View Story | 634 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Donate if you're mad like me
by Steven R on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:12:14 PM PDT
by DrJeremy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:16:52 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
this should be the story tomorrow, period.
VICTORY IS OURS! OBAMA/WEBB '08
by kubla000 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:23:22 PM PDT
And that's really hard for them, so it's not going to happen.
Obama/Casey, my personal dream ticket.
by The Bagof Health and Politics on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:12:23 PM PDT
But in all the wrong ways.
by Jormungand on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:42:52 AM PDT
Hillary is all out of Ammo and now it's her turn to start answering some questions.
Wanted From Hillary:
~Papers showing ALL of her past dealings with jailed fundraising felon, Normon Hsu
~Papers showing what involvement she had in the Marc Rich pardon
~Tax returns from more than just last year
~Papers from Whitewater
~Papers about her involvement in getting NAFTA passed
~ The $$$ donor list to the Clinton Library and the Bill Clinton foundation.
Hillary and her cheerleaders have brought this all on themselves and they have no one else to blame but themselves because the kitchen sink goes both way and unlike her claim, Hillary is Far from being "vetted"....
by
by Jeff Y on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:31:28 PM PDT
until you mentioned Whitewater.
Please. That horse is not just dead, it's not just dead and rotted -- it's dead, rotted, and disintegrated.
Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.
by Canadian Reader on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:21:10 AM PDT
These are her own rules, not Barack's.
by Jeff Y on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:24:07 AM PDT
there is nothing left to investigate there. The Republicans spent millions looking and found nothing but an intern. There are plenty of questionable things but that is not one of them. A little more detail on Bill Clinton and Kazakhstan would be acceptable, Norman Hsu, and NAFTA are legitimate things to question as well, but bringing up Whitewater and blue dresses will not help anybody except maybe John McCain.
by pgm 01 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:56:37 AM PDT
Ron Burkle.
by Dumbo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:13:15 AM PDT
Peter Paul.
"The only phone call she'll get at 3am is Bill calling for bail money and asking Hilary to bring him a pair of pants" - Bill Maher
by Nedsdag on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:05:09 AM PDT
cattle futures
That was the only matter that, while mentioned, wasn't investigated. The Repubs don't care about fraud in the financial markets. So the one charge that had merit was the only one that was not pursued.
by nhDave on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:02:58 AM PDT
Look at the other big money people backing her:
Roger Altman, Haim Saban, John Catsimatidis, Bernard Schwartz, Fred Eychaner, Brooke Neidich, Calvin Faynard, John Eddie Williams, Peter Angelos: These are the donors that were going to put up $12 million for the Michigan revote. Just good Dems?
Ron Burkle, yes. But, also Hassan Nemazee and Alan Qausha.
Take a good look at Terry McAuliffee.
The Clintons have sold the Democratic Party and the White House.
Yeah, I know it sounds harsh, but we've lived under another party that bought the White House.
This nation will be destroyed by another corporate takeover...even if those rich people are Democrats.
"...redefining the nature of politics from the ground up...Barack Obama." Dylan endorses Obmama
by redtex on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:15:47 AM PDT
Wright is as relevant as Whitewater.
"Don't look back... something might be gaining on you..." -Satchel Paige.
by npb7768 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:33:09 AM PDT
As pgm01 wrote, there is no there there. There's nothing. Really. Nothing. More than that -- thanks to the GOP last time around, every human being on the planet already knows that there is nothing to it.
It goes beyond newborn babes... this knowledge is shared by even the most clue-deficient fan of American Idol. It's a rerun. It's old news. It's boring.
No matter how much you beat that horse, it ain't goin' nowhere.
by Canadian Reader on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:16:24 AM PDT
she has to explain if she wants to hit Obama over the head about Wright. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Obama/Richardson '08 beats McCain/whoever
by MikePhoenix on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:25:13 AM PDT
Despite all the apologies and denounciations already there, she is literally pursuing to death a retired pastor who served in the Marines and who helped free a US soldier from Syria in a peace mission which even Reagan said "earned our gratitude and our admiration". The man might have offensive views but you can't say he isn't a patriot, and he doesn't deserve being destroyed the way he is given that he isn't running for office and that he is retired.
If she continually brings this up, I have no problem with Obama making ads and fliers saying Clinton hates Christians. Clinton has crossed so many lines this election that I am moving from wanting her out of the party leadership to wanting her suffer what she so cavelierly and insensitively dish out to others (i.e. utter and completely political destruction).
by sesquioxide on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:13:26 AM PDT
she is literally pursuing to death
Not unless she's chasing him around with a gun like 007.
by brittain33 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:03:06 AM PDT
When people use "literally" incorrectly. I am literally beside myself right now.
You can have your "Under God" back when I get my "Liberty and Justice For All" back.
by karateexplosions on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:36:40 AM PDT
you always crack me up
Stop McCain.
by jancw on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:28:56 AM PDT
is based on accusing her opponent of things she is guilty of herself.
by kanuk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:43:52 AM PDT
whatever Clinton says turn it around for the truth--I've always used that standard for the GOP and now it applies to the Clinton's as well.
"People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest and self-serving"
by Wary on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:05:38 AM PDT
Check this out. This needs to get out.. This is a lot more damaging to her than a Rev. Wright..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
by tiredofcrap on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:55:42 AM PDT
It's not news to folks here, but will stun the vast majority of Americans who've never heard of either that Dominionist group or, more chillingly, her long-term connection with it. I suspect that when most Americans realize they have to choose among:
a. A fumbling old white guy who can't keep Shias and Sunnis straight, and probably on purpose so he can get us in yet another war;
b. A disingenuous woman who's been dabbling in religious activities intended essentially to overthrow the system our Founding Fathers established;
or
c. A stunningly intelligent black guy whose former pastor who had too big a mouth 1/168 of the week during his pastorate but otherwise has done many good things;
...they'll happily go with the black guy.
If not -- we're screwed anyway.
Electing conservatives is like hiring a carpenter who thinks hammers are evil.
by bwintx on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:11:44 AM PDT
of Florida is supposedly one of Hillary's best friends in those prayer groups. Makes me wonder why he is such a Hillary shill in Florida. I read that he had financial ties to a Jacksonville military supplier (tied into the W.Michigan/Devoe/Amway/Blackwater family) that was sold to a large international company a few years ago. (AUGENT sp?) I wonder how much money the Nelsons made off of that venture? Maybe, some more vetting is due.
Obama/Webb 2008
by mjd in florida on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:38:36 AM PDT
to go after Clinton on meeting with a prayer group. It just levels the playing field for Clinton with Obama as far as the "See, she's getting persecuted, too!" crowd.
It's a distraction from issues I care about.
I don't want to play their game and look like those ridiculous smear Obama campaigns. I think right now everyone recognizes that Wright is simply a guilty by association smear campaign. We're grossed out by it. Nauseated. Why on earth would we do the same thing to HRC so that she could use it to garner sympathy for her and dishonor for us?
Let's talk about NAFTA and War and Healthcare for gawds sake!
You can't choose sides on a round planet.
by IamLorax on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:30:12 AM PDT
after reading the HuffPo article, I think this is essential to the progressive movement in that such association with The Family by Hillary, as President, would be a firewall against those very issues you mention and that we want to move forward.
A politician will say what we want to hear even if there are underlying aspects to that person that would not adhere to the policies bespoken by that person. I am reminded of the moment I heard Hillary say she was a Progressive, and I thought, hmmm, not really.
This is pretty damn important to me. That the Obama campaign probably won't bring it up is a credit to him/them. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, and especially if she's using Wright to sway superdelegates.
Republicans: Your history has earned you a new mantra: "War and waste." ~~ Marta Jorgensen (CA-24 in '08)
I am an Edwards Democrat!
by Scubaval on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:09:15 AM PDT
but the moment Obama starts playing their game we will never hear about the real issues.
Do we really need to add this to the mix? Some shady prayer room conspiracy theory that leads nowhere and harms our reputation for no reason?
I mean we already know about Clinton being with the NAFTA and Walmart crowd. If a superdelegate and our media don't care about that, then why on earth would they care about this issue, If it's true?
The prayer group thing can and will backfire. The NAFTA incident is a glaring truth: NAFTA devastated America.
Peace!
by IamLorax on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:39:27 AM PDT
Obama going after this pray group=bad I agree.
But a surrogate, a silent reporter who is for Obama, should go after this the same way silent reporters for Team Hillary have gone after the Wright fiasco.
"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." --Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002-GWB
by meatwad420 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:05:52 AM PDT
another media hoopla with no merit (with a double standard scenario to boot!) Will crop up and they can chase that smear campaign.
And another after that...and another after that.
If you let them, they will steal your peace.
I'll never forget what Bill Clinton said about his presidency at the end of his second term:
He enjoyed every minute of it.
He enjoyed Every minute of it?! While I was I tears over fox news and the Republicans grinding the reputations of every Democrat into the ground, Bill Clinton enjoyed every minute of his presidency.
I voted for him both times. I lived in a rabid Republican area. They treated every Democrat as if we were scum. I was in tears as they impeached him. I screamed at the tv. I cried over what was happening to the name of every good Democrat.
...and he was enjoying himself. He wasn't crying. He wasn't heartbroken over the news bashing/ Republican loving media. He wasn't torn up.
I was. I will never do that again. MHO: Focus on the issues that matter to real Americans and stay away from the distractions the media/corporate whores try to lure us away with :)
by IamLorax on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:32:22 AM PDT
a charitable donation like any other charity and is not a Clinton personal bank account...not a valid campaign issue...I would say the same if Barack had a charitable organization that his namesake was associated with...
Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party
by dvogel001 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:25:58 AM PDT
We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/
by anastasia p on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:20:57 PM PDT
It's attributed to her direct advisors... her surrogates who lobby the supers. this is the NYT we're talking about here.
by kubla000 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:23:02 PM PDT
up but look at the William Kristol story about Obama being in the pews....
an anonymous person once said, "A man who lies about little things, will lie about big things."
by marley619 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:43:38 PM PDT
Kristol is an opinion columnist, not a reporter (although given that the story is from Adam Nagourney, perhaps even that's stretching "reporter" a bit thin). Op-ed material is never fact-checked.
"I think we need a president who isn't afraid to say, 'I'm gonna change my mind. I made a mistake.'" --George McGovern, 1972
by darrelplant on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:47:14 AM PDT
when he was informed he was wrong. Any corrections for this yet?
by entropiccanuck on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:47:39 AM PDT
by anastasia p on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:57:49 PM PDT
lanny davis' article, and check out taylormarsh.com
that fact that they are doing it publicly tells me they saw something in their tracking polls that frightens them.
The Jed Report | Barack Obama for President
by JedReport on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:07:56 PM PDT
Noam Wrote
There's almost no way they can actively exploit it, particularly after Obama's speech. They just have to hope it does the job on its own--or, to put it in less cynical terms, that Democratic voters think Wright is as big a problem for Obama as the Clintonites presumably think he is.
My guess is that the story is dying rapidly after the Speech, and they're trying to blow oxygen back onto the fire in a last LAST ditch hope...
minor victory? who the heck knows, i just know it's pathetic if they're doing this, and if anything were to cause a mass superdelegate move, i'd hope this is the last straw...
by Steven R on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:13:00 PM PDT
See my post immediately below.
This has been a consistent pattern from them. They attack, and then they keep on attacking. Over and over, just like the Republicans did to them in the 1990s. What they forget is that it ultimately blew up in the Republicans' faces, and Gingrich was deposed.
And so we've seen it happen over and over--their attacks blowing up in the Republicans faces.
What they don't get is that by doing this, they're ruining both their shot at elected office in the future and their legacies. Oh well, I never much cared for them anyway.
by The Bagof Health and Politics on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:19:02 PM PDT
Thank you for pointing that out. They're risking everything for this one slim shot.
You know, until things got as dirty as they did, Bill Clinton was in line for the full Ronald Reagan treatment, to be made our own Democratic Mount Rushmore figure, mythologized into some super-president.
Now the Clinton legacy is that of the worst kind of corrupt politicians, narcissistic and destructive to everybody in their orbit.
by Dumbo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:22:34 AM PDT
of the Hillary campaign.
I think that historians would have figured this out a generation from now and put the Clintons into their proper perspective as socially moderate / corporatist Republicans.
Unfortunately for the reputation of the Clinton's, for the Clinton political dynasty, that future is NOW.
Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.
by alizard on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:39:55 AM PDT
I've been having a discussion on another thread with someone who talks about the Clinton legacy and Two Great Clintons as if none of this crap is going to stick to their reputations after this is over.
If HRC is elected, she will face lingering resentment and opposition from within her own party for the entire time she is in office, not to mention what the Rs will do to her.
I'm stunned that other people don't see the obvious truth of this the way we do.
Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.Give to Populista's Obamathon 2.0!
by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:22:36 AM PDT
" I may not have been the greatest president, but I've had the most fun eight years."
by redtex on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:25:47 AM PDT
We need an image of Hillary as the coyote and Obama as the roadrunner. It captures the futility of their effort and tactics. At this late date it also emphasizes the tediousness of this campaign.
Someone please end this thing - the Clinton folks have turned our moment of golden opportunity into a nightmare for the party.
by Wilmguy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:17:08 AM PDT
...before this election primary. Now, not so much.
It's almost as though they've chosen to become a caricature of the worst things thrown at them by the Republicans (and things I once felt the need to defend them from.)
by Spunkmeyer on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:03:50 AM PDT
is the NYT top political reporter; the story is legit.
by True Independent on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:19:33 PM PDT
does not represent the high-water mark for objective journalism.
not by a long-shot.
_______________
it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."
-9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)
by dadanation on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:45:24 AM PDT
It's the high-water mark for objective journalism, by definition. Welcome to Daily Kos, just go with it. We have people thinking we should reopen Whitewater again.
by brittain33 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:04:56 AM PDT
not one conviction. and in fact both clintons exonerated of all wrong-doing (other than the lying to the grand jury on a subject matter not even germane to the grand jury's purview), and folks are still carrying scaife's and atwater's and starr's campaign forward.
i think it is not beyond possible that as usual, the ny times is just willing to launch into the clintons, regardless. and as far as the right wants, nothing could be better for them than to have the left devours itself.
preying on the anti-hillary undercurrent (an undercurrent they spent top bucks creating over a 15+ year period)that is alive and well in this country and on this blog, why not set her up, set us up, set the left up and watch the set-ups all fall down.
not so hard to just drop an old story under a new by-line, on the heels of the obama speech, that hillary is trying to steal delegates, get even dirtier, destroy the party for her own benefit, and just sit back and watch us do the rest of the heavy lifting.
not even wondering or n fact-checking or looking into even the author of the ny time piece, it has to be right because it is a narrative against hillary.
and there are just enough provocateurs and contrarians to make sure that the old memes are resurrected, that the old memes are stated often enough that they begin to collect their own momentum.
god why do i feel like we are right back to the beginning of the ken starr investigation, and that anything is fair game to be thrown out into the court of public opinion just to see what has legs?
i am constantly amazed that the 4th estate, which has so abandoned its appropriate role in keeping our elected officials and the system itself more accountable, would be given a free pass in such an attack like this. ESPECIALLY SINCE i's based on an Adam Nagourney article/.
but again, since it is about a clinton and since it is in the ny times, it should automatically be sounding alarms instead of eliciting giggles of happiness.
by dadanation on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:48:49 AM PDT
My guess is that the story is dying rapidly after the Speech
...but only polls will tell the story. If, after a week or two, Obama's numbers continue to free-fall below Clinton's (and especially if he is trailing McCain in head-to-heads, while Clinton is leading), I would think the only lesson superdelegates (and others) could take away is that Obama's speech, however powerful it may have seemed to us, didn't resonate with the average voter enough to help him. In that event, and especially if his primary results from here on out are worse than expected, I would have to think a significant bloc of superdelegates and party leaders would conclude that, regrettable as it is, the Wright affair has rendered Obama "unelectable."
Hopefully, it won't get to that point. If it does, however, I'm not altogether certain that the superdelegates will simply throw in with Hillary as the "last candidate standing." Surely, they'd have to wonder if the brutal primary campaign might not have left her, too, mortally wounded for November. Given a choice between two candidates, each of who's selection would cause a massive defection from the party by their opponents, the wisest choice for the supers might be to abstain on the first ballot and move on to a second one where every delegate would essentially become a "free agent." In that event, we might well see a search for a "compromise candidate" who would, at least, hold the party together. Might we see Edwards re-enter the race? Gore? Kerry?
by regnaDkciN on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:08:05 AM PDT
that the Democratic party is a bunch of wankers! I personally like the Obama approach, face the tough issues head on and deal with them. This needs to be Obama's message, America needs a new kind of politics. Not the old Washington ways to be expedient for today and ignore its long term effects.
by kanuk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:54:44 AM PDT
and pols right now are unreliable for the front runners like Obama, Clinton, McCain in a head to head--the only reliable polls, so I've been hearing, will be the one's in the REAL GE campaign.
Also right now I'm listening to Bill Clinton build up McCain, he's out there doing that right now, what a 'fine man he is' he holds all of our values--
So, now we have the Clinton's out stumping FOR McCain even while saying they are running against him.
So, just how valid are those polls?
AND I know for a fact the Super Delegates will DEFINITELY be taking THAT into consideration as well!
The Clinton's are campaigning FOR McCain--skewing those polls, and saying they are running against him--
yeah, those supers will MOST definitely be taking that tid bit into consideration--
and wondering 'just how SERIUOS are the Clinton's in REALLY being able to fight against McCain after building him up so much and what excellent sound bites they've given the Republicans to come back and BITE the Democrats in the GE???
You can bet the supers are thinking about that exactly!
AND they are clearly engaed in remembering how the Democrats LOST the Congress under the Clinton's and have NOT been able to regain it till 2006--you can bet that's on their minds as well!
by Wary on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:19:16 AM PDT
Let's just cue up some video from the 2000 VP debate between Cheney and Lieberman. It was troubling (and prophetic) to see our man in the VP slot, who was supposed to get rough with the opposition, sit there nodding in agreement with the total shit Cheney was spewing. Cheney is the closest thing to evil, wicked, mean and nasty we've known in this country since Nixon (no, he makes Nixon look damn good) and our guy gave him a pass...worse than that, he drew no contrasts between himself and the opposition.
Of course in hindsight, it all makes sense; Lieberman's a self-obsessed dickhead. But what to make of the Clinton's raising up McCain to tear down Obama? That's unthinkable to me. It's one thing to attack another Dem, it's another to praise your opposition in the hopes of doing mortal damage to the Dem frontrunner so you can have a shot at the top.
by Wilmguy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:30:39 AM PDT
Do you really believe what you wrote?
The superdelegates will not vote for the candidate who they think has the best chance of winning in November. That's just the Clinton spin.
The choice will be voting for Hillary, and splitting the party, or voting for Obama, who in this scenario would be damaged goods. They will go for the damaged goods because they won't want to become victims. They won't want to become the Democratic Party's version of the 2000 Supreme Court, handing the victory to Hillary rather than Bush.
And don't fool yourself that anybody would think that Hillary would be more electable under this scenario than Obama. She would be so damaged by the process of the coup itself that she would have no legitimacy. There would be angry Obama supporters protesting against her at every campaign stop. And I would be one of them.
In summary, NOT GONNA HAPPEN. There's no real scenario by which she can get the nomination anymore.
by Dumbo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:29:52 AM PDT
Even if damage has been done on the Wright issue, it still just caused a hiccup in the polls for Hillary. The speech will bounce Obama back up 3-5 points and then the dialogue will be how the voters are over Wright. This would not be good for Hillary.
by kanuk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:48:38 AM PDT
But their pushing might be gentle . Calling superdelegates to talk about the newer polls and in worried voices talking about "a serious deline", starting to look like he'll never be able to beat McCain, oh dear. That's at the very least.
Obama's perfect speech would keep the push from going strong and might keep the polls from falling more.
But there is still a drumbeat that says "he still cannot explain why for 20 years he attended and subsidized a church whose preacher spewed the worst sort of racial hatred and divisiveness." Articles and TV shows that say "the speech was great and it won't help him".
Morning Joe starts with mocking him, speaking drastic fall in polls with independents and against McCain, Hillary is getting stronger. "Chickens coming home to roost" They are repeating the quote above and politico. All sorts of stories.
I keep waiting for pastors or those who know the church to talk about the church, to insist on equal time. For the media to present the other side.
That is the missing piece. Obama has said "those don't express what the church or sermons were like" but no one else says that.
Everyone who knows it's true should be saying it is true. People need to know those clips were not 20 years of sermons.
by joynow on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:12:43 AM PDT
Why hasn't anyone released several clips of Wright preaching peace and love and where's the big feature story on the church?
by janis on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:33:17 AM PDT
No ratings in the true message of Rev Wright
"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist" George Carlin
by bws on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:02:35 AM PDT
I must say that media in the U.S. is among the worse in developed as well as developing countries. I am sure everyone around the world is laughing at us for focusing on statements that some pastor made about the atrocities of the U.S., most of which are factually true. A responsible media would have presented a balanced view by:
That is how a responsible media doing its job would have handled this situation, rather than showing a totally one-sided view of the Pastor and Obama. I am really ashamed and disgusted with this horrible media in our country.
by sn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:06:53 AM PDT
...I love the BBC.
"It's better to vote for what you want, and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want, and get it." Eugene Debs, 1912.
by cybrestrike on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:05:21 AM PDT
I heard that the clips were released, but none of the channels have decided to show them.
by sn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:09:30 AM PDT
by joynow on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:38:03 AM PDT
I heard on MSNBC on Dan Abrahams show two days back. One of the democratic strategist (unfortunately, I don't remember her name) said that many positive clips of Wright's sermons were released by United Church of Christ. However, they will not be shown on any channel because it will have no viewership.
by sn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:20:48 AM PDT
The networks are acting like a 527.
If I was a rich person connected with that church I would look and see if I had grounds to sue.
I sent some sermons, nice ones, to evry show I could think of and the clip of white lady minister who goes there plus a few "thoughts" of my won. I knew it wouldn't help, if they wanted balanced view they already would have done it. I politely as I could told them they knew this unbalanced view of such a volatile issue at such a tense time would inspire more hatred and division and that what they were doing was worse than what Wright had said. I mentioned threats to the church, to the reverend, to the place that was granting him an award and extra risk to a presidential candidate..
But I knew they knew all that. They know it. I swear there should and must be something we can do, really. Even if we love McCain or Clinton or Nader, doesn't matter, this is bad for the nation. The media should never have this power. We can't let ourselves be victims of the media, and yet I only write. If the grassroots mean something we should find a way to do something now.
Yet I only write
by joynow on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:37:19 PM PDT
And that Hillary is the one cascading down a removed mountain top in PA and West Virginia?
From what I've seen, this has no play. Heck, I talked to a skin head today, and he mentioned it. And even he wasn't that pissed about it. He was more pissed at the Jews.
If it is basically not flying within the skin head community, then you know it's not flying.
(For the record, the skin head came up to our peace rally, and was actually for peace. Strange bed fellows, weird guy).
It's not flying. The only other person who cared was the big time Hillary supporter in town who is convinced that "the public isn't like you Mike, you're smarter than them. There aren't very many of you Obama's McGovern." 12,500,000 plus of me apparently. Takes 60 million to get elected. I think Obama can get it.
by The Bagof Health and Politics on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:16:18 PM PDT
I grew up around skin heads in the 80's they were more less anarchists and hate the establishment like the World Bank.
by kanuk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:57:10 AM PDT
That's the official KKK line. Check out David Duke's website and you'll find it's full of "support the troops, bring them home" slogans.
And yes, it's really weird.
The bigger the headache, the bigger the pill.
by Dr Funkenstein on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:02:30 AM PDT
No longer a Grand Party. Just an Old one.
by EeDan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:22:23 AM PDT
There have been plenty of posts by random Kossacks listing all the Jews and possible Jews who advised Bush and Cheney and blaming them and Israeli lobbying for the war. It gets even worse at My Left Wing.
This is a very small group of people here.
by brittain33 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:07:12 AM PDT
There are probably as many anti-racist skinheads as racist ones.
Liberty - Mother, not daughter, of Order
by Mike Erwin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:51:27 PM PDT
Spouted this exact argument, how the Republicans would put together a 527 group, tack together tapes of Wright, Michelle Obama, and "Obama one time forgetting to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance" and that this video would doom Obama. She looked a little TOO intense as she described the horror of this barrage.
To David Gergen's credit, he actually defended Obama from this nonsense. Said Obama had turned a negative the Wright tapes into a positive by giving a gutsy and inspirational speech about race and opening a dialogue about it.
by smeesq on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:32:21 PM PDT
the clintons have never understood what this campaign was about.
too mcuh in the bubble -- they just don't have any connection with reality
by JedReport on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:38:21 PM PDT
tonight.I was glad to see it after her CNN troll concern rant. Oh BTW what about the Kos strike on Colbert too? Been seeing it on O'Reilly and faux too. How funny! Keep it up Hill Supporters. Obama's being vetted now and all you can do is kick us when we're down.
Proud to be everything the Right Wing hates!
by Wild Starchild on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:59 AM PDT
That was terrific! And that other conservative strategist, sorry don't know her name, but young, she was firmly stating that 'wright ISN'T' the issue, he isn't running as VP and Obama did the right thing and this will become less and less of an issue.
Dee Dee had to do what ALL Clinton supporters do drag out HISTORY and it's negative effects like NO ONE's LEARNED lessons from them.
She looked utterly PATHETIC attempting to say things like comparing Obama to Dukakis--like "We're VERY AFRAID" of the right wing machine BECAUSE we don't know how to counter act it, so WE Play to their tune!"
Insanity--doing the same thing over and over expecting different results--'Clintons' 'just be very afraid because the right wing is VERY SCARY and we don't know how to overcome it".
I thought that was a terrific 360--glad I watched it, and Gergen is RIGHT ON TARGET--Obama WILL and IS overcoming this--he's doing ALL the right things!!
He's NOT Dukasis, he's NOT McGovern, He's NOT Clinton, He's NOT like anyone else the Dems have run in recent memory BECAUSE he's flat out going AGAINST the same old LOSING Strategy of going out for ONLY those big states that have LOST election after election!
Gore made the decision to pull out funds for his own home state of TN to campaign more in FL had he won TN, he'd be President even without Florida--that's a lesson right there!
And Clinton's STILL after Florida while dissing all those other states, lessons not learned.
by Wary on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:37:41 AM PDT
when hillary defends against the vrwc she comes off as hateful as they are. it debases her. when obama defends he rises above it all like atticus finch.
REALITY IS NOT ALWAYS PROBABLE,OR LIKELY. JORGE LUIS BORGES
by AltruisticSkeptic on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:43:39 AM PDT
has and Hillary sucked up all the funds she could get her hands on, far more than she needed for her senate campaign. She undermined Gore every step of the way. And so did her supporters at the time. I witnessed it myself when I worked on her senate campaign.
by ronnied on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:20:55 AM PDT
the Democratic Party is at best a permanent minority party, and could even become a minor third party. A Democratic Party that lets its big tent shrink to exclude minorities is not something I can see any reason to belong to.
It's already time to throw Hillary under the bus. We can afford to lose a million or so of her fanatics if need be. (assuming there are that many, which I'm dubious about) Our leadership needs to tell her that her choice is to get out of the race or get kicked out with well-funded high-profile opposition waiting for her when she runs for re-election.
I think Hillary's basic strategy is to keep upping the ante until everyone else folds. If the Democratic Party leadership capitulates to her as well as to Bush, America loses.
by alizard on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:52:46 AM PDT
Oh ya, "Why Women Should Rule the World". How fitting. I believe women should rule the world too, just not the toxic Hillary type.
by kanuk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:58:44 AM PDT
