Washington Post's Milbank on Hillary Clinton: "The press will savage her no matter what"
SUMMARY: On CNN's Reliable Sources, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank said of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that "[t]he press will savage her no matter what." Indeed, Milbank himself has smeared Clinton or propagated misinformation about her.
On the December 30 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Washington Post national political reporter Dana Milbank said of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) that "[t]he press will savage her no matter what." He made the comment in response to a question from Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, the Reliable Sources host, about whether the media would "savage her as a loser" if she "gets edged out by 1,000 votes" in the Iowa caucus. Milbank went on to characterize Clinton's relationship with the press as "poisonous" and "venomous," and said that journalists "dislike" her.
Neither Kurtz nor Milbank mentioned instances in which Milbank himself has smeared Clinton or propagated misinformation about her. Following the 2007 State of the Union address, on the January 24 broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, Milbank said: "Hillary Clinton was situated immediately behind [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL], making it easier for her to actually place the knife into his back, if that's what she was trying to do." As Media Matters for America noted, Milbank, who repeated the comment later that day, was echoing a familiar media characterization of Clinton as ruthless.
As Media Matters also documented, in his December 19 "Washington Sketch" column, Milbank wrote that Clinton "divulged some startling news: She was dispatching across Iowa 'people who have known me, who can talk about what I do when the lights are off.' As luck would have it, Bill Clinton was campaigning with his wife in the Hy-Vee, and he was asked what he and the senator do in their, um, downtime." But, describing Clinton's statement as "nearly a case of Too Much Information," Milbank left off the rest of Clinton's sentence, which made clear that she was not insinuating what Milbank suggested.
From the Nexis transcript of the December 30 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
KURTZ: I had the impression it was a camp reunion when I was out there in Iowa. And it is great, the retail campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. It is fun to cover and it is real, but it's -- when the votes are counted and we decide who did well -- for example, Hillary Clinton, let's say she doesn't win Iowa. Let's say she gets edged out by 1,000 votes. Is the press going to savage her as a loser?
MILBANK: The press will savage her no matter what, pretty much.
MILBANK: Well, obviously if she wins by any great margin -- the press with Hillary Clinton, it's a poisonous relationship. And I visited the various campaigns out there. It's a mutual sort of disregard. And they really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it out there. So --
KURTZ: And to what extent do you think that is affecting the coverage of Senator Clinton?
MILBANK: I think it unquestionably is. And I think Obama gets significantly better coverage than Hillary Clinton does, and given an equal performance he'll come out better for it.
KURTZ: Is this because journalists like Obama better than Hillary or --
MILBANK: It's more that they dislike Hillary Clinton. There is a long history there, her antagonism towards the press. It's returned in spades. And it is a venomous relationship that I see out there.
Poor, poor press! It is so sad to see our political process set entirely aside so that Senator Clinton can spend almost all her time pillorying that poor instrument of dissemination of information.
Were I the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or one of his empowered elite, I suspect I would ask for more, with a bigger club - but that is just my liberal dissatisfaction with the lies and deceit perpetrated by the Corporate Media upon us, for 27 years or more.
I would ask who is the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is, but why??
In any event, I would think the liberals here would run with this little campaign insider information from Milbank - the press has it in for Hillary so any negative coverage of her can be blamed on the press' dislike and be easily discounted as illegitimate. This thread should be placed under the "liberal media myth" as red meat, not here for minformation dissection.
Better think this through again.
Take a break, Tommy. I already did your job.
Here you go Tommy.
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster (also known as the Spaghedeity) is the deity of a parody religion called The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its system of beliefs, "Pastafarianism"
The religion was founded in 2005 by Oregon State University physics graduate Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution.
In an open letter sent to the education board, Henderson professes belief in a supernatural creator called the Flying Spaghetti Monster which resembles spaghetti and meatballs.
He furthermore calls for the "Pastafarian" theory of creation to be taught in science classrooms."
The above was lifted from:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Thanks for the info, I guess I need to brush up on my linguinistics.
Then we have for comparison the treatment of "the press" by Bungle, and the constant repetition of his lies as though gospel, down from the mount.
Perhaps Senator Clinton would do well to actually excoriate the press, twice daily.
Hiya Conley, Happy New Year !
Looks like not many of us went to work today, so I'll take the helm of the WITH patrol boat;
No misinformation here, sounds more like a guarantee.
"...There is a long history there, her antagonism towards the press. It's returned in spades." (Milbank)
That's a pretty good chicken/egg situation there.Milbank seems to be pretty sure HC started the whole thing.Can he really think that she treated the press as badly as, say, Bush?
Nah, she's just "antagonistic".Milbank reminds me in this item of the wingnuts who, after swallowing the very BS that this site exposes, post here perpetuating the same lies, along with some overt or passive/aggressive insults towards liberals in general, and then whine;
"Wow- liberals are sure hateful! Where is all of that tolerance?"
Did you forget so soon, HBL? All that liberal tolerance was on yesterday's thread. We wasted it giving more air time than necessary to stranger and philbin.
So let me be the first - oops, second - to go off topic today with this little bit of humor!
WHY IS THIS HERE?
It's a public announcement of global importance: THE PRESS is explaining WHY its coverage of the Democratic Frontrunner will be "poisonous" and "savage". In other words, get set for an onslaught of MISINFORMATION about Hillary, simply because "the PRESS" does not "LIKE" her.
The PRESS's job is not to like or dislike anyone. Its job is to report information important to the American People in a factual and unbiased manner. These members of the Press agree that such coverage will NOT be forthcoming: The press will operate on their emotional feelings, will decide who they "do not like", and then set about savaging that person.
This is a direct confession that the PRESS, far from being "Liberal", have become a propaganda arm of the RNC.
And the "excuse" that Hillary "treats the press badly" is a non-starter. Nobody in history has shown such disdain for the press as the Bush Administration, yet the press were lined up for YEARS as cheerleaders for the NeoCon agenda. That excuse doesn't fly, but the TRUTH cannot be spoken: The TRUTH is that the press has been entirely co-opted by the Rightwing, and its JOB is now to savage the Democrat frontrunner (and sugar-coat the Republican contenders).
That's what they're doing, and will continue to do. It's hilarious that they think an EMOTIONAL excuse is better than the true financial and partisan reasons for their actions.
Good point about the press’s job not being to like or dislike candidates on a personal level. The eventual nominee will be representing an entire party, not just himself or herself. The press owes the general public unbiased reporting—regardless of their feelings towards the candidate as a person (good, bad, or indifferent). The system we have cannot work if they do not play the game.
Milbank provides a more palatable reason or excuse for what is about to happen should Clinton win. The idea of the ref throwing the game to the GOP is what they do not want to get out. Therefore, he preemptively plants another explanation in people’s minds.
Funny that an employee of the flawed communication systems will never mention the partisan issue vis a vis the money and how the Republicans coddle those with it. That is too much truth.
Hello, HBL! I would said "happy New Year" to you, but - thanks! - you called me to account for my casual "Merry Christmas" - and I would never want to forsake my S-P commission.
Thus, even though I am unsure of the status of "Happy New Year" as an element of that campaign, and cannot reach headquarters (somewhere on the Left Coast, I think) to verify the appropriate action, I will do my best to represent my cause. "Hello."
Hmmm... INteresting, Conley. While the holiday itself is based on the annual pattern of the secular lunar calendar and the godless movements of the Earth, the year is counted from Christ's birth. And you know how even the slightest mention of Jesus sends us moonbats into spasms of rage. Arrrghhhhh !!!
This one may require further study.And as long it seems pretty quiet here today, and I'm already meandering off-topic, I'd like to share one of my favorite Onion items from '04
this is almost too close to reality to be funny.Almost
As a point of fact, the Gregorian calendar is a lunisolar calendar. Muslims use a lunar calendar. Their calendar is not tied to the sun or the seasons, so the months move around quite a bit from year to year.
Great article, HB.
Like you said, it's too close to the truth to be funny and so funny that it's true.
And I hope that Tommy is sharing his pay check with you, since you're doing his "WITH" job.
Before the Stranger showed up, I thought that no one could post as many words as Tommy does and not be paid for them.
Since no one in their right mind would ever pay the Stranger for his insightful missives, my theory doesn't hold water.
Happy New Year, Worrierking. I'm trying to get over the absolute lack of blowback I got from my WOX propaganda flyer I linked to the other day. Not one poster called me a bigot. Could it be that everybody's caught on to the reality of the War on Christmas, and realizes where the absurdity lies?What if they had a WOX and nobody came?
I missed the link.
But I have a good reason. I'm extending the WOX to include the after holiday return periods.
I've been staked out at malls, letting air out of tires, putting grease on car door handles, bending antennae, trying to return items to the wrong store and tying up the lines. Anything to anger our enemies.
Everyone else seems to want to wait until next year to fight the next WOX battle, but you know me, I don't give up that easily.
Excellent work, WK.I don't believe in timetables either.
I was referring to this, which took up a Xmas eve combo of my cheesy photo program and some Jack Daniels,and for which I got a very disappointingly small amount of abuse.
If I was paying attention I woulda said something, but I was to busy re-writing the lyrics to Rawhide. Sorry!
I SEEN THAT THE OTHER DAY YOU DERTY AMURACA HATING BASTAGE!!! WHEN ARE YOU %*&-ING LIBRULS GOING TO QUIT BEING SO PARTISONED AND START SEE'N THINGS THE RIGHT WAY.
YOU SOB'S MITE AS WELL BE THE ONE'S WHO KILT THE BABY JESUS. YOU SIT UP THERE IN YER IRONY TOWERS AND EAT TOEFOO AND PINE NUTS AND THINK YER SO HOTTSY SNOTSY. WELL, WHEN THE TURRISTS GIT HERE I HOPE THEY BOMB YOU FIRST, SO I CAN LAFF MY BUT OFF AT YOU-ALL. :-)
In the meantime, have a great new year, and see ya Wednesday.
Peace and love to everyone,
Rick
RICK:
LOL! Your Rightwing Redneck grasp is so frighteningly authentic, it may be time to look into your family tree to see if there might be a hereditary rationale for this skill.
As they say, insanity is hereditary: We get it from our kids...
You need to have the stuka's pic changed. Find one, or a group in a dive bombing posture. After that its all product placement.
Donno if that counts as a abuse. I confess to a lingering miasma of feeling good will towards men, women, and most others. I'm still not sure about Clevland though.
Oh.
And a Happy New SP Year to you too.
WITH? You mean, Why Is Tommy Here?
I jest, of course, but one never knows if Tommy will get it or not. He's demonstrated a sense of humor--twice by my count--but if he hasn't been imbibing in the holiday spirit, he could come in as cantakerous as ever. Who's to say?
As to the question, I think the reason it's here is that Milbank poses it as being someone else's problem, and thus refuses to take any of the blame.
Still, if this is how 2007 finishes, maybe 2008 won't be so bad. I won't hold my breath, just in case.
A Happy New Year to all out there, to the MMFA staff, to my fellow liberals, to the conscientious conservatives, and even to the trolls (their unintentional humor is a real joy at times, and a good appetite suppressant the rest, so they should help those of us with that particular resolution).
The sad thing is - this is a self-fulfilling prophesy. He's right... the press (himself included) probably will "do a Gore" on Ms. Clinton.
Millbank is right, the press will savage her a tad more than the other candidates, but this is not the primary reason she would not be elected. She is just an overall poor choice of candidate who appeals to radical minorities, she is unelectable.
This is not misinformation unless MMFA sees itself as part of the "media" Millbank described. MediaMatters would never "savage" Hillari. It seems as if misinformation does indeed take a vacation.
Tad? Funny choice of words, but not unexpected considering the source.
'tad' meaning not as much as Millbank would have it. This media animosity will not be enough to make or break a candidate.
Too bad it wasn't enough to break shrub and expose him for the lying fraud that he was. Millbank is part of the problem and one of the reasons the internet thrives.
it broke gore. the press assisted the republicans in every distortion of his record.
it broke gore. the press assisted the republicans in every distortion of his record.
Gore broke Gore:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/algore.htm
Well done, Stranger.
Thanks for the link.
I did some digging on the site you provided and found all the dirt on dear Al and also learned that there is a direct link between rock music and voodoo. I'm burning all of my Hendrix music as I type.
I also found links lionizing the recently departed Rev. Falwell and another written by one of my favorite "men of God" Ian Paisley.
Also found very interesting information which backs the young earth theory (the age of the earth being 6 to 15,00 years old, even though everyone knows that the Earth was created on October 26, 4004 BC, 9:00 AM)
--age of the earth from Archbishop Usher's calculations in 1654.
(I've worked my ass off trying to find out if that was 9 AM Eastern or Central. I'll post info as I get it.)
Thanks again.
here's two that i picked out from your site. one of gore's "lies" is that he claimed, in their words, "u.s. citizens are the world's worst polluters", based on gore's statement that a child born in this country will have thirty times the impact on the environment than a child born in india. "gore is lying about the environment", according to your site. but there is no arguing the fact that we have a small percentage of the world's population and contribute a quarter of the pollution.
the other is the love story thing. your site claims that "in fact the book's author, erich segal, stated he has no idea what gore is talking about". that is the lie because segal has acknowledged that the character is based on gore and his college roommate tommy lee jones.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h092800_1.shtml
Oh my goodness, they didnt really try the Love story thing again did they? How pathetic can you get? Gore accuratly cited the Tennesean. Another hivemind zombie meme. It doesnt matter how completely and thoroughly it has been debunked the hiveminders keep telling it because they prefer the LIE to reality. Its sad.
Way of Life? Haaahahahahheeheehohardeharhar! David W. Cloud is one of the biggest right wing falsifiers ever to pick up a pen! No wonder you like him, he lies like a rug and is twice as thick! What a maroon!
Looks like this is the new tactic of the dittohead think tanks. Cite the most ridiculous source you can, setting up for accusations of "Killing the Messenger".(I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, that they don't actually believe these hacks)This might be the "Gore Lie" that cost him the election;
"When Al Gore met female rock star Courtney Love (the foul-mouthed grunge rocker wife of Nirvanaâs blaspheming Curt Kobain, who shot himself to death) at a Hollywood party, Gore enthused that he was a big fan of hers."
Ouch! Talk about your political power plays gone wrong.
The Olbermann watch site(linked to further down the thread) is pretty impressive, too. Anybody else notice that the headlines and links generally have nothing at all to do with the content of the items?At least the ones I checked out start with an accusation against KO, and continue with a mess of name-calling and innuendo, but not much supporting material.
Thanks again, The Stranger.Starting 2008 with your .000 batting average intact.You are a treasure.
Finarfinugin: You are so right. Thanks for enlightening us. Also, admitted and blatant media bias is not a problem at all. So I guess that alleged liberal bias is a canard afterall, especially since Republicans have won the majority of Presidential elections over the past forty years despite the media instructing us to vote for liberals. In fact, there's no need for MMFA since media doesn't matter all in politics. WOW, what an epihany. I am now complete and this will be a truly wonderful new year now that I finally get it. You sir, are a genius! I'm going to save so much time giving a damn. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Fin,
Who are these "radical minorities" you are meaning?
You, hopefully (with your opinions) are a "radical minority."
I may be "radical" but I am certainly not a minority. There are many people with views such as mine, and they will increase in number in the face of the overall degeneration of our society. When liberalism controls all to the detriment of the people you will see a return to the hard right.
There are many people with views such as mine, and they will increase in number in the face of the overall degeneration of our society. When liberalism controls all to the detriment of the people you will see a return to the hard right
Wonder what's the meaning of "hard right"? Could the return of the "hard right" mean something along the lines of George Wallace's "I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”? One can hope that those on the "hard right" can't and don't breed.
Could the return of the "hard right" mean something along the lines of George Wallace's "I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”?
You do know that George Wallace was a lifelong Democrat, right?
So was Al Gore's mama's baby daddy. He, too, was a segregationist.
You do know that George Wallace was a lifelong Democrat, right?
Stranger you are truly a sad individual.
When your views are like those of George Wallace and Finarfin, frankly I could give a rats a$$ which political party you belong to.
I’m sure you are aware that the Democratic party Wallace originally joined is in no way the party that's existed since the 1960’s. That could be why when Wallace ran for President in 1968 he ran NOT as a Democrat but as a candidate of the American Independent Party. In fact every single ’democrat’ who voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Bill was a former Dixiecrat who were unhappy with the Democratic party’s support of civil rights for black people. The leader and Presidential candidate of the Dixiecrats was non other than Strum Thurmond, who took his racist attitudes into the welcoming arms of the Republican party. Jessie Helms who created an ad that said “"White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? was a Democrat until 1970 before he too, took his racist attitude into the welcoming arms of the Republican party.
So to answer to question, yeah I knew he was a Democrat.
and it was strom who ran as a third party candidate in 1948 because of, among other things, truman's executive order that year desegregating the armed forces. which brought about trent lott's statement a few years ago about "if we had voted for strom back then...."
Well, well...the two former Dixiecrats who renounced their past views and apologized for them are the ones that became Republicans.
They then went on to fight for civil rights.
The rest of them stayed Democrats. The Dixiecrat party disbanded in the late 1940's. The Civil rights movement didn't gain strength until the 1960's
Remember Byrd?... Fulbright? ...Gore, Sr...Hollings?...and on...and on...and on
Hell, the history of the Democratic party has been about racism and segregation. Thomas Jefferson, who founded the party, was an avowed segregationist.
In the 1964 a handful of Republicans in the House voted aginst it, while nearly 100 Democrats tried to defeat it.
This is obviously a rhetorical question, but why don't the history books teach about the massacre of 300 black Republicans by Democrat mobs 1n 1968?
Raise your hands, how many have heard about the Opelousas Massacre?
i don't think Obama has a shot at the nomination because of the ingrained racism of the left.
You're off by 100 years.
The Opelousas Massacre occurred in 1868.
Within a hundred years is a decent try by Strangefruits usual standard.
And only a crazed wingnut would try to portray this incident as a Democratic Party attack on Republicans.
I'm sure that none of the racist bastards asked for proof of party affiliation as they prepared to murder anyone. The massacre wasn't political, it was racist.
Although it's only January 2, I doubt that another post this year will have as much spin and untruth as this one of yours.
Pretty damning stuff on T. Jefferson, though.If you look back at the percentage of the black vote that the Sage of Monticello got, it's obvious that Strangy is right on the money, as usual.
John Adams appearance on Oprah in 1979 really sealed Jeffersons defeat.
Stranger,
Please analyze the Civil Rights Act Vote in terms of region and get back to me. I will provide what I have on it by percentage:
From the House:
Southern Dems 7/87 for (basically 7%)
Southern Republicans 0/10
Northern Dems: 145-9 for (94%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 for (85%)
Senate:
Southern Dems 1-20
Southern Republicans 0-1
Northern Dems 45-1 (Byrd)
Northern Republicans 27-5 (84%)
As a student of history, you know that most of those Southern Democrats became Republicans, but even if you add them in, more Democrats, percentage wise in both the House and Senate voted for the Bill.
You can claim all you want to about racism on the Left, but please, try to back it up and if you would, explain why Mehlman felt the need to apologize for the "Southern Strategy" beloved by the Right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totals
Hell, the history of the Democratic party has been about racism and segregation. Thomas Jefferson, who founded the party, was an avowed segregationist.
If you remember, black people primarily voted Republican for almost 100 years, because the Republican party pretty much came into existence in the 1850's on an anti-slavery platform. Blacks started switching to the Democratic party, when they perceived that the Democrats were now doing more for them, than the Republicans were (around the late 1930s). This was due to Roosevelt, and his "New Deal" policies. Whereas the Republicans started courting the voting block they couldn't previously get (white southerners). In this case, by the time the majority of blacks moved to the Democratic party (around the 1960s), a great many of the previous white southern Democrats, still didn't want to move to the Republican party, because it was the party of Lincoln and "black person lovers". The old "Dixiecrats", didn't start switching to the Republican party until the 1970s, and it took nearly 30 years, before you could consider the south firmly in the Republican camp
It’s not where you start, but where you end up. Those old racist Dixicrats ended up firmly in the Republican party, period!
Pearlene, not only are you a genius, you also have the patience of saint. These people know full well of the Southern Strategy and how they welcomed dissaffected whites to build a majority party. As a black man, I find their feigned ignorance an insult to intelligent discourse on matters race. Keep fighting the good fight and when I stop puking from their revisionist view of history I'll back you and Preston up when I can.
Kromecom48 of course they know about the “Southern Strategy” they just assume that we’re to dumb not to know about it as well. There's an old saying about the first three letters in assume -:)
I’m an old woman and silence is not an option for me so as long as the brain cells hold I’ll keep speaking my mind.
Guys like ‘Stranger’ are a sad statement for the future of the Republican party. No wonder Pat Buchanan is worried.
Fin,
So there are a growing number of people who don't think that "White Supremacist" is a bad term and are seeking to redefine it? There are a growing number of people who fear the gene pool getting "muddled" and who fear those who don't look like them? There are a growing number of people who are coming to this country who are flat-out racists and don't realize it? Uh, oh....
You are dreaming. Your white supremist racist BS had its day and is gone the way of the dinosaur. Keep dreaming it will come back. Its over. RIP
"...she [Hillary Clinton] is unelectable."-- she is unelectable."--Finarfin
After the last two Presidential elections, how would one define "unelectable?" The right would vote for Osama BinLaden if he promised to get those 'turrests.'
. . .then again, no one who was elected actually served as President since '96.
[I know, I just need to get over it--yea right]
She appeals to radical minorities? You mean like your white nationalist pals?
The Clintons themselves may be centrist but that does not mean they do not appeal/pander to radical minorities. Hillari changes colors to match her political environment with great aplomb.
So...you are saying yes, Hillary panders to your white nationalist brothers?
Hillari has a deep running personal vendetta against the white male, like many other liberals. You are taunting me with your rather idiotic mockery, i suggest you desist and spare us the mental anguish.
Desist?
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
I fart in your general direction.
Your mother was a goat and your father smelt of elderberries. Now go away or shall taunt you a second time.
Anyway, so now you are saying no, Hillary does not appeal to your Aryan brothers?
Wait a minute. That sentence of yours, "Hillari has a deep running personal vendetta against the white male, like many other liberals" makes little sense. Do you mean that Hillary has a vendetta against many other white male liberals? Or do you mean that you are a white male liberal, too?
The mental anguish commences with no end in sight. Take heed Roundhouse, to my earlier advice.
You purposely "misunderstood" my statements but you know what i meant. And no, this may come as a shock to you but Hillari does not appeal to "my Aryan brothers."
Your vendetta against white males comment was just plain ignorant.
Well does she change colors to suit her political environment with great aplomb or not? I mean according to one of your prior posts the radical hard right Aryan minority would be a juicy group of brothers to court. What with all their mounting influence, what candidate in their right mind would forsake them?
Btw, who are your white nationalist brothers supporting for President? I mean besides Ron Paul, who do they prefer?
Radical fringe?
Oh please, the Clintons are right leaning centrists. Only in wingnut bizarro land do they come anywhere close to being radical or extreme.
The center is dictated by the observer. You call them right-leaning centrists, but that's more telling of your perspective than it is of anything else.
WARNING!
Cracker Alert!
When you use "cracker" which does have an equivalent relating to the black race, you are being the racist bigot that you so eagerly label others as. If it is indeed allowed to use such derogatory vocabulary than I shall likewise partake.
Finpot, meet Finkettle.
As I told you last week, if you don't want to be called a "cracker" stop acting like a cracker.
You bring shame to your race.
And by race, I mean Homo Sapiens.
And as I answered last week, what does acting like a cracker entail? So then according to your theory i can call someone a _____ indefinitly if i think that they are a _____?
Did the drycleaner put too much starch in your sheets again Fin?
What does it entail?
Here's just a small sample from one thread.
The fact that i think africans are currently inferior in thair average levels of intellect does not make me a rascist, If it does by definition that the meaning of the word is itself twisted and much too vague.
- FINARFIN / Thursday November 29, 2007 01:33:26 PM EST
You may not be aware of the natural world around us, but each individual specie, and within it each individual is competing against the others for domminance and survival. Human races are like different specie. they compete for domination. Each race is like a male seeking to expand his gene pool.
- FINARFIN / Wednesday November 28, 2007 01:37:37 PM EST
You cannot however dismiss those who have an interest in eugenics as rascist , and that is my main point……
- FINARFIN / Thursday November 29, 2007 01:40:08 PM EST
By muddying the gene pool i mean that the gene pool is no longer mostly homogenous, rather there are profoundly different racial traits all mixed up. you are stereotyping all those with an interest in eugenics as racist.
- FINARFIN / Friday November 30, 2007 02:45:57 PM EST
They sure do not want to speak like us, and in their aversion to speaking like a "white" they use some sort of twisted accent of the poor southerner and thus continue to degrade themselves. They (the majority) do not understand the privelige of living like civilized humans, they trash all in their sight and pollute our neighborhoods. The [african american] people seem to think that just because they worked hard in america's beginning they no longer need to work, thair historical labour quotas have been fulfilled. This is a self destructive mindset. We gave them the priviledge of equal education and they defecate upon this privaledge. they refuse to learn. take a look at the educational scores of the majority of African Americans, they perpetuate their ignorance of thair own ignorance. The majority of them have forgotten the struggle of thair forefathers for equality, and thus they forgoe the privaliges bestowed upon them. To be educated is to be "white" to a black man, and thus he will not learn. The afrikan amerikan's obsession with "whites" is crippleing them. by the way for those of you who will no doubt call me rascist, it might help that you look up the actual meaning of the word.
- FINARFIN / Wednesday November 28, 2007 12:28:55 AM EST
Fin,
You didn't answer my original question: who are the radical minorities that Hillary appeals to?
Some of the radical minorities that hillari appeals to are the radical feminists, the radical homosexuals, and radical liberals in general.
Fin,
Thanks for the answer. Could you define for me what these groups are? For example, are all homosexuals "radical homosexuals" are all feminists "radical feminists" and are all liberals "radical liberals?"
To me, she doesn't seem that far left. I would put almost all of the Presidential candidates in the Democratic party to the left of her politically.
She appeals to me as a white male, but not as much as the other candidates for the nomination, but what do I know, I only have blond hair and hazel eyes.
That is an interesting thing to note, not all homosexuals are radical and not all of them want to push the current radical homosexual agenda. The so called "homosexual community" is not represented by it's majority. The feminists that always appear on the media for their outrageous comments are those that are radicals, from true feminists one hears not a word. Most liberals are non-radical, they are grouped generally into mainstream liberals and intellectually honest liberals, the latter of which you find much on this site. Yet there are the liberal wingnuts, and they are those who I refer to as "radical liberals".
And as I have pointed out before, Hillari herself may not be as far-left but she panders to those who are. She is one of many liberals that would have the white race further bend over backwards to appeal to the minorities. Some whites think little of their race, they are those brainwashed by liberal propaganda.
Fin,
How does someone who appeals to such fringe elements enjoy so much popularity? You mentioned that she appeals to the smallest minorities, but yet, she enjoys great popularity. Why?
I really don't like your stereotypes, Fin. I think you assume way too much about people before knowing them.
Millbank is on Olbermann alot and I don't understand why KO doesn't challenge this asshat. He's made out to be some "expert", I just think the National Enquirer wouldn't hire him.
Could it be because he, like KO is essentially a fairly liberal guy, and it's not really part of KO's MO to in any way criticize liberals or, for that matter, anybody who ever comes on his show?
It is a little sad that MMFA does not post the audio of this exchange, so that we have a better idea of Mindblank's context, if you will. He does mention the media as "they" as though he is not a part of it. Is he glad the media will "savage" HRC, is he disappointed or is he ambivalent about the whole thing? Sure, MMFA can go back and find other examples of purported bias to the right with his reporting, just as MRC or AIM could probably find examples of bias to the left. Remember, in the above exchange, he does use the word "they" rather than "we".
Just as in 2004, the media is being overtly complicit in selecting presidential finalists. As the media adheres to mandates of their corporate owners, take gifts from lobbyists, and seeks easy, cheap ratings by conjuring news stories, the country continues to fail.
In 2004, this media complicity trashed Howard Dean and the Democrats ended up with candidate John Kerry; a man too politically inept to counter right wing disinformation and swift-boating. The country ended up with a continuing republican president carrying out corporate mandates to transfer the middle class treasury to Wall Street and corporate elites.
Today, media “pundits” in an effort to create news for cheap ratings and to satisfy preferences by their corporate owners are creating fights against Hillary Clinton. Republicans clearly fear Hillary’s potential effectiveness as president. They also know that almost any republican presidential candidate could beat Obama or Edwards in the general election, with the help of swift boat tactics.
NBC news with particular help from MSNBC’s Chris Mathews doesn’t even attempt to mask its mandate to trash Hillary, but it’s sad that CNN also has succumbed.
New Year's Resolution for me, Dana Milbanks and anyone else:
Look out upon the astounding universe with open eyes; ignore no longer truth and fear no fact; be ready at all times to recast all our precious opinions to the crucible of experience and higher knowledge.
Have a good evening and prosperous new year.
And Here's my new year's prediction:
no way in h-e-double toothpicks will Romney get the nod. The extremist christian crowd won't have it.
Huckabee by two bibles and a fifth of the blood of christ for the republican nod.
I think you're right about Romney, Snoopy. But, I fear it will be McCain instead of the Huckster, who looks to me like a flash in the pan. Unfortuneately, if I'm right, McCain will be harder to beat.
I'm not so sure about that. He was thoroughly trashed by the republicans in SC when he ran against Bush. It will be very easy to dredge up all that and paint him as a defeated sock puppet who is available to his master's beck and call. It might be more appealing if he's running against Hillary, but I still see him as a long shot. Gulliani is toast due to the multiple marraiges, especially one being his cousin. He'll crash and burn like Jerry Lee Lewis at the Copa Cabana.
Huck is certainly pulling all the right strings right now - homophobia, immigraphobia, demophobia, taxaphobia, and anything else not covered by pennicillin. He will be a shining example of right wing Huckopracy!
A neat trick would be if Huckleberry ran a push poll in SC asking voters if they would vote for McCain if they knew he had an illegitamate child by a black woman.
Whoa! I think I just had election NewYears eave dejavu. Has that poll been done before?
:-)
I think the first time (it wouldn't be) the camera shows him sleeping even the sheeple will realize he's too old for the job. Way too old.
McCain will make Jeb his running mate. Then, when he kicks off, we can suffer through yet another Bush...MY GOD, SOMEONE WAKE ME UP, I'M HAVING THAT NIGHTMARE AGAIN ! . . .
take all of w's insufferable arrogance, multiply times ten, and you have jeb. and also a founding member of the project for a new american century, as i recall. and the family, his wife got busted for trying to sneak thousands of dollars of items past customs, and the daughter stole prescription pads from her doctor to write fake prescriptions.
It Is About Time Someone Took Notice
I have watched, with outrage, the continuous negative coverage Hillary Clinton gets from the media. The intense stuff has been going on since she announced she would run for president, and it is unfair because it gives the media too much influence in who is nominated and voted in as president.
From subtle to outright, across the spectrum of network and cable news, Clinton will only get negative press. If she is ahead in a poll, they will only speak of if in passing fashion, If she is behind in a poll, they blow it us as a major turning point in the election process. For example, Clinton has recently pulled ahead in many Iowa polls. Instead of noting or speaking of her in comeback terms, they will only talk about how the "race" has become tighten.
And then there will be those who watched Chris Matthews go from asking whether Barack Obama can beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa, to trashing her everyday to make sure it happens. Matthews is on a power trip; the likes of which this country has not scene since Joe McCarthy’s communist scare in the 1950s.
At the root of Matthew’s scheme is power. This guy wants to know HE can make and break those who don’t dance to his tune. It’s not the power of television, it is the power of Matthews. This man is sick and belongs in a clinical setting for an obsession compulsive disorder.
Putting Matthews aside, the media has too much power. When you have every major news organization, from ink to tv media, saying the same negative thing over and over again, it influences the process in unfair dynamics. There is no counter. The only thing Clinton can hope for is a adverse affect in which the voters see what is going on and give her a sympathy vote. Still, this kind of media power needs to be checked real soon.
Joseph
As we approach the caucuses and primaries, we're about to watch the people in Iowa and New Hampshire decide, yet again, who we get to vote for in November, and you want to complain about the media having too much power...? I'm not at all suggesting the media is not powerful, but come on, the people in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina make the media look like weaklings.
As we approach the caucuses and primaries, we're about to watch the people in Iowa and New Hampshire decide, yet again, who we get to vote for in November, and you want to complain about the media having too much power...? I'm not at all suggesting the media is not powerful, but come on, the people in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina make the media look like weaklings.
- BreakerBaker / Monday December 31, 2007 08:48:23 PM EST
Where Is The Beef
Your comments do not address any of the points noted about the media's influence. If you are trying to say negative didactic politics have not influenced the people in Iowa, not only have you been snowed by this dynamic, but you are proof it works.
Joseph
Negative didactic politics...um, is that really what you're talking about? Because that's something entirely different than what you were complaining about. You were complaining about media bias against Hillary Clinton. Of course, she was the darling of the media not that long ago, and she continues to get endorsements from influential media publications. Her debate performances used to be hailed as brilliant and skilled by the same people you accuse of trying to bring her down.
If we're just talking about negative, didactic politics, one needn't look further than Hillary Clinton. She was the first to go negative in the campaign. She, and her campaign, long before they implied Barrack Obama may have been a drug dealer, accused him in the most condescending way of being 'naive' simply because he was willing to say what Democrats (her included) actually believe when it comes to foreign policy.
If you want to talk about being didactic, look at her. She's always totally condescending. She's always treating the people like she knows better than them. She even goes so far to warn people about how dire the result of voting for someone other than her could be in the event of a terrorist attack--before or after the general election.
If you want to talk simply about the media not liking her, we can try to decide whether or not that's warranted, but accusing someone other than Hillary Clinton of being either didactic or negative is sort of silly.
You were complaining about media bias against Hillary Clinton. Of course, she was the darling of the media not that long ago
When?
After every single debate performance prior to her driver license implosion. She was hailed as masterful, presidential, and far more prepared and impressive than any of her Democratic rivals. Perhaps referring to her as the darling was hyperbolic, but she received much higher praise during most of the campaign. It took the media a very long time to begin to question any of her claims of experience, and much of the bad press she's received since was in large part of her own making.
After every single debate performance prior to her driver license implosion. She was hailed as masterful, presidential, and far more prepared and impressive than any of her Democratic rivals.
So because she did well and they adknowledge it that somehow meant she was a media darling? If they could have found some way to savage her, I'm sure they would have.
but she received much higher praise during most of the campaign. It took the media a very long time to begin to question any of her claims of experience, and much of the bad press she's received since was in large part of her own making.
I didn't see the praise you saw. I did see the constant hyping of her as the candidate to beat which really annoyed me but that's what the polls were showing at the time.
"adknowledge" should be "acknowledged".
It wasn't simply a case of showing praise for a job well done. She was painted as imminently more capable and impressive than any of her rivals. She was rarely questioned on substantive issues, and for the first half of the campaign, rarely criticized on issues of style. She was, essentially given a free pass for a long part of the campaign. It may be because her campaign's design on painting her as inevitable was so effective. It may have been due to national polls, but for whatever reason, she was rarely painted as anything but the inevitable nominee and eventual president. Even by clear conservatives.
Personally, I'm biased against her being either the nominee or the president, so maybe I'm more likely to see it than some.
"She's always treating the people like she knows better than them."--BB
Don't you want the President to know better than most people? If you were to hire somebody to run a business for you, for example, wouldn't you pick the sharpest person available?
The distinction lies in the difference between being knowledgeable and being condescending.
given the choice.....w is condescending, but knows nothing.
Shouldn't a serious candidate for the presidency know a even tiny bit about Pakistan...considering what is going on there and all the possible repercussions?
But in two confident television appearances, on CNN and ABC, Clinton made an elementary error about Pakistani politics: She described President Pervez Musharraf as a "candidate" who would be "on the ballot."
In fact, Musharraf was reelected to the presidency in October. The upcoming elections are for parliament, and while Musharraf's party will be facing off against opposition parties, the president himself is not a candidate.
So...why isn't she being savaged by the MSM about this?
Can we have a source for this quote?
Also, I won't defend an incorrect statement, but I'll match any of the Democratic candidates against W for knowlede of what is going on beyond Crawford.
strange one, how convenient of you to post that. back in 1999, bush could not even name him, or other leaders of countries such as india.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/05/bush.popquiz/
Heck, Bush can't even eat a pretzel correctly. Anyone who makes his stem cell policy based on two paragraphs read to him from a work of fiction should not be president. That's probably why he sat there with a stupid look on his face for what, 11 minutes? when the trade centers were struck. He was probably wondering "what would the goat do?"
Shouldn't a serious candidate for the presidency know a even tiny bit about Pakistan...considering what is going on there and all the possible repercussions?
The scary part is that she probably knows more about Pakistan than all the republican candidates combined.
Well, why don't you ask Huckabee about that? Apparently he thinks he's too busy to be able to take time to read the NIE report...
And I don't mean that Clinton is not knowledgeable. I intended the meaning of evoking the sense that you're knowledgeable vs trying to show people how much more than them you know. That's condescending.
It's the presidency. Every candidate should be trying to show the public that they're more knowledgeable than the other guy. Maybe you've gotten use to a president not knowing anything since Bush took office.
Again, this has nothing to do with being knowledgeable. One can be brilliant, and not condescending. There's even a way of being professorial without being didactic. Hillary Clinton seems inept at figuring out the trick. Style matters.
"the people" are woefully misinformed. when more people can name the three stooges [and i am a fan] than one supreme court justice, we are an uneducated society. the today show no longer leads with any news stories, those come later. what leads now is fluff, like this morning when they featured the bogus story that won hannah montana tickets. that is "news"? and none of these so called "conservatives" in the republican race are conservative. ron paul is the closest thing, but i can't buy all his libertarian nonsense. i would have voted for gore in 2000 anyway, but i would not have been that unhappy with a mccain presidency as i was with bush. but now mccain is just another neocon. it's all screw the deficits, let's lower taxes, let's go get the terrorists even in countries where they wre not present. they all promise we're going to go live on the big rock candy mountain. [one of my favorite movies, rancho deluxe]
and not that the democrats are all that. i've held my nose a few times voting for them.
and anyone who thinks that the republicans are not going to talk about obama's drug use is dreaming. they are chomping at the bit about that.
Yeah, but unless they have pictures (or create them) BO has already admitted his drug use.
that's my point. they are going to use it.
Didn't the left and the MSM run with unsubstantiated rumors that W did drugs and repeat the story incessantly?
Why shouldn't they discuss Barack Husein's admitted cocaine use?
There are rumors that he was actually a dealer. Why don't the same rules apply to him?
W was a drunk until 40 and is now a dry drunk. This is fact. He hasn't admitted using cocaine but has never denied it either when the question was posed to him. There are lingering questions about his inability to pass his National Guard flight physical, but when you're a kid born with a silver spoon to powerful parents, many things go away. Obama was man enough to admit his youthful failures and he overcame his problem. I think most people of reason and intelligence (no 30%'s in that category) can understand the difference.
W was a drunk until 40
How'd ya come to this conclusion? It wouldn't be because W admitted that he drank would it?
Oh, and I don't recall W ever describing himself as a drunk
So Barrack Hussein is a hero to you because he admitted he did blow?
Please explain the difference.
if you drink so much that your wife threatens to leave you, and you have to swear off liquor permanantly, it's not a stretch to call you a drunk.
So people shouldn't vote for him? Because he's too honest? Do you really take it at face value, the notion that the campaign brought up drug use because Republicans are going to? They brought it up because they know that the nominee will likely be chosen by a handful of people in Iowa, and they're more than happy to make it a handful of people who chose not to show up.
The Republicans may very well bring it up, but anybody who thinks Barrack Obama as the Democratic nominee would end 2008 with higher negatives than Hillary Clinton is fooling themselves. At least I think they are.
i assume you are asking me. "the republicans may well bring it up". thank you, that's what i said.
I suppose that means Millbank is saying the press cannot be professional. It appears she has been demonstrating that lack of professionalism for some time.
I suspect the comment about Hillary stabbing Obama in the back reflects more on Millbank than on Hillary. Why would anyone make a comment like that unless they want to or plan to stab the person commented on in the back?
In my work as a Caseworker I had to deal with many people I did not like, both clients and co-workers. Hopefully, I acted more professionally and fairly toward them than Ms Millbank seems to.
"Clinton's relationship with the press as "poisonous" and "venomous," and said that journalists "dislike" her."
Fox News Channel takes the honor of "disliking" Hillary Clinton. The Fox News suites at this sorry neocon network will continue their negative stories about Clinton until the presidential election.
Hopefully, Clinton will publicly expose Fox News' connection with Rudy Giuliani.
THANK YOU DANA! BUT HE SHOULD HAD SAID THE WHOLE DEMOCRATE PARTY AND A REPUBLICAN WHO RNC AND FOX NEWS DON'T WANT TO WIN."CAN YOU SAY HUCKABEE". NOW LOOK AT THE PRESS MAKEING A BIG DEAL OUT THE FACT THAT CHELSEA SAID NO TO A 9 YEAR OLD REPORTER. NO WONDER WOLF WAS SO HAPPY YESTERDAY ON CNN. LOOK FOR THE OVERKILL ON THIS STORY.
HEY!!!! I hope the Huckster is the repug nominee because he'll have a shot at handing complete control of everything to the Democrats, thanks. An overwhelming majority is not going to vote for a christofascist like the Huckster.
I would only vote for Senator Clinton if her opponent is a Repugnant or a Republican, but I do find interesting the various coverage of Chelsea and the 9-year-old reporter - both the facts (the AP comes close) and the spun version (CNN, NYT, and most of the other anti-Dem Corporate Media). In my opinion, they should all just relax. Senator Clinton is a Corporatist through-and-through - worse than anyone except the Repugnants; a hawk, worse even than some of the non-candidate Republicans; and willing to overlook the crimes of Bungle in order to avoid the charge that she is somehow fostering division by asking that the law be applied. So what is there for them (the Corporate Media) to object to, or lie so pervasively to avoid?
the nine year old said chelsea was nice to her and posed for a picture with her. chelsea should stick to her pledge. she owes no reporter anything.
i think it should read "the press will give her a pass no matter what".
Hillary sends her condolences to the family of her good friend Benazir Bhutto...especially her two kids..
..problem is, her good friend has three kids
Links Stranger, links.
http://www.tvshark.com/read/?art=arc1291
Well, gee...I don't suppose this proves the whole point of what I'm saying, do ya?
Had this been a Reuplican candidate, it would have been the lead of every news program, been on the front page of almost every newspaper, been on the cover of every magazine in the country...for months
It's too awful that the media has been repeating this ad nasuem..you know..since the media is just savaging Hill:
(oh..you mean they're not repeating it ad nauseum?)
Senator Hillary Clinton was praised in the wake of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto for demonstrating her command of the players and the issues at stake in Pakistan, even as another candidate, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, was criticized for stumbling over details.
But in two confident television appearances, on CNN and ABC, Clinton made an elementary error about Pakistani politics: She described President Pervez Musharraf as a "candidate" who would be "on the ballot."
In fact, Musharraf was re-elected to the presidency in October
What I would like to know is why isn't the MSM - and especially Millbank-savaging Hill over her tale Hill concocted of how she, Sinbad, and Chelsea ran secret missions into Bosnia.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Sinbad_and_Chelsea_on_a_Secret_Mission_to_Bosnia
It's their job, isn't it? It's kinda like how they, for the most part, ignored Kerry's magic hat story
Is it possible - despite the snark of those sources listed - that Senator Clinton told exactly the literal truth? Since I cannot find exact quotations of her statements, I cannot tell. However, it is quite possible that some sniping and some weather did indeed cause a difficult landing for her transport, and might have endangered both the (future) Senator / candidate, her daughter, and the rest of the entourage. Or do you have better sources than the snarky-embellished version offered?
MY embellished version ?? MY embellished version??
OK, here's a link
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usside315521015dec31,0,5515440.story
This is my favorite part:
"The dictum around the Oval Office in the '90s, she added, was: "If a place was too dangerous, too poor or too small, send the first lady."
I think the point you're missing is that she isn't being savaged in the MSM about this.
Your sources are terrible, Strango. You do need to get out more.
Yeah, I saw that one too, when researching this alleged incident; the problem is, it is 100% speculation about someone else's speculation about what Senator Clinton *MAY* have said, without a single redeeming reference to transcript - just more repetition (note the similarity - congruency - no, actually, identity, of huge segments of the text (and not as citations, with attribution, either) among the seven articles answering the search. Even the opinionating is eerily copied from one to another, yet presented as original. Smells bad - must be typical Repugnants?
This is for all the Chicken 'n Waffles fans.
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/12/keith_olbermann_71.php#more
...and those are just the top ten
Stranger, no top ten list of your own?
Pretty boring set of rants S. I see one of your earlyier posts got removed. Do you lose or gain money when that happens?
You have found the ultimate Sueld site. Filled completely with lies and confirming what KO watchers know already when they watch his show, facts...KO deals in facts and repugs like yourself simply can't handle the truth.
Marker, Sueeld is unable to post at this time, but asked that I relay a message;
"You don't like opposing viewpoints, and are a hater."
I read some of the comments at HotAir via Olbermann watch.A liberal version of Tommy could have a full-time job there.
Giuliani accuses the Dems of coddling terrorists, mentioning Assad.The AP reports this, replacing Assad with Bin Laden. KO references OBL in commenting on Rudi's remarks.Michelle Malkin goes nutso over Olbermanns lies.
This is even bigger than Al Gore being polite to Courtney Love.
Would that - just once - one of the links provided by a Repugnant zombie be literate and thoughtful, even if packed with Repugnant lies. The spittle stains made this most recent example all but illegible.
Do you even know the "Chicken and Waffles" reference, Stranger?
FRIED:
Stranger is a rabid rightwing racist. Using the "Chicken and Waffle" reference is his way of announcing his racism to the world.
His "reference" is crystal clear.
I know, I just was hoping to see him call KO a racist and try to wiggle out of it.
I saw Milbank on Reliable Sources and was appalled that Howard Kurtz responded by just saying "interesting". Milbank is admitting that the media is being wildly unprofessional, yet Howie doesn't even blink. I wish he had pointed out that the media treated Gore with the same venom, quite likely costing him the election and leading us into this horrible mess. They were so busy trying to be cool, that they willingly mislead the public into thinking that Gore was a liar and Bush was the "straight shooter". For this they get special constitutional protection!!
I believe the press dislike Hillary and Bill because they are educated beyond most of the press.With his inability to complete a sentence, Bush on the other hand made them feel superior. hence their condescension towards him.Chris Mathews is a particular virulent example of the antagonism of the press or broadcast media towards Hillary. He mocked her laugh until he was made to realize that his was much like hers! He cannot say anything good about her.
Most of the republic candidates have flipped on every issue yet Hillary is the only one held up as an opportunist because she gives vague answers when she has not yet decided on an issue i.e. driver licenses in NY.Obama has no plans for our future yet is given an endorsement for that!
Sad really.
Andyod.
maybe she should try speaking in a 'press' accent.
It is early January,2008. The heads of the Repugnant Republans are getting closer to exploding. Their new war cry is,,,,"WHY WON'T ANYONE LISTEN TO ME, JUST LIKE 4 YEARS AGO." Well, to all the RR's, Americans opened their ears and realized what you NUTS have been spouting, Americans looked at the DEATH numbers from the Occupation( not just Americans, but women and children) and Americans have fianlly spoken out and said the REPUBLANS are crazy.
It is so wonderful to have a "sitting encyclopedia" on quotes and sources like THE STRANGER on this site. It is a welcome addition. However, Stranger has more quotes from "FAIR and UNBALANCED" sources than the Catholic Church has Saints in their Litany of the Saints. The only difference is that the Church asks those Saints to pray for them. The STRANGER quotes ask that their believers gain hate from them.
Oh no, I just heard a Republan head burst...no worry, nothing came out.
Look at the way the news media pounced on Chelsea Clinton for not saying anything to a 9 year old reporter.
The press will not let Hillary get elected. Just like Obama and Romney won't get elected. The press will continue to push the fact that their all not white male Christians. And although I don't want any of them to get elected, I do think that it's sad that our media is the way it is. I especially don't want Hilary. Not because she's a women, but because she's a great politician, which makes her a horrible person. She stayed with a lying cheating husband because she knew it would be politically advantageous for her in the future to have Bill on her side. Romney seems too big business, and Obama has started to show some political naivety, although having a newcomer to politics might not be all bad.
I love how the dumb public buys into the notion that a junior Senator lacks experience, but a mayor doesn't. Pavlov at work.
John