home

More On Tonight's Events

What I like best about tonight is how upset the Media is about it. I do not know if I have written this before, but I really do not like the Media.

BTW, for those who want to insult me, Jeralyn, TalkLeft etc., why waste your time? Your comments are going to be deleted anyway. Go enjoy the victory parties at the other blogs instead.

Comments closed.

< My Take On the Night | Reid/Pelosi/Dean To Send Stern Letter >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    ha! (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by phat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:35:20 PM EST
    I do not know if I have written this before, but I really do not like the Media.

    I just about needed to send you a bill for a new monitor after I read this while taking a sip.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:41:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Was that really you? (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by ghost2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:46:35 PM EST
    You who have said your reason for being a tepid Obama supporter was media's love for him and hate for Hillary?

    [ Parent ]
    What;s that got to do with anything? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:02:53 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You'd like Dan Abrams tonight (5.00 / 8) (#133)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:07:15 AM EST
    as he opened by mocking media -- "we have proclaimed him the nominee, based on . . . us" and went into a very funny, convoluted sentence I can't repeat correctly about McCain offering condolences to Clinton based on media scripting Obama scripting McCain, etc.  Maddow giggled -- oblivious as she is, not getting that Abrams was mocking her among the media's worst.

    And Abrams keeps saying, why shouldn't she take her time?  She won tonight.  She's ahead in the votes, etc.  He's a voice in the wilderness of the mediabeasts, but it is refreshing.

    [ Parent ]

    It was beautiful to see the media left (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:19:44 AM EST
    twisting in the wind...Can't wait for the convention.

    Little O/T...pls post your comments on HIllary's website...

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, Obama is not the OFFICIAL nominee (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:36:03 AM EST
    unless the lady in the pantsuit concedes right?

    Axelrod called Obama the putative nominee tonight.
    What do you make of that change in terminology?

    [ Parent ]

    The speeches are all great (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:35:36 PM EST
    It's all theater.  My spouse looked at the news today and said "awe crap, we're screwed."

    What that means is all the stuff you never see anywhere.  Not even here.  She would have loved to see a woman president, but that's not what that's about.  And there's no sense of outrage either, she knows very little about what's gone on.  

    I had to explain to her that the Obama movement has smeared Bill and Hillary as racists.  And even that doesn't really get her worked up.

    What "awe crap, we're screwed," means is that we both genuinely believed that from 1992, with some considerable bumps along the way, up until 2000, the country was going in a direction that not only made us proud, but, and so much more importantly made us feel like we could do something very mundane yet also very extraordinary:  Raise a family.  The future looked good.

    When Bush stole the election, we know what happened then.

    I don't need to describe how we felt about that.

    What "awe crap, we're screwed," means is that we were sure that, in 2008, the country could pick up where it left off in 2000.

    Now we are not so sure.  Things could go either way.  We do not have the confidence in Obama in that way.  Obama does not address issues in a competent manner.  Obama is a novice.  He is surrounded by the wrong people.  

    So clearly, my spouse is not wrapped up in this the way I am.  Pastors come and go.  Elections come and go.  Politics comes and goes.  Political attacks they come with the territory.  Does it matter what Geffen said?  Not to her.  But to me it does.

    All she looks at is the news tonight, thinking about our daughter and says "awe crap, we're screwed."

    Final note.  She didn't say "crap."  She said a word that starts with an 's' and ends with a 't.'

    Lastly, I have always said that if Obama wins AND does a good job.  If he does the things that Bill was able to do, creating jobs, balancing the budget, AND bringing 7 million people out of poverty, all the while HELPING to bring a small measure of peace to other parts of the world like Kosovo and No. Ireland.  

    Which doesn't mean Obama has to be perfect, Bill wasn't perfect either.  Bill didn't do right by Rwanda.  A lot of his legislation was left open to abuse, unenforced regulations, etc.  

    What I'm saying is, for now my sense is "awe crap, we're screwed,"  but if Obama is a success the way I believe Clinton was a success, the way I believed Hillary would have been a success, then I'll be the first person to admit I was wrong.  I will do so gladly because the quality of life for all Americans will be, day in and day out, getting better.  Not only that, but all the history that's playing out right now will be swept away.  No one cares that you stole an election if you do a good job (see BSG!).  No one cares if you lie to start a war, if you win it.  There's the idealogs who will care, but they don't win elections.  Or at least they shouldn't.  

    BUT....  

    BUT....  If this personality contest, rules based win, yields yet another bust, if this goes the way of Carter (another admirable man), what are the chances any of the people who shoved this crap down our throats, or even the people who  are going to take responsibility for THEIR actions, and admit they were wrong?

    I bet none.

    Not only that, but if he does a poor job, all of what's happening right now will be viewed much differently.  Much much differently.

    Anyway.  I was wondering if anyone remembered we are talking about the future of America here?

    Roll the dice.  Let's see what happens.

    Not to worry, Edgar08 (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:41:05 PM EST
    Obama is not going to get the chance to screw things up in the White House.  McCain is a strong conservative, but he's not an ideologue and I suspect he will govern, on some issues at least, a good deal less conservatively than he talks.  It will be bad, but not as bad as the preceding 8 years, IMO.

    What a travesty, one that didn't need to happen.

    (speaking as an ex-Democrat)

    [ Parent ]

    It's particularly disappointing (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:44:42 PM EST
    when you look at this

    Hillary is the best candidate for the GE. It wouldn't even be close

    [ Parent ]

    You are right (3.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:49:27 PM EST
    But if there was anything I've tried to offer here is that there is more going on in an election than just electability.

    And that's even when the electability argument works in Clinton's favor.

    BUSH.  WAS.  ELECTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    It's fine to consider it.  If that's the only thing you ever talk about, I think you are practicing avoidance.


    [ Parent ]

    It's a good thing that Talk Left... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by EddieInCA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:48:40 PM EST
    ...has archives.

    Just sayin....

    [ Parent ]

    Well as long as it's just (none / 0) (#90)
    by Melchizedek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:58:10 PM EST
    Bush lite, everything will be OK.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama mentioned his (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by mg7505 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:52:56 PM EST
    two decades in public service -- during which I don't think he's done anything groundbreaking. Has he done some good things and gotten in line behind the right folks occasionally? Yes. But has he done anything in that long public service career that indicates he will be as much of a change as Clinton was? I'm not convinced. In my mind he gets no free pass for being a novice -- he's been in public office long enough to have done something if he were going to do it.

    I'm hoping against hope (how's that for irony?) that he can do something, starting with winning in November. But his campaign and his movement have not been about what's right for this country; they've been about one man.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll say this now (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Y Knot on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:54:39 PM EST
    I think Barak Obama will be a good President  (Actually, I THINK he'll be a great one, but I'm going to get enough flack here for just saying "good").

    But, if he's not, and he turns out to be another "empty suit" or "con man" or any of a hundred things I've seen him called here, I will post a formal apology here, stating that I was wrong and you all were right.

    Of course... if he is really good, I'd hope people here would return the favor.

    [ Parent ]

    Some benchmarks (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:59:48 PM EST
    I will settle for average (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Rik on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:05:01 AM EST
    The improvement for what we currently have is 1000%.

    Now for what I really think, Barrack is an illusion, people see what they want to see. In other words there is nothing there.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, we'll hold you to it (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:10:34 AM EST
    I promise the same thing.  Although you do realize that neither one of us will ever have to come through since he's not going to be president.


    [ Parent ]
    Well, not with that attitude. (none / 0) (#200)
    by Y Knot on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:24:30 AM EST
    But, I've decided to be an optimist.  Which is exceedingly rare for me.  

    We'll see how it works out.  

    [ Parent ]

    huh? (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by djcny on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:06:20 AM EST
    and why would I care whether you apologize or not. lol

    [ Parent ]
    Edgar08 (none / 0) (#211)
    by Y Knot on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:28:12 AM EST
    Asked how many Obama supporters would admit they're wrong, if it turns out they're wrong.  I just replied that I, for one, would.

    I wouldn't presume you'd care.  I was just responding to a post.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:00:06 AM EST
    I don't hate the guy, well, not always, but if he can win and be an effective President I'll gladly eat two trays of crow.  It ain't bad with some gravy.  :)

    But, November comes long before that judgment can be made, so be careful with your betting.  LOL

    Jackson

    [ Parent ]

    Say what you want about Bush (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:01:14 AM EST
    but he gave some great speeches, didn't he?  He provided the comics with SO MUCH material!  I'd love to see what people have to say about his speeches in another 60 years.  Ha!  

    [ Parent ]
    LOL. Obama = Gaius Baltar? (none / 0) (#127)
    by cosbo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:05:59 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    OMG (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:10:36 AM EST
    I've been thinking this very thing for weeks!  

    Older, wiser, more experienced, kick-ass woman president who is kicked out by a younger, incompetent man supported by his cultish followers and his vows to lead them to the promised land!

    And we saw how well that turned out.  New Caprica is the next 4 years while she fights the good fight underground and wins back the top spot when people come to their senses!

    I've come to believe that Ron Moore, unlike the RBC, really does have psychic powers, since BG plots were all written well over a year ago and the storyline has been uncannily accurate so far.

    [ Parent ]

    But but but (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:27:58 AM EST
    Baltar at least had experience in his given field prior to the fall of Caprica. (Sorry I can't give you more support on the theory because I like Gaius even if he is a slimey little git...)

    Are you suggesting that Obama has a Head!Michelle? ::giggles at the thought::

    [ Parent ]

    Don't get me wrong (5.00 / 2) (#230)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:39:05 AM EST
    I love Gaius.  In fact, I have no problem voting for a schizophrenic, crazed, narcissistic cult figure, just not this schizophrenic, crazed, narcissistic cult figure!

    I hadn't considered a Chip-Michelle but you can bet I'll work that into my analysis.  Ha!

    [ Parent ]

    I turned the TV off (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:36:17 PM EST
    when Jeffery Toobin pulled an Aravosis.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:36:57 PM EST
    Did you see the part where he went off on McCain's speech?

    [ Parent ]
    You know what (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:39:12 PM EST
    I think I was the only person who thought McCain laid out sme otugh shots on Obama in that speech.

    Ads and 527s will do it better of course. But watch out. there was stuff in there that could work imo.

    [ Parent ]

    He did (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:42:49 PM EST
    I think I'm pretty good at hearing these things through the ears of the GE voter.  It's hard, though, to compensate for the fact that McCain clearly doesn't get points subtracted for his numbing delivery.  You'd never listen to him and think, "Hey, there's a guy who should run for President."

    At the end of the day, Obama's all-purpose response is "okay, that sounds great, but we've tried all those things and they're clearly not working."  That might end up being a winning argument.

    The part of McCain's speech that really made me wince was where he went after Obama from the left on Cheney's energy bill.  I hate that our nominee is vulnerable to that.  And how the heck did that energy bill ever get rehabilitated on the progressive blogs?!?

    [ Parent ]

    I am not so sure (5.00 / 10) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:44:39 PM EST
    Here is the thing - there are going to be a lot of people looking for reasons to NOT vote for Obama.

    There is stuff in that speech that gave them reasons and excuses not to.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree ... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:54:19 PM EST
    I thought McCain was very impressive.

    He took one of Obama's main attacks, and deflated it with pithy language and clear examples.

    As I've said before, the Obama/McCain match-up looks very much like Dewey vs. Truman.

    Obama/Dewey has the platitudes, and the sense of entitlement and inevitability.

    McCain/Truman is there to make clear arguments and fight for every vote.

    Obama is handing McCain a role he's tailor made for.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:04:11 AM EST
    We already ran Dewey/Truman in 2004, to be honest.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I hadn't thought of that (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:30:00 AM EST
    comparison, but you're correct.  McCain can do Plain Speaking (I so like that Truman book) and just emphasize Obama's religiosity -- a speech pattern that turned me off 'way before Iowa.  It just got boring for me so fast, I can't listen to his lulling tone and "uhs" any more, while I found McCain to be interesting to hear tonight.  Oh oh.

    [ Parent ]
    What you mean to say (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:47:36 PM EST
    is that he was going after Hillary's voters? Yeah, that was pretty obvious. The problem is he sounded like Mitt Romney's speech outline.

    [ Parent ]
    Let it be known... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:52:14 PM EST
    ...that at least one reasonable person must've seen a different speech than you did. McCain's speech was the worst speech I've seen given by a major political figure in my life. No hyperbole.

    Whatever points existed in it were sunk in a swamp of insta-grin weirdness, poor atmospherics, detached substance, and unfortunate attempts to distance himself from Bush that angered Republicans and only solidified his link with Bush for everyone else.

    There was no positive result from McCain's speech, in my opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    His delivery (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:00:13 AM EST
    is horrible. Yes. But then after months on end of the TelePrompTor magic from Obama people may be looking for some who speaks plainly and like their neighbor next door. It could very well go a long way to connecting with the bubba's of the world if you aren't sermonizing them at every spare chance.  

    [ Parent ]
    If my next door neighbor talked like McCain... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Addison on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:01:04 AM EST
    ...I'd move.

    [ Parent ]
    Not my point (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:01:42 AM EST
    I said their were points IN THE SPEECH thaqt were powerful, not that McCain did not suck as the deliverer of the speech.

    Ads are going to do it better.

    [ Parent ]

    Bingo. America is not going to tune in (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:26:51 AM EST
    for long speeches -- not in summer, when we're away from tv, and not in fall when a lot of us are plenty busy . . . and when any prime-time viewing is for new shows.  Winter held a lot of us captive, but it's over.

    America, however, will see and hear soundbytes in ads over and over.  Yes, I listened to McCain tonight, too.  Yes, I heard some major markers being set -- it was billed, after all, as a major speech for the last few days, which was brilliant counter-programming of Obama's billing.

    And yes, you bet that McCain can make good soundbytes.  And he will sound so reasonable and avuncular next to those 527 ads with the yelling Obamabuddies of the double pastor disaster, with the wild-eyed Ayers talking about bombing some more, with the rough-looking, soon-to-be-convicted Rezko of the Chicago mob connections.  And Obama's own faux autobiography will provide great fun, with his claims about being poor vs. the reality of him being a prep-school type, his mansion, etc.

    And picture ads of Cindy McCain vs. Michelle Obama, who always photographs looking so angry, in  ads about not being proud of her country, about "ain't no black people in Iowa."  It's gonna be ugly.

    [ Parent ]

    The speech can't be separated... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Addison on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:04:16 AM EST
    ...from its delivery. Or its context. The proportion of people who will read it versus see it, cringing, is not in McCain's favor at all.

    I don't know what points exactly you're talking about, but if you're talking about the times McCain attempted to coopt the "change" message or attempted to distance himself from Bush, again, I disagree. It was a disaster for McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Still missing my point (5.00 / 5) (#176)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:18:27 AM EST
    What I am saying is the GOP has found some pretty potent lines of attack and they will deliver them.

    McCain sucks at speeches. No sh*t.

    But there is more to a campaign than speeches.

    NO one will remember ANY of these speeches in 2 weeks.

    [ Parent ]

    Ditto Obama's speech (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:25:44 AM EST
    The media goes nuts over Obama's speeches, just like they did tonight, and two weeks later no one remembers anything he said.  Just like the preacher on Sunday who gives a great sermon and by Tuesday, it's forgotten.  

    [ Parent ]
    Don't underestimate the power of Wabi Sabi (5.00 / 2) (#232)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:43:51 AM EST
    IMVIO (in my very informed opinion) McCain's flaws as a speaker and "electable" candidate work in his favor, whereas Obama's poreless slickness understandably have been and will continue to work against him.

    For all the fawnship both have had from in the tank media, care to hazard a guess at which one got cupcakes, literally, from the media and will continue to receive them after the Dems do declare?

    [ Parent ]

    Again... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Addison on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:19:39 AM EST
    ...what lines of attack are you talking about?

    I found them all flat.

    [ Parent ]

    What I want to know is (none / 0) (#81)
    by phat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:56:00 PM EST
    who is McCain's Axelrod/Penn/Etc.

    Who is his guy?

    Who does his work? Who writes his stuff?

    I don't know much about McCain's campaign staff. I'd like to know but I haven't been able to find much online.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by phat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:48:31 PM EST
    It's hard, though, to compensate for the fact that McCain clearly doesn't get points subtracted for his numbing delivery.  You'd never listen to him and think, "Hey, there's a guy who should run for President."

    Look at our current president.

    [ Parent ]

    I think the place where (5.00 / 7) (#158)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:14:20 AM EST
    McCain will shine is in one-on-one debates with Obama.  McCain has a depth of knowledge that Obama won't be able to match.  

    I think Obama is going to stumble badly in debate.  It's really not his thing.  Also, McCain has a way of sitting back and letting the other person make mistakes before pouncing on the mistake.  Hillary was polite about that.  I don't think McCain will be.  

    [ Parent ]

    Problem: (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:43:04 PM EST
    McCain is a horrible messenger.

    But yeah, the 527s are going to go after Obama, and they'll have stuff to say.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:43:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    We're not ... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:59:03 PM EST
    electing Orator-in-Chief.

    The best speaker rarely wins the Presidency.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain is only horrible (4.75 / 4) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:58:21 PM EST
    in formal speeches.  Off the cuff, in interviews and debates, he's a heck of a lot faster off the mark and better and more attractive than Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Off the cuff (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:20:26 AM EST
    is where Obama sticks his foot in his mouth - like the meetings with foreign leaders, rewriting NAFTA, stuff like that.  

    Gawd.  Am I the only one afraid of summit conferences between Obama and other leaders?  I mean, everyone knew Dubya was a dolt.  Obama comes across as being much more intelligent.  

    [ Parent ]

    And Obama's channeling Denzel (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by soccermom on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:35:11 AM EST
    channeling Malcom X is going to grate on us hillbilly's last nerve.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:44:15 PM EST
    But then I usually do. Heh. Except about Obama.

    McCain was pretty tough on Obama during his speech and he was very gracious about Hillary. I actually tears up when he said he was proud to call her his friend.

    I still think the pundits are funny. I also support her in going all the way to Denver.

    I want to take a moment and thank you and Jeralyn for this site. You have been my sanity over the past 16 months and I cannot thank you enough. I am glad to still have a place here going forward.

    [ Parent ]

    Strong McCain (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Athena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:45:27 PM EST
    No you're not - McCain unveiled some very clever framings in the speech - Obama's weaknesses were well understood in that speech.  I stayed with FOX to keep watching it.

    Most impressive: "such a young man with such old ideas that have been tried and failed."

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, saw Rove & Wallace (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:58:31 PM EST
    They asked how he was going to 'make' the oil companies pay for all the things Obama said they would. They also mentioned some other things that he promised that are going to be hard to accomplish. I think I saw the first of the media changing for McCain. Well, it was Fox after all.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain's speech (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by RalphB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:27:23 AM EST
    while the delivery was horrible was a fair road map for the start of a campaign against Obama.  He has some winners in there.


    [ Parent ]
    What did he say? (none / 0) (#9)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:37:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:39:34 PM EST
    He was totally ranting about how terrible it was, how uninspiring McCain was, how uninterested the tiny crowd looked, yadda yadda.  The other pundits were shocked cause he was sounding REALLY harsh about all this!

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:40:17 PM EST
    but I don't criticize over-the-top reactions when I agree with them!

    [ Parent ]
    I found it hilarious (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:38:08 PM EST
    Carville was laughing at him.

    [ Parent ]
    Carville (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:45:23 PM EST
    was having far too much fun after Hillary's wonderful speech.

    [ Parent ]
    Carville (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:45:46 AM EST
    was delighted in watching the biggest losers of the evening, the media.  He knew they had done everything possible to create the scenario of a big concession speech from Hillary tonight.  It was the media's night that Hillary spoiled more than anything.

    [ Parent ]
    He really came out of the closet (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:42:16 PM EST
    on the Clintons-- his exact phrase was "deranged narcissists."  Even Gergen flinched.

    [ Parent ]
    He actually said (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:44:00 PM EST
    "deranged narcissists"?

    Can that be true?

    [ Parent ]

    It was a discussion about how... (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:47:08 PM EST
    ...Hillary had made tonight about her. Some other pundit was making some point when Toobin said, basically, "in what world is tonight about her except in the Clinton's deranged narcissism." In my opinion he was really reacting to the other pundit's novelization of tonight's events, but good God he screwed up.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:44:32 PM EST
    That's when I reached for the remote.

    I don't need to take abuse from my Television!

    [ Parent ]

    but it was great (5.00 / 14) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:46:10 PM EST
    It is the blogification of the news.

    We have succeeded in destroying the Media - they have become us.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? Isn't it the other way around? (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:48:00 PM EST
    They were idiots 5 years ago, while atrios, digby, JMM, et. al. shined. Today the top bloggers sound like Mrs. Greenspan on a bad day.

    [ Parent ]
    Hah! 10 points for that, BTD. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:49:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No, the leading lefty blogs (5.00 / 5) (#159)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:14:56 AM EST
    have become entranced by being media, too -- by wielding power but just as irresponsibly.  And thus, they have destroyed themselves.  

    And they have destroyed the vision of holding those in power accountable.  If those in power could have engineered it, they couldn't have done it better.

    And that ought to make you think about whether they did just that, using this candidate.  Let us not think that the Dems in power enjoyed the rising role of the blogs . . . not those who met Armando at DKos, anyway.  It was always Armando 1, Dem pol 0.

    Interestingly, of course, the right-wing blogs just keep rolling on, doing their unifying thing, while the lefty blogs divided the Dem party.  Hmm.

    [ Parent ]

    It was a terrible moment for Mr Toobin... (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:45:20 PM EST
    ...I flinched as well. The point he was making was not a point about the Clintons, but about some character in a novel the media was writing (Thanks Bob!). Toobin f'd up.

    [ Parent ]
    Their comments are exquisitely over the top (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:19:26 AM EST
    Due to scheduling I caught some of it warmed over. I thought my head would be exploding from the arrogance and smugness of Club Spite.

    PuffiHo just made me spit take my old biddy warm milk by rhyming off, as one of SenC's advantages, name recognition -- which she's been touting as a negative (a given being that she's "divisive".)

    Yep, no one ever heard of Obama before except for being shoved at people to the extent that he's actively repelling hard core Dems in droves to consider McCain.

    I swear, if I knew before that being a bitter clinging stupid unwanted b!tch was this much fun, I'd have joined this party long ago.

    In fact, I want it to be a political party now.

    [ Parent ]

    And what is HE doing for the country now? (none / 0) (#41)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:45:45 PM EST
    He used to be a public servant; now, he is a narcissistic blowhard.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeez. What has happened to Toobin? I have 2 of (none / 0) (#167)
    by Linda on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:16:52 AM EST
    his books - TOO CLOSE TO CALL and A VAST CONSPIRACY.
    He is a good writer. So now he's a jackass on CNN instead of a writer?  

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 12) (#5)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:36:31 PM EST
    Isn't that what I just posted?  Hillary gave a great speech and all the media could do was fly into a rage because she didn't follow their script.

    There was nothing bad about tonight for the Democratic Party.  In fact, it was amazingly good.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:37:39 PM EST
    she was defiant tonight.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:38:32 PM EST
    But was she defying Barack Obama?  I don't think so!

    [ Parent ]
    Wellll (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:40:22 PM EST
    Yeah, she was defying Barack Obama. Let's not play coy.

    [ Parent ]
    Wasn't he defying her?! After all, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:42:03 PM EST
    she has kickey his b*TT, and has the most popular votes!

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:43:17 PM EST
    I thought he should not have tried this big victory thing tonight.

    [ Parent ]
    I have hmmm...issues... with Obama's delivery. (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:47:47 PM EST
    He wants to emulate southern preachers in his oratorical style... to me it's a sham, a fake, a put-on.

    That's just me, apparently. But it grates on my nerves.

    When a southern preacher does it, it doesn't. It's believable, even expected. As it is, I have yet to be impressed with his oratorical style.

    Just my .02.

    [ Parent ]

    Stop With The Fake Preaching (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Athena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:52:58 PM EST
    I hear you.  It's more SNL than anything else.  If he wants to try preaching, I hear that there's a priest in Chicago losing his job.

    I can't listen to it.  Mute it immediately.  I'm going to have to program my TV to recognize the voiceprint and shut off.

    [ Parent ]

    Sermons (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:34:24 AM EST
    That is exactly how I've always viewed Obama's speeches, he's preaching.  It's very annoying.  If I wanted a sermon, I'd go to church.  In two days everyone forgets the sermon, no matter how rousing it was.  

    [ Parent ]
    Wow... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:53:12 PM EST
    get a new freelance gig and spend most of the time away from news and blogs...and this is what I came back to.

    I agree...a big "Victory" thing was not the thing to do tonight...he dropped more points on that one.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, tacky. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:53:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well she got the attention off him (5.00 / 7) (#115)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:02:27 AM EST
    didn't she.

    I felt bad for Lanny Davis.  I took a quick look and he was on.  He was sad at the way they were acting and he said 'isn't there any grace on this panel (and they show Jamal smirking) no one has anything nice to say, you are so negative (So Is She snarks Jamal).. Lanny said he gets incredible hate mail from the Obama supporters and Jamal was just smiling.  I had to change the channel.

    Arianna Huffington is up next.

    [ Parent ]

    Lanny is an effhead imo (none / 0) (#166)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:16:17 AM EST
    He is someone who hurts Clinton imo.

    [ Parent ]
    Last chance to be a gracious winner (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:20:07 AM EST
    and he blew it.

    Some people admire that as toughness but they are wrong, it's a sign of weakness.

    [ Parent ]

    I play a decent amount of poker (none / 0) (#222)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:34:04 AM EST
    and one of the cardinal rules at any level (I play the micro level, .10-.50) is that you are nice and gracious when you win, or when you find yourself on a run, or at a table with people with lower skills. the reason is simple.

    You can encourage them to keep playing and losing to you by being nice to them.

    Some high level political folks (and his followers) might need to learn this adage: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

    [ Parent ]

    She wasn't defying him, (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:44:23 PM EST
    she was putting him in his place. How many times since super tuesday, and before, did he put the screws on for her to resign. I think she earned her due and did it quite gracefully imo.

    [ Parent ]
    Personally, I think she knows... (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by cosbo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:18:53 AM EST
    that she has him by the balls and he knows it. Like she said, she has 18 million voters behind her, and he's wounded crossing the finish line. For some reason, just based on how the primaries have played out so far, I don't think it's over. I actually think, somehow, for some reason or other, she going's to end up the nominee. That's what actually fits the pattern of what has been started since Iowa. He wins. Then she wins.

    It would be fitting somehow, that they both got nominated after all that....

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:46:07 PM EST
    I really find it hard to see how she is in Obama's way at this point, despite what the infallible pundits say.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure she is (5.00 / 8) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:49:15 PM EST
    Obviously not as the nominee.

    But she wants something and she was saying I will support you ON MY TERMS.

    and the funny thing is what are they going to do to her?

    I used this line before "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

    What are they going to do to Clinton that they have not already done?

    [ Parent ]

    I choose to look at it this way (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:51:50 PM EST
    She took her fight to the media (and, ok, Obama)--on the issues that she cares about. While I wish she would have conceded, I though she framed her "what I want" portion very effectively.  

    [ Parent ]
    Here's where you and I... (2.00 / 0) (#88)
    by EddieInCA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:57:21 PM EST
    ...disagree.

    I think that if Obama is "forced" to take Hillary as his VP, even though he doesn't want it, it would show a lack of strength, and would immediately make him a lame duck, IMO.

    I am a fan of Senator Clinton, but I fear Republicans would coalesce around an "anti-Hillary" movement more than they would around a "Pro-McCain" movement.

    Something else... I give Senator Clinton a lot of credit for her campaign. And, fact, neither she nor Bill have lost an election since 1980. They're in uncharted waters. I can't imagine how much they're going through.  But nonetheless, as much as I respect the Clintons, I believe Obama will pick a VP pick that will surprise most people and fall outside the conventional wisdom.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:59:37 PM EST
    that is his call to make now.

    I do not know if Clinton wants VP. I do know there is nothing anyone can do to her now.

    She is free from the dream of being the nominee so what can you  or anyone do to her?

    [ Parent ]

    She's in a powerful position, actually. (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:09:05 AM EST
    You want unity? Show me healthcare plans.

    you want my women's outreach team, show me the list of SC nominees.

    You want my voters? show me and them the respect we deserve.

    A defeated candidate who controls something near 18 million dedicated voters. Even removing 20 percent, this is a big chunk of votes!

    I wonder if the Hillary bloc will be a new bloc for the new 'coalition.'

    [ Parent ]

    Well... I can't do anything, obviously... (2.00 / 0) (#132)
    by EddieInCA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:06:39 AM EST
    ... nor do I want to.  I think the Clinton's have been/are great public servants.

    However, they're also very brilliant people who care about history.

    They're both smart enough to know that history may judge them harshly, fairly, or positively depending on their actions over the next two months.

    So, no... I can't do anything to them.  

    But they can certainly hurt their legacies with actions which are perceived to be the Clintons putting themselves above the party.  When you have a die hard, true-blue hardcore Senator Clinton Supporter like Tom Vilsack saying, publicly, "It's Over", it means a lot.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:15:22 AM EST
    Chris Matthews does not write history. None of these fools do.

    Please spare me that line.

    Nothing happening now will be remotely remembered in history.

    [ Parent ]

    I gotta tell ya (5.00 / 7) (#118)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:03:11 AM EST
    the GOP is going to get far more traction with a "keep this radical black man out of the White House" campaign than a "keep Hillary from becoming the VP" campaign.

    I realize Hillary Clinton is the exception to every rule, but there's only so much mileage you can get out of attacking the other side's VP.  It's not like Obama has no negatives and they'll be hunting for something to say.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by CST on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:09:15 AM EST
    No one attacks a V.P.  It's pointless.  Especially since I have a feeling the GOP is going after her supporters regardless if she is the V.P. or not.

    [ Parent ]
    does anyonre think Obama is not more reviled (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:13:58 AM EST
    than Hillary now among the GOP? Are people nuts?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is to be commended (none / 0) (#192)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:21:32 AM EST
    He forms the third leg of the trifecta: Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama. Boogymen for the GOP.

    [ Parent ]
    She deserves respect (none / 0) (#137)
    by Y Knot on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:08:54 AM EST
    From the Obama camp.  She ran a heck of a race, and she's got a lot of supporters behind her.  I don't think she's got the right to dictate terms to him, but she's got enough clout right now to get some concessions from him.

    But I think she needs to strike fast.  That influence is going to wane with time.  He'll get more super delegates, and everyone will treat him as the nominee, and while many people who voted for Clinton will stick with her, I think most will start to support him (as they should, he's going to be the nominee).

    Maybe I'm off the mark, but I suspect whatever leverage she has, she's going to use, and soon.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually... (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:27:06 AM EST
    She ran a heck of a race, and she's got a lot of supporters behind her.

    By pop vote counts, she has more supporters than he does. And if exit polls were correct more of her supporters are actual Dems.

    Don't disagree with your other points, though, except that she needs to go to Denver and put them all on record as being responsible for losing an election that should have been ours to breeze through.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually supers could hold out on him (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:28:19 AM EST
    if he stalls on offering her the v.p. spot. It's possible.

    Tonight was maybe the second or third time this season I've heard him give her credit for a few things. I can understand waiting a week to see if he means it.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay, BTD, I gotta give it to a guy (none / 0) (#229)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:37:47 AM EST
    who quotes the best song ever.  But here's the test: are you thinking Janis Joplin or Kris Kristofferson?

    [ Parent ]
    Everybody expected her to (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:50:10 PM EST
    concede tonight. By not conceding, she stole "his" moment imo w/o being critical. She has always been in his way...she is his thorn, but I think he needs her!

    [ Parent ]
    She inspired her supporters (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:53:12 PM EST
    and held onto to those 18 million votes.

    I sort of doubt she will really take it to the convention, but if she did, she set the ground tonight to take a huge chunk of those 18 million with her.

    Had she conceded, or even hinted at conceding, I can see a lot of Democrats, so used to losing and voting for the hold-your-nose-guy resignedly switching over.  Maybe leaking over would be a better way to put it.  Just like the SDs leaked over to BO from the very first time he declared himself the winner.  (disclaimer:  I would have been depressed but not enough to defect to him).

    I also don't think she's really after the VP spot but if she is I do not see any way that he can get out of offering it to her, not after tonight.  His position vis-a-vis McCain is precarious enough, that would definitely sink him.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course and she should (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:00:32 AM EST
    he and his movement are not the party.  She has to fight for the party since the SDs are fighting for their personal interests.  It's that simple.  18 million and what is it not more than 100 pledged delegates?  C'mon.  He does not get uber super DNC powers.  He has to be clipped.  

    [ Parent ]
    Wait.... (2.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Y Knot on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:13:40 AM EST
    Why is he and his movement not the party?

    I'd say he has at least a good a claim to saying that as saying she and her movement are the party.


    [ Parent ]

    You missed the point (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:20:00 AM EST
    No one says Clinton and her supporters "are the party." We're half the party, at least, and that's why we resent being thrown under the bus (or purged, take your pick).

    It's just the Obama folks who think he and his movement are the whole party.

    [ Parent ]

    I am the party (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by ap in avl on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:22:32 AM EST
    Hillary is working for me (and my fellow citizens).

    [ Parent ]
    I think she was. (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:52:34 PM EST
    I think she was saying look, you want my voters, you probably need me on the ticket.  And, not because of her own personal ambition, but because it's largely true.  Not for all her supporters but for enough of them.

    [ Parent ]
    Why is this (none / 0) (#172)
    by Y Knot on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:17:51 AM EST
    Not for her personal ambition?

    And just to be clea