Media run with anonymous claim that Clinton win "will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding' option"
SUMMARY: After ABC's Jake Tapper quoted "an anonymous Democratic Party official" saying that Hillary Clinton's "securing the nomination is certainly possible -- but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option,' " numerous media figures have repeated the "Tonya Harding option" analogy in reference to the Clinton campaign -- some going so far as to assert that it is a specific strategy adopted by the campaign.
Following a March 25 report by ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper on his ABCNews.com blog, Political Punch, that an anonymous Democratic Party official claimed, regarding Sen. Hillary Clinton, "Her securing the nomination is certainly possible -- but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option,' " numerous media figures have repeated the reference -- some going so far as to assert that the purported "Tonya Harding option" is a specific strategy adopted by the Clinton campaign.
Indeed, Tapper's headline -- "Democratic Party Official: Clinton Pursuing 'The Tonya Harding Option' " -- asserts that, according to an anonymous source, Clinton is in fact "Pursuing 'The Tonya Harding Option.' " But that's not what Tapper wrote in the post itself. Rather, he quoted the anonymous source saying that to secure the nomination, Clinton would have to "exercis[e] the Tonya Harding option," not that Clinton was actually "pursuing" such a strategy. Tapper referenced his blog post in an appearance on the March 25 edition of ABC's World News.
On the March 27 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann questioned if the Clinton campaign was "second thinking" the "reported 'Tonya Harding' strategy" and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd cited Tapper to claim "as one Democrat described it ... Hillary is going for 'the Tonya Harding option' -- if she can't get the gold, kneecap her rival." Additionally, during the March 26 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ, co-host Megyn Kelly said of the purported "Tonya Harding" strategy: "According to one Democratic Party official, Clinton is reportedly using that same strategy -- destroy her leading competitor." Fox News contributor Dick Morris said in response, "Well, of course they're going to try that. They're going to try anything they can. That's their M.O." By contrast, later in the show Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin said of Clinton: "I don't think she seized this Tonya Harding strategy, which is being pitched so hard by the punditry and the blogosphere."
At one point during the March 26 America's Election HQ segment, Fox News displayed a graphic of Harding and Clinton side-by-side beneath a caption reading "ON THIN ICE":
MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan, during the March 25 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House with David Gregory, said: "Desperate times call for desperate measures. Just like Barack Obama changed the subject away from Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright by suddenly introducing Bill Richardson and then flying off to the Virgin Islands, she went to the Pittsburgh Post Tribune [sic: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review] and she reintroduced Reverend Wright as the subject, brought him back up, talked about hate speech, 'he wouldn't have been my pastor.' It's back on the board; it's political hardball. But it is legitimate even if some Democrats are grumbling about the Tonya Harding option."
On the March 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest host Laura Ingraham discussed Tapper's report with Time magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin. Ingraham said: "But I heard, and I know you've read, the Tonya Harding option and the Tonya Harding strategy line that was reported on, I believe, yesterday. To have that kind of description out there about Hillary Clinton, that can't be helpful."
References to Tonya Harding in the context of Clinton are not new. During the March 11 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, GOP strategist Pete Snyder asserted, "an Obama/Clinton ticket is like having a Nancy Kerrigan/Tonya Harding couples pair skating out there. I mean the body language between the two are so stilted." Additionally, during a discussion of the primaries on the January 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, conservative radio host Bill Cunningham asserted, "The most dangerous place to be in politics, as I'm sure [Fox news contributor] Kirsten [Powers] knows, is between a desired goal and the Clintonistas, because you will get run over. You will get [Harding ex-husband Jeff] Gillooly and the Tonya Harding."
The media have also invoked Harding while discussing other political figures. During the January 27 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said that Obama "doesn't have to be Tonya Harding to fight back." Additionally, during the 2000 presidential recount, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) compared then-Vice President Al Gore to Tonya Harding. During the December 3, 2000, edition of CNN's Late Edition, McConnell -- discussing the Florida recount -- said, "Al Gore, at this rate, is going to become -- will be remembered as the Tonya Harding of American presidential history, unwilling to accept the results after we've had a count, a recount, and a selected hand recount in overwhelmingly Democratic areas." Later that day, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer repeated the analogy saying, "You know, Senator Mitch McConnell was also on our program earlier today. He echoed the same theme. He went a little bit further, though, saying that what Al Gore is doing by contesting the certified election in Florida, he was in effect, in his words, becoming the political Tonya Harding. I guess that means that he was anxious to win at any price, no matter the damage it cost to the country?" McConnell repeated the analogy on the December 6, 2000, edition of CNN's Larry King Live.
From Tapper's March 25 Political Punch post headlined "Democratic Party Official: Clinton Pursuing 'The Tonya Harding Option' ":
l just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight.
The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.
The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?
What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?
She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.
"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"
The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.
It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn't get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold.
(In this metaphor, presumably, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would be Oksana Baiul. Does that make former President Bill Clinton Jeff Gillooly?)
From the March 27 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: The reported "Tonya Harding" strategy, the idea to kneecap Senator Obama's candidacy, to make him unelectable and thus, force the superdelegates to turn to her at the convention.
Is there any indication that there's any kind of second thinking about that, any second thought whatsoever from the Clinton campaign now that there are more signs that it doesn't matter? Once you bring the baseball bat out, whoever is standing is going to get hit? That the winner for the nomination and the loser for the nomination are going to suffer an equivalent amount of kneecap damage?
RICHARD WOLFFE (Newsweek White House correspondent): Well, I do think it's interesting that Senator Clinton's negatives have actually been on the rise recently. But, look, loyalty is key inside the Clinton camp. So there's no sign of second thoughts going on. But there is another path for them.
I mean, if the Clinton camp is really convinced as many people are inside the Clinton camp, that Obama will implode, there will be some scandal, there will be some reason for him to fall down. It's not going to happen because the Clinton folks prompt it to happen.
They will be much better off riding into the convention on a white horse, having suspended the campaign, and then rescue the party from itself. It's not going to happen because of a Tonya Harding strategy. It will just happen.
OLBERMANN: Well, Tonya Harding didn't listen to that advice. We'll see if her equivalent in the candidate -- in the campaign does. Great thanks to Richard Wolffe of Newsweek, joining us tonight. Thank you, sir.
WOLFFE: Thank you, Keith.
From the March 26 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: Time now to saddle up our own Dana Milbank, national political reporter of The Washington Post. Good evening, cowboy.
MILBANK: Howdy.
OLBERMANN: I promised those polls, here's one of -- one set, you know, kind of buoying numbers. In the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll coming out tonight, 37 percent of those surveyed rated their feelings toward Senator Clinton as positive, 48 percent negative. She was at 45 percent positive, 43 percent negative in the same poll two weeks ago.
Senator Obama, the numbers, same question -- 49 percent positive, which is down two points. Thirty-two percent negative, that is up four points. This suggests, does it not, Dana, that the Wright controversy damaged Obama less than just Senator Clinton's campaign has damaged her?
MILBANK: This poll does suggest that, Keith, but I think there's a lot of evidence here that it's harming both of them greatly. There's also a Gallup poll out tonight that should send chills down the spine of every Democrat in the country right now, suggesting that Obama would lose 28 percent of the voters who are now voting for Clinton and that Clinton would lose 19 percent of the voters going with Obama.
That doesn't even include the larger number, four in 10 or so who just would sit out the race. They have some serious, serious divisions right now. This thing really seems to have crossed a threshold here. Clinton may have been unelectable because of her high negatives; it now seems that she may be on the verge of making Obama unelectable as well, which is an extraordinary thing, given the circumstances of this election.
OLBERMANN: And those were taken -- those numbers were compiled before her comments on Reverend Wright, before the news yesterday from Jake Tapper at ABC about the so-called "Tonya Harding" strategy, even before that was articulated. So this was just perception, this wasn't, you know, people saying, oh, this is a bad campaign.
From the March 26 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
HALPERIN: Hey, Laura, how are you doing?
INGRAHAM: So in your interview, you describe Senator Clinton as cheery and confident. But when you look at the numbers, the delegate count, and where she has to go from here in order to win this thing, how can she be so confident? And is the cheery thing an act?
HALPERIN: Well, I don't think it's an act. I think she believes that, while time and the delegate situation are not necessarily on her side, that she has the ability to make her case.
The next thing that happens in about a month is Pennsylvania. She's feeling pretty confident about that. And this Reverend Wright issue, while not the only controversy, and of course she's dealing with her own controversies this week, it is the thing that gives her the most hope that electability will be foremost in the minds of these superdelegates, and that they'll choose her.
I think she's amongst the most optimistic people in her camp. And she feels her responsibility to go forward. And she doesn't feel particularly burdened.
Remember, Barack Obama's ahead of her. She's still raising millions of dollars. She still won the most recent big primaries. And she still feels that the upcoming race is in her favor. So she's got enough going forward that she feels at least slightly chipper. She laughed a lot during the interview. And I think whether part of it's an act or not, she intends to go forward, even though I was interviewing her, amidst the beginning of some pretty loud calls, surprisingly loud calls for her to get out of the race.
INGRAHAM: And I'm going to touch on that in a bit. But I heard, and I know you've read, the Tonya Harding option and the Tonya Harding strategy line that was reported on, I believe, yesterday. To have that kind of description out there about Hillary Clinton, that can't be helpful. And obviously, referring to kind of a scorched-earth policy against Obama now, bringing up the Wright issue, saying he wouldn't be my pastor and that kind of thing. Could that backfire, Mark?
HALPERIN: Laura, you know, I'm a little surprised that our colleagues are focused on this latest iteration of what has been the essential Clinton policy for several weeks, maybe even over a month.
It's been clear since she fell behind in the elected delegates that the only way she can win is have the superdelegates overturn the will of the elected delegates. And that the only way to do that would have to be to have Barack Obama be destroyed either through her own actions or through things like Reverend Wright, which are at least partly organic as they arrive.
So I don't think this is anything new. If anything, what's new is you now have the Obama campaign, for a variety of reasons, feeling that they need to go after her. That's escalated things. But it certainly means that she's not the only one engaged and use whatever metaphor you want, "scorched earth," "with the gloves off," whatever. They're both going at each other. That may be bad for her, but I don't know that it's great for him either.
From the March 26 edition of Fox News' America's Election Headquarters:
KELLY: Well, [co-anchor] Bill [Hemmer], with Clinton's delegate count sorely lacking and the intense scrutiny on her this week, some believe she's getting desperate. So desperate, she might pull a "Tonya Harding"?
Remember her? An Olympic figure skater back in 1994. Harding conspired to take out her chief rival, Nancy Kerrigan, with a good whack at the knee. According to one Democratic Party official, Clinton is reportedly using that same strategy -- destroy her leading competitor.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, campaigning in West Virginia today, adding a bit of fuel to that fire saying, quote, "If a politician doesn't want to get beat up, he shouldn't run for office. If a football player doesn't want to get tackled or want the risk of an occasional clip, he shouldn't put the pads on."
Former Clinton adviser Dick Morris joins us now. You can read his column and newsletter for free at Dickmorris.com. Hi, Dick.
MORRIS: Hey, Megyn. Of course, they'll try.
KELLY: Yeah. So that's the question. Do you think, knowing the Clintons, knowing Hillary Clinton, that it's possible she's employing this Tonya Harding strategy?
MORRIS: Well, of course they're going to try that. They're going to try anything they can. That's their M.O.
[...]
KIRSTEN POWERS (Fox News political analyst): Hello, Megyn.
KELLY: All right. So the blogosphere and even the, you know, the papers are replete with new theories on why she's going after him so hard. Number one is, of course, she's just hemorrhaging and she'll do anything to try to overtake him in the superdelegate count.
But with that looking less and less likely, the theory is that she needs to get on that ticket as the vice presidential nomination. And Kirsten, could this be true? She brings him down to the point where he can't make it without her?
POWERS: Well, I think she's trying to win. That's what actually I think she was doing. I think the idea that she has some strategy to try to get on his ticket at this point is not real.
She -- I think she still thinks that, yes, he's ahead in pledged delegates but he can't do it without the superdelegates. There are enough of them that are undecided. And who knows what's going to happen between now and then? And she's going to do everything she can to make him stumble, to him trip and, you know, and hope that something else comes down from the gods that happens and that she can convince the superdelegates.
And in terms of whether, you know, he would want her on the ticket, there's a poll out today that shows 28 percent of Hillary voters would vote for McCain over Obama, it's a much larger margin than Obama supporters over, you know, voting the other way.
So I think she could make that argument when the time comes --
KELLY: Right.
POWERS: -- I just don't think that we're there yet.
KELLY: -- that he needs her. Michelle, what do you think about it? Because if you do the math, most analysts say she can't do it, I mean, without some sort of political miracle she's not going to get this nomination. So could she be vying right now for the V.P. spot?
MICHELLE MALKIN (syndicated columnist): I think Kirsten's read on it is absolutely right. I think she is trying to win. I don't think she seized this Tonya Harding strategy, which is being pitched so hard by the punditry and the blogosphere.
I can't imagine that she buys it. And in any case, she's in no position to be kneecapping anyone else when she's so crippled herself.
From the March 25 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
CHARLES GIBSON (host) Some Democrats are saying, look, she can't catch up in terms of delegates. And is that a significant number of Democrats? Or is that a minor few, saying that if she continues in the race it only helps the Republicans?
TAPPER: It is a growing, quiet number of Democrats here in Washington. But they're very concerned. And they're speaking out more and more. They're very concerned with the damage the two candidates are doing to each other. Specifically, the damage that Clinton is doing to Obama, since he is in the lead. One Democratic Party official said to me that the only way Clinton can win, is by destroying Obama. Destroying him, making him unelectable. And this official referred to this as the Tonya Harding option. The idea that Clinton can't win the gold medal on her own, so she has to kneecap her leading competitor.
GIBSON: All right. Jake Tapper, reporting from Washington. Thanks.
From the March 25 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House with David Gregory:
GREGORY: Pat Buchanan, your headline tonight.
BUCHANAN: I think I'm very close. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Just like Barack Obama changed the subject away from Reverend Wright by suddenly introducing Bill Richardson and then flying off to the Virgin Islands, she went to the Pittsburgh Post Tribune [sic] and she reintroduced Reverend Wright as the subject, brought him back up, talked about hate speech, "He wouldn't have been my pastor." It's back on the board; it's political hardball. But it is legitimate even if some Democrats are grumbling about the Tonya Harding option.
From the 11 a.m. hour of the March 11 edition of Fox News Live:
ALEXANDRA ACKER (executive director of the Young Democrats of America): However, you know, the first thing John McCain did as nominee was run into the arms of George Bush --
SNYDER: Oh, please --
ACKER: -- and go to the White House --
SNYDER: Alex, Alex.
ACKER: -- and it's going to be very easy for us to continue to run against that.
SNYDER: An Obama/Clinton ticket is like having a Nancy Kerrigan, you know, Tonya Harding couples pair skating out there. I mean, the body language between the two are so stilted.
ACKER: Unfortunately, my voters do not remember who Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding are.
JANE SKINNER (host): Alexandra and Pete, we're going to have to leave it there. Pete, you know, I'm proud of you today. No images of boiled rabbits or anything coming up.
SNYDER: Well, Roger cut out the gin and tonics in the green room. So no fun here.
SKINNER: Too bad, we got to get serious. Thanks to both of you. We will see you next week.
From the January 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
CUNNINGHAM: The most dangerous place to be in politics, as Kirsten I'm sure knows --
SEAN HANNITY (host): All right, but --
CUNNINGHAM: -- is between a desired goal and the Clintonistas, because you will get run over. You will get [Tonya Harding's ex-husband Jeff] Gillooly --
HANNITY: Let me ask this question --
CUNNINGHAM: -- and the Tonya Harding.
And she hasn't apologized for Richardson being called Judas
You're a member of the Hillary Haters club.
I'm not. I wish like heck that she hadn't run. I think her negatives are so powerful that she shouldn't have run. I prayed that she wouldn't run. I had foolish hope that she would understand the difficulties she would face and she would make the wise decision to sit it out, even though she's very capable of handling the job. But I don't hate her.
I also wish that Obama hadn't run. I don't think he has enough experience, and it looks like he's got all kinds of baggage that's going to weigh him down. But I don't hate him either.
I can look at issues without being a partisan for either one. You can't do that. That much is clear. Clinton's not exercising the Tonya Harding option. She's fighting for the nomination. Even the Democratic operative who leaked this story didn't say that she's currently exercising the option, just that it's his opinion that she'll need to if she is to win. He's trying to predict the future, and you as a Hillary Hater try to extrapolate that to assert that she's doing it right now. I'm voting for whichever Democrat wins the nomination. I'm contributing money and time to them too, but that doesn't mean I like one or hate the other one.
OK, Hillary is running a completely fair and even handed campaign, in F'n wingnut land...have you even been paying attention
The staffer she had to fire for asking the media if Obama sold drugs
Ferraro and her racist rant
Letting Richardson get called Judas
Pretty much endorsing McCain over Obama
Letting her financial backers threaten Speaker Pelosi
Using the Wright sideshow to dodge her sniper gaffe
Bottle, put the bottle down your roots are showing
I can loan you some principles if you need them bottle, I have plenty to spare
Hillary Hater, LOL, maybe I'll add it as a tag
You claim Obama's got baggage? What about Hillary's?
Obama has no baggage other than "guilt" by association (Leaving aside for a moment whether Wright's anger was understandable considering that he grew up under American apartheid).
If Obama's baggage is Rev. Wright and he supposedly should have left the church years ago, Hillary's baggage is Bill and she should have left him years ago after he lied about his nasty BJ in the oval office.
Did I say that Hillary has no baggage? When I say that, then you'll have a point. I mentioned her huge negatives. Those negatives are not because of her positions on issues, they're because of her baggage.
Why do you guys all insist on using an MMFA citation that is sympathetic to Hillary Clinton as an excuse to bash her?
Are you people crazy? It's definitely obvious that you're jerks.
You're as bad as the MSM.
This thread is supposed to be about the sexist, biased coverage--not how much you dislike her.
Dems: you're gonna lose in November. You're self-righteous idiots.
Here's some of what I said in response to Hillary Hater Edenscape's comments.
Clinton's not exercising the Tonya Harding option. She's fighting for the nomination. Even the Democratic operative who leaked this story didn't say that she's currently exercising the option, just that it's his opinion that she'll need to if she is to win.
I objected to Edenscape's Hillary Hating too. I'm not sure why you're linking me to his nonsense.
Its not hate
Its simple critique on par with what I've said about republicans who do the same
How can you vote for a candidate that cannot even control her own campaign ?
here's the quote.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080329/ap_on_el_pr/obama_bush
JJ I find it breathtakingly arrogant that you assume to know me well enough, from a few choice posts, to start assiging me personality traits.
I don't care about Hillarys hair or her voice or the rumors of the past. Listen and hear, I disagree with her campaign tactics.
I'm not the only poster here that disagrees either, just take a look around
Seems folks here are more tolerant of the Trolls than the Hillary dissenters, are we all Judas now ?
If asked a question, or for clarification I answer in kind, if attacked I answer in kind, and very rarely do I shoot first
-Eden "king of Obamatons"
Hillary Hater
Idealist
And overall bad fella ;p
"How can you vote for a candidate that cannot even control her own campaign ?- edenscape246494 / Sunday March 30, 2008 2:11:31 PM EDT
Check out the news story where a huge crowd of Obama supporters booed Shirley Jackson-Lee in Texas last week.
Shirley Jackson-Lee!
and ?
Eden,
I took a few weeks away from posting on this site [though I still read it on occasion] because quite frankly the on-going bickering between the Obama vs Clinton supporters was getting redundant. Now having said that, I'm a Conservative. While I found the fighting between the Dem/Libs a tad amusing at first, after awhile it just got tiresome to read.
Let me begin by saying to Obama supporters, & you specifically Eden : you might want to pick up a copy of Dale Carnegie's book, How to Win Friends and Influence People. As a fairly neutral observer here to the brouhaha between the 2 camps, let me be blunt. You & many other Obama supporters are coming off quite arrogant, pushy, hostile & obnoxious. Your attitude isn't going to win you any friends or influence someone on the fence to vote for Obama. I like Obama. He seems like a good person. But some of his supporters make me cringe. And if he's amassing a following of such insufferable angry people, I don't think I'd want to join that group of supporters.
I'm someone who has stated here many times that I would not vote for McCain. That still stands. However I was willing to listen to what Clinton & Obama had to offer. These two don't differ widely on issues, so I had to look for another criteria to separate them. When it comes to experience, Hillary wins by a nose. Also having Bill Clinton by her side as an unofficial advisor in the White House seems like a plus in my mind. Of course with Hillary comes Bill's baggage. But also his administration's success.
Obama on the other hand is a fresh face, not yet sullied by D.C. politics. He speaks eloquently. Is intelligent. But what else does he bring to the table? I'm not going to vote for him just because he's charming...
And while you may want to dismiss Rev. Wright as a non-story, it really isn't. Wright is not merely Obama's one-time pastor, he's been described as his mentor & friend. I for one am finding it extremely difficult to believe that Obama didn't know Wright's views or wasn't aware of some of his hateful anti-American, racist sermons. Yet he never walked away or tried to distance himself...until it made the news. This speaks to me about Obama's judgment. Or lack of judgment.
Then I read the posts here & at other sites [like HuffPo] by the supporters of Obama & Clinton. The Obama supporters win the award for hostility & rudeness by a mile.
I'll probably sit this election out, or just write in a candidate for President. If a ballot was handed to me today reading:
A. Obama
B. Clinton
C. McCain
D. Other
I'd pick Other.
Let me add in closing that trying to bully Clinton out of a race she can still win [yes it's a longshot but not impossible] is a real turnoff. And no. I'm not part of Rush Limbaugh's movement to disrupt the Democratic primary. Heck I live in Massachusetts. My vote never counts ;-)
You sure are picky for a guy who voted for DUMBYA twice. Thanks to you we are knee deep in a $3 trillion war that should never have been started in the first place. It's hilarious to know that you find Obama supporters too arrogant and hostile compared to what - Bushites?
Heru you're like a broken record....
As you know Elections are decided by the Electoral College. I live in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Electoral College votes went to Gore in 2000 & Kerry in 2004. My vote, dumb as I now know it was, didn't count for sh#t. It was meaningless. It didn't put Bush in the White House or even help in that endeavor. I could have written your name on the ballot instead of checking off Bush & it would have made no difference.
I'll freely admit I cast 2 votes for Bush. He was the Republican candidate. Ya know how that goes, Democrats tend to vote for their party's nominee as well, even if they hold their noses doing so.
But I'd love to know why YOU are voting for Obama instead of Hillary? Just how picky have you been in making that decision? What was your criteria? Having read your many race-based posts here, I'd be willing to bet your decision is based solely on race. How much thought did that take? I'd say, none. And you come here dumping on me or other posters about how we choose a candidate? What a maroon...
Unlike you, I would never vote for a moron regardless of their skin color or party affiliation. Why did I vote for Obama? For the same reason Richardson endorsed him. He's a once-in-a-lifetime candidate. He is by far the most intelligent, articulate, ethical, natural leader in the Presidential race.
You think I only voted for him because of his race? ROFLMAO He is the first Black candidate I ever voted for in my lifetime besides Jesse Jackson at any level of government. I refused to vote for the dark skinned Alan Keyes at any level because he is a fool like your DUMBYA. There goes your theory.
By the way, although you intended to insult me by calling me a maroon, you must not be educated well enough to know that the Maroons were enslaved Africans who escaped their white enslavers to form and defend their own communities in the hostile Americas.
Thanks for the unintentional compliment.
----------------------------------------------
I'll freely admit I cast 2 votes for Bush. He was the Republican candidate. Ya know how that goes, Democrats tend to vote for their party's nominee as well, even if they hold their noses doing so.
But I'd love to know why YOU are voting for Obama instead of Hillary? Just how picky have you been in making that decision? What was your criteria? Having read your many race-based posts here, I'd be willing to bet your decision is based solely on race. How much thought did that take? I'd say, none. And you come here dumping on me or other posters about how we choose a candidate? What a maroon...
JETER
I'm gonna quote me some Cool Hand Luke, "What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it anymore than you men."
Fact is I've had many civil conversations here with conservatives and liberals alike, but I trade fire with fire, if you cannot convert you can at least outflank
The Hillary at all costs movement started the dirty politics. We honest Libs aka Obamaniacs or whatever we get called here are holding Hillarys stunts to the same standard we hold the GOP. Our criticism of these tactics have been fair.
Meanwhile we are getting pummled with the Wright nonsense, as if he were to be VP. Fact is liberals know how to leave church at Sunday. Its a non story. The Right voters go to Benny Hinn and Mega Church equivalents with fanatical faith healing nonsense...lets not drag our individual superstitions out into the debate.
Cheers
Fact is I've had many civil conversations here with conservatives and liberals alike, but I trade fire with fire, if you cannot convert you can at least outflank
Fact is the only civil conversations I've read of yours thus far have been with those that agree with you & are fellow Obama supporters. The rest of the time you have a tendency to be rude & overbearing. But please don't take that as an insult, but rather as constructive criticism.
You can continue to refer to the Wright controversy as a non-story till the cows come home, but that won't make it go away. Sorry Eden, me thinks Obama still has some more splaining to do. Obviously the Obama crowd is satisfied, but the rest of the potential voters out there may not be.
stop pretending you're a potential Obama voter. nobody's buying it. you're a two-time DUHBYA voter.
--------------------------------------------
me thinks Obama still has some more splaining to do. Obviously the Obama crowd is satisfied, but the rest of the potential voters out there may not be.
Jetes I've had them with you, with Tommy, with Solon and all those times though in disagreement it was civil and backed with links
If you mean my attacks against those who attack my POV then again, I fight fire with fire, if they want to dance to the music then they have to pay the fiddler, I'm not afraid to hurt someones cyber feelings
Honesty should hurt a little
UMmm, you started by calling me a hater six times
Don't be dense, people can read the thread and see you attacked first
Don't whine now for getting bit after you barked
You are a Hillary Hater. I called you that accurately. Your attacks on Hillary were untrue (it wasn't her who "kneecapped" Pelosi or called Richardson a "Judas"), but you tried to link her to those independent comments.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can't stand for someone to call you a Hillary Hater when you are one, then you should refrain from exposing yourself as a Hillary Hater in public. You were the first person to be rude on this thread. Anyone can see that. Even you. You were rude to me after you were unfair to Hillary and I called you on that incivility.
Hating Hillary is not a civil way to behave. Own your own behavior for once.
Wah Wah Wah
Sorry I hurt your cyber feelings, emo ;p
Wealthy white woman victimized by hate or boundless amibiton?
Why did I vote for Obama? For the same reason Richardson endorsed him. He's a once-in-a-lifetime candidate. He is by far the most intelligent, articulate, ethical, natural leader in the Presidential race.
Great talking points but could you elaborate? Once in a lifetime candidate, why? Most intelligent, articulate? I think your bias is showing here. He may have that over McCain, but Hillary? I think not. Plus she has a better grip of the issues & is able to express her views on those issues without a lot of pretty but empty rhetoric. Most ethical? Mmmmm. The jury is still out on that. I'd like to know more about the Obama/Rezko connection thank you. I don't know that any of the nominees are what I'd call ethical. Natural? Just how does one define that? What has Obama done thus far to make him a natural leader?
You think I only voted for him because of his race? ROFLMAO He is the first Black candidate I ever voted for in my lifetime besides Jesse Jackson at any level of government. I refused to vote for the dark skinned Alan Keyes at any level because he is a fool like your DUMBYA. There goes your theory.
Yeah I do. 99% of your posting history has been about race & taking a jab at White folks. And please don't try to throw the Alan Keyes factor in, you wouldn't vote for a Republican even if they were Black. To you any Black that's Republican is an Uncle Tom in your eyes. They might as well be White in your opinion. You've written that here before. You voted for Jesse Jackson which tells me all I need to know...
By the way, although you intended to insult me by calling me a maroon, you must not be educated well enough to know that the Maroons were enslaved Africans who escaped their white enslavers to form and defend their own communities in the hostile Americas.
Actually I didn't know that, thanks for the info. I'm always pleased to learn something new. And no I'm not being snarky. Of course you were in insulting my intelligence, but that's ok, I don't expect much from you. Quite honestly there was no mention of the Maroons in any history curriculum offered in the high school or college I attended. Perhaps it was only offered in a Black History course? As far as my insulting you, well actually I was being kind calling you a maroon rather than a moron. But if the shoe fits...
You must not know what it means to have been President of the Harvard Law Review. It basically means that Obama was the brightest person at the best law school in the country. Hillary couldn't even pass the DC Bar Exam.
If you can watch speeches by Clinton and Obama and not realize that his eloquence is at a level she could never reach, I understand how you got fooled into voting for DUHBYA twice.
------------------------------------------------
Most intelligent, articulate? I think your bias is showing here. He may have that over McCain, but Hillary? I think not.
-JETER2
I find much of Obama's speaking style to be derivative and hackneyed. It's an adopted style, often highlighted by a bad rhetorical habit of talking at people.
He's no Bill Clinton. He's hardly the best thing that's come along. That kind of talk is messianic, and it's scary, as is his "let's get rid of partisanship' cliches. (No, those are just foolish.)
You have to be really naive to buy into Obama's rhetoric.
He's no Bill Clinton alright. I think its the Lewinsky hairs stuck between his teeth that give his voice the resonance you like.
-------------------------------------------------
He's no Bill Clinton. He's hardly the best thing that's come along. That kind of talk is messianic, and it's scary, as is his "let's get rid of partisanship' cliches. (No, those are just foolish.)
You have to be really naive to buy into Obama's rhetoric.
Stop lying. I never wrote such a thing anywhere. Yes, I voted for Jesse Jackson and if that tells you all you need to know, you are the kind of person I knew you were all along
------------------------------------------
To you any Black that's Republican is an Uncle Tom in your eyes. They might as well be White in your opinion. You've written that here before. You voted for Jesse Jackson which tells me all I need to know...
Jeter2
Nah Heru you never said anything like that ::eye roll::
=====
Blacks, converted to Uncle Toms, even today take part in serving white supremacy through the Republican party. That does not diminish white culpability, it was always part of the plan for world domination.- heru / Saturday February 10, 2007 10:17:22 AM EST
http://clips.mediamatters.org/items/200702090009?show=1
Correct and its even worse than that. Mere black annihilation is not enough for the devil. Zero representation is bad enough but on top of it, the neocons manufacture and prop up anti-black negroes like Jesse Peterson, Larry Elders, Armstrong Williams ad nauseum to take us way beyond zero into negative numbers.- heru / Monday April 10, 2006 4:16:25 PM EDT
http://clips.mediamatters.org/items/200604070015?show=1
There are plenty of more examples still out there in cyber space for anyone to read. Yeah Heru you're a maroon. And a liar.
What are you, stupid? Of course there are Uncle Toms in the Republican Party. You should know, they work for your ilk.
You lied when you wrote that I said any Black in the Republican party is an Uncle Tom. I don't expect you to be able to tell the difference because you were dumb enough to vote for an ignorant DUHBYA twice. With your level of gullibility you should be ashamed to show your face around here let alone tell people what to think and how to behave. Glad though that I was able to make you go back and waste your time digging up old posts on a Saturday evening (get a life). ROFLMAO
You lied when you wrote that I said any Black in the Republican party is an Uncle Tom.
Parse it, slice it, & dice it anyway you'd like, your own words in your posts say it & only a stupid disingenuous fool like yourself would try to deny it when it's right there in black & white. You said it, you own it.
Glad though that I was able to make you go back and waste your time digging up old posts on a Saturday evening (get a life). ROFLMAO
If you know how to use Google it takes less than a second to bring up pages & pages of yours, or anyone's posts here. Sorry if you're too dumb to know how to do that. I read the first 2 on the long list & copied & pasted them. And considering you were here all Saturday night it's kind of silly suggesting someone else "get a life". God you're a moron!
Sorry but I'm not interested in pursuing your distraction. The Republican Party has as many token Toms as necessary to sustain white supremacy. Are all Blacks in the Republican Party Toms? No. Some of them are probably just plain morons like you.
Your initial "point" that I voted for Obama just because he is Black is wrong because I didn't vote for the even darker Alan Keyes. End of debate.
Heru 1
Jeter 0
I'm glad you are open to learning because you sorely needed re-education after you put that moron DUMBYA in office twice.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'm always pleased to learn something new. And no I'm not being snarky. Of course you were in insulting my intelligence, but that's ok, I don't expect much from you. Quite honestly there was no mention of the Maroons in any history curriculum offered in the high school or college I attended. Perhaps it was only offered in a Black History course? As far as my insulting you, well actually I was being kind calling you a maroon rather than a moron. But if the shoe fits...
Hi Jeter
I think you and worryking have it right.
That the Democratic candidate I don't like must be evil or morally crippled is pure rovian. It creates arguments that with different names would be hard to tell from a wingnut rant.
Glad your about, hang in dere mange. ;-)
Eweston,
The animosity between the Obama-Clinton camps may cost the Democrats the election. Ordinarily I'd be laughing my ass off at how the Dems are bickering & shooting themselves in the foot, but the prospect of a McCain presidency doesn't exactly thrill me. Quite frankly none of the 3 candidates left standing are who I would have picked as top tier nominees. Out of the 3 I think Hillary is the best, but that doesn't mean I'm doing cartwheels over that choice.
Save your crocodile tears. You're gonna shed real ones when Hillary and McBush lose.
See, this is the kind of nastiness we're talking about from Obama supporters.
Here an intelligent conservative comes on and you want to bash them. What gives with you people?
You're gonna frigging lose, guys, with that attitude.
What is so intelligent about a fool that voted for DUHBYA twice? And since when did one party win by being nice to the other? If you cons want to be treated nice go home to Rush Limbo's site.
Waaa Obama supporters are mean waaaaa. Stop whining.
----------------------------------------------------
See, this is the kind of nastiness we're talking about from Obama supporters.
Here an intelligent conservative comes on and you want to bash them. What gives with you people?
You're gonna frigging lose, guys, with that attitude.
The ship is sinking and we're all drilling more holes into the hull.
Agreed.
But 99% of the problem has been created by Obama supporters. Their self-righteousness is appaling, and their irrational hatred of the Clintons is disturbing.
Example-- every time there's an MMFA posting that is at all sympathetic to Hillary, they use it as an opportunity to bash her. It's a hate fest.
That rarely happens with Obama-favorable postings. You almost never see an anti-Obama gangup on those.
What does that tell you? They're thugs!
You're flippin' crazy. The animosity goes both ways. Do you really believe we can't take a few seconds in the MMFA archives to find you and atheist and jjamele going all nucular on people who disagree with your collective opinions? Do you believe all this enmity flying around these threads have left our memories unstained?
God, inveterate hypocrites like you give the rest of us a bad name. Just promote what you believe and leave the historical rewrites to the Republicans.
Jeter2 you are totally right about the Obama supporters and their wierd hostility.
It's fine that they like their candidate. But they always have to HATE the Clintons as well! They make no sense-- they're as paranoid and dishonest as the worst of the Limbaugh brigade.
Their self-righteousness is going to doom the Dems. They are the ones who are the problems. They are the ones whom are causing trouble-- and then they cry foul every time someone challenges them.
Carlileb,
The anger & hate displayed by the Obama supporters is turning a lot of folks off. If these are the types of folks Obama attracts he's going to be in big trouble should he end up as the Dem nominee.
If the Republicans had a candidate I really liked I'd be rolling on the floor laughing at the Dems Uncivil War. However, if McCain's VP pick is a good one, the battling Dems can kiss any chance of recapturing the White House in '09 good-bye.
The thing I've observed here at MMFA lately is that a lot of normally civil & reasonable Dem posters have gone into angry mode when it comes to Obama vs Clinton. The Obama supporters are just down right belligerent & rude. This is so out of character for many of them. Not Heru though, that guy has a chip on his shoulder & is an angry obnoxious nasty racist no matter what season.
JETER its clear you took time off because you have no clue what you are talking about
Obama supporters have been criticizing Hillarys scorched earth tactics in this campaign, we use links and qoutes to back these assertions
All we get in return is name calling, and mealy mouth moral equivalency
I think you need to go back and review the last weeks worth of posts and see who fires first, we are just replying in turn
Also the polls show that its the Hillary tactics turning off voters, Obama crested the Wright sideshow amazingly well, I understand some posters may have had their cyber feelings hurt but if they can't stand the heat...
Frankly, as a poster who often complains that we never criticize our own, I'm baffled at your response to getting what you asked for...consistency
I think you need to go back and review the last weeks worth of posts and see who fires first, we are just replying in turn
Let's start with this thread.
Well she did kneecap Pelosi through her fat cat donor support letter
And she hasn't apologized for Richardson being called Judas
You "fired first". This thread is about how an anonymous source says that she will (future tense) use the Tonya Harding option, and instead of talking about that, you throw out two instances of other people's actions (people she has no control over).
You fired first.
That is some tortured logic Mista curtains don't match the drapes
Those two things happened, it WITHSs the item, rather than explain why you disagreed you jumped right in with the hate hater hatest nonsense
But by all means, continue to make yourself look foolish
"Obama supporters have been criticizing Hillarys scorched earth tactics in this campaign, we use links and qoutes to back these assertions"
What scorched earth tactics? Do you even know what those are?
That contention is totally absurd.
If anything, it is the MSM that has been the troublemaking element here, always heightening problems. And you Obama supporters buy right into it-- you're like little kids or something.
Jeter, that's thoroughly off note in as much as I don't think you've been paying attention to the acrimonious rants of the sort carlisle, atheist and jjamele have been uncorking as Hillary supporters. I don't care, they have a right to say whatever.
You said you've been away for awhile, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this. Take a closer look at past threads and keep your eyes open in the future.
As for this uncivil of which you speak, I think it's good in the long run. It makes the electorates skin and the candidates skins thicker. It keeps McCain backstage, looking like the warm-up act for the headliner Dems. Also, as the Republicans learned long ago, any press is good press.
LOL
The media have been pumping for McCain for years-- and Obama is the dream opponent-- it'll be a sexy story for him to run and--- this is the best part-- he'll lose, and that will make their bosses very happy.It's all such blatant manipulation. Can't Obama supporters see that?
- carlileb5935 / Sunday January 27, 2008 9:29:52 PM EST
Maybe they'll settle for Obama-- who knows? The issue here is the primary, and the reason why Latinos support Hillary-- at least one of the big reasons.
Sorry to break it to you-- but there's lots of prejudice in the world. Merely noting it on my part is not culpable. It's not a dream world out there-- oh, I forgot, this is Obama-time--- let's all play nicey nicey.That'll sure work.
- carlileb5935 / Sunday January 27, 2008 9:39:12 PM EST
Obama hasn't a chance in hell of defeating McCain, and that's all I'm saying.
I think Obama supporters are naive, and many of them are nasty, too, and incredibly self-righteous. I've seen it here and on Digby, too, where it got so bad with them (mostly) that she had to close down all the comments.
I don't hate Obama- but I think he's an empty suit, and more than a touch arrogant, and I think his supporters (many of them) have this mindless hatred of the Clintons that is positively nutty and unwarranted.
It all reminds me of the Schwarzenegger mania a few years ago. Nothing but celebrity-hood, and jumping on the bandwagon, and then trying to fabricate all sorts of phony excuses to justify it.
And guess who then loses?! It ain't the Republicans!
- carlileb5935 / Sunday January 27, 2008 9:46:16 PM EST
The Conservatives here are correct-- this is all a bunch of liberal hazy thinking. It's naivete of the highest order-- the same thing largely behind Obama-mania-- and decades of dumb, Democratic losses.
- carlileb5935 / Sunday January 27, 2008 7:07:11 PM EST
You guys must have some kind of secret language or something, with definitions and terms that are alien to the rest of us.
Yes, it has been documented that Latinos are not big supporters of African Americans in elections when politically comparable Anglos are running against them. That's just cultural. Who knows why? It was predicted in California-- and guess what-- it was true.
My question is-- why is Obama getting something like 90% of the Black vote? If Hillary werre getting 90% of the White vote, you guys would be calling her supporters all sorts of names!! There's definitely a racial factor here-- but call people names instead, I guess.
Very well stated, Jeter2.
The subject alone of this story just solidifies that hard news is ancient history. And thanks to the proliferation of infotainment (why bother putting it in quotes-it's all too real) we're all well on our way to an "Idiocracy." Mike Judge is the new Nostradamus.
The moment I voiced my support for Obama any critical comments I made against Hillary branded me a “Hillary hater”. I am not a Hillary Hater for the umpteenth time. Hillary and Obama have very similar ideas in regards to policy so for me it became a choice between their campaign messages and personality.
I am a supporter of Obama because I believe he is the right person to lead the country at this time. He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to start over, and to do better. He offers a fresh look at politics which has become so divisive that there is a for profit industry designed to keep the red/blue states apart. Yeah it's just words he offers but what do the other candidates offer? And by the way how’s that red/blue divisive politics working for this country so far?
When I supported white Bill Clinton it was because I thought he was the best person to do whatever the job required. Funny no one ask me to justify voting for him but I must list reasons other than race to vote for Obama. Anyone see the insult in that? Probably not. Let me say if Obama was mediocre, he would be forgotten by now. He is in fact a remarkable human being, NOT PERFECT but stunning, like MLK was and Mandela is. He is the change America must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves. Our future as a country depends on our ability to study, learn, to understand what is history and what is right before our eyes. We can continue on the same path and act surprised when the results remain the same or we can choose to change. The choice is before each and every one of us and I choose to change. I’ve seen what the past has to offer and I for one like to learn from history not repeat it. So to all who say I support Obama because he’s black hopefully you will think differently before affixing a label that does not apply.
My reasons for not supporting Hillary and totally disliking her and her campaign are simple. IMO if you care for your party and what the party represents you don't try to destroy your opponent. You don't pass out compliments to the Republican party and dismiss your fellow Democrat. THAT, IMO means you care more about yourself and less about the party you want to represent. If the party and the ideas and goals of the party are the number one issue you don't destroy the party's chances even if it means you don't get to represent the party. IMO Hillary and Bill choose themselves first. I won't bother going into the racial issue, it's a waste of time. I take comfort in knowing that you DON'T have to be black to understand racial insensitivity and Democrats play the race card not just Republicans. The war is another reason I can't support Hillary. It's an issue that defines leadership IMO. The decision to send someones child off to die should never be made for political advancement and IMO that's Hillary.
I have been offered a choice and I choose, not because of supporters, not because of race but for qualities that are important to me.
I too do not like the way that the Clinton campaign has framed issues. Even excusing her the for "loose cannon" comments of others, I see them losing any possible higher ground by focusing on Obama for criticism rather than McCain. I have been increasingly impressed with how Obama conducts himself. His campaign organizing is efficient and positive. Obama's staff has already got their act together here in Oregon with a HQ and clear goals and strategy for our May primary.
I do NOT like the over the top criticisms of the Clintons of which the mainstream press endulges in and Media Matters points out.
"He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to start over, and to do better. He offers a fresh look at politics which has become so divisive that there is a for profit industry designed to keep the red/blue states apart.
It's this kind of stuff that is scary. Naive at best, dangerous at worst. The repubs will eat this guy alive.
It's this kind of stuff that is scary. Naive at best, dangerous at worst. The repubs will eat this guy alive.
Car you've been ranting on and on about the how naive Obama supporters are but I've yet to see your reasons for voting for Hillary. Why is Hillary a better candidate for President? Hillary had name recognition and money but she's losing the primary race to a black man with a Muslim sounding name. How the h*ll did that happen? Were all those folks who voted for Obama naive or did Hillary like you FAIL to make the case that she is a better candidate? I've noticed out of all of your rants not one word as to WHY Hillary is a better candidate. WHY?
You just proved my point with your rant. I don't approve of many of the things that have happened in this election. I can fairly assess them. You have knee-jerk reactions to them as a Hillary Hater, and yeah, it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to have that as your signature.
OK, Hillary is running a completely fair and even handed campaign, in F'n wingnut land...have you even been paying attention
I didn't say that and didn't mean that, but you misinterpreted what I said to claim that I did. What's clear is that you were not paying attention to what I said.
The staffer she had to fire for asking the media if Obama sold drugs
Other campaigns have had to fire loose cannons. It happens every campaign cycle, but to you, somehow this is an indictment only of Hillary?
Ferraro and her racist rant
Her rant was not racist. It could be twisted to sound that way to Hillary Haters. Your opinion is not based upon non-partisan judging.
Letting Richardson get called Judas
Letting him get called Judas? You mean she has a hand up Carville's back (when he's not even on her campaign staff) and so she can control the words that come out of his mouth? Even his wife ain't that good!
Pretty much endorsing McCain over Obama
This is another distortion of reality from Hillary Haters. There's been no endorsing McCain over Obama. For example, recently Bill made the argument that Hillary could win key states better than Obama based upon poll results. That did not endorse McCain, but many distorted that.
Letting her financial backers threaten Speaker Pelosi
You're good at distortions. Just like she didn't let Carville say something, she didn't let the big bucks donors threaten Pelosi. They have the right as voters, citizens and contributors to tell Pelosi that they want the SuperDelegates to follow the rules, which tell them to vote for the best interests of the Democratic Party and not be tied to necessarily voting for the vote leader. If they think that the best interests of the party are to nominate the vote leader, then they're free to do that, but they aren't under that obligation, unlike what Hillary Haters like to claim.
Using the Wright sideshow to dodge her sniper gaffe
Omigod. She's talking about multiple things in the current news, and not only talking about herself? And she's not concentrating on her gaffe? How strange for a politician to do such a thing? How can you not see how stupid that comment is? Of course she's going to downplay her gaffes and highlight the alleged gaffes of her opponents!!!!! That's politics.
Bottle, put the bottle down your roots are showing
No, your Hillary Hating is showing. My reasonableness is showing, and that hurts your cause. I wish Hillary hadn't run. I would prefer at this point in time that Obama win the nomination. That doesn't mean that I have to be unfair with regard to evaluating Hillary like you have been.
Ferraro's rant was pure white racism. Since when did it become an advantage to be Black with a Muslim name in a Presidential election. The reason for her apparently stupid remark was that Hillary needs white people to vote white for her to win. Ferraro's mistake was that she was not cunning enough in her use of white racist codespeak.
--------------------------------------------------------
[Ferraro's] rant was not racist.
-Bottleblonde
I think they're plugging up their ears lol
Finally...out comes that ole fashioned Southern white racism you've been holding inside. Feel better now?
----------------------------------------------
Except for the fact that I'm not a Hillary supporter, maroon. I'm a yellow dog Democrat, but I'm not a Hillary supporter. I am 1000% more fair than you are though, and I wish that didn't disturb you so much.
Since when did it become an advantage to be Black with a Muslim name in a Presidential election. Heru
But she didn't say that, or mean that. The fact is that in some ways, the color of his skin is an advantage. There's no doubt that it's a liability in some ways, but for Obama supporters to deny that it's a benefit in other ways is to deny reality. Most first term US Senators with little legislative history would not get noticed as he immediately did. He has a ton of charisma, and that is what has held the attention of America, but to miss the effect that his skin color had on his fortunes so far is unreal.
Reached at her home in Manhattan on Tuesday evening, she said that, in her original remarks, she was asked why there had been so much excitement about Mr. Obama’s candidacy. “And I said, ‘I think part of it is because he’s black,’ ” she said. “People are excited about this historic candidacy. I am, too.”
Since when did it become an advantage to be Black with a Muslim name in a Presidential election. Heru
But she didn't say that, or mean that. The fact is that in some ways, the color of his skin is an advantage. There's no doubt that it's a liability in some ways, but for Obama supporters to deny that it's a benefit in other ways is to deny reality. Most first term US Senators with little legislative history would not get noticed as he immediately did. He has a ton of charisma, and that is what has held the attention of America, but to miss the effect that his skin color had on his fortunes so far is unreal.
Reached at her home in Manhattan on Tuesday evening, she said that, in her original remarks, she was asked why there had been so much excitement about Mr. Obama’s candidacy. “And I said, ‘I think part of it is because he’s black,’ ” she said. “People are excited about this historic candidacy. I am, too.”
"All of this leaves me wondering, Who does a guy have to lynch around here to get called a racist? If twice claiming that a presidential candidate is only in the race because he's black doesn't make you racist...what does? What is clear, however, is that black people are buckling under the weight of all this nonracism, and I'm sure, if he could, the junior senator from Illinois would gladly return all of the "favors" he's gotten for being a black man named Barack Hussein Obama."
http://www.slate.com/id/2186553
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when did it become an advantage to be Black with a Muslim name in a Presidential election. Heru
But she didn't say that, or mean that. The fact is that in some ways, the color of his skin is an advantage. There's no doubt that it's a liability in some ways, but for Obama supporters to deny that it's a benefit in other ways is to deny reality. Most first term US Senators with little legislative history would not get noticed as he immediately did. He has a ton of charisma, and that is what has held the attention of America, but to miss the effect that his skin color had on his fortunes so far is unreal.
Reached at her home in Manhattan on Tuesday evening, she said that, in her original remarks, she was asked why there had been so much excitement about Mr. Obama’s candidacy. “And I said, ‘I think part of it is because he’s black,’ ” she said. “People are excited about this historic candidacy. I am, too.”
"Ferraro's rant was pure white racism."
This quote is so crazy and incorrect-- and a minimization of true racism-- that it speaks volumes about the intellectual level of many Obama supporters.
It's just a lie.
"Ferraro's rant was pure white racism."This quote is so crazy and incorrect-- and a minimization of true racism-- that it speaks volumes about the intellectual level of many Obama supporters. It's just a lie.
Are you sure you can judge TRUE racism?
Those are subjective reasons that you, as a Hillary hater, assume to be true.
Weak attempt. I give it a 0 out of 10.
The term 'judas' is a common term for a betrayer. There was nothing wrong with Carville using the term.
Get over it, guys. Find some other pretext for your hatred.
The term 'judas' is a common term for a betrayer
And that CARLILCONSERVATIVECONCERNBOT is why we know you are not one of us, see unlike you Rethuglican'ts we
don't do that
Betrayer...gimme a break
I can absolutley assure you that I'm by far the most left-wing reader of this site. No one comes close.
But I'm also reasonable. I think much (most?) of the Obama idolatry is positively nutty. And, sadly, based upon hatred and sanctimoniousness.
This kind of thing will positively annihilate the dems in November.
SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER ALERT!!
Just a warning-- the next 75 comments on this thread (at least) completely evade the topic at hand, which is the terrifically sexist comparison of Hillary Clinton with Tonya Harding.
Instead, almost all of them are hateful, anti-Clinton screeds, completely missing the point of the MMFA article.
You've been warned... proceed at your own risk.....
Richardson is a Judas. He'd be a NOBODY today if it were not for Clinton. All you Obamaniacs who are too weak in the knees for a fight with the GOP are doing is ensuring President McCains path.
I guess we get to see how playing nice works, eh? Everybody hold hands...it feels SO good, eh? I think I'll have a Chocoloate/Vanilla latte, too.
Bill Clinton has a nerve to expect anyone to owe him a favor after what he pulled. He should have done a Spitzer and resigned gracefully but nooooo...Thanks to his demoralization of the party, we got 8 years of Bush.
Easygoer, you would do well to think before throwing that term around. Richardson is expressing support for a different candidate. I would hope that each one of us would look at the country and it's needs, and vote according to that; not according to supposed loyalty to a friend.
Further, Richardson is the governor of a state and has a positive record. It is ridiculous to assert that he would be "nothing" without the Clintons. Did they assume the governorship with him?
Maybe Hill's campaign song announcement with a Soprano's spoof was more fortelling that what we figured?
Leave the patella, take the cannoli.
And it looks like Romney may be VP after all, and then the cats and dogs start raining down and its 100 years in Iraq, yea
nedsescape,
McCain's comments were not intended to say be there for the next 100 years. He didn't want the killing to remain the same as it is now but wanted to have victory assured, stability maintained (we are in Kuwait and have not been asked to leave for that very reason) and compared it to our troops still being stationed in Germany, South Korea and Japan.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
McCain also said he would not stand for torture, before he voted for torture
I don't think the man's word is any good
Nor the complexities, essentially we'd have to kill every last man woman and child in the region to quell this, even neocons can't expect the public to follow that far
We will never sustain a Wal Mart in Iraq
"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"...
Of course McCain didn't mean it that way. Just like Bush didn't mean it when he said he'd like to be a dictator...
Can you explain how victory is to be assured and stability maintained?
You do know that hostilities ceased when the war ended in Japan and Europe in 1945 and that Americans were welcomed just about everywhere, right?
Can you remember any nation that has been occupied that went from being hostile to the occupying forces to welcoming them?
Do you think there is enough money in the treasury to continue payments to the Iraqi forces who are now on our side because we pay them to be on our side?
PROUD CONSERVATIVE:
I didn't take McCain's "100 years in Iraq" comment as meaning that he wished for 100 years of WAR. Yet, if nothing changes in Iraq from what it was in the FIRST year, the SECOND year, the THIRD year, the FOURTH year, and now the FIFTH year ... then he would remain in Iraq, continuing to "fight the war" until he could somehow claim "VICTORY".
And he can't really DEFINE "victory".
And nothing has really changed concerning how the various factions view EACH OTHER and OUR PRESENCE.
And there is no indication in FIVE YEARS that anything WILL change.
And there is no assurance that Iraq's neighbors are changing THEIR stance on the unfolding of the Iraq War. Most know what Republicans would see as "VICTORY" ... I.E. an American Puppet Regime ... and they DO NOT WANT THAT. So they will continue to resist such an outcome any way they can. And they are patient, having lived with unrest for thousands of years in that region.
So, no, TECHNICALLY, McCain was not enthusiastically calling for ONE HUNDRED MORE YEARS just like the FIVE years we've seen so far. But as a practical matter, with NOTHING changing, McCain is signing on for that One Hundred Year WAR, with America footing the enormous bill and continuing to rack up casualties. Year after year.
That's McCain's stance and policy. And it is BAD. Bad for America, bad for our security, bad for the region, bad for our foreign policy, and most importantly, CRIPPLES any REAL efforts to conduct an effective War on Terror (which SHOULD be taking place in may other regions of the world, but are NOT because Iraq is consuming our resources).
The Bush/McCain "plan" has been TRIED, and it has FAILED. The TROOPS perform every assigned task brilliantly and with valor, but when LEADERSHIP has no goal which can be militarily obtained, the military cannot be on any path to "victory." For example, if our troops were assigned to "get Bin Laden" ... he would have been "gotten" long before now. Instead, they are told to "pacify" this region or that ... which they DO ... in order for a POLITICAL/GOVERNMENTAL solution to unfold ... which they CANNOT do with military force. That goal is NOT within their ability to achieve. Their VICTORY is defined by actions over which they have NO control, and that's a huge FAILURE of LEADERSHIP (i.e. Bush, and now McCain).
We need a new direction re: America's Defense and our "best interests" abroad. Bush has FAILED, utterly, and at tremendous cost. McCain would endorse and extend that FAILURE far into the future.
textmess,
I think you need to look at the Iraq war again. I think things have changed for the good in Iraq. No war, at any time, could be defined as ending in a pre-determined time frame. WWII was nearly lost several times, especially in Europe, when the Germans rebounded like in the Battle of the Bulge. I know older members of my family weren't sure of the war's ending even after Germany was defeated. The cold war immediately commenced and there remained a great deal of uncertainty. That continued, not in open fighting but was battled at great expense financially until the late 1980's. The war had been over for nearly 50 years but it took determination against the resistence of placing nuclear missiles in Europe and overwhelming the USSR's ecomony with developing 'star wars' technology. Obviously the war with Japan ended much more definitively but saved the lives of hundreds of thousands, American soldiers and Japanese civilians included in what would have been a protacted war on their soil. But now we have a close relationship with Japan, one consider one of the most barbaric in human history. In many ways, Japanese culture then is reflected in Islamic facism of today. Radical spirtual religious beliefs fomenting hatred, repression, inhuman acts of violence against innocents and intention of eradicating contrary cultures. These folks looked for a fight and are not going to just go away.
Even if Bin Laden has not acheived room temperature as yet, killing him now or then will not stop his kind of evil. There is a culture of hate in that part of the world that exists beyond his influence or his time. Palestinians attacked civilians for years before he came on the scene, Kadafi as well. At least with Kadafi, he has accepted change and divested himself of overt terrorism support. That took time, an air raid in response to his attack on the military, decades of economic isolation that was placed due to their jetliner bombing and the real possibility of exposing himself to additional military response to his nuclear capability that made him come to his senses. Maybe, he had seen what happened to Saddam and figured he could be next.
So without a real method of acurately prognostigating the process and outcome of a war, maybe just a few things are important to consider. First, is it necessary? Enough debate hasn't settled that here or elsewhere but I do not believe Bush lied to create a war. Most western intelligence agencies and American politicians believed that allowing someone who had used and spoke of attacking us with wmd should not be given the chance to do so, especially following 9/11. That would have been considered dereliction of duty. Secondly, this is a war of cultures. A friend of mine, a physician that immigrated from Pakistan and is Muslim sees this conflict as changing the dynamics of Arab and Persian culture and its shared hope of a 'return to greatness of Babylon'. Much of Hussein's bravado was fostering this myth that would elevate middle eastern culture to its rightful status. Along with that, elements of Islam had looked to this myth as part of the return of the 12th Imam or mahadi and look to bring his triumphant return through apocalypse. So removal of this myth is important to prevent the radicals who seek destablization or armageddon from gaining any more power. Maybe our presence there like in Germany, is to help the Iraqi's rid themselves of this pestilence, like they are attempting right now in Bassra, Iraqi soldiers fighting Al-Sadr's Shia militia. Who knows when and if this fight will end our only hope is making every effort to ensure that it ends like it did with us having found allies when the culture of WWII era Japan and Germany agreed that our presence was of helpful and aspirations for our people now shared a common vision.
gooru,
Thank you for the well thought out response. Your response, ladened with the use of trite, pithy and otherwise depth-challenged insight is to be commended, if only for its consistency with others of left leaning inclination to avoid rational discussion on this site.
Kudos upon kudos!
singularobjectivepronounnarcissist,
At least you made an effort.
If you would have postulated that we couldn't lose the war in March of 1944, or that we just had a few setbacks awaiting us, you'd have been diagnosed with a severe MH disorder. We were still a year and 1/2 out from formal surrender with the Japanese. Why nearly 700 soldiers died just in preparation for the invasion of Normandy. Let alone the 4000+ that died on the first day of the invasion. One could easily imagine the lefty howls of 'Ike lied and people died' with that one.
The fact is millions more people have been freed from horrendous despotic regimes by the sacrifice of our military and our families than ever before. To somehow say that should be done by such-and-such date is fallacious. The fact is the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan are improving their futures and ours. That fact that most media outlets have so little news from the war indicates that things must be getting better. Good news is bad for ratings so they chase the bad news and scandals instead.
We need to revisit this because the whole of the western world, including democrats that approved of the war, believed that Saddam would have used wmd if obtained them. The battles being fought, (oh by the way in Iraq, Al-Sadr is stopping his fight against the Iraqi army in Basra), on both Afghani and Iraqi soil are creating an important new dynamic of the mystic of the Mahdi and Babylonian restoration and defeating the thugs of radical Islam. This makes the whole world safer and despite the effort of so many on the left, one war worth fighting for and one we are winning.
ProudMoron. Your post is stupid. Santa Clause COULD use WMDS IF he could get them. The CIA said directly they were NOT a threat to commit terrorism against us nor allow their weapons to be used to do so. Your game is WEAK. These bogus talking points have been taken apart a few dozen times already. The FACT is Bush LIED to take us to an unneccesary war. The Iraqis want us gone. All military objectives have been reached. There was NEVER a moral justification for invading Iraq. When Saddam was committing the WORST of his attrocities he WAS our ally and STAYED our ally. You will NEVER convince anyone with two functioning brain cells that we HAD to invade Iraq because conservatives or Bush who didnt care DIDDLY SQUAT about how brutal Saddam was when he was our guy, SUDDENLY were overcome with compasion and decided we had to invade to save them. THAT only became the reason when all the other EXCUSES this administration made for invading Iraq dissapeared into the fairy dust from whence they came.
Hey Hillary,
Get out of the race before you do irreparable damage to the Democratic Party's chances for taking back the White House. Its the right thing to do. Oh yeah, and stop playing the race card.
It does not behoove Hillary Clinton to play the race card. Those who have a need to play the race card are among the conservative anchors and contributors at Fox News. To be specific...Sean Hannity and Dick Morris. Their back and forth banter of good cop...bad cop is so obvious it makes want to throw up. Sean Hannity's relentless attacks on Barack Obama's ties to Rev. Wright serves two purposes. While soliciting to ultra right morality, his rightious rantings also serve to strengthen ultra left sympathy for Barack Obama. The reality is that the conservatives need Obama to run against MaCain in the fall at which time they will completely bury him in race issues. Dick Morris who will do anything to discredit the Clintons pretends to pander to Obama's Afro American core with this hair brain observation; "If it is thought that this nomination were stolen from Barack Obama, we are going to see rioting in the streets like we've never seen before." He insults the intelligence of African Americans with such a blatantly incindiary statement. Normally, inciting a race riot would be perceived as a danger to society, but coming from the forked tongue of Dick Morris, one need only consider the source.
Congratulations MMFA
This is the first time I can remember that they have been somewhat critical of Keith Olbermann. Very refreshing.
If Obama was kneecapping Hillary then Olbermann would be critical of him
Keith is merely applying the same standard of behavior to Hillary as he would a conservative, if they can't get away with dirty politics then neither can she
Its called consistency
With the Richardson is Judas comment
NB: I did not say Hilary did it, she has not apologized for Carville doing it
With the Richardson is Judas comment and her financial backers threatening the Speaker of the House I'd say the scorched earth strategy is in full swing, Hillary has brought this criticism on herself
Again how so ?
Carville called him Judas and no one has apologized, certainly not condemned and absolutely not denounced nor rejected. It stands to reason Hillary is behind that statement until she says otherwise.
Her financial backers did threaten Pelosi and Hillary again is silent
So criticism is brought upon her for being non vocal on issues pertaining to her campaign, unless you can show otherwise I'm not sure where you were looking to go with this
And she hasn't apologized for Richardson being called Judas.
She doesn't have to apologize for remarks made by an independent person.
She should apologize for things she says, or things said by her campaign staff. There's no requirement or need for her to apologize for comments that James Carville made. He has a right to his opinion that Richardson owed some loyalty to Clinton. I disagree with him. I think Richardson has the right to have a different opinion about who would be the best candidate, and I think that James Carville was wrong to call him a Judas. That doesn't mean that Hillary has any obligation to apologize for his comments.
This topic was about Hillary Clinton having to pull a Tonya Harding to win the election, and your first post on this topic (remember, it's about Hillary, not James Carville) was about the comment made by James Carville. You're trying to pretend that they're inextrictably linked. They aren't. James Carville's remarks are totally separate from any attempt Hillary might make to pull a Tonya Harding in the future, as the anonymous Democrat supposedly said.
Are you being consistent? Or do you believe Obama must answer for Jeremiah Wright's words?
Oh great one, you have found the secret decoder ring that proves to you that this is a Hillary site.
they are so clever here as to display conservative misinformation about Al Gore, Barak Obama, John Edwards, etc. just to cover up their reel secret scenario.
You missed one.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/obama-not-going.html
ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd in Vinton, Iowa Thursday that he's not going to pull a Tonya Harding on his rival candidates.
"Folks said there's no way Obama has a chance unless he goes and kneecaps the person ahead of us, does a Tonya Harding," Obama joked, referring to the female skating champion who conspired to harm a competitor during the 1994 U.S. Figure Skating Championships.
Even the folks at the Daily Kos think this is what's going on.
That Hillary secretly wants Obama destroyed because she'd rather run against McCain in 2012 or whoever the Republican nominee is than have a President Obama run for re election.
I do think that Hillary and Bill have been doing things lately that support accusations of ruthlessness.
Also I'm sick of hearing from the media day after day that Hillary and Obama's contest is getting "increasingly bitter" when the bitterness seems to be coming from one side only.
"Even the folks at the Daily Kos think this is what's going on."
LOL!! I mean, really LOL!!
To cite the daily Kos as a validation of an anti-Hiallry point is like citing a landlord about a criticism of rent control.
Of course they're going to say that! They hate her!
hillary should not quit. what if a video of wright saying "god damn america" shows up with obama sitting there. anyone who thinks these things are not going to be brought up is dreaming. shouting down the people who try to bring them up will not work this fall. in his first book obama excerpted a speech where wright said "white folks greed runs a world in need". it's in the link. go ahead and say he's right, it's out of context, but don't think it won't be used. and i will repeat for time one hundred, i will vote for the democratic nominee.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obamas_Wright_White_folks_greed.html
So Hill should be the nominee because white folk are taken aback at Wrights candor, a person not even running for office
OK
Hillary should be the candidate if this Wright issue becomes too injurious to Obama.
Hillary Haters love to twist reality to fit their fantasy.
MeFirst was saying that Obama might end up being linked very strongly with one of his pastor's comments to his detriment, and if that's the case, then Hillary would be a better candidate. Either you can't or won't see it. It's your hating ways that blind you.
You can call it hate in an attempt to diffuse the criticism, but if you had a shred of honesty you'd admit the Clintons are far more guilty of it than Obama ever could be.
You don't think the Lewinsky scandal will come up again if Hillary wins? As a candidate for President she will not enjoy the immunity she had as First Lady from questions as to why she would stay with a man who fornicated in the Oval Office and what that says about her character ....ad nauseum
But for any Hillary supporter to say that she should stay in the race in case anything comes out later about Obama is ridiculous.
That to me sounds similar to the wingnuts with their claims of Hillary's complicity in the "murder" of Foster and the evidence they say that proves Hillary was guilty of some kind of misdeed in the Whitewater nonsense. They claim there's evidence. There is none and never will be. So let's stop acting like minions of Karl Rove.
It's all bullsh_t, whether it's a wingnut saying wait for evidence to come out about Hillary or Hillary supporters waiting for dirt to come out about Obama.
Both sides need to ratchet back their accusations or we'll have four more years of Bush policies and one hundred years of war.
And I'm hearing those kind of things coming from others from all three sides and it's worrying me. I just think everyone has to step back and make peace with each other.
I think both of the Democratic camps need to get together and iron out their differences and like you said, get this thing settled before the general election.
I'd be the last person to suggest that you not say whatever you want to say. I've always enjoyed your posts and have always respected your well thought out arguments.
Sorry for my poor wording in my prior post.
ok, i did take it to be a comment directed at me, since the discussion came after my post. but as i said i do respect you, and i don't think you would tell me not to express myself. that was more in the context of the way some react to bringing things up. and if you disagree with me on something, i don't mind hearing that.
I'm not a Hillary supporter. Try again without falsely claiming I am.
I am against people who knock Hillary unfairly and who inflate Obama's positives and ignore his negatives.
sue/ellie/notthatgeorge/blonde
You are not fooling anyone, and being critical of Hillary Clinton does not equal hate . Does Obama hate Hillary? No so stop throwing that word around.
I didn't say that.
I'm not a sockpuppet.
There are Obama supporters who are Hillary Haters on this site, just like there are similar Hillary Haters galore on Daily Kos.
It's too bad you apparently are incapable of adding anything to the subject at hand, and can only attack me with a strawman argument which claims I said being critical of Hillary Clinton equals hate. I never said anything like that. In fact I've been quite critical of Hillary. I know that criticism doesn't equal hate. Are you confused about that? And I never said anything about Obama's feelings towards Hillary. It's about some Obama supporters hatred of Hillary.
I agree.
I am against people who knock Hillary unfairly and who inflate Obama's positives and ignore his negatives.
I'm also against people who knock Obama unfairly and who inflate Hillary's positives and ignore his negatives.
I'm also willing to accord McCain the same privilege.
What I'm really against is handing the presidency to John McCain. What I was trying to get across is that we can devour each other and it might feel great now, but the price just might be four more years of pain
Welcome back Ellie/notthatgeorge and of course nomobush
Its not to see you are using the word "Sockpuppet" again in your posts.
It is the unique word you use alot. I am so glad you are back.
Lets see if "numbskull" returns also.
OK. So you are not consistent. Hillary need not answer for Carville but Obama should have Wright albatrossed around his neck.
Sorry. Try again.
Get behind the Democratic candidate.
You are absolutely right.
All this sniping about Hil vs. Obama is irrelevant. Regardless, either of them is light years better than the criminal conspiracy that is the modern Republican party. Government by and for the rich has failed miserably. Imperialism as a foreign policy has failed miserably. Allowing businesses to regulate themselves and write trade agreements that destroy our manufacturing base in the name of short term profit has failed miserably.
I believe Obama is more electable in the general, but I will work for, contribute to, and vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it may be.
Four more years of Republicanism will finish off our democracy for good.
I think there is little chance that Hillary will win the nomination, barring something that is revealed about Obama before the convention that is like what destroyed Eliot Spitzer.
I live in New York State and the state will definitely go for either Obama or Hillary. So I almost think my vote won't be very important.
But I do prefer Hillary over McCain. I'm just saying that Hillary and Bill are behaving like politicians who will do anything to win, regardless of media distortion and an obvious media preference for McCain.
Another thing is that the media generally ignores the fact that Democrats are certain to strenghten their control of Congress. Anything to make the Democrats look like they are in trouble. And Hillary and Bill, for the moment, are co operating with the media narrative.
Werner, You have captured a point that has been below the radar. Let's fill up Congress with Dems, especially enough to override any veto from any President.
Concerning the Tonya Harding stuff, I hear the ShiftyBoaters already have the franchise on that. I am waiting for them to ask Sen. McBush to prove that he endured suffering or if his injuries were self-induced because he knew he'd run for President in 2008. You really can't trust those Official Records...
Werner and POW, it's good to hear that. Neither Hillary or Obama were my first choice, I'm still hoping that Obama gets the nod in time to deal with all of the smearing, but even if HRC somehow gets in, I will vote for her, not enthusiastically, but it won't be a difficult choice.
I think the current situation is most difficult for registered Dems, and that's what the right wing media is feeding off of (the chaos and infighting, as they see it). I've never been registered with a political party, and after voting for Carter as a vote against Reagan in my first election ( and what I saw as a real step in the dumbing down of the electorate-I was right)I voted third party until the GOP got so insane that I was forced to start voting Dem. pretty consistently.
I've said it before here, but I feel like I'm watching this campaign from a different perspective-- Obama as the Democratic nominee, HRC as the Republican, and McCain as the pick of some fringe extremist obsolete remnant party.As vocal as they are, I don't really believe that the minority that considers Gramps McCain a liberal is very important, except to those who begin phone calls with "Megadittos".
"I'm just saying that Hillary and Bill are behaving like politicians who will do anything to win,"
For heavens sake, what possible evidence is there for this? There isn't any! What in the world have they done wrong? This is all media propaganda.
Oh, I know-- they've campaigned against Obama! What rats they are!
Gimme a break! He's a powerful Penn. tycoon. This is craziness-- is that all you've got-- yeah, the Clintons are in bed with RMS! that explains everything!!
Jeez-- the paranoia...
Conason co wrote an excellent book called the Hunting of the President about the right wing conspiracy that did exist when Bill was president. He's an expert on RMS and the others.
It may not be all that much to you, but when Conason begins to question the tactics of Hillary I totally believe what he says and I agree with him. I think this article is on target and isn't paranoid.
The kitchen sink method, The race card, The Tanya Harding option.
What's next for Hillary? The lee Harvey Oswald method?
Darn. I thought this was where people could go to discuss and change the biased and slanted approach the media has taken on politics, particularly, this democratic race. All the bantering, and obvious influence these news peddlers have on people is as visible here as it is on the Huffington Post.
If anyone listened past the Tonya Harding analogy on this video clip, they went on to try and claim that should Obama get the nomination, and lose in the General, that would be Clinton's fault. The polls don't suggest this scenario, and taking it to the level of pretend FACT is tatamont to the ridiculousness of the claim Nader caused Gore to lose in 2000.
The MSM needs to get investigative and start looking deeper into the voting processes. Texas should not be allowed to slide in behind all these idiotic "news" stories while they investigate the double voting by thousands of people.
The Democratic Party and the media are sabotaging Hillary, and she is by far the better candidate to run against McCain. It will never happen, but I would love to see the Clintons leave the ungrateful Dems and start a third centrist party. As I said it will never happen because the Clintons are far more loyal to the party than the party is to them.
May I please request that all of the well known people who are supporting Hillary Clinton step forward and publicly ask Barak Obama to quit the race.
What is happening with the Obama supporters is a disgrace and they are the ones who are tearing the party apart, and will be responsible for John McCain winning the election.
Right now 28% of Hillary Clinton's supporters will not vote for Barak Obama if he is elected.
By inciting the media and the rest of the Hillary Haters to follow them, they will end up making Obama a loser anyway.
Start speaking up for the people of Florida and Michigan to be allowed to join in this process. Let us make it a legal election by allowing everyone a chance to vote.
May I please request that all of the well known people who are supporting Hillary Clinton step forward and publicly ask Barak Obama to quit the race.
LOL
He's ahead in delegates and he's ahead in the popular vote but you want him to quite? Pretty pathetic thinking.
...She did visit two outposts outside of the base camp in Tuzla without
the celebrities there for the USO tour.
Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a
military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday to deliver a personal
"thank you, thank you, thank you" to U.S. troops.
...
But this was a day of celebration and celebrities - a day for the U.S.
troops helping to uphold the Bosnian peace accord. Mrs. Clinton hosted
a USO show with comedian Sinbad and singer Sheryl Crow and briefly
addressed the gathering.
...
But the highlight of her trip were visits to two fortified posts
outside the U.S. base in Tuzla. Even President Clinton, restricted to
the base by bad weather in January, did not see as much of this
war-wracked region as Mrs. Clinton did Monday.
...
Riflemen rushed to the brush line as the helicopter landed and
surrounded her as she walked into the post. Located in a "separation
zone," the U.S. outpost nestles between two tree lines. Just months
ago, one was Serbian territory, the other Bosnian.
Security was tight - fighter jets accompanied her C-17 cargo plane to
Tuzla - but officials said the first lady took no extraordinary risks
on the trip.
Lexis - By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press, March 25, 1996
" Let me begin by saying to Obama supporters, & you specifically Eden : you might want to pick up a copy of Dale Carnegie's book, How to Win Friends and Influence People. "
jeter2 / Saturday March 29, 2008 1:23:53 PM EDT
What a maroon...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that how Dale Carnegie WON FRIENDS AND INFLUENCED PEOPLE . By calling them a Maroon . Why don't you take your self righteous sermons about ettiquett somewhere else .
Bunnygit
Bunny's got a point Jeter
Your constructive criticism of me didn't seem to exhibit any of the charm the Carnegie book does, in fact you acted as if WE have never had a civil conversation on these threads and WE certainly don't agree on a lot
I'll quote Carnegie, Nine Ways to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment
Just some constructive critique from a fellow Massachusitan, I'll qoute Finneran "Don't paint me with that broad brush."
Maybe you haven't caught that one more of BO's lies has come to light ... please see today's Washington Post most viewed articles list ... and he was born BEFORE the Selma marches he credits for bringing his parents together. If he was just a writer of two books, I wouldn't particularly care that he has an aversion to facts. As he is set on running for the presidency of the United States and taking the Democratic party with him, I am paying more attention to where he diaviates from reality.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I'm pleased to see that at least some people recognize that all this divisiveness and trash talk has been generated and encouraged by the media. It's not the candidates causing all this consternation. Neither Obama or Clinton have said anything particularly outrageous. It's their so-called supporters who are making harmful comments, as one can see clearly on these blogs. I would also suspect that there are a lot of Republican trolls maasquerading as Dems or Obana supporters who are fanning the flames. It's right out of Rove's playbook.. Divide and conquer. Spread gossip and pretty soon the gullible take it as truth. To call someone a liar or racist or any other perjorative without factual basis to back it up is plain wrong. Because of the rampant baseless gossip that has been spread all over the media, I make it a practice to suspect all opinons not backed by any factual assertions. The only proper response to a gossiper is, "prove it". If there is no factual evidence, then dismiss it.
The desperation of some to find something to complain about Hillary is demonstrated by the attempts to attribute what other people say to her. Some try to claim she is responsible for what James Carville says. Even Carville's wife wouldn't try to claim that! They say Hillary's comment "as far as I know" after being grilled about whether Obama was Muslim or Christian is claimed by some to be a sort secret signal to some that Obama is really Muslim. How silly. And the sillier it gets, the better Hillary looks, at least to those alert enough to see what's go;ing on.
You're right-- it was noticed at the beginning, but then the Hillary haters took over.
One thing though-- MMFA only cited KO's interview-- they didn't mention him in the introduction by name as being one of the offenders.
This is typical for KO-- he's always bashing women on his show.