How Would Nominee Clinton Have Treated Obama?

On Morning Joe, Chuck Todd said that the "feeling in Chicago," presumably referring to the Obama campaign, is that Hillary Clinton is seeking treatment that she would never have given Barack Obama had the roles been reversed. If they REALLY believe that, then they are fools. If Hillary Clinton were the nominee, Barack Obama would have been the vice presidential nominee a month ago. I can not believe Todd is passing on this foolishness.

Todd said something else that is quite foolish - that the last few days have given Obama the "high ground" in how he treats the Clinton camp now. The high ground? Is Todd crazy? Suppose that were true, how in the hell does "having the high ground" help Barack Obama with Clinton supporters? How does it help him win in November? Or is that NOT the goal?

More . . .

By contrast, David Axelrod handled the situation beautifully. He attacked the Media for trying to cause trouble where none existed. He strongly defended Bill Clinton and accused the ABC reporter Kate Snow of trying to pick at the scabs of the primary battles.

Axelrod mentioned the joint statement issued by the Obama and Clinton camps:

"We are working together to make sure the fall campaign and the convention are a success. At the Democratic Convention, we will ensure that the voices of everyone who participated in this historic process are respected and our party will be fully unified heading into the November election."

That has to be the message from the Obama camp. They WON. They need to be thinking about winning in November, not scoring points against the Clintons.

I do not know what part of the Obama camp Todd is talking to, but whoever it is is as dumb as a bag of hammers. Axelrod may want to find out who Todd is talking to and get them under control because right now they are doing some good work -- for McCain.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Federal Judge Upholds Denver Convention Protest Zone | Protesters Make Denver an Offer >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Chuck Todd (5.00 / 17) (#2)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:38:20 AM EST
    has the air of someone who has been chosen to enjoy good access to the Obama campaign.  In recent weeks, the campaign has apparently been "disciplining" the press, allowing good access to those who report favorably and making it more difficult for those who don't.  Todd, it seems to me, is behaving properly in order to maintain his privilege.  

    It all sounds very familiar.

    While I understand that dealing with the fickle and unfair media is something that requires a good strategy, I also want to hear fair reporting on both sides of the story.  I don't want a media who is afraid to report the real news or offend the campaign (or administration) who has the most power.  It just reminds me too much of the years of biased reporting on the Bush administration -- and in the end, it's not good for anyone involved.

    Anyway, it's pretty clear that no matter what the Clintons do, they'll never get a fair deal with the press.  There will be a ton of faux  justification for why Hillary isn't the VP candidate.  And the media loves a controversy.

    this is BAD press for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:42:52 AM EST
    Maybe it's bad press to you (5.00 / 17) (#49)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:55:41 AM EST
    but to many (most?) MSNBC viewers, it's what they want to hear.  And it's absolutely typical of the kind of "analysis" we got during the primaries about Hillary Clinton.  Todd was painting her as unreasonable, undeserving, hypocritical, etc.  It's the same kind of projection the Obama camp and the media has done for all of 2008 so far (at least).  It's simply another manufactured justification for treating her like crap and not giving her the VP slot even though she got the same amount of popular votes as the vaunted nominee.  

    Whether or not it's bad press is subjective, I guess.   I will agree that it is manipulative press.  Todd said this stuff for a reason.  And, big surprise, Axelrod goes on and praises the Clintons, so it looks like the campaign is taking the high road.  They've been doing this for their entire campaign.  One group does the dirty work and another, closer to the campaign or the nominee himself, says the right things.


    "manipulative press" (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:14:42 AM EST
    try this headline from Karen Tumulty in TIME:

    Have the Clintons Gotten Over It?


    Ugh!! (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Andy08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:33:18 AM EST
    Keep insulting the Clintons and her 18mill. supporters: these "reporters" are pathetic ....

    Reminder (none / 0) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:51:44 AM EST
    Reporters don't write the headlines, second-level editors do, oftentimes copy editors.

    what I read (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:01:49 AM EST
    of it was a bit better than the headline.

    But then, she's an idiot, not unlike Gloria (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:39:11 AM EST

    Very sharp (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Andy08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:30:37 AM EST
    comment joanneleon. I agree with you 100%.

    sounds to me like a misguided campaign (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:52:00 AM EST
    at best. sure this reporter may be doing what the campaign wants but in the long run it is not good for them. as if they care!

    "Dumb as a bag of hammers." (none / 0) (#67)
    by Shainzona on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:14:24 AM EST
    Couldn't agree with you more, BTD.

    Wonderful analogy.  Thanks.


    Yes, this sort of thing could really (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:34:04 AM EST
    blow up in his face in the long run and politics is a long run.

    I think your second part is spot on. (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:49:57 AM EST
    The media loves their dirty laundry.  They've been pushing the "do anything to win" narrative from way back.  Given their history of jumping onto a promising scandal without bothering to fact check, it's not surprising that they'll repeat gossip as fact.  

    This tendency is a double edged sword.  While the Clintons are the current favorite media punching bag, that could change at any moment.  Sometimes I think Clinton bashing is a way to keep interest in the election without attacking either candidate.  Argh.  


    This should be (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:21:28 AM EST
    a continued reminder that people had better be skeptical of media talking points.  I know it's easy to fall into the trap when the talking heads Andrea sing the praises of your favorite son or daughter, but like poor Charlie Brown, every time you think victory is in the bag, Lucy will pull that football away, and you'll end up flat on your back.

    Every. Single. Time.

    Someone here yesterday wrote that Pat Buchanan secretly liked Obama, because he was saying something favorable about him.  Oh, brother.


    Buchanan opposed the Iraq (none / 0) (#202)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    invasion and dosnt give much slack to those who hide behind the "bad intelligence" (of their supporters) excuse; plus, he's got a populist streak (albeit of the rw variety), so it's not that much of a stretch.

    Who is Todd talking to? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by coolit on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:49:12 AM EST
    Donna Brazile.

    There have been a number of articles chronicling her relationship with Karl Rove.   As BTD states, the Obama campaign has a lot of similarities to what we have been witnessing for the past 8 years.  

    I know how much she wants to win, but the Republican brand has taken such a hit in the past few years that it now has the potential to fade into the background forever.  Is that what Brazile wants to happen to the Dems?


    BTD never stated any such thing (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:06:26 AM EST
    Shouldn't these supposed journalists (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:41:30 AM EST
    be focusing on obama and McCain since so many think or wish Hillary was out of the picture?  The hard facts are, you have to take these people with an entire block of salt.  They are not to be trusted.

    allowing good access to those who report favorably (4.83 / 6) (#28)
    by TruthSayer on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:25:31 AM EST
    Wow talk about Bush III. And people say McCain will be Bush III?

    Obama being the egotistic control freak that he is has got to be loving the way Bush set the table for him should he be elected. A complaint press; total message control; signing statements; Unitary Executive, etc, etc.

    Bush III indeed.


    Don't forget FISA, (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:20:53 AM EST
    enabled by the leading candidate for nomination.

    That'll come in handy to keep track of one's political enemies a la Nixon.  

    Who ARE those 18 million people, anyway?  Inquiring minds may want to know.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:13:23 AM EST
    Talk about Bush III...or, y'know, EVERY high level politician.  If you don't think that [insert your favorite politician here] grants more access to reporters who give favorable press, you must believe in Santa Claus.
    The press is looking for anything silly or scandalous, especially when it comes to the Clintons.  People who are good at this kind of thing will be able to find someone to say something stupid and then they'll run with it.  They'd already created this "Where's Hillary, where's Bill?  Why aren't they campaigning for Obama?" story way before I saw any supporting quotes from anyone in or around the campaign.
    It feeds into their stupid "entitlement" narrative.  'Member that one?

    No one would turn (none / 0) (#152)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:14:00 AM EST
    No politician would turn away from what Bush and company have done.  Seems the parties are blending in to one as everyone races for the middle and the govt separation of powers are weakened.  One party, one branch.  I'm Nader! gack!  Still no one would give up the power.  Has nothing to do with Obama.

    Even (none / 0) (#167)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:22:25 AM EST
    Nader grants more access to favorable reporters.  And gets famously prickly with the not so favorable.

    Nadar (none / 0) (#187)
    by Roz on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:36:13 AM EST
    Even Nader?

    Yeah (none / 0) (#194)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    I was trying to reply to a commenter directly above me who mentioned Nader.  Thus, Even Nader.

    Axelrod was on it! (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:41:05 AM EST
    I have to give him credit.

    So the question is WHO is pushing these constant CDS narratives?  And WTH doesn't the Obama campaign tell them to sit down and shut up already?

    To borrow from another commenter - Why? Why? Why?
    Do they need the Republican wing of the Democratic party that badly?

    I wonder (5.00 / 13) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:49:21 AM EST
    why Axelrod hasn't come down on Obama's supporters too. It's not only the press that's the problem. His supporters are a big turnoff.

    Let's see. (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:00:30 AM EST
    After Superlative Tuesday, the anti-Clinton narratives really took off.  So this phenomena has been going full steam for three primary months and even two months after the primary, it's still a popular refrain.

    Obviously, they haven't considered it a problem for over five months.  Why do anything now?

    (The cynical answer is: The polls.)


    The non-cynical answer is (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:26:37 AM EST

    Axelrod is no fool.  He's a talented and experienced operator and he knows the Clintons well.

    He may be setting the stage for, or keeping the door open for, reconsideration of Hillary as running mate...as well as smoothing/cooling the overheated waters unitywise within the factions of the party.


    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:48:03 AM EST
    In the last few days, a few things have happened that make me believe we shouldn't completely count her out yet as the VP choice.  I have resisted thinking this way, because I think it may just be manipulation in order to keep down any discontent prior to the convention.  And I really think the Obama campaign strongly does not want to do it.  But I wonder.  I think there is a lot of anxiety in the Obama campaign right now, and a lot of things going on in the background in the party.

    I've been going back and forth in my mind about it for the last day or two, and even wrote a diary about it but didn't publish it yet, and may not, I can't decide.


    Yesterday, Obama said (none / 0) (#154)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:15:12 AM EST
    he desperately needed Hillary and Bill campaigning for him.
    Anyone see a clip of that on TV?

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:20:11 AM EST
    He does.

    I agree (none / 0) (#158)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:18:47 AM EST
    I don't think we should count her out as a VP choice.  I've seen several stories pushed by the BO campaign that he may choose someone out of left field.  Plus...I don't know if there's anyone McCain could pick to beat that ticket.  His only hope would be that racial hatred/sexism trumps absolutely everything else.

    Good point. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:01:17 AM EST
    He ought to be over at DailyKos and some of the other nasty blogs and give them some pointers on how to win friends and influence people.

    Obama has officially (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:08:57 AM EST
    "grown beyond" the netroots.  Even sending a surrogate there would be an admission of their relevance.

    Obama is risk-averse.  That's his defining characteristic to me.  Every time I think about whether Obama will do something, I just measure the risk involved.  High risk?  Forget it.  Acknowledging the "far left" bloggers?  Might be used to to paint him as beholden to "radical" special interests.  No way.


    Be kind - (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:30:51 AM EST
    what is "CDS"?  Yes - this is what happens when the candidate pushes him/herself and a theme of the person, rather than the party and issues.  

    My nonpolitical friends are beginning to see this -

    As a lifelong democrat - I am sad about this.  I understand that the young must push and we must resist - and at the end we come out with something good.  However, I do not remember the cruelty and smugness so blatantly celebrated.  Of course, it is the electronic age - we are not as comfortable with it, and I still believe in manners.  As well, my generation comes from a different heroic outlook.  In a literary sense, we are not Achillian, we are of Hektor's tribe.

    I don't like being marginalized - called deadender, low information - I am having a hard enough time dealing with the normal aging process.  This doesn't look good to me at all.


    CDS (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:39:24 AM EST
    Clinton Derangement Syndrome - a well-known and widespread psychological procliviy/behavior which blames the Clintons for every problem.

    What is CDS? (4.00 / 3) (#123)
    by liberalone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:53:32 AM EST
    The nastiness runs both ways. So far Obama supporters are stupid, kool aid drinkers, Obamacans, Obamabots, cultists,sexists, misogynists, and list continues.

    Many Democrats have tried to heal the divide and rebuild party unity.  With so many accusations continuing well after the primary, I am not certain how the party will come out of this.


    You won (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:32:27 AM EST
    it doesn't matter if the nastiness went both ways in the least.  Not at all.  YOU won!!!!  You have the responsibility to get the other voters on board.

    Voters are disgusted with BOTH parties.  The Dem Congressional rating is in SINGLE digits.  There was no guarantee the country was going Dem with this level of disgust.

    It made no sense to me originally, but now you are lucky you can still attack Clinton supporters for their nastiness as it looks like you will win without their votes.  I don't see the point.


    If Hillary isn't (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:42:25 AM EST
    on the ticket, I can tell you how the party will 'come out of this.'  I hope it's still acceptable to use the term "with a black eye."

    And limping.  Sombody's manhood will be in question.


    I look forward (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:58:42 AM EST
    to the time when we can retire those frames because they are no longer useful.

    Due to the social networks that promote and enable social bullying, those memes will probably be with us for a long time.  I'm beginning to see the value of social networks.  Get a critical mass and you can bully dissenters into silence.  

    I was also thinking of a study that showed that social networks can be used to encourage people to do things that they are initially reluctant to do.  Positive encouragement and feedback from other network users eggs the individual on to more and more daring acts.

    Terrorist acts were the subject of this particular study.  Something to ponder.


    I agree with your last sentence - (none / 0) (#134)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:03:21 AM EST
    completely.  Lots going on - female/AA - the new electronic constituency.  We're in uncharted territory.

    Well, the campaign may be putting (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:13:20 AM EST
    both themes out there.  Something for everyone -  

    Good cop/bad cop. (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:28:45 AM EST
    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by lambertstrether on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:47:06 AM EST
    Do they need the Republican wing of the Democratic party that badly?



    at the end of the day it may be all they have. (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:57:25 AM EST
    oh yeah, there is always the do nothing sit on their dufus democrats in congress who are more interested in their paychecks than our problems.

    This is (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:43:53 AM EST
    one of the big reasons Obama is not a shoo-in.  The media can help bring about a McCain victory by killing Obama with "kindness."

    The press (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by TruthSayer on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:31:37 AM EST
    was ALWAYS going to turn on Obama. Those who say he was the Golden Boy with the press and it would not end really missed the boat. It's obvious that the press and their corporate masters always chose the weak candidate they want to run against to pump up. And then when he has the nomination they dump on him.

    It has always been that way and always will be and  for anyone to have thought otherwise was naive.


    The Obama (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:52:10 AM EST
    campaign continually does good work for McCain. I've never seen another candidate hand out so many clubs to the opposition. Obama himself helps out McCain a lot too. Maybe Axelrod finally gets it but it seems that none of the rest do. His surrogates are some of the worst I've ever seen.

    Not to be too cynical (5.00 / 14) (#10)
    by ChrisO on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:57:38 AM EST
    but it is possible that Axelrod both knows and approves of the leaks to Todd. I wouldn't expect anything other than what he said publicly. He's certainly not going to diss Hillary. But that doesn't mean that he (or others in the campaign) aren't undermining her off the record. I'm sure they're not happy at being seen as being pushed around by the Clintons. Hence the "upper hand" quote.

    How does this help Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by standingup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:30:01 AM EST
    This is simply wasted press, focusing on a negative instead of on positives for Obama.  From the recent CBS poll:

    But whatever the issue, most voters don't think the candidates are paying enough attention to it. Seven in 10 voters say the candidates are not addressing the issue that matters to them enough.

    Obama has lost the last couple of weeks in the press with McCain's ad and the media's Clinton obsession.  It is the last thing his campaign needs right now.    


    They are trying to justify (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:07:34 AM EST
    why he won't choose her as the VP.

    This is something that many people will question and it will be a reflection on Obama all the way up to the election.  My guess is that the question will never really go away -- why didn't she get the VP slot?

    They have to paint the picture of Hillary Clinton as the repentant surrogate of Obama, who is undeserving of the VP slot, even though she received as many (or more) popular votes as he did.  It's a very fine line they have to walk here, because there are a lot of people who will be wondering what kind of person Obama is if he didn't choose her as a running mate.  After all, doesn't it make perfect sense to do that if they nearly split the dem vote right down the middle and they claim that they want to unify the party?

    They will have to use some sophisticated psychology to handle this whole thing.  I think Chuck Todd was showing us some of it this morning.


    It may not be good for the campaign (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Roz on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:11:51 AM EST
    but that doesn't mean Camp Obama doesn't want the press to continue dissing Hillary & Bill Clinton. That's where judgment and temperament come in. They can't seem to help themselves or perhaps they are not convinced the primary is actually over.

    Cf the recent crush here of Obama supporters ... (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:42:19 AM EST
    ... who despite what else is going on in election news are more bent on getting HRC voters to act more SURROGATE, as if in "losing" to Obama his supporters got their own little straw-women to push around.

    I don't understand the irrationality behind it, unless the nomination process was the end game and 18 million voters were supposed to explode along with Sen Clinton AKA the Clintons or something.

    My position is unchanged and not remarkably different from other undecideds: Obama still has to earn my support.

    Besides which, no one has a right to bully anyone about how s/he intends to use his or her franchise. No one has the right to stomp around complaining about how another person will or won't vote.

    Team Obama should commit this stuff to memory.


    change the subject and don't look behind (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:59:43 AM EST
    the curtain at the imperfect candidate. also the campaign might be frazzling around the edges with the strong headwinds(weather channel lingo) of the general election.

    This reminds me very (5.00 / 12) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:57:49 AM EST
    much of the RFK flap.

    Axelrod goes on a Sunday talk show (Steph?) to deny that he had anything to do with the RFK flap, then Steph shows him the memo his campaign had put out that day on the subject.

    Here, they want to convince at least some people that they're doing exactly what Clinton would have done (which is utter bullcrap) while pretending that isn't their stance at all.

    It's getting old, it's tiring and I'm completely sick of them and their childish, poisonous acts.  If you want to be stupid and nominate someone besides Clinton for VP, that's perfectly fine (even preferred by me).  But doing so while attacking her, while she's campaigning for Obama while he's vacationing in Hawaii is just despicable.



    Absolutely correct (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:30:40 AM EST
    This is the strategy of distraction that the Obama campaign has used whenever the press on his lack of substance on issues starts to get too much media time. He hasn't gotten much good press lately, so they have to manufacture something.

    The Clintons are great for Obama...love them or hate them, stories about either Clinton, good and bad will capture the attention the Obama campaign seeks.

    If not, then MSNBC is only pretending to favor Obama and they are running their own strategy to try and effect the outcome.


    Yep. (none / 0) (#100)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:36:40 AM EST
    This is the strategy of distraction that the Obama campaign has used whenever the press on his lack of substance on issues starts to get too much media time. He hasn't gotten much good press lately, so they have to manufacture something.

    And here's another example.  Poor Obama is just trying to run a positive campaign.  It's the "new politics", doncha know.


    I've said it before, I'll say it again...obama (none / 0) (#196)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:50:16 AM EST
    and his camp are so reminiscent of gwb.  It's a bit frightening...look at the shiny object over there, don't look at all my missteps!

    exactly, i saw a poll yesterday that (none / 0) (#129)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:00:24 AM EST
    the public is tired of hearing about obama.

    Hmmmm.... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:11:59 AM EST
    probably because most everything they hear ends up being disputed or retracted.

    Once people reach a point where they are aware they cannot believe a word that comes from a particular source, they stop listening completely.

    MSNBC, I've heard, is way down in ratings. A comment about either Clinton, will at least generate hits on their web videos.

    Resist. The. Temptation.


    true and folks also get tired of (none / 0) (#172)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:26:35 AM EST
    hearing the same stories over and over. it just gets boring. everything said or done is called racist. take a look at the dinner table and all the guests are asleep while the gabby guest keeps talking.

    I don't know who said that (none / 0) (#188)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:37:52 AM EST
    but MSNBC really isn't down much in the ratings.  

    TVNewser carries daily ratings.  Olbermann is doing fine.  The rest of the MSNBC lineup is suffering summer and end of primary season lows, but they're pretty much unchanged in overall ratings.


    agree (4.93 / 15) (#24)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:20:22 AM EST
    why would post-primary actions be any different than primary actions?  The Obama campaign operated in just this same way during the primaries.  Put info out there by surrogate or even official campaign member or leak.  Then the "official" denial comes out after they get the result they want.

    They did that all the time.  

    The campaign memo sent to the press about racial statements in SC.  It was blamed on a low-level state campaign worker.

    The "leak" to te NYT by an unnamed campaign source about the Faith Based Initiatives.

    The initial reaction to the press about the RFK assasination comment.

    There are many examples.  And of course at the end comes the final "Obama never said that" excuse.


    I agree too. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by dk on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:29:27 AM EST
    Look, a sizeable portion of Obama's base hates Hillary.  That is what put him over the top in the primary.  Obviously none of us know how much the Hillary hate is actually shared by Obama and his inner circle (though, given the misogyny they were complicit in during the primary, there is at least a subconscious hatred there).  But regardless, he has to feed his base, and this is his tried and true strategy for doing so.

    Of course, the base want more than words, just like the rest of us, and this is, of course, one of the reasons why he can't pick Hillary as VP.


    It would be a great (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:42:09 AM EST
    test of the Obama base's commitment, wouldn't it.  He chooses Hillary and tells them to "suck it up and just get over it!"

    Sound familiar?


    then threaten them (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:05:32 AM EST
    with the supreme court too.....

    If the shoe was on the other foot and (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:52:37 AM EST
    Hillary had been crowned the queen of the dems, instead of obama, my guess is she would have already announced him as the VP and she would be up 20+ points on McCain.

    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:12:22 AM EST
    His supporters hating Hillary "...is what put him over the top in the primary" ???

    I'm not sure how sizable a portion of Obama supporters hate Hillary. My sense is that, as with the Obama haters, it is a surprising small, but extremely vocal minority.

    In any case, it was Obama's very effective campaign which successfully promoted him as an alternative to "Old" Washington, his positions on the issues and his energizing of strategic voting blocs that won for him. Not some zealots burning with Clinton animosity marching to the polls.


    nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:19:15 AM EST
    what put Obama over the top is the fact that he got 90% of the black vote.

    Go back through the results and see what it would have been if the black vote had gone 50/50 or even 60/40 for Obama.

    Don't just look at the states where Obama won.  The states Clinton won, she would have won bigger and gotten many more delegates.  States that were close like Missouri, she would have won.

    And, remember the strange way dems allocate delagates to districts based on history.  The districts with heavy black populations were given more delegates.  So that advantage to Obama would have been null as well.

    States in the south would have been very close, or she would have won them

    etc, etc, etc

    She may have stated it "inartfully", but that is the point Ferraro was trying to make.


    Well, obviously a (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by dk on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:28:16 AM EST
    critical segment of Obama's electoral support was the black vote.  However, I seem to recall that polling consistently showed that majorities of black voters had positive views of BOTH Obama and Hillary.

    So, I think we had an unusual situation in which that critical segment of Obama's support was not the "base" of his support.  In my mind, it really is the anti-Hillary segment of Obama's support that is his base.  I.e., those who support Obama no matter what, and would never vote for the other wing (the Clinton wing) of the Democratic party.


    What I Suggested (5.00 / 0) (#179)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:29:43 AM EST
    "...energizing of strategic voting blocs..."

    Look, I wrote an affirmative analysis of what I saw as enabling his win. It was in response to a comment that his supporters overwhelming Clinton hatred was what did it. But I could also have included other factors people here often cite (which I disagree with) like the actions of the DNC re Michigan and Florida, or the 'unfairness' of the caucuses.

    I was responding narrowly to a specific comment I think is hogwash.

    As for Ferraro...?


    ferraro said (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:52:21 AM EST
    he was winning because he is black.  She said you couldn't attribute his lead in the primaries to his "experience" or to his "policy positions", which was completely true.

    Despite the support he had from the "youth" vote or the anti-war vote or the "hope / change" vote, Clinton still would have won if Obama hadn't gotten 85+% of the black vote.

    As far as MI and FL go. I don't think those would have mattered either.  Many think that MI and FL were singled out for punishment because they were states the DNC knew would go to Clinton.  I don't buy that conspiracy theory.  Leave those states out of the mix and Clinton still would have won.  Add them back in at half or full strength, and she would have won by more.


    Then he's really in trouble (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:24:18 AM EST
    if that "strategic voting bloc" base of his is sufficiently attentive and objective to see that he's not an alternative at all and that his switch on issues have made "'Old' Washington" very happy.

    "Old" Dems, not so much.  So if you're correct in your assessment of it all, then it will be 1972 again.  Or did you intend to make a positive prediction?!


    All you need is a vocal minority (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by dk on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:24:28 AM EST
    of voters to put someone over the top.  That's what "putting over the top" means.

    Being the "anti-Obama" was never one of Hillary's campaign themes.  But being the "anti-Hillary" certainly was one of Obama's themes.  


    You Need A Majority Going to the Polls To Win (none / 0) (#182)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:32:27 AM EST
    Why on earth would Hillary, the brand name in the race, run as the anti Obama?

    That's the role of the newcomer carving out a recognizable stake for him/herself in a campaign.


    Who's disagreeing with that? (none / 0) (#203)
    by dk on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:55:24 AM EST
    I said that Obama ran as the anti-Hillary, and that anti-Hillary voters are his base.  

    If that were true, that the Clinton haters (4.00 / 3) (#173)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:26:40 AM EST
    were such a small minority and of an opinion not shared by the campaign staff, then the Obama campaign would be doing everything possible now to stamp that cr*p out, because it only hurts them.

    But they're not.  They've played the Clinton-hate game themselves for months, encouraging disrespect and rewriting history to condemn Bill's legacy, and done nothing but squeal 'no fair' when one of the Clinton's dare hit back.  Go listen to any of JJJ's hateful riffs on Clinton and then try to make a case it's not coming from the campaign itself.

    Obama didn't win by much, even if you take his count on the popular vote + a handful of SDs.  So it sure doesn't take many to 'put him over the top'.  From the absolute permeation of the internet and the MSM with CDS, it's pretty clear that the number of hate-spewing bloviators is anything but an insignificant number.


    Truthfully (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:42:19 AM EST
    I can't speak for the campaign surrogates. I was speaking street level on the ground supporters like me.

    I got pretty hot under the collar at times during the primary season toward Clinton and her surrogates, and even felt at times like I could NEVER accept her as VP. That passed, and I could get behind it now. And I'm pretty sure if she had pulled it out somehow and gotten the higher delegate total, I would have resigned myself to an Obama loss and tried to work for her. Certainly would have been voting for her.

    Polling during the primaries that asked Obama supporters if they could support her as president generally showed a majority of them could/would. The Clinton supporter side was another story, wasn't it? It seemed to me that that was a dominant media meme: that his supporters could support her as Prez and hers more often could/would not.


    I can't speak for everyone (5.00 / 4) (#204)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    but my reasoning for disliking Obama had to do with the racism charges, the bringing out of Whitewater, ec.

    The racism charge was ridiculous and despicable.  The Whitewater charge was Republicanism that I never thought I'd see in Democrats.

    The end result is had I thought Obama was a strong candidate (I don't) I'd never have voted for him anyway.

    You can't run a primary like you're running it against Republicans.  You just can't and expect people to come around afterward.


    Wasn't it Obama (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by sj on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:58:47 AM EST
    who opined that he thought HRC supporters would vote for him in the end, but he didn't think his supporters would vote for her?

    I looked for a citation but all the many results I got back were about speculation from everybody BUT Obama OR Clinton.


    Grace...just the opposite (none / 0) (#208)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:00:20 AM EST
    from Obama, if you remember...he was sure to get her voters but not so sure that she would get his.

    I don't recall a dominat media theme in that regard.

    The thing to remember is that while this was a Democratic primary, not everyone who supported Obama and Clinton were/are, in fact, Democrats...so a significant number drawn to one candidate or the other this time were 'candidate specific' supporters for various reasons - and still are, not willing to support the nominee.

    That is why BTD's "dream ticket" is so vital to healing and unifying the party.  If not, NOT.

    I hated '68, '72, '76, '80...and I hate this year's Democratic Party.

    Depressing.  The constant redefinition of the party's route to nomination, enshrining diversity by undemocratic and manipulative means, has finally led to this:  a party divided by diversity, spicely enhanced by sexism and racism.

    Back to the smokefilled rooms, I say.  At least then we had candidates who actually, you know, won.


    Eek! (none / 0) (#176)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:27:26 AM EST
    Pls excuse my misplaced apostrophe above.  I'm so embarrassed.

    I'm Guilty Too (none / 0) (#184)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:34:53 AM EST
    in #179 with 'supporters overwhelming".

    What kills me is I saw it in the preview and meant to fix it and then...didn't. (sigh)


    Imagine just for a moment (5.00 / 19) (#11)
    by frankly0 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:58:03 AM EST
    what it will be like if this crowd actually sees its man win in November.

    If they can't bring themselves to reach out to constituencies like the Clinton voters when they actually need their votes, what will it be like when they perceive that they are no longer useful at all?

    And of course this is a trait that starts at the top. If Obama wished to stop this sort of nonsense, he could do it in a trice. A few stern messages, delivered with obvious sincerity, would do the trick entirely.

    One of the things that I find scariest about the prospect of an Obama Presidency is how far he deviates from the standard politician in his motivation to reach out to and please constituencies. He seems to set himself above his constituencies entirely, as if he is some kind of visionary guru who can see right when his constituencies can't. He has already turned his back on his progressive support. I have little doubt but that when the day comes that his AA support is no longer needed (or he so perceives it) he will turn his back on them. The most troubling aspect of what I see in him is that there appears to be only one "constituency" that he always seems to listen to: the group of people who sing his praises and attack viciously anyone who presumes to criticize him.

    Hillary -- along with Bill -- has always been a more standard politician in this respect. She seeks to build coalitions, and has, and communicates, basic respect for the diverse set of constituencies that is required to do so. She understands instinctively the importance of bringing into the fold people who may have had a problem with her. I simply can't imagine that she would not have reached out to Obama and his camp if she had won the nomination -- and likewise for Bill.

    The good thing about being tied to a set of constituencies is that it helps define how and where one leads. It brings a critical element of democracy and representation into one's decisions and policies.

    But Obama seems to be completely untethered to any constituencies apart from those who simply reinforce his own sense of himself. We've seen this already in Bush. It's not an admirable thing in a person, and it's a terrible thing in a political leader.

    It's unfortunate. (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:06:01 AM EST
    We've seen this already in Bush. It's not an admirable thing in a person, and it's a terrible thing in a political leader.

    I can't even believe that parallels are being made between Bush and Obama, and I don't agree with some of the more strident ones being made that focus on personality.  But certainly, there are aspects of his campaign that are very reminiscent of Bush's marketed presidency,  Extremely troublesome.

    I don't want to go through this again; I don't care what letter follows the name.


    Hillary, (5.00 / 11) (#16)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:06:09 AM EST
    even with another Democrat Presidential loss looming in the distance (and don't tell me she and Bill can't see the writing on the wall for Obama even if The One can't, or won't), is STILL building coalitions and strengthening her campaigning credentials.

    I wouldn't be surprised if she, and not BO, became THE Hot Ticket on the campaign trail for downticket Dems.  If SHE, and not BO, spent the rest of the campaign season strengthening alliances and impressing the he** out of people.  Unlike BO, Hillary doesn't burn those same bridges she'll need to cross in order to get to her goal.

    Hillary's the smart politician;  BO is still the amateur.  And it shows.


    The Key Difference (5.00 / 11) (#42)
    by The Maven on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:47:00 AM EST
    certainly seems to be that Hillary Clinton and her closest advisers and supporters want the Democrats to win in November, while the presumptive nominee's inner circle appears to want Barack Obama to win in November.  The former demonstrates a loyalty to the party, the latter, to an individual.

    a Bushian pettiness is apparent in Obama in (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by kempis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:06:26 AM EST
    The Audacity of Hope when he spends two pages talking about what an irritating idiot he thinks his vanquished opponent Alan Keyes is--and Obama had already beaten Keyes in the Senate election. I don't like Keyes either, but I thought it was unseemly and unnecessary for Obama to spend time in his book going nyah-nyah at him.

    I think about those two pages at times like this. And I think about Obama's pouty demeanor during the Texas debate, when he looked down and doodled and looked petulant throughout.

    I do think he lacks maturity sometimes and seems not to understand a basic rule of politics (and professionalism): you don't kick people gratuitously. If you win, be gracious and don't trash-talk your opponent (as he did Keyes in his book.) I worry about this quality in him--and I hope I'm reading too much into the evidence. Usually, people this petty are insecure and, consequently, defensive.

    Again, I'll vote for him over McCain and the GOP. But I'm sure unimpressed with the guy--moreso with each passing month.


    sense of himself? says hollow core to me. (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    sorry but that is the feeling i get.

    The goal is (5.00 / 10) (#14)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:03:55 AM EST
    to create a new Democratic Party and toss out the deadenders and low information voters - to me that's code for working class and seniors.  Note please that these are the citizens who often need the most government intervention.

    It's dangerous to my mind.  The move to Chicago and his consistent Obamafests (not Democratic fests) to this eye looks like he wants to build a new party with himself as the founder.

    One problem:  Chicago politics.  That's real old politics.  Conflicting but I think he is conflicted.

    Conflicted? (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:50:47 AM EST
    I doubt it.

    Means to an end.  Whatever it takes.

    Nothing new about these politics.


    i saw a video yesterday where a member (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:05:50 AM EST
    of the press stopped a townhall meeting and insisted on a pledge of allegiance to the flag. after the meeting was over people gathered around and insisted he was rude to interrupt a presidential meeting. that just gave me shivers. the typical voter would identify with the man who wanted the pledge. that says long term disaster for democrats with the "new democratic party" bull.

    How would Clinton have treated Obama? (5.00 / 10) (#17)
    by Angel on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:06:27 AM EST
    With respect and dignity, because that's the kind of person she is.  She would have let it be known immediately that he was her VP choice.  They would be ahead by at least 20 points in every poll today.  But unfortunately I believe that Obama truly believes that he is "The One."  I don't know what will happen in November, but I can tell you that if McCain wins, even squeaks by Obama, that Obama will probably never recover emotionally.  

    I'm Not So Sure (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by TruthSayer on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:43:14 AM EST
    Hillary would have chosen Obama as VP. If there was someone else who could have better strengthened her candidacy then she would have gone that route.

    But certainly Obama would have been on her short list and she would have treated him with dignity and respect - even after what he did to both her and Bill.


    Hillary said as much (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by kempis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:10:06 AM EST
    Remember when she said that the primaries were to determine the order of the ticket? Both she and Bill signaled strongly that Obama would be her running mate if she won. Obama and Michelle, on the other hand, were less than enthusiastic about even supporting Hillary if she were to win, much less including her on the ticket.

    Obama's campaign is making the grave mistake of (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by BronxFem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:48:48 AM EST
    running against Hillary as if they were still in the primary mode, and letting McCain gain much ground on him.  If this continues much longer, he will lose in November.

    Clinton may not have wanted to but (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by kimsaw on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:03:26 AM EST
    she's not stupid. She politically would have had no choice. Obama is getting a free ride from the press and the DNC on this score.  

    This all goes to Obama's judgment. If he can't bring the party together by working with Clinton as his VP, his leadership creds are in the toilet in my opinion.

    The "I need Clintons, I don't" is borderline schizophrenic. Obama seems an inflated ball of pride filled with platitudes and contradictions. Chuck Todd and those in the press of like persuasion just keep Obama rolling along.  


    in my view the so callled media might (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:07:28 AM EST
    just be rolling the campaign down the stairs and not up.

    you just may be right ;) ! (none / 0) (#160)
    by kimsaw on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:19:06 AM EST
    So basically they're making up (5.00 / 15) (#18)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:07:06 AM EST
    the way the IMAGINE Hillary would have acted. Funny because everything she said and did even DURING the primary was the exact opposite. SHE was the one calling for unity. SHE was the one that was all about a dream ticket. SHE was the one that said she'd support the Dem nominee no matter who it was.  Unbelievable.

    At least the American public seems to be not falling for it. For the last 20 years they've been told by idiots like Todd that the Clintons should be hated.  They refuse to listen and keep voting for them.  The press corps-- dumber than a box of hammers to be sure.  As they prop up Obama they do nothing but keep killing his odds.

    more surprisingly (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:20:28 AM EST
    even the Democratic Primary Voters ignored the constant cries for her to drop out in favor of The One and that she had no chance no how of ever winning this thing and, yet, they STILL voted for her and gave her astonishing wins when "the Polls" showed an Obama win only days before.

    I think this year more than any other will be the one when the American People take great pleasure in holding up a figurative -- and, in some cases I imagine, quite literal -- middle finger salute to the Pundits in the Media who may strongly believe they know the Beltway, but are pathetically clueless about what the Voters are thinking.

    As much as they sell Obama to us, nearly half (48% according to the new Pew Poll) are sick and tired of hearing about him.


    Well, it also gives credence (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:26:09 AM EST
    to what Republicans have always said about not trusting the media. This year they really have made their point for them.  They showed that they try to drive the narrative. And this time since it's a Democrat, it really does look like the media has a "liberal bias." Silly because it generally just has "a" bias. This time to the Dem.  But one specific Dem.  And it will turn off Americans to Democrats and the media (and their faux correlation) because of what we've seen with Obama this year.  This has created more and more independents, me included.

    Rachel Maddow (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by magisterludi on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:12:53 AM EST
    has also been unhelpful, lately. Ditto Roland Martin. That these two have been such ardent Obama supporters in the past ( and so anti-Clinton) now are openly criticizing Obama, at least from my observation, has me pondering.

    Bizarre. Criticism is not looked upon kindly. (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:16:16 AM EST
    I had a friend tell me the other day to vote for McCain simply because I dared bring up that Obama's campaign wanted the meme to be all his money came from small donors which of course is completely untrue.  You can no longer even question him without being accused of being a Republican. It's the weirdest thing I've ever seen. From "democrats" anyway.  I have only seen this with Bushies!

    W here DID all those Bushies go? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:31:12 AM EST
    Authoritarians are very predictable in certain things.  They love Strong Leaders.  When one leader disappoints them, they usually go straight to another Strong Leader.  They need strong leaders to to feel comfortable.  And if you've talked to one typical authoritarian, you've talked to them all.

    One of the most laughable authoritarian Bush memes is that Bush Himself is personally responsible for you not being killed by terrorists.  That's right.  You are alive today because of George W. Bush, POTUS.

    The best way to talk to an authoritarian is stick to the issues, and only the issues.  Do not talk about candidates, just. the. issues.  


    You Should Point Your Friend (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by The Maven on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:02:03 AM EST
    in the direction of this article from yesterday's New York Times, which is hardly unique of its genre of discussing the impact of Obama's big-money donors and, even more importantly, his giant bundlers.
    But records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more: a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama's Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries, raised in contributions of that size.

    Behind those larger donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama "bundlers," fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000 each, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers.
        --  --  --
    An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group, numbering roughly 130, with many of them working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses: nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs or Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real estate industry.

    As the article notes, quite a few of these large bundlers are lobbyists in all but name, especially those from the investment banking and hedge fund communities, all of which have trade associations with interests before the Executive Branch and Congress.

    But your friend probably doesn't want to hear this kind of stuff.


    I'm fine with criticizing candidates. (none / 0) (#85)
    by magisterludi on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:30:12 AM EST
    I do it all the time.

    My point is that they just began criticizing him, in some cases where they could BEFORE the primary decision. I don't think they did the bait-n-switch the media always does (in the end they generally become GOP shills), so I find their newly found voices curious only in their timing.


    Did you see Roland Martin's piece on CNN (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Angel on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:16:16 AM EST
    yesterday?  He attacked Bill Clinton.  And made Obama look like the victim.  Sheesh.  Roland Martin is an Obama apologist.  Just like Herbert at the NY Times.

    has anyone yet (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:47:24 AM EST
    asked Herbert to explain where he saw the leaning tower of pisa or the washington monument in McCain's "Celebrity" ad?

    One of mt pet peeves with the media is that they let someone say something that they know is all wrong, but they don't call them out on it or make them explain it.  I understand the media is supposed to present both sides of an issue.  But, when a person presents complete hogwash for one side, it should be confronted as what it is.


    Amen, Tim (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by kempis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:21:06 AM EST
    I was horrified in 04 when Blitzer and others would give air time to the Swiftboaters and their backers and never challenge their easily-debunked claims.

    This election, the media is adopting a more "hell yeah, we're biased" air--and the misinformation is flying even thicker.

    Adding to the list of "why don't they ask their colleague about this goofy claim" I'd like to include David Gergen's ridiculous claim that Obama was raised by a single mother and his story is so heart-warmingly "rags-to-riches" that it's incorrect to point out that he had an elite education and was raised by his mother and stepfather--and later his loving and well-off grandparents in Hawaii, who sent him to Hawaii's exclusive prep school and could afford to do so in large part because his grandmother was a bank vice president.

    But no. Gergen won't hear of that. He dismisses those facts as spin and holds up the rags-to-riches myth as fact. And as far as I know, no one contradicts him.

    It's really alarming how little interest the pundits and reporters have in telling the truth.


    I have yet to figure out (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:37:14 AM EST
    eactly when Obama lived with who and where in his childhood.

    If you listen to some of Obama's ads you would get the impression that he gew up dirt poor with his mother is some dusty small town in Kansas struggling to survive on food stamps.

    I hate the food stamp claim.  Because as far as I can figure out, Obama never lived with his mother while she was on food stamps.  And, he never struggled for a meal or anythign else while growing up


    don't worry (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:01:12 AM EST
    I'm sure it'll all become crystal clear in the Fall thanks to the GOP.

    Just one of the many straws that will break the voters' backs with regards to Obama on Election Day.


    history will vindicate Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:05:11 AM EST
    try 2012 and a stunning, no-doubt-about-it landslide win to become President of the United States.



    Say what? (3.00 / 8) (#56)
    by beachmom on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:03:44 AM EST
    To me they are just like their Clinton hating, elitist, so-called liberal co-workers in the media except with a bit more melanin.

    You need to listen to yourself more often.


    and from a purely strategic point of view (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:45:50 AM EST
    they are hurting Obama.  perhaps fatally IMO.

    To your point on this (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:05:41 AM EST
    Read the Howler from yesterday .  He does a great job of counting the ways they are hurting Obama.

    He was all over Obama (none / 0) (#103)
    by magisterludi on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:38:01 AM EST
    on vouchers the other day. Said O was wrong on the issue and McCain was right.

    I don't know when Roland started suffering from CDS, but that's all I've seen from him on CNN. Personally, i think it may have something to do with the Obama and Clinton teams working together to figure this mess out. Roland is just afraid his piece of the political power pie is getting smaller. IMO, of course.


    I haven't watched CNN or MSNBC (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by coolit on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:54:31 AM EST
    in months either.  It has been refreshing.  I don't want to sound like one of those republicans who only watch FOX NEWS, but it's just nice to not see that crap every day.  Life has gotten more mellow...

    Rachel Maddow is the one that hurts. I used (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by tigercourse on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:29:41 AM EST
    to love watching her run circles around Tucker Carlson. I'd known for awhile that Olberman has a propencity for blowharditis but Maddow came as a surprise.

    Maddow lost me (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:32:26 AM EST
    when she went ballistic on Clinton for the 3AM ad in Texas.  She was just irrational about it.

    she's the prefect test if an ad works (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:38:27 AM EST
    be seeing if she gets angry about it. That 3am was really dangerous, so the Obama camp went all out to derail it. You can watch the same anger at the McCain ads that are dangerous for Obama. She had one of her classic angry reactions to the empty celebrity ad and then Buchanan couldn't stop laughing and just said, from that reaction we can see the ad works.

    the last time i recall seeing Maddow (2.00 / 0) (#128)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:00:04 AM EST
    (and I used to respect and like her) was the night she, Buchanan and the other talkinh head were there together and Pat told the 3rd head to shut up.  Of course that's when the 3rd head actualy kept talking and talking and wouldn't let Pat get a word in.  I personally thought she needed to be told to shut-up.  But, afterwards Maddow acted all shocked and horrified and it was as if they all thought Pat had told the other woman to go get f-worded or something....

    I couldn't believe they were so outraged at the incident.  The woman needed to shut up and let someone else talk.....


    I think you need to ask yourself (4.25 / 4) (#54)
    by beachmom on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:00:42 AM EST
    why you like Fox News.  They gave you the tonic you wanted because they knew Hillary had lost the delegate count, and therefore only served as a spoiler.  Why don't you get this?  Never, ever, ever trust Fox News.  They're not your friends.

    Hardly (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:22:04 AM EST
    Some of the worst misogyny came from Fox News.

    Just one example -- did you ever watch Bill Kristol on the subject of Hillary?  Did you watch his cohorts laugh and go along with him?

    They don't have your best interests at heart.  Maybe at times they seemed to support Clinton, but it certainly wasn't because they want her to win.  They did it either for ratings or to damage Obama.


    There was likely misogyny at Fox (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:28:04 AM EST
    But it wasn't any worse than Keith "I think a superdelegate should take her into a room and only HE comes out" Olbermann.

    None of the cable news is any less biased or any better than any of the other cable news.  Picking out Fox now, after the behavior during that primary is just ridiculous.

    I truly think Americans should be suspicious of any candidate or concept the media sells.  Right now two of the three cable networks are selling Obama, same ones that sold Bush and the Iraq War.  If that doesn't put your radar up, what does.


    I'm not defending MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:35:48 AM EST
    or CNN for that matter.  What they did, particularly MSNBC, was despicable.  But I disagree with the poster who was defending Fox.

    Wasn't the guy who said Hillary should be taken out behind a barn from Fox News?


    I assume you didn't watch Fox (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:45:31 AM EST
    On balance, they were more, um balanced.

    Like I said, there were a few bad actors, but they, versus the whole prime time lineup at MSNBC -- every single night of the week -- were much better.

    I don't like Fox.  I see their station as propaganda -- as I see all of the other cable networks as propaganda.

    But people who say, "listen to you, I can't believe you watch Fox" have a distorted sense of reality.  Someday it will be their candidate that is being viciously trashed by MSNBC or whichever, and they'll see it, even if they don't now.


    No, it was Olbermann (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:04:27 AM EST
    on MSNBC.

    Fox has absolutely been fairer and more objective in its coverage of the Democratic primaries than any of the other networks.  Embarassing, but it's a fact.


    Olbermann (none / 0) (#155)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:17:44 AM EST
    made a comment about sending Hillary into a room, and not coming out.  I'm pretty sure it was a Fox guy who made a comment about the barn, and then followed up by saying he was from a farming background or some such ridiculous comment.  Anyway, it was one of the worst examples, IMHO.

    I did watch Fox some of the time during the primaries and I know that they sometimes were more fair in their reporting.  Still, it doesn't sway me much in my overall opinion and trust of them.


    ha, not even close to MSNBC or Obame team (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:30:17 AM EST
    themselves. Nope, as really horrible as fox is, they were actually a zillion times better than MSNBC on that score. Which is really sad of course.

    Don't be so patronizing (5.00 / 11) (#105)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:38:33 AM EST
    We all know what Fox News is about.

    Nobama08 isn't arguing that FoxNews has suddenly become some sort of news-haven of objectivity.  He/she is saying, as have many of us this year, that compared to CNN and MSNBC's B*llsh*t for Obama, their one-sidedness is comparatively tolerable.  At least they are upfront about their Hillary-hate.

    And while Fox is never fair, they were this year, on the subject of the frontrunner Dem candidates, balanced; they hate Clinton and Obama equally.

    The point is that this is how bad MSNBC and CNN have become, that people (like me) who swore they would never spend a second watching Foxnews of all things, find it tolerable.  And easier on the blood pressure.


    It wasn't meant to be patronizing (none / 0) (#157)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:18:39 AM EST
    I was just expressing my opinion.  Apologies if it came out in a patronizing way.

    beachmom- I no longer watch MSNBC (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by kenosharick on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:26:49 AM EST
    either. CNN a bit. As for FOX- they were not in the bag for Clinton or Obama, and were (I cannot belive I am saying this), by far the most "fair and balanced" cable network during the primaries. That hurt a little. Of course I do not trut them, I trust NO MEDIA any longer.

    Not in the bag for Clinton or Obama (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:53:59 AM EST
    I think that's the key point. When it came to Obama v. Clinton, FOX didn't really have a horse in the race. I'm under absolutely no illusions that they would have remained as (relatively) impartial in the GE, no matter who the Democratic nominee was.

    Trusting FOX isn't really the point -- I don't trust them. And yes, there was misogyny... no point in denying it. But in a way, it was less distressing because I expected it from them. The ugliness coming from networks and commentators whom I had long thought to be responsible journalists was a surprise, and therefore much more painful.


    what FOX did (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:03:34 AM EST
    that I appreciated was to defend Clinton agains many of the false charges of race-baiting that were thrown against her.  They would point out logical explanations for why what was said was NOT race-baiting and why the charges of race-baiting were over the top.

    Now, I know they hasd their own sinister reasons for doing it.  Because, they will want to defend McCain against it in the general even if the repugs engage in ACTUAL racial politics.

    But, the Obama camp has effectively neutered much of the effectiveness of charginf "race card" by way over using it themselves anyway.


    Inoculations (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:18:54 AM EST
    "Now, I know they hasd their own sinister reasons for doing it.  Because, they will want to defend McCain against it in the general even if the repugs engage in ACTUAL racial politics."

    Yes. I'm really quite worried about this. It's pretty much what BTD was saying in his series of "fairy tale revisited" posts, that the primary has basically inoculated McCain against charges of racism (even if richly deserved) in the GE. FOX, by playing it straight in the primary, has established a track record which lends an appearance of legitimacy to their upcoming defense of McCain.

    My sense is that the Obama campaign played into their hands by being too focused on the Primary, and not thinking about a long-term strategy for the GE, but it doesn't  make me happy at all to see the end game looming. It's going to be a nail-biter of an election, when it really shouldn't have been.


    please, go back over the early (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:31:23 AM EST
    coberage of the primaries and you will see thah FOX was the only one that gave an accurate report of Bill Clinton's fairytale comment.  They played his entire statement up to the fairytale part to make it very CLEAR that Bill was NOT talking about the Obama candidacy at all.  Every other news show played on the final seconds of that clip and went right along with the meme that Clinton was somehow calling the Obama campaign a fairytale because he was black.

    Now, I fully understand that FOX didn't do this out ofthe goodness of their heart or because they are honest journalists.  But, at least they did it.  I know enough not to trust them and know what I'm getting when I tune into them.

    But, the same MUST be said about the others as well.  The others USED TO BE at least somewhat more fair and accurate.  Now, even they are no better than FOX.


    maybe you need to expand that (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:14:59 AM EST
    and ask yourself why you watch the media the lauds obama and disses hillary. THEY ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS.

    It's not that Fox is more trustworthy... (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by jeffhas on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:35:10 AM EST
    But you have to admit, at least they present the other side.

    MSNBC especially is a one-sided echo chamber.

    When was the last time KO had someone who DID NOT agree with him? (Ditto Maddow)... heck, even their own paid advisers know they'll get Millbanked if they don't tow the KO line on his show.

    There is no descent on MSNBC.  No other perspective.

    At least at FOX news you know exactly where THEY stand as a network, but they present the other side of the argument, and you can decide for yourself.

    I have to go take a shower... I feel a little dirty having to admit all this...


    At least a bag of hammers is useful. (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by wurman on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:28:58 AM EST
    And very likely worth every penny you pay for them.

    Chuck Todd & his media ilk are not useful.  Nor are they worth a plugged nickel.  Todd seems to be famous for exactly what . . . ?

    "How would nominee Clinton" treat Obama?

    Who knows?  Who cares?  Go away, stooooopid pundit.  If you're going to just make up the krapola, at least produce interesting or funny or philosophical questions.  Try these:

    How would pigs fly if they had wings?

    How would Chuck Todd make a living if he also had to make sense?

    Do you really believe that BTD (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:43:33 AM EST
    that there is some disconnect between axlrod and some other part of the Obama campaign?

    Seems to me, given that there is no real proof or examples given of the two wings of the party working together for victory in November, what you have is axlrod doing what he does pretty well: pushing a false message.

    It's the right message you're looking for.  The same way one would have liked to agree with a neocon pushing the message that bush wasn't going it alone...

    And I would submit that while it might be offensive to Clinton supporters to see no inclusiveness at all from the Obama folks, what might even be worse is an Obama person pretending that something existed where clearly it has not.


    Todd was once someone who could be (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:46:47 AM EST
    taken seriously.  he has been spouting lot on nonsense lately.  he has gotten no better than the rest of the NBC koolaid squad.

    I saw this and durn near choked on my coffee (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by The Realist on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:51:06 AM EST
    That'll teach me not to do stupid things like watching MSNBC and shaving at the same time.

    Todd has the temerity to suggest such nonsense after being completely wrong on his assessments this entire primary.He and Mika fail,famously, in any attempt to display objectivity.

    I don't think we are likely to see the Obama (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:57:02 AM EST
    campaign do much of anything to stop the worst of their supporters because I think they see this as a way to keep them energized.  

    To the Obama campaign, both Clintons are the gift that keeps on giving.  We saw how the Obama campaign made use of trumped-up charges of racism to their political advantage, and now that she is out of the race, the supporters, at least, continue to deride and attack in the hope that their vitriol will convince the powers-that-be that she is too toxic to be on the ticket.  Even as she has campaigned for him, every word she utters is parsed to reflect some hidden agenda, some secret plan to take over the convention and steal the nomination from Obama.

    By acting like those annoying yappy dogs that want to sink their teeth into one's ankles, they hurt Obama by negating Clinton's ability to reach voters, but I suspect someone in the campaign has done a risk-benefit analysis and decided that there is more benefit in allowing the negativity than there is in tamping it down - especially if their ultimate goal is to "re-make" the Democratic party in a way that does not include the contribution and influence of the Clintons - or those who support them.

    As for the "pundits," if you take out the letter "n" and rearrange the remaining letters, the word you are left with is "stupid."  That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

    obama loves that he has his followers (none / 0) (#209)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:08:29 AM EST
    to do his dirty work.  Why would he try to squelch their ugliness?

    When are they gonna get over it? (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:57:45 AM EST
    The CDS, that is.

    A campaign that keeps rerunning the primary -- as it clearly is leaking this "feeling" from Chicago -- is not focused on winning the election.  That is so obvious that I  can't see the "shoo-in" for the life of me.

    The name Clinton in a "news" story (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:53:09 AM EST
    draws the attention Obama seeks. It's his way of getting her supporters to listen, and his to revive their passionate support of him.

    This is how they "won" the primary, and they are still trying to figure out how to get through the GE. Besides, until the convention is over, Hillary still poses a threat to him being comfortable on the ballot. Of course, this insecurity is of his own making because he has handled his campaign so poorly.


    I don't believe (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:59:54 AM EST
    that the Country suffers from CDS like Obama and his minions in the Press.  In fact, I'd go even further and say that, based on what they saw during the debates and on the campaign trail, much of the Country thinks very highly of Hillary Clinton and would be very pleased if she were the Nominee.

    And the Obama camp knows this.

    In order for them to shore up what was, in essence, a very shoddy "win" -- and that's not even including the DNC dragging him across the finish line --, they feel the need to continue marginalizing and denigrating their opponent, Hillary.

    Problem is she's not the opponent anymore and the audience they believe they have for this type of discourse really doesn't exist outside of those already drinking the Kool-aid and weeping at every sight of The One.

    I wonder how different the campaign would look now if Obama put even 1/4 of the effort into destroying McCain that they still put into destroying Bill and Hillary.  We'll never know, I suspect, because trashing Hillary is still the red meat that feeds those still supporting him.

    The rest of the Country has moved on and still wondering just Who Obama is and What does he stand for?  And, so far, they're really not liking what they see.

    The discourse (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:26:06 AM EST
    I believe that the one question that is still being discussed by a lot of people in this country is:  Why didn't Obama choose Hillary as a running mate?

    I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say it.  They ask the question in a very matter of fact way.  Like:  Geez, why doesn't he just make her the VP?

    I agree that most of the inside the beltway type talk never goes on in the real world of this country, but the question about the VP choice does, and it will continue to be a question for a long, long time.


    and when he doesn't pick her (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:33:32 AM EST
    -- and I believe he won't as she would effortlessly upstage him and people would openly wonder if the ticket could somehow be flipped with her on top and him as VP --, his Poll numbers will take a hit because I suspect there is a solid majority of people who are fully EXPECTING him to pick her.

    Their present support of him is predicated by their assumption that she will be on the ticket.  When she isn't, they'll rethink voting for him as her experience and intelligence was the one saving grace of a President Obama.  And, in revisiting this decision, they'll find him greatly lacking and a poor substitute for what they could have had in Hillary.

    But he won't choose her.  There's too much trash talk under-the-bridge for the Republicans to seize on for them to do it now.  

    I, for one, believe Hillary is quite secretly relieved.  She'll get out there and campaign for Democrats -- and him, by association --, help the House and Senate keep and possibly extend their majorities and earn the sincere gratitude of a lot of very worried downticket Dems.

    All the better to stave off the worst effects of yet another Republican President being sworn in in 2009.


    not only (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:48:37 AM EST
    will the press be asking Obama to defend picking VP X over Clinton, they will spend at least a week doing comparisions between VP X and Hillary.

    And, don't you think the 1st question VP X will get from the press is why he/she is a better pick than Hillary?

    So, based on who VP X is and how well known VP X is, the first week when they need to be introducing VP X to the voters, they will instead be defending the selectio of VP X over Clinton.

    This just keeps getting worse and worse for Obama.  (Not that I mind)  He let McCain set the agenda the last few days with the race-card issue.  And, Paris Hilton is helping McCain keep that going.  McCain will set the agenda now for the next week as well since Obama is going on vacation.

    The Olympics are starting up.  Obama was supposed to get a big bosst by buying up lots of ad time during the olympics with all his money.  Then I read a report this morning that McCain is actually going to spend more on Olympic ads than Obama does.  6 mil for McCain, 5 mil for Obama.


    and you can bet (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:08:44 AM EST
    3/4 of that money McCain is spending will be to introduce Obama to the Masses, splashing his grinning mug and the chants of "Oh-bam-a!" from sea to shining sea every commercial break he can get.  

    Between McCain's Obama ads and Obama's Obama ads, by the time we get to the Convention that 48% of Americans who are sick of seeing Obama may be hovering closer to 60%.

    By comparison, the fairly boring old dude will be a welcome change of pace.


    don't think that (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:20:50 AM EST
    someone in the McCain camp hasn't thought up the brilliant idea to continue a dialogue via YouTube between McCain and Paris Hilton about the issues ending always with a line like "Paris Hilton has a better (fill in the blank) plan than Barack Obama".

    Not only would they be totally viral and a huge hit, they'd marginalize Obama to a point below a woman who's famous for being famous.  Add extra points to McCain if Obama continues to duck Town Hall meetings when, by comparison, Paris has a response up -- outfitted in her famous bikini and heels -- within a day after McCain's latest salvo.  Ergo, Paris Hilton is willing to talk issues;  Barack Obama is too scared.

    Paris would eat up the attention, McCain would be applauded for his sense of humor and Obama would be ... gee, I don't know.  He'd be the guy being subtly mocked while trying to remind people that, hey, I'm running for President here!  And I don't think his ego would like that.


    And if Paris again doesn't need cue cards (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:27:19 AM EST
    vs. Obama's need of a teleprompter . . . ouch. :-)

    I think having CDS (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:11:18 AM EST
    is pretty much a requirement of employment at MSNBC.

    With the exception of Dan Abrams who OCCASIONALLY mocked his own network's obsession with trashing Hillary Clinton, I cannot think of one of them that is not insanely in the tank for hating Hillary.  I truly believe their hatred for anything Clinton is much more of a driving force than supporting Obama.

    Matthews will hero worship any man he thinks may have or get power.  Gregory and Shuster just want to be on the right side of their employer.  Maddow has become everything she claims to be against....she is closed minded, elitist, and looks her nose down at anyone that criticizes her point of view.  Olberman is a wannabee jock....none of the talent, but all of the ego.

    It really has amazed me how horrid the media has become.  I saw it coming for years but it still stuns me that they don't get how much they are disdained by people who think.


    right and the campaign is acting like (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:18:02 AM EST
    they are still in primary mode and hillary must i tell you must be beaten. fatal flaw!

    media desperately needs the Clintons (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:14:16 AM EST
    to be in the race somehow because of ratings. Without them somehow involved this is one booooring race. I think Todd does have connections because it's been a good kool-aid drinker and is being rewarded. And I agree that this effort by "some" in the Obama camp to keep the Hillary Hate(TM) going is really stupid. But I think a lot of the media wants this even if there aren't Obama members pushing it. Which in the end can hurt Obama because the media is a hard thing to control and manipulate. As well as they've done at it during the primary, and as much as he is still the media darling, they are a business and being his lap dog if there are no rewards for it will only last so long. Hmmm, I think I just answered the question as to why some Obama folks might still be feeding the hate Hillary meme, the have no choice otherwise they'd lose the media. Hmmm.

    Exactly. When Hillary dropped out (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by rooge04 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:23:10 AM EST
    they saw how quickly people lost interest in the race. It was only interesting when the Clintons were somehow, ANY way possible in the mix. And that's why they've gone back to it now. No Clinton. No ratings.

    TV Ratings (none / 0) (#113)
    by Roz on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:47:12 AM EST
    I'd love to know what the actual rating were and whether there was a dip. Are you assuming or are you actually referring to published ratings?

    I'd love to see a study that shows how "Clinton news" is reflected in the ratings over time.


    Plausible deniability (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by glennmcgahee on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:17:03 AM EST
    Of course Chuck Todd was repeating talking points from the Obama campaign and then they come on and deny that they feel this way. But the headline remains and Axlerod appears above it all just like his candidate. I don't buy it.
    Smear the Clintons and then praise them. Repeat.

    "If Hillary Clinton were the nominee . . . (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:19:22 AM EST
    . . . Barack Obama would have been the vice presidential nominee a month ago".

    this is so obvious it is hardly worth saying but it is so telling.  about leadership style, judgment,  maturity, comfort in your own skin and plain old fashioned political savvy.
    if only.

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:25:10 AM EST
    She said that she would pick a VP based on that person being ready to be President, the way Bill picked Gore.  Did she really think Obama was ready?  I don't think so.  But then again, she is a great politician.  

    she would have (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:33:57 AM EST
    picked him because it was not only the smart but the right thing to do.

    I know...am yanking. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:35:57 AM EST
    and (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:37:35 AM EST
    what an amazing history making ticket it would have been.
    repeat sigh.

    and (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:55:10 AM EST
    what an awesome mentor Obama would have had to ready him for the job in 8 years!

    and how smart would the (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    Democrats have been instead of the Old Guy gang did not hate the Clintons that much.  

    We could have had 16 years (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:54:16 AM EST
    of democratic rule in this country with a Clinton/Obama ticket. I still resent the party and Obama for the fact that it won't happen.

    I don't think Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#210)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:11:00 AM EST
    would have sd., I'd pick Obama, except I'm not sure I can control his wife.

    At a time when Obama needs to be (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:25:04 AM EST
    expanding his support beyond the base he started out with, he's having to figure out how to retain what he already has.  (this is why you're supposed to consolidate your base during the primaries, not flip half of it off).

    His success during the primaries was based on three things: 1) big political rallies; 2) lots of changey-hopey speeches; and 3) CDS.

    Two of the three aren't working so well anymore.  But CDS preceded the Obama phenomenon, and will no doubt survive it.  So now it's the well they keep going back to.

    Is Todd (and Martin, couldn't believe his cr*p) hurting Obama?  Yes, but it's a strategy of desperation; if Obama can't hold on to his numbers, he's doomed.

    If he were the great politician he and many supporters claim, he'd be able to choose another path -- real coalition building and real 'unity'.  If the CDS-infected in the media loved him more than they hate everything Clinton, they could actually support him rather than use him to feed the disease.

    If the media sinks him, esp. with these increasingly desperate-sounding tactics, it will be just another old, old story -- poetic justice.

    Nail, meet hammer. (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:26:52 AM EST
    If he were the great politician he and many supporters claim, he'd be able to choose another path -- real coalition building and real 'unity'.  If the CDS-infected in the media loved him more than they hate everything Clinton, they could actually support him rather than use him to feed the disease.

    "has done a risk-benefit analysis" (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:32:47 AM EST
    probably the same ones who did the risk benefit analysis of piddleing on the voters of Florida.  doncha think?

    What would Clinton have done ... ? (5.00 / 7) (#117)
    by Kate Stone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:50:46 AM EST
    Despite media descriptions of her, Hillary Clinton is known by her friends and colleagues to be a warm, gracious, caring woman with a rollicking sense of humor who ceaselessly works to lift up the less fortunate.  So, given all that, my bet is that had she won the nomination she would have been a gracious winner.

    As for Chuck Todd and his ilk -- this is the result of 24/7 news, tabloid journalism, competition, big money, making stars out of former legislative aides like George Steph, Tim Russert et al and living in a sound bite culture.  MSNBC is just another reality show at this point. None of them want to be kicked off of their comfy little island.  The Clintons are chum to these sharks.  

    And.... (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:06:58 AM EST
    Despite media descriptions of her, Hillary Clinton is known by her friends and colleagues to be a warm, gracious, caring woman with a rollicking sense of humor who ceaselessly works to lift up the less fortunate.

    Her supporters. It's what solidified the loyalty of her fans, and why the DNC forcing her out of the primary is so unforgiveable to millions.

    MO gave a very complimentary comment to Hillary on GMA this morning. Gratuitous since it went to parenting, and MO is the one who tried to say Hillary couldn't keep her own house in order.


    That's good to hear (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:12:54 AM EST
    I hope Michelle comes around because she got off to a really rough start.  

    I hated what the press did to Teresa Kerry.  I appreciate a strong woman who speaks her mind.  I thought it was a big mistake to sideline her.


    Michelle is on note cards now (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:31:15 AM EST
    at all times, according to coverage yesterday.  She got burned but bad.  So she has spent the time away training for the big time and will do better.

    Agree re Teresa Heinz Kerry.  I thought she was marvelous, but then I like mouthy women -- as long as they aren't bad-mouthing candidates and forgetting that it is their spouse running.  Heinz Kerry kept to the correct side of that line, but she was doomed, anyway, with the nativism in this country.


    I also really liked Teresa (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by CST on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:39:47 AM EST
    I didn't like John Kerry all that much and she definitely made me like him more.  I like Michelle too, but she does seem to be "quieter" lately.

    Republican first ladies always come across as either trophy wives or the stay-at-home mom types.  Not that there is anything wrong with that, I just wish they wouldn't skewer the strong, outspoken ones.


    Well, There Was Betty Ford (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:50:26 AM EST
    and Nancy Reagan, who I couldn't stand, but she was no shrinking violet.

    Come to think of it, Barbara Bush, who I have never liked since her "Rhymes with witch" comment about Ferraro after Gerry cleaned 41's clock in the debate, had a mouth and an attitude.

    I agree with you about Heinz-Kerry: she humanized him and intrigued me imagining he may not be as mechanical and wooden as he often came across.

    Michelle Obama will make a fascinating First Lady if given the chance.


    Since the end of the primary (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:21:44 AM EST
    Hillary has shown herself to be nothing but classy and professional.

    Note: This is not a back-handed snipe at her during primary behavior.  Primaries are inherently combative and testy.


    That was well done (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by sj on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:44:50 AM EST
    And I think it must have been difficult for you.  I appreciate the effort.

    Rollicking sense of humor (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by sj on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:31:33 AM EST
    This has been one of biggest, most pleasant surprises for me.  I love that Rush "has always had a crush on me" comment.  

    I know I shouldn't have been surprised about that after the Tucker "eat my shoes" Carlson cake event, but it still caught me off guard.  

    There is also kindness in her sense of humor.  She doesn't do mocking or spiteful.


    Humor (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by Kate Stone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:51:07 AM EST
    Exactly.  Her humor is not at someone else's expense, unlike McCain.  But her humor and laugher was demeaned and devalued into a "cackle."

    She's so fair and balanced. (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Sweet Sue on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:01:10 AM EST
    The only time I enjoy watching MSNBC is seeing Rachel Maddow look like she's passing a world class kidney stone when someone speaks of Obama in less than hushed, reverential terms. Some journalist.

    Maddow a Journalist? (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by Kate Stone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:10:11 AM EST
    Maddow is not a journalist.  In point of fact, she has flatly stated she is not a journalist.  She is a popular radio personality who has been elevated to a political analyst on cable.  There is no question in my mind that Maddow is one of the smartest "analysts" on any of the networks but I long ago tired of her and the rest of that crew. KO lost me with his 11 minute hysterical frothing scenery chewing harangue against Clinton. Mind you, I was not supporting Clinton but found his foaming at the mouth to be self-serving on his part.  Actually, he lost a bunch of viewers with that crap.  

    From what I've seen (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:08:07 AM EST
    the exact opposite is true.  Obama seems to be the most divisive figure in the Democratic party I've ever seen, except perhaps Kennedy and Carter in 1980.

    Up until this year, I had hoped that Hillary would not run because I knew what a mess it would be, since CDS is so prevalent.  But I was wrong.  Obama is much more divisive than the Clintons ever were.

    true but even carter and kennedy (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    were operatng within the typical political arena well aware of who the democratic base was and that they must be maintained. they weren't heading over the cliff singing the mantra of "new democrats". we are talking about a long term wedge in the party with fatal results.

    Off topic but can't help it (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by abfabdem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:27:21 AM EST
    Here's her article in the WSJ.  She rocks, she just does.  (Sigh.)


    She rocks, indeed! (5.00 / 0) (#185)
    by Kate Stone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:35:05 AM EST
    She is going to emerge as one of the most prominent and powerful Democrats in Congress.  Whether BO or McCain wins either is going to have deal with her rising influence within the Party and nationally. She may be the junior Senator from New York but if she manages to replace Reid hold on to your seats, we are in for quite a ride.

    could be another reason (5.00 / 0) (#207)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:59:34 AM EST
    for putting her on the ticket.  Keep her on the team instead of in the senate puching Obama further than he wants to go.

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Kate Stone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:27:48 AM EST
    I agree that the media is driving the Clinton wedge more than the Obama camp is now, at least officially. The pundits pushed the horse race theme -- a race, they breathlessly told us, between a "negative" woman and a "transformative" AA.  They predicted Clinton would bring down the Democratic Party and that she alone would be the prime reason for his failure to win the GE. Hillary Clinton, a modern day Delilah.  

    I never much cared for Bill Clinton but I really share his fury at the racist charges.  Perhaps I share them because so many of us who did not support BO in the primaries were readily labeled racist.  Bill Clinton has said he will speak to the issue of the primaries after January 9.  I want to hear what he has to say.  

    Team work (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Kate Stone on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:12:01 AM EST
    I wonder if she would want to be on the BO team.  She may very well realize she has more clout being a major force in Congress.  She will want to redeem past failure on health care reform by leading a new effort on reform.  She may have an easier time doing that in the Senate. Hard to say.  IMHO, Ted Kennedy is the most important legislator in Congress and has moved more mountains that most.  It will be hard for anyone to fill those shoes since most Members are total idiots and one issue knuckle draggers.  But Clinton could start there, filling those Kennedy shoes, and move on up.  She already has the respect of most in the Senate and by virtue of 18 million voters lining up behind her she is not without measurable clout.  If BO loses in November her star rises further.  

    It's not too late for Obama to make good (4.88 / 9) (#59)
    by dianem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:06:23 AM EST
    When Bill Clinton said that he had never said anything racist, then Obama could easily have used that as an opportunity. He could have come out and said "Of course Bill Clinton wasn't using race in the campaign. Of course he isn't a racist. I know there was a lot of talk, some of it from people who supported me, during the campaign, but it was in the heat of a contentious campaign, and I think things were blown out of proportion. Could we please end all of this talk of race and begin addressing the serious issues that face our nation?". He could have used his legendary eloquence to raise the reputation of the man his campaign tore down. So, why didn't he? Why is he still unable to "reach out" to the Clinton's, even though he won? Good winner's, like good loser's, are supposed to reach out to their opponents, shake their hand firmly, and move on to the next challenge. That's a basic rule in politics. You can't afford to have party leaders hashing out old grudges in public.

    Obama should have done that (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by joanneleon on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:30:05 AM EST
    I agree, but truthfully, I don't think it would have made a difference.  The damage is done.  The time to put a stop to the attempt to redefine the Clintons and destroy them was during the primary.  The racist meme was used so strongly and so often during the primary that the resentment is set and it isn't possible now to believe that the campaign regrets it or didn't mean it.

    But having said that, trying to make some amends for it is still the right thing to do.


    Just the attitude you expected? (1.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Moishele on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:14:46 PM EST
    And what is that attitude? That we don't hand our votes over to someone we don't believe in?

    Why does you post sound so much like an abusive husband telling his wife she should stick with him because she'll not get any better?

    Oye (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lahdee on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:37:18 AM EST
    I can just see the McCain camp rubbing their hands in glee. Please David, have a talk with the children.

    Of course, (none / 0) (#6)
    by pie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:47:48 AM EST
    this whole meme could be put to bed quite easily.

    Are Todd's contacts in Michelle's staff? (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:26:11 AM EST
    Seems to me that most of the most harmful to the party anti-Clinton sentiment comes from the people close to Michelle, sometimes telling what she supposedly says in private. I have no idea if any of it is true, but she also reportedly was so undone by the 'RFK was assassinated in June' fiasco that she put the kibosh on any Clinton VP selection. And of course her public statements were in that vein during the primaries.

    I am totally speculating here but I think "feeling in Chicago" means "what Michelle thinks".

    Chuckie & Joe? (none / 0) (#36)
    by edison on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:32:06 AM EST
    What a combo! I can't believe people watch Morning Joe and, even if they do, that they assign any credibility to bloviating guests like Chuck Todd. Corporate media has little credibility left (well, maybe to the right). But that serves McCain well as they (the media) continue to nurture the raw feelings of Clinton supporters as every major TV media channel looks for (and amazingly, it's not difficult for them to find) someone who "knows" what's going on inside the Obama camp. It's (almost) comical.  

    There is a lot of media hype going on here. (none / 0) (#48)
    by beachmom on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:54:53 AM EST
    As someone mentioned in another thread, sometimes an opposing primary candidate waits until the day of the voting at the convention to release their delegates.

    Unless the media have direct quotes from named sources, I remain skeptical.

    It was a great vacation (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:31:21 AM EST
    glad to see that you haven't changed or been slacking :)

    that depends on.... (none / 0) (#122)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:53:32 AM EST
    what Chuck Todd actually said.  Did he say that it was his "opinion" that what the Obama camp thinks is......

    Or, did he say memebers ofthe Obama campaign have told me....

    It's a world of difference unless you think that Todd would report that he was told something by an insider when he actually just made it up on his own.

    Todd is just pushing Propaganda (none / 0) (#145)
    by Salt on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:09:04 AM EST

     he is not creditable in fact we all know the opposite would be true.  My only curiosity is why spread such an obvious lie, Todd is not totally without talent, is the Network GE pressuring Obama on his pick to improve the chance for ratings to tighten the race or is Clinton pushing some not beneficial bill that impacts GE maybe energy differences?  Also the trolls are out slandering Clinton again pre blaming her for an Obama loss in Nov WONDERS why?  

    I suspect that Todd (none / 0) (#162)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:19:35 AM EST
    spoke to the "Let's give the media a story they can prop up forever" wing of the Obama Campaign.  I think it consists of one janitor and a junior staffer who does runs for coffee and donuts.

    I don't believe that Todd is (none / 0) (#171)
    by Faust on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:24:33 AM EST
    necessarily talking to anyone except his cohort. I mean he might have some camp "source" for these "ideas" if one can even call them that.

    There is a lot of stupid out there when it comes to the Clintons and its very easy for otherwise intelligent people to get infected by it.

    Anyway this stuff doesn't need to come from anywhere. It's "in the air" as it were.

    Comments close at 200 Thanks (none / 0) (#214)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:33:33 AM EST