Please confirm that it is so.

Then there is enough blame to go around (which suits me fine).

Me, I'd still rather blame the supporters than the candidates. But blaming both is okay too.

[ Parent ]

Obama's problem (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by samanthasmom on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:47:18 AM EST

is that he blames voters for not being willing to vote for him. Instead he should be asking himself, "What's wrong with me that all of these people refuse to vote for me?" The voters that will not move from Hillary to Obama are not deficient. We have compared the candidates and do not see Obama as a reasonable second choice. It's his obligation to show us that he is if he wants our votes. Any candidate with a "D" after his or her name is no longer sufficient to win our votes. Obama can ignore us and say that we are racist, but it isn't true, and it may cost him the election. I can live with that and all of the ramifications that it means. If you can't, then exert some influence on your candidate to wake up.

[ Parent ]

: You don't think Obama will be sucking up? (none / 0) (#136)
by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 01:21:25 PM EST

I do. That's how it works. Rendell responded to a woman coming up to him and saying, not why to vote for Obama, but SCOTUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS. It was very dismissive. I not only expect to see his 'people' on teebee until I am sick of them, I expect more speeches from him.

[ Parent ]

Heh (5.00 / 4) (#51)
by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:44:04 AM EST

When Obama said "I will get all of her supporters, but I don't know if she will get all of mine," was your reaction "hey, why is he insulting his supporters"?

[ Parent ]

The MSM's Game Plan Has Always Been Transparent (5.00 / 7) (#25)
by talex on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:28:40 AM EST

To any seasoned political observer the game has always been clear. The No-Tax Republican Backing Corporate MSM was always going to pump up the weaker of the two candidates for the nomination. And they always hoped that person would also be the easier to Swift-Boat. In Obama they got both. Then once the nomination was secured they would methodically with the skill of a surgeon slice him into pieces and slowly bleed him until enough of America would never voted for him - especially in the swing states.

NBC was always going to turn on him. That was always - and every election year IS always in the script. The MSM has never been our friend and will never be our friend.

On top of that the other day Obama vowed to breakup the MSM conglomerates and replace some of their properties with minority ownership. Kiss of Death. That is exactly what Dean did and overnight he went from Wonder Boy to scum.

Oh yes, Obama will still get praise until the nomination is sealed because the MSM must make sure they don't get the too tough Clinton into office as she actually has good odds at beating McCain with certain Demographics and in certain swing states and in experience and with a once in a lifetime historic victory in breaking the glass ceiling - - all of which scares the Ivy League Brooks Brother suit boys in the media to death.

Clinton gives the Democrats a candidate that has withstood the media. She has taken their best shots for over twenty years. They tried to shoot her down again in the last year to no avail. There she stands with a majority of the popular vote when everyone but the informed voter was against her. She is the Rocky of politics. No matter what you hit her with in the end she will be the one with the belt and hand raised in the air.

But the Fix is in.

The MSM still has a shot of keeping her out of the ring and they will do all they can to make that happen. Obama will still be the Golden Boy...

If only until August.

Wow (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:35:33 AM EST

that statement about breaking up the MSM was especially stupid. Not just because of the breakup but because it also sounds like a handout to people based on their ethnicity. I'm waiting to see how that plays. Will they talk about it sooner or later? They went after Dean immediately. They have changed their tune about Obama somewhat already.

[ Parent ]

: I totally agree that the media should be (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:39:24 AM EST

broken up. I'm seeing HoDo's influence there.
Maybe Obama can sponsor a bill to that effect in the Senate after President Hillary Clinton is inaugurated. I'm sure she'd be happy to sign it. ;-)

[ Parent ]

The MCM Have Been Nibbling At The Edges (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:45:06 AM EST

of Obama for the last month or so. Not enough to keep him from winning the nomination but enough to plant the seeds of the GE narrative in the minds of their audiences. Agree, this strategy is nothing new and has been their SOP when it comes to presidential elections.

[ Parent ]

Whiplash anyone? (5.00 / 3) (#59)
by margph on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:50:03 AM EST

Talex, you are so right on target. The connection of the MSM to Republican goals and interests is the heart of the story. Only a fool would think that NBC (GE) would really be behind Obama and his supporters. The media will turn so fast if he is nominated that we will all get whiplash. It will be all McCain all the time.

[ Parent ]

You got that right!! (none / 0) (#74)
by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:02:13 AM EST

"On top of that the other day Obama vowed to breakup the MSM conglomerates and replace some of their properties with minority ownership. Kiss of Death. That is exactly what Dean did and overnight he went from Wonder Boy to scum."

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it!!

[ Parent ]

Credibility and Legitimacy (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by bmc on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:31:55 AM EST

They should be proud that Obama thought to fight in the red-state caucuses, yes. But they shouldn't be so proud that they pat themselves on the back about their stunning success at blocking a re-vote in Florida, taking Obama's name off the ballot in Michigan, yet brazenly arguing that he earned delegates there, or violating the pledge in Florida, yet arguing that he should get any delegates there, while Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also violated the DNC deadline rules, but were not sanctioned.

The entire fraudulent manner in which the Obama campaign has conspired with the DNC to fix this primary process is actually quite shameful. If Barack Obama were really an agent of hope or change, he'd argue that all the votes should count. That he doesn't just proves that he's not only NOT a credible agent of "change" in politics, he's just another corrupt, power-hungry pol, who'll throw anyone he needs to off the bus in order to amass more and more power.

This is about the legitimacy of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY now. NBC has already bet its credentials on Obama and lost. The Democratic Party is about to lose theirs--with perhaps 25% of Democrats. And, how does this party propose to win over Republicans?

Oh, yes: By Fixing the Electoral Process--Republicans love that, don't they? Well, I guess it's the "new-demublican post-partisan" Party credo. We don't need no stinkin' legitimacy.

Hmmm, Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:04:03 AM EST

somehow never gets around to mentioning this part:

"Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina also violated the DNC deadline rules, but were not sanctioned."

[ Parent ]

: She tells lies everytime she speaks (none / 0) (#127)
by karen for Clinton on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:04:46 PM EST

A few days ago she was on and saying the other 48 states did not move their primaries up and it was unfair to give allowances to the two that did. She said it twice and nobody called her on it.
Not even Wolfson who was listening in and responding to that segments questions.
She is an outrage and disgrace.

[ Parent ]

It seems so obvious (5.00 / 3) (#33)
by coolit on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:33:23 AM EST

that when you look at Clinton vs McCain or Obama vs. McCain:

Clinton takes what McCain offers and she does it better. As for her match-up with Obama, they both offer similar progressive policies..... except Clinton actually developed most of them while he borrowed her ideas. She has shown much better instincts for practical, smart policy. Furthermore, she could actually implement these ideas while he has shown no capability to accomplish anything tangible.

Obama on the other hand makes McCain look presidential, diplomatic, and strong on foreign policy. I AM NOT SAYING McCain IS STRONG, I AM SAYING THAT'S HOW THE ELECTORATE WILL SEE IT! Obama sets up the perfect match-up for McCain to look better than he actually is.

Why would the DNC select the wrong person to compete in the general election? I don't know.... How could they lose to W twice?

Plus (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:52 AM EST

Obama appears to never have worked this hard in his life. It's obvious it has been wearing him out and he doesn't like it--he appears to resent it in fact. Then he has the GE, then if a miracle, the Presidency. After all that will he still be up for doing the very demanding work of the President, strategizing, fighting with Congress, standing up for what he promised his constituents?

[ Parent ]

McCain's camp wanted the Obama match up (none / 0) (#39)
by stefystef on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:37:15 AM EST

They have said they feel confident about going against Obama, not Hillary because she proved herself to be stronger than anyone thought she would be.

If the McCain camp feels they have a better chance against the juggernaut they call Obama, then they have something on him that will derail his campaign.

Something's up...

[ Parent ]

McCain wants Obama (none / 0) (#49)
by coolit on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:42:00 AM EST

because it makes him look presidential. You can already see how it's gonna go. In the debates, he is going to besmirch Obama's idealism with hard, serious, condemnation. Again, I'm not saying McCain is right, I'm saying the American people will move to him.

In a debate with Clinton, McCain would look naive, incompetent, and over matched.

If I were McCain or a Republican, I would be licking my chops right now to fight Obama. He would possibly lose in a landslide to Clinton

[ Parent ]

Clinton has almost a 90% chance (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:49:26 AM EST

of beating McCain, sez HominidViews.

As for Obama, whoopsie!

[ Parent ]

Just saying (none / 0) (#65)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:54:47 AM EST

Clinton has 46% unfavorable rating in the GE vs 38.5 for either Obama or McCain.

Her favorable are 41.8% vs 51.5% for Obama.

Source: Real Clear Politics.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Stats.

[ Parent ]

I'm not very good (none / 0) (#69)
by coolit on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:58:44 AM EST

at posting links in here, but I have just been looking at articles on how much better she is performing against McCain than Obama in Florida and Ohio. We're talking blows out vs even.

Does that worry you as an Obama supporter?
What states will he win in the GE that she wont?

btw, thanks for your tone, I see some other Obama supporters who can be very mean which I don't think helps the process

[ Parent ]

Here is what I found (none / 0) (#79)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:06:29 AM EST

People here seem lo like Real Clear Politics as a source.

First thing on their site is the sidebar to the left:

General Election: McCain vs. Obama
RCP Average
Obama
47.3
McCain
42.4
Obama +4.9

General Election: McCain vs. Clinton
RCP Average
Clinton
46.1
McCain
43.9
Clinton +2.2

Then you go to General Elections/Latest Polls/Battlegound Polls, and there it gets complicated.

For example, in FL, McCain currently beats both Clinton and Obama. In PA, both Obama and Clinton bets McCain. A lot of the figures are within the stats margin of error. Clinton does come ahead, but I'm not convinced it's significant or determining.

Then you go to Favorable Ratings and you find (as I mentioned elsewhere) :
Clinton: Fav: 46.8 - Unfav: 46.0.
Whereas:
Obama: Fav: 51.5 - Unfav: 38.5
McCain: Fav: 48.5 - Unfav: 38.5

Frankly, the case that one candidate is more electable than the other, is hardly convincing, either way.

[ Parent ]

Polls mean absolutely nothing (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by pluege on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:16:10 AM EST

electorial college math is the only thing that matters.

Where the people are that are voting for each candidate is what matters. If all 32 million Californians supported Obama, it wouldn't make him electible if he only achieved 49.9% of the voters in the rest of the states.

[ Parent ]

: I understand that... (none / 0) (#94)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:25:39 AM EST

...but to get to the composition of the electoral college, you've got to rely on state polls and primary data.
My only point here is that I find the data unclear and somewhat contradictory.
I don't see that clear Hillary advantage (or Obama advantage) that some see.
I don't see a huge Dem advantage either, which is worrying.
At the end of the day perhaps neither Clinton nor Obama were the best candidates we could have put forward. I wish Al Gore had run.

[ Parent ]

PS: (none / 0) (#83)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:54 AM EST

The reason I'm polite is that I am *NOT* an Obama supporter.

I was Edwards/Kucinich, and now perfect happy to fight for whoever is our nominee.

I am appalled by those who say they'll vote for one but not the other.

[ Parent ]

LOL! (none / 0) (#71)
by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:01:09 AM EST

You're using that old favorability canard? LOL!

I think that thousands of actual head-to-head state polls are a bit more reliable than some vague figure that you don't even bother to back up with a link.

Please spare me your lies, damn lies about not being in the tank for Obama. We're not buying your pretense of objectivity.

Thanks ever so.

[ Parent ]

: troll alert (none / 0) (#86)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:10:35 AM EST

Again you're a troll.
I've posted at least three links to RealClearPolitics.
You have an obligation to read what I've written before spouting off.
In fact, I discovered the RCP site here. Very grateful too. Great site.

[ Parent ]

Just curious (none / 0) (#55)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:46:59 AM EST

What is then your theory explaining why all the Limbaugh Republicans want Hillary?

[ Parent ]

in my opinion (none / 0) (#67)
by coolit on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:56:03 AM EST

Rush just wants to cause mischief. He wants to prolong the drama. He wants to seem important and get into the news. I think those selfish things are more important than political strategy to him.

[ Parent ]

good point (none / 0) (#93)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:22:44 AM EST

Good point. I'm inclined to agree.

But do you think he then picked Clinton to prolong the drama just because she was running behind?

Or was she running behind when he picked her?

[ Parent ]

Clinton Was Running Behind And Being (none / 0) (#105)
by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:39:58 AM EST

declared as having no chance of winning the nomination when Limbaugh decided to ad to the mix. Dems for a Day programs had been run by Obama and his supporters since IA. Republicans have crossed over to vote for both candidates in an effort to mess with the election. The meme that all cross over votes for Obama or Clinton are legimate voters who will vote for that candidate and all cross over votes for the other candidate are because the Republicans want to pick the weaker candidate is IMO absurb.

From polls of key states taken after the primaries both candidates are practically tied in receiving Republican support with percentages of 6% - 8%.

: I've also noticed (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:58:58 PM EST

that a lot of Republicans I know, people who previously thought Obama seemed appealing, have really gotten turned off after stuff like Wright, Ayers, etc. came out. They think he's a radical now.
To the extent these people were inclined to vote in the Democratic primary because it's the only game in town, it's not at all surprising if Obama is receiving less Republican support than he did previously. I agree with you that it's foolish to suggest that anyone's crossover votes consist solely of people seeking to game the system.

[ Parent ]

she was behind (none / 0) (#111)
by coolit on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:49:56 AM EST

so he picked her to prolong it. Rush is just in for himself and doesn't really care about the good of anyone else. he's an opportunist. glad we found some aggreement

[ Parent ]

They don't like McCain (none / 0) (#116)
by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:04:05 AM EST

they would love to see Hillary beat McCain. It would validate all their feelings about him - they'll say if he were a real Repbilcian he would have beat her. McCain can beat Obama.

[ Parent ]

Point of logic (none / 0) (#57)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:49:16 AM EST

Since everyone thought Hillary was the inevitable nominee when this contest began, she actually proved weaker, not stronger, than we thought.

We know the Limbaugh Republicans wanted Hillary to be our nominee. Do have any information about who McCain would prefer?

[ Parent ]

What are you even talking about? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
by rooge04 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:01:45 AM EST

Limbaugh republicans? I didn't know they numbered in the millions in our primaries.

Retire that lie please. It's BS and it's Republican talking points. It's pathetic. Yes. 14 million Limbaugh republicans is who voted for Hillary.

Pathetic that you've all resorted to this.

[ Parent ]

Not what I wrote (none / 0) (#88)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:40 AM EST

I'm sure Limbaugh had zero or negligible effect. That is not what I wrote.

It is well known that he urged his followers to support Hillary.

My question to you is: why?

[ Parent ]

He has a radio show (5.00 / 2) (#91)
by BarnBabe on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:19:47 AM EST

Why did Kos encourage all the Dems in Michigan to vote for Mitt. He wanted to keep McCain from winning that state in order to prolong the primary. Maybe Rush did the same. Maybe it is like playing the power of God and seeing where it goes. For Kos, he thought it would be great mischief. For Rush, it makes for good ratings and press.

[ Parent ]

: I agree with you... (none / 0) (#95)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:27:21 AM EST

...and it's likely too that, had Obama been a bit behind, he would then have been pushing him to keep fanning the flames, do you think?

[ Parent ]

My opinion on that is that (none / 0) (#72)
by FlaDemFem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:01:40 AM EST

McCain would want Hillary as Dem nominee. He is a genuine patriot, and I think if he loses to a Dem he wants it to be a qualified competent candidate who will take care of the country. That is not Obama. It's Hillary Clinton. He respects her, which is more than Obama does.

[ Parent ]

: My take exactly. (none / 0) (#98)
by befuddled on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:05 AM EST

He would want the best for the country and so would she--they differ on the details. Obama so far wants what's best for Obama.

[ Parent ]

Lupin are you one of those paid Obama bloggers? (none / 0) (#89)
by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:14:14 AM EST

No, long time DK poster. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by Fabian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:37:52 AM EST

Lupin is reasonable, if more of a big "D" Democrat than some us here.

I myself, am a little "d" democrat right now with the possibility of becoming a liberal Independent in the future. Depends on what the Party does.

[ Parent ]

it boggles the mind (none / 0) (#101)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:32:29 AM EST

I see this is going to be a daily routine.

My anti-Obama (yes) credential predate yours, I suspect.

Read Obama: Jimmy Carter from the North posted 7 FEBRUARY on DKos.

There are other similar diaries too. There's the one where I compared Obama to Werner Ehrard.

Is it really so surprising that an anti-Obama, former Edwards/Kucinich supporter could be appalled by some of the extreme views emanating from this long-respected site and try to politely bring my errant brothers & sisters back into the Dem fold?

[ Parent ]

: What is surprising (none / 0) (#106)
by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:40:27 AM EST

is the arrogance that believes "you" have the power to bring your errant brothers & sisters back into the Dem fold. Politiely or otherwise.

[ Parent ]

Rush Limbaugh is an idiot.... (none / 0) (#107)
by Maria Garcia on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:41:47 AM EST

...that's already been established. The Republican party is in shambles but the corporate interests that have bolstered them still have a thing or two up their sleeves. Shrill Republican activists like Limbaugh may despise McCain, but the big money Republican interest groups will be firmly on his side. And when that happens, Limbaugh will probably shut up.

[ Parent ]

Obama has done nothing to confront... (none / 0) (#70)
by pluege on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:59:30 AM EST

the major thrust that mccain will use against him - his lack of experience verses the wise old daddy john mccain. And Obamacans haven't addressed that because they have nothing to directly address it with - they only can change to subject.

This is the meme that mccain will pound him on in the GE if he is the nominee, and it will be very affective with everyone except 2 of Obama's 3 constituencies: Blacks and the very young. Even the maturer chunk of Obama's third constituency - the Kreative Klass will take pause.

[ Parent ]

I'm scared (none / 0) (#75)
by coolit on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:02:34 AM EST

of an Obama-McCain match-up.

It may look like a conservative dad vs and upstart idealistic kid. While we may sympathize with the kid, in the end, we trust the father.

Caveat: I'm not saying this is my view, but I have been watching politics for years now and this is a pattern.

[ Parent ]

: It was always the only matchup I feared (none / 0) (#117)
by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:07:48 AM EST

All you have to do is put the two of them on the debate stage and say '200,000' troops in the field - what are you going to do with them?' Who is going to sound more credible, even if you don't agree with the troops being in the field in the first place? Hillary at least knows enough about the DoD and military affairs to answer coherently.

[ Parent ]

Not everyone is in love with Obama (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by stefystef on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:34:32 AM EST

and there are people who are seriously questioning his electability.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/21/mcentee_doubts_obama.html#more

But the Obama followers aren't listening... people "in love" rarely listen to reason.

Agreed (none / 0) (#54)
by Lupin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:45:58 AM EST

I feel the need to periodically restate here for those who don't know me from DKos that last February, I compared Obama to Werner Ehrard and aid I feared his presidency might be like Jimmy Carter's.

But I don't particularly like Clinton either. Nor do I think she is more electable.

I haven't given either a dime so far.

That said, I'll fight for our nominee when he/she is known whoever he/she is like a wolverine.

[ Parent ]

: I wasn't thrilled with (5.00 / 2) (#108)
by Fabian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM EST

Hillary "The Establishment" Clinton and I was curious about Barack "Change" Obama.
Then Hillary became a moderate Democrat with progressive leanings and Obama became a fuzzy, nebulous figure with a strong emphasis on Obama.
I'll take the Democrat I can rely on for less than I'd like than the bipostpartisan who I can rely on to believe in himself.
If Obama had proven himself to be some flavor of democrat/progressive/liberal, I could be convinced to support him.

[ Parent ]

Just wait, it's coming (none / 0) (#64)
by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:54:28 AM EST

BTDs new series is going to be interesting. I wonder how many 'new' Obama supporters will agree with him. I imagine the 'he's just a pol' will be heard extensively from 'new' Obama people at this point. New supporters will be jumping all over that meme. I think they will become very humble. They 'won', so now they will pretend to be gracious. I wonder how many 'new' people will join saying 'hey, it was just politics , it was nothing personal, let's unify'.... and I will not be disappointed when 'politics' goes after Obama.

Except for MSNBC, media is questioning his electability. Bowers wrote yesterday 'electability' was no longer an issue. Ha! The new horserace has begun.

[ Parent ]

AFSCME/AFLCIO Proud Member (none / 0) (#130)
by karen for Clinton on Thu May 22, 2008 at 12:23:58 PM EST

My union dues are well spent. We were polled last year before they decided on who to nominate and our newsletters are filled with political platform and labor issues are our core interest.

The March/April issue was on MLK and the 1968 Memphis sanitation workers strike which broke ground for decades of AFSCME organizing victories.

Blue collar for Clinton is so obviously the case.

I am most proud my union will not back down or cave in. We need Hillary, we are not the elite.

[ Parent ]

Well, they 'won' (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:37:30 AM EST

the psychological warfare battle with CNN and MSNBC and Fox seems to be going along. Doesn't this mostly mess with the OFB?

Another poster wrote that on CNN, Jeffrey Toobin said there IS no such thing as a "majority" of pledged delegates meaning anything. He said WINNING means getting the 2210 (Toobin thinks FL/MI still exist!) total, and nothing else, said Obama was making up new imaginary ROOLZ. The panel was stunned (shocked, I tell you), especially Gergen.

Fox (of all things, came out on top in cable news, I wonder what the OFB thinks about Alexrove accomplishing that) is reporting that the search for Obama's VP has begun. Ha! I didn't catch who was involved, but the DNC was listed and Daschle was mentioned. They are keeping it top-secret out of respect for Clinton (the OFB will say, see.. they're being nice, get over it)

Campaigning is always politics. I expect the OFB to whine about neutral media reporting anything questioning Obama. LEAVE OBAMA ALLOOOOOOOONE, sniff. The majority of media will prop Obama up but Issues, Schmissues says it's just politics. I check out the articles on RCP each morning, Jonathan Alter is whining on behalf of Obama (How Clinton's Lates Math Hurts the Party (waaaaaahhhhhh), but the front page is mostly quiet. Do I detect a change now that Obama claims he has (snark) reached the majority of the pledged delegates? hmmmm

Is it inappropriate to laugh? What goes around, comes around. This is going to be fun. :)

: Barnacle last night said that Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#118)
by zfran on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:09:47 AM EST

ought to go to see Teddy K. and ask him how to bow out gracefully and make an exit. Wasn't it Kennedy who took it to the convention?

[ Parent ]
: Daschle (none / 0) (#125)
by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:41:32 AM EST

Gawd, please, tell me they are not so stupid as to consider Daschle.

[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by