LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.Best Political Blog Winner, 2007 Webby Awards, People's Voice and Jury.   Dateline: Iraq - Anna Badkhen and Sarah Stillman on Assignment
 
May 17, 2008
Log in / Register

Choose a size
Text Size

HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Podcast|Cartoons|Bazaar|Advertise 
Reports
Trading Spaces, Iraq Edition
 By Anna Badkhen
I’m From the Government and I’m Here to Help
 By Eugene Robinson
A Lesson for Republicans
 By E.J. Dionne
Toward a New Washington Consensus
 By David Sirota

Arts & Culture
Chalmers Johnson on Our ‘Managed Democracy’
 By Chalmers Johnson
Sean Penn Talks Politics at Cannes
Geoffrey Wheatcroft on ‘Muqtada’
 By Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Movie Mogul Weinstein Reportedly Pressured Pelosi

Digs
President Jonah, Meet Oliver Cromwell!

Dig led by Gore Vidal

Inside the Data Mine

Dig led by Onnesha Roychoudhuri


Ear to the Ground
* NEW! * Newsroom Carnage Continues at The Washington Post
* NEW! * Burma Death Toll Now at 78,000
* NEW! * U.S. Sergeant Refuses to Serve in ‘Illegal’ War
* NEW! * A Rough Day for Reactionaries
* NEW! * U.S. Consumer Confidence at 28-Year Low
Democrats Condemn Bush’s ‘Appeaser’ Comment

A/V Booth
* NEW! * Huckabee’s Major Misfire
* NEW! * Bill O’Reilly Off the Hook: The Dance Remix
* NEW! * Somebody Get the Man a Jet Ski
* NEW! * DeGeneres: ‘I’m Getting Married!’

Truthdig Bazaar
The N Word: Who Can Say It, Who Shouldn’t and Why

The N Word: Who Can Say It, Who Shouldn’t and Why

By Jabari Asim
$26.00

Messenger Bag

$25

Golf Shirt

$21
more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Philly Debate Maligned by Pro-Obama Media?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Apr 18, 2008
Philadelphia debate
AP photo / Jae C. Hong

Here’s looking at you, Obama: ABC moderator Charlie Gibson, center, talks with presidential candidate Barack Obama before the start of Wednesday’s debate.

Why were so many journalists so aggravated by the latest presidential debate? According to Politico scribes John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei, it wasn’t about George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson’s less substantive questions—instead, the problem was that “this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton.”


Politico:

In fact, the balance of political questions (15) to policy questions (13) was more substantive than other debates this year that prompted no deluge of protests. The difference is that this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton.

Moreover, those questions about Jeremiah Wright, about Obama’s association with 1960s radical William Ayers, about apparent contradictions between his past and present views on proven wedge issues like gun control, were entirely in-bounds. If anything they were overdue for a front-runner and likely nominee.

If Obama was covered like Clinton is, one feels certain the media focus would not have been on the questions, but on a candidate performance that at times seemed tinny, impatient, and uncertain.

The difference seems clear: Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.

(Harris only here: As one who has assigned journalists to cover Obama at both Politico and the Washington Post, I have witnessed the phenomenon several times. Some reporters come back and need to go through de-tox, to cure their swooning over Obama’s political skill. Even VandeHei seemed to have been bitten by the bug after the Iowa caucus.)

(VandeHei only here: There is no doubt reporters are smitten with Obama’s speeches and promises to change politics. I find his speeches, when he’s on, pretty electric myself. It certainly helps his cause that reporters also seem very tired of the Clintons and their paint-by-polls approach to governing.)

Read more

Does the press give Obama too much positive attention? Tell us what you think.

Email Newsletter

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.

Previous item: A Papal Primer on Global Diplomacy

Next item: Three Different Takes on the Zimbabwean Presidential Battle

Jump to Comments

Advertisement


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

Comment Pages: 1 2 »

By eyesopen, April 20 at 7:19 pm #
(1 comments total)

This is off-topic but an observation in response to Lee’s posting of the Trinity Black Values System url and the heat that the posting generated. I was interested so I went to read the “Black Value System”.

As a point of reference, I’m a Black,40-something, Catholic-schooled (grade 1 thru B.S.), middle-class Lesbian.

Now, since the Church first serves its immediate community, the logical conclusion would be that the Trinity Black Values System was formalized to best serve its community. For example, the Catholic church of my childhood now holds 70% of the masses in Spanish; that’s to serve the majority of parishoners. The Trinity Black Values System likely is a formalized, disciplined approach to deal with the widely known and acknowledged unique challenges of lower-class (I cringe but it is predominantly a class issue) Black Americans : high teenage pregnancy rates, alarming high school drop-out rates and high incarceration rates for Black males.

Reply to this | Report this

By cyrena, April 20 at 6:36 pm #
(4155 comments total)

Speaking of vetting…

This is designated as a ‘Special Issue’ and it is, in terms of the release date. I was surprised to discover it in my inbox, since this publication generally comes out on Thursdays.

At any rate, this is a bit of a revelation, since I know I wasn’t aware of it. Matter of fact, I recently discovered a far larger ‘bombshell’ in that the Pentagon under Bill Clinton was a ‘sponsor’ to the genocide in Rwanda, and then actively tried to cover it up. But, that is a lengthy report that many may have no interest in..since it was too far away from the ‘home front’.

THIS is not! (It also doesn’t surprise me).

I’m posting a few excerpts, and you can access the rest at the link.

“Now Senator Hillary Clinton (D, NY) has some explaining to do.
BlackCommentator.com has learned that Bill Clinton, while president, repeatedly praised the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). This is an organization that many, including some whites and a former U.S. senator from Illinois, have called racist.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, the UDC is a neo-Confederate organization which is affiliated with such white supremacist groups as the Council of Conservative Citizens and the League of the South. Formed in 1894, the UDC limits its membership to women who are related to Confederate veterans of the “War Between the States.”
In 2000, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[a]lthough the UDC promotes an image of genteel Southern ladies…its publications” tell a different story, adding that recently the “UDC’s president, Mrs. William Wells, shared the podium with…white supremacist lawyer Kirk Lyons.”
In a 1989 UDC Magazine article, Walter W. Lee argued that “purchasers of the slaves” were actually victims of slavery, while “the worst suffering group among those engaged in the trade” were “the crews of slave ships.” Lee also made light of the horrific and deadly Middle Passage, claiming that “the sixteen inches of deck space allotted each slave is not all that much smaller that (sic) the eighteen inches that the Royal Navy allowed for each sailor’s hammock and the slaves rapidly had more room due to the much higher death rate.”
In her quest for the presidency, the U.S. Senator from New York has presented herself as a qualified expert on civil rights and a participant in the civil rights movement.
Senator Clinton has also put forth her belief that all candidates for the office should be thoroughly scrutinized, that no one should be immune, and all of the presidential candidates should be required to justify their stance on the issues before the voters and explain any contradictions that might arise.
Senator Clinton frequently speaks of her eight years experience “in the White House”. During that time Bill Clinton lavished praise on the United Daughters of the Confederacy. BlackCommentator.com has seen the following documents and presents copies of them here.”

And…they are at the link.

http://blackcommentator.com/274/274_clinton_udc_printe r_friendly.html

So, one minute the Clinton’s are entertaining Jeremiah Wright at the White House, and the next..they’re praising the United Daughters of the Confederacy, and pretty much ANYBODY knows that the UDC has always been the “sister” organization of the KKK.

WOW!

Reply to this | Report this

By Leefeller, April 20 at 5:13 pm #
(1233 comments total)

Saturation of tripe

Notice the lack of substance from some of the posters, but not the quantity, boy they sure can keep the quantity of SOS coming.  Especially the bigoted ones, the ones who support the kitchen sink, those who are afraid of anyone that is not white. Lack of substance is filled with attacking the messager.

The interesting thing is Hillary offers nothing to the table, except the same old crap, status quo, more of old Washington politics.  The people who support SOS or the same ones who support Hillary and her attack on hope and change, those of us who are looking for a different direction know this. 

After listening to Obama in Philadelphia, his offer to the people is so far ahead of the other two candidates it is unbelievable.

So Hillary folks, keep Truth Dig filled with your divisive kitchen sink, after all that is all you have.

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By PatrickHenry, April 21 at 2:55 am #
(1112 comments total)

Re: Saturation of tripe

From what I’ve seen Hillarys sink is full of dishes.

Reply to this | Report this

By Lee, April 20 at 3:46 pm #
(118 comments total)

Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes ...

RE: Cyrena

Oh, so now YOU get to decide what the parameters are for other people’s postings? So, if I don’t declare my support for a particular candidate, I don’t get to express my opinion regarding the election? And, ONE time I repeated a
paragraph from your posting in order to dispute what you said ... and, because of that, you accuse me of plagiarism? Also, I’m allowed to include links in my postings. The funny thing is that you strongly object to my posting the URL for Obama’s Trinity Church website, in order to point out the “black values system’ Obama pledged allegiance to.  Why are you objecting to that?
Once again, your 3,331 postings, filled with nasty name calling and bullying is
astonishing. And, Cyrena, I don’t have to respond to you with the same hate speech that you engage in, because your own words, on your own 3,331 postings show people what a hateful angry person you are, better than anyone else ever could.

Reply to this | Report this

By TheRealFish, April 20 at 10:26 am #
(35 comments total)

So, then, am I to take it that Mr. Harris & Mr. Vandehei are stating the theory that ABC was answering some higher calling to create “fairness” or “restore balance,” since everyone knows that Obama has gotten a free ride from the infotainment community?

And that the method of answering that higher calling is to put their thumb on the scales toward more “hardball” questions to Obama than toward Clinton for almost an hour?

Of course they are Right. Anyone should be able to see that over a week’s worth of endless-loop-playing of guilt-by-association, 30 second Rev. Wright clips is far and away a free ride compared to several days of acknowledging Hillary only mis-spoke when fabricating a duck and cover story in Tusla.

Natch.

BTW: Is it just me or, while they spent a good 3-4 minutes on Obama’s failure to submit to idolatry—oops! I mean patriotic duty to wear a flag pin—did nobody else notice HRC was not wearing a flag pin either?

Ah, well. At least it is now good to know that there are caring journalists taking on the hard task of ensuring overall coverage is kept in balance by sticking their thumbs on the scales.

Or isn’t that what *everybody* in the MSM is doing anyway (most coverage certainly seems all thumbs these days to me at any rate).

Reply to this | Report this

By Lee, April 20 at 10:08 am #
(118 comments total)

The pot calling the kettle ....

Re: Cryena

Oh, this is rich! You are accusing me of propaganda? You are accusing me
of harsh dialog?

You mean my 85 postings vs. your 3,722 angry, hate filled, accusation ridden,
name calling, threatening postings are a problem?

You mean that since you can’t silence my right to dissent, you’re now going to
try to silence me through a higher authority?

WHAT A DOUBLE STANDARD! YOU LITTLE TYRANT! YOU COWARD!

Once again ... like your candidate, you can dish it out, but you can’t take it.

We should look through your 3,722 postings and list all the hate speech you have inflicted on other Truthdig members over the last year!

What a hypocrite and what a coward you are!

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By cyrena, April 20 at 2:58 pm #
(4155 comments total)

The honest calling out the liar

Lee,

There is a clear and obviously HUGE difference between what nearly ALL other posters put on these pages, and what is CLEARLY PROPAGANDA by YOU! And, it’s not the quantity, but the content of your propaganda.

My posts are not the same template over and over and over again, nor do they include links to what are established hate speech, or what can certainly be interpreted as such by propagandists like you.

You have so far posted over 27 posts with these very same links, and with the very same lies and propaganda that you can be counted on to post. (there are probably more than that, but those are the ones I’ve come across so far, and I’m not on any mission to document them, so I only just started keeping track. If I miss a few, it’s not a big deal, since you should have figured out by now, that I’m pretty much the only one who pays any attention to you. I know Outraged responded at least once, but you couldn’t appreciate that, because your intention has NEVER been to engage in any reasoned debate, but only to post hate propaganda, specifically of the racial type, because you’re a racist.

Anyway, in every single one of these posts, (when you aren’t plagiarizing me or someone else) you’ve said the same shit, and listed the same web sites and it’s ALL hate propaganda.

There is NOTHING in my own posts that can be considered as ‘hate speech’ when in fact it’s all true. So no, YOU are the little coward that likes to dish it out, and can’t take it when you get called out for the little coward that you are.

Like I said, nobody pays any attention to you, or bothers to link to these websites, because it’s overwhelmingly clear by now, that you’re just a little shit-starting troll doing everything that YOU are capable of (which is nothing) to stir up as much hate and turmoil as you can. Between you and joey6pak, you simply can’t shake loose your fear and hatred of ‘the other’ and so you do your best to conflate Obama with whomever you think can or will be ‘feared’ by the rest of ‘your types’.

If you had even an ounce of brains or common sense, you could find some ‘legitimate’ criticisms of him, because none of these candidates are without some faults. But, that isn’t your purpose, because you’re only driven by race hate.

You aren’t even on this web site (or any others that you haven’t been kicked off of) because you’re supporting Hillary. You’ve yet to ever make known you’re support for ANY of the candidates – at least by name. Nor do you engage in this plastering of your hate propaganda on any of the other article threads. ONLY the ones where you can connect your hate speech to Obama.

BECAUSE..unless you’re posting race hate propaganda intended to incorrectly conflate Barack Obama with ideologies to which he does not subscribe or in any way espouse, you have nothing to say. (and so your ignorance always shows.)

And no, I don’t have to go to any ‘higher authority’ than those who regularly post here. Simply calling you out for what you are is enough. You dig your own grave.

And nope, none of this is hate speech either. It’s just the truth. If any other posters have any problems with what I’m saying, they tell me.

So don’t even think you can equate my posts with ANYTHING that comes from your perverted mind. This isn’t at all a case of the pot calling the kettle anything. It’s a case of ME calling YOU a racist lying propagandist who can’t even construct your own prose, so you have to copy from others, and then post the same stuff over and over and over again.

That’s how simple THAT is.

Reply to this | Report this

By PatrickHenry, April 20 at 8:31 am #
(1112 comments total)

Hillary Campaign Backers

Just a few of the many who contribute to Hills campaign.  I’m sure they had a piece of the Mena operation.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hillaryjorge.php

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By jackpine savage, April 20 at 3:45 pm #
(703 comments total)

Re: Hillary Campaign Backers

No, Mr. Henry, i refuse to believe it...not the Clintons!  They would never, ever, ever associate with people like that...especially for money.  Jorge was probably just an old duck hunting partner of Hillary’s.

Pretty funny though, pictures of the Clintons all smiling next to a drug runner.

Reply to this | Report this

By Lee, April 20 at 7:20 am #
(118 comments total)

Obamabots ... a mindless cult ...

RE: Bert

Good going Bert!

The Obamabots on this website think they can extinguish the voices of truth by intimidation, name calling, ganging up, and other cowardly methods.
But, voices of truth, rather than Obamabot ‘blind devotion’ will continue to
ring out, in spite of their efforts to silence all opposition.

I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REPRESENTS ALL AMERICANS

Here is Pastor Wright’s ‘Black Value System’
posted at his website. This is what Barak Obama
pledged an oath to for the past 20 years:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.
http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.html

Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report this

By cyrena, April 20 at 9:06 am #
(4155 comments total)

Re: Obamabots ... a mindless cult ...

Lee, I’m pretty sure you’re too stupid to figure this out.

BUT...what you’re doing with this propaganda, (by plastering these websites any and everywhere you can) is actually in violation of the terms of the agreements that most blogsites require you accept before posting.

Now I’ll admit that truthdig doesn’t appear to monitor this stuff on their own, which is very likely why you choose to continue putting this stuff on this blog. You wouldn’t and couldn’t get away with it anywhere else.

So, just to let you know, I’m definitely keeping track. I haven’t looked at the tucc site, but I know for a fact that the NOI is listed as a hate group with the established organizations that keep track of them.

Among the 800 plus hate groups that the SPLC keeps track of, I believe that NOI is probably the only BLACK one, (I’m not sure where the New Black Panthers sit in this) but it is NOT to your advantage to post this on ANY website.

Now while I’m sure that your OWN membership is limited the Ayran Brotherhood, or the “New” Neo-Nazis, or the “New” Ku Klux Klan, I notice you apparently know better than to post any of THOSE web sites here.

Anyway, you’re officially a troll, posting hate mail on this site, and I’m thinking your time for doing this is really limited.

Just so you know.

Reply to this | Report this

By Leefeller, April 20 at 7:36 am #
(1233 comments total)

Re: Obamabots ... a mindless cult ...

Yes we see a great black future of Black Panthers, aligned with Gray Panthers giving racists the back seat of the bus.

Reply to this | Report this

By Leefeller, April 20 at 7:18 am #
(1233 comments total)

Little old ladies who couldn't vote

Texas, stuck in past again, now we still have the Hillary crying a river crowd, telling us of all the little old ladies in Texas who were not able to have their votes counted.  Of course it is not sexist to assume such, because all women vote for Hillary, because they are women.

What about non whites, women or men, old men, sick and paranoids?  Cry me a crock.

Reply to this | Report this

By Lee, April 20 at 6:48 am #
(118 comments total)

Outraged ... or, Outhouse?

Hey Outhouse ...
Good impersonation of Joseph McCarthy! Good Impression of the grand inquisitor too. You self righteous ass. You and your automaton Obmatons don’t want to be confused with facts, and your underhanded methods of name calling and false accusations says much more about you than it does me, or anyone else who is seeking truth. First of all you and your mindless hoard, along with Obama are the racists. What a red herring to misrepresent Obama as the candidate of unity, when at the same time he swore a 20 year allegiance to the racist ‘black values system’ ... which you and your lock-step Obamabots have probably never actually read. Or, the 90 % of black Obamabots who are voting for Obama only because he’s black ... You people are the real racists! A typical trick ... ‘the best defense is to be offensive! Like ‘blind’ faith, you Obamabots have an agenda, and no truth in the world will deter you from using whatever lies it takes to accomplish. You’ve proven that racism is not reserved for whites ... and that racism cannot only be talked about by blacks.
You scoundrels call anyone who disagrees with your candidate a racist ... how low you are! You Obamabots and your candidate no longer have any credibility ... therefore, it doesn’t matter what you or he say about the issues, because you’ll use anything (even misinformation) to get elected. I wouldn’t be suprised if you are all shills who were organized to blog for Obama, and instructed to label any opposition as racist. Therefore Outhouse ... you are the real racist who continually tries to keep you opponents off balance by calling them racists!
I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REPRESENTS ALL AMERICANS

Here is Pastor Wright’s ‘Black Value System’
posted at his website. This is what Barack Obama
pledged an oath to for the past 20 years:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.
http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm

Reply to this | Hide 4 replies | Report this

By Outraged, April 20 at 7:45 am #
(869 comments total)

Re: Outraged ... or, Outhouse?

Looky there.  “Lee” can copy and paste!  We’re so proud of our resident racist repug here at Truthdig.  We knew with time and perserverence he’d accomplish that very insurmountable skill of “copy and paste”.  We are all so impressed.

So you can prepare, Lesson 2:
How to Rise Above Seeing The World in Black and White..... Exposing The Republican Connection to Racism in America.

Just let me know Lee.  It looks to be sooner would be better than later.

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By Leefeller, April 20 at 9:40 am #
(1233 comments total)

Never nice to call a racist a racist

Last time I called a bigot on being one, I was called a Nazi polishing my jack boots, my feelers are still hurt.  Ignorance is a precursor to hate, or is it the other way around?

Report this

By bert, April 20 at 7:03 am #
(686 comments total)

Reply to Lee

Great post, Lee. I am trying to be pro-active about all the hateful comments here and on other blogs. I save some of the most egregious ones. And now, when ever I get a fund raising request from the DNC, (about two a week) or Dean, or Pelosi, or Reid, or Kerry, or Kennedy I go to my file and chose a few of the most vile ones I can find. I then staple it to the form, write a big fat -0- in the amount donated line and write on the form, go to (insert user names) this person. I am sure they will be happy to donate since I am no longer a valubale member of the Democratic Party. I then mail it in.

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By Leefeller, April 20 at 9:44 am #
(1233 comments total)

Hope you remembered me

Vile? Heard from the DNC and they told me to knock it off, so I guess it is working?

Report this

By Purple Girl, April 19 at 4:56 pm #
(236 comments total)

No it was stupid questions & Clintons Woner

Please this is so much BS i can barely stand it!
The missed more real issues than they eve sightly touched on.
It was a Showcase for Hillary.
I was amazed obama kept together- I’d have laid in to both Boy wonder & the Gibson Chimp- He was more likely thrown off by his attempt not to lose his cool over the stupidity of the Whole Charade.I almost took out my TV I was so Pissed!

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By PatrickHenry, April 20 at 6:17 am #
(1112 comments total)

Re: No it was stupid questions & Clintons

To me it demonstrated Obama’s coolness under fire, especially when the debate was set up to be against him.

Hillary is too excitable, shrill to an extent, she does not have the composure needed be unnerved by events.

Reply to this | Report this

By jc, April 19 at 4:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

excuse making

what does wright have to do with my grocery bill up 20%...how is a flag pin going to help my wages...how is gun control going to bring back our soilders..what does sniper fire have to do with the poor in this country....you snobish writers just always have to defend one another...it is you out of touch with america

Reply to this | Report this

By P. T., April 19 at 2:38 pm #
(774 comments total)

Are Insipid Debate Questions Usual?

From Glenn Greenwald on the Democracy Now program:

. . . the first half of the debate focused almost exclusively on the type of petty, insipid personality-based attacks that dominate our political discourse and determine our national elections.

But in another sense, I think it’s important to note that this debate is not in any way aberrational. I mean, in heaping all this scorn on what George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson have done, I think it’s important to acknowledge the fact that really all they’re doing is what is done continuously throughout our election cycles for decades now. This was sort of a more transparent act, because all of these vapid questions were bunched together at the beginning.

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By cyrena, April 19 at 4:04 pm #
(4155 comments total)

Re: Are Insipid Debate Questions Usual?

Well P.T. you ad Glenn Greenwald both have a point, because it HAS always been this way, in so far as the petty, insipid and personality based attacks are concerned.

OTOH...and I think this is important, there is FAR MORE of it this time around, when there should in fact be far less, because with few exceptions, we haven’t been faced with such enormous issues (at least that so much of the population is aware of)in previous decades. Combining the disaster of the War with the disaster of the economy (since the first surely created the next) and the complete breakdown of the rule of law after nearly 8 years of being under occupation, and we’ve got some serious things to consider that quite frankly, have not bee so enormous in previous elections, and we should expect the media to rise to the task.

The other thing that is an absolute FIRST, is the race issue. If anything, the racism is MORE prevalent now than it was 15 or 20 years ago, or even 12 years ago, and even though Obama had done remarkably well DESPITE that, the petty stuff includes a whole bunch of that racism, that hasn’t been a major source for the petty or insipid in earlier contests.

That much cannot be ignored. So, while it may be true that this is part of the history of how these things are done, the larger part is that this election has been intended to CHANGE that. It’s a new century here. The actions by Charlie Gibson and Stephanopoulos seem to portray a determined effort to RESIST that change, by any means necessary.

It doesn’t help us. Not at all…

Reply to this | Report this

By caucusdebacle, April 19 at 2:18 pm #
(5 comments total)

If even One Honest, Unswooned Reporter would cover the 15% Caucus Skew against Hillary’s house-bound Older-Women Voters who are forbidden Absentee Ballots in Caucus States, Hillary would be shown to be comfortably ahead in pledged delegates and popular votes. In Texas, Hillary’s voters were plus 4 in the primary and minus 12 in the caucus on the same day. A 16% swing! Suppose we had only seen the Caucus Results? Well, that’s what happened in Iowa etc.

If even One Honest Reporter wasn’t in the Swoon Tank for Mr. Obama, the shameful 15% Caucus Skew would have been revealed in detail and the (non-lemming) superdelegates would have to take into account the voter suppression against a large core group of Hillary’s voters. These cheated voters all know they’ve been silenced, disappeared. Ruth, “Just because I’m sick doesn’t mean I can’t think.” Lorna, “I don’t dare go out to caucus, dear, I’m off-balance.”

In my 2400 volunteer phone calls for Hillary, an average of every 8th call in a caucus state got me Vera, “Oh no, honey, I can’t caucus, I’m a cripple.” I say, “Couldn’t you vote-by-mail Absentee?” No Absentee Ballots for the house-bound in Caucus States. “If I can’t be there in my body, I don’t count.”

No, Swooned-Out Reporters, Hillary didn’t “get back the women’s vote” in New Hampshire because she teared up in a diner. Baa baa Humbug. Bleating Unexamined Media Nonsense. Her New Hampshire voters got back the Absentee Ballot. There is an epidemic of house-bound older women in America, most with a terrible fear of falling.

If those disappeared votes showed up in Hillary’s column, she’d be easily ahead in those pledged delegates & popular vote, but apparently the Marshmallow Media & Mr. Obama’s other supporters don’t really care about the Will of the People. Which people? The Will of (Only the Healthy) People, apparently. It’s a Mockery of Democracy.

Democracy is not a game. The rules of democracy are that each citizen gets her/his one sacred voice, vote. There is no metric by which the Democratic nominee is not chosen by the superdelegates. The whole point of (non-lemming) superdelegates is to think long & hard. Hundreds & hundreds of thousands of Hillary’s voters were cheated of their share of pledged delegates and popular vote because they are house-bound and were forbidden an Absentee Ballot. No ride helps these folks, only the Absentee Ballot. This is voter suppression on a massive scale. Mr. Obama’s putative lead is The Big Lie.  Imagine for one moment that 15% of Mr. Obama’s young or black supporters were prevented from voicing their vote for him. Would that feel right to you? Of course not. You’d rightly demand that reporters and superdelegates look into it & take it into account.

[Note re the intellectual epidemic outbreak known as ObamaSwoon Syndrome: “The infatuations of the sensual and frivolous part of mankind are amazing; but the infatuations of the learned and sophistical are incomparably more so.” --I.Taylor.]

Reply to this | Hide 3 replies | Report this

By Gmonst, April 19 at 4:29 pm #
(44 comments total)

Re: caucusdebacle

Wow, there is really a lot of assumptions there. You have no way of knowing how old-ladies who can’t walk would have voted, or just how many people are excluded from caucuses.  Caucuses are nothing new, and I would assume that their structuring would have always excluded old-ladies who can’t walk, and a lot of other people for various reasons.  Having a disliking for caucuses in general is fair enough, but trying to suggest its a plot against Hillary is a bit out there. Besides were there really “Hundreds & hundreds of thousands” of Hillary supporting old ladies who can’t walk, I doubt it.

Reply to this | Report this

By Outraged, April 19 at 4:25 pm #
(869 comments total)

Re:

Re: caucusdebacle

We’ve argued this point at Truthdig before. You assume that every home bound woman voter would have voted for Clinton.  There is no merit in your assertion.  It is just wishful thinking.  BTW, what about the 200,000+ republicans who switched parties and voted for Clinton in Texas, Ohio and Mississippi primaries.

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By bert, April 20 at 3:29 am #
(686 comments total)

Reply to Outraged

Yeah, Outraged, what about “them” Republicans voting for Democrats? There oughta be a law, right?

What about Republicans who switched parties and voted for Obama?

What about Obama paid TV ads actively seeking Republicans for a day?

What about Obama’s web site providing change of party affiliation documents for Republican voters?

Is that OK, Outraged? Is it OK for Obama to seek and get Republican votes, but not OK for Hillary? Is that what you are saying? Are there one set of rules for Obama and a different set of rules for Hillary? The old double standard?

Actually OBAMA RECEIVED MORE REPUBLICAN VOTES IN OHIO AND TEXAS THAN HILLARY. I have not researched Mississippi, so I don’t know there.

And answer this question for me. What damn difference does it make? In America anyone can vote for who they want and who they think is the best candidate. We aren’t red sates and blue states. We are the United States. Sound familiar? Well it should. Obama said it at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Unity is one of Obama’s main campaign themes, is it not? No more partisan bickering, right? If Obama really wants to unite all Americans and reach across the aisle and bring all folks to the table, wouldn’t that mean reaching out to Republicans too?

Well, then, Republicans voting for Hillary is already a sign of that kind of unity. See, she is a unity candidate too. See, she can reach across the partisan divide too.

I know you don’t care about logic, clear thinking or facts, Outraged. And that is exactly why you keep posting nonsense like this even though you have been provided the truth and the facts on Hillary receiving Republican votes before. And I provide it again.

According to Fact Check.org:

“In Ohio, according to exit polling conducted by CNN, about 9 percent of the Democratic vote came from Republicans.

They split their votes, 49 percent going to Clinton and the 49 percent going to Obama. Since Clinton received 1.208 million votes in that state, that means about 8 percent of her votes came from Republicans. On the other hand, about 10 percent of Obama’s 979,000 votes in that state were from Republicans.”

OBAMA RECEIVED MORE REPUBLICAN VOTES IN OHIO THAN CLINTON.

As for Texas, Fact Check.org says:

“We’ve seen fewer stories out of Texas that deal with this phenomenon, but Republican pollster Mike Baselice has said that a 9 percent to 15 percent crossover vote is typical in that state. That’s what exit polls showed there: Only 9 percent of those who voted on Democratic ballots identified themselves as Republicans. But they didn’t seem to follow Limbaugh’s prescription. According to the exit polls, Republicans preferred Obama over Clinton, 53 percent to 46 percent. Our calculations show that, as in Ohio, about 8 percent of Clinton’s votes in Texas came from Republicans; for Obama, the figure was about 10 percent.”

OBAMA RECEIVED MORE REPUBLICAN VOTES IN TEXAS TOO THAN CLINTON.

Complete article and analyses link here:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_10_percent_o f_hillarys_votes_come.html

Report this

By John, April 19 at 1:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

journalists are people too

I find it somewhat amusing how this journalist maligns many in his own profession because they may have discovered something essentially truthful about the argument Sen. Obama is making; namely, that our politics has become consumed with petty gossip and innuendo.  Shifting reasoning on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is certainly fair game and probably fruitful.  But that was not the spirit or intention of that debate.  So which is it?  Are reporters swooning fools captivated by personality (allah, George W. Bush)?  Or are they reasonable and thoughtful, like many in this country who support Sen. Obama.  Solutions, good policy, problem solving; thats what people are looking for, hopefully thats what American journalists are looking for too.

Reply to this | Report this

By Outraged, April 19 at 12:38 pm #
(869 comments total)

The Huffington Post has this clip of Stephanopoulos in 1993 and his comments about this same situation concerning ol’ Bill.

“STEPHANOPOULOS: What he’s going to do in this campaign is focus on what’s important to the American people, on the jobs and the education. That’s what the American people care about. They want to move into the future. They don’t want to be diverted by side issues, and they’re not going to let the Republican attack machine divert them”

Check it out, the video clip:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/18/stephanopoulo s-once-criti_n_97363.html

Stephanopoulos is a Clinton lackey, which in turn makes him a republican hack.

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By bert, April 19 at 3:51 pm #
(686 comments total)

Reply to Outraged

“Stephanopoulos is a Clinton lackey, which in turn makes him a republican hack.”

This is a deductive fallacy.

When Stephanopoulos was being paid by the Bill Clinton Campaign and was in the administration, of course he would do and say what the boss wanted. After he resigned in Clinton’second term he was not always as kind. Read his book, “All to Human,” about his days in the Clinton administration. He has been a critic of Clinton in both this book and in his duties with ABC and as host of “This Week.”

Stephanopoulos is neither Clinton lackey, nor a republican hack.

Reply to this | Report this

By Lee, April 19 at 10:42 am #
(118 comments total)

IT'S ABOUT TIME OBAMA WAS VETTED!

After a free ride for 15 months ... it’s about time Obama is finally being vetted.
This reality is reflected by the fact that most Americans don’t know anything about him ... except by way of his own self description, in his own P.R.. In addition, Obama has been treated with kid gloves, while Hillary has been battered by the media. When he finally gets confronted with a few difficult questions, he cries like a baby. What a whimp!

HAVE YOU PEOPLE WHO BLINDLY SUPPORT OBAMA EVER TAKEN THE TIME TO
READ WHAT OBAMA, IN HIS OWN WORDS HAS SWORN ALLEGIENCE TO?
WELL, DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND CHECK THIS OUT ... THEN TRY READING IT
WHILE SUBSTITUTING THE WORD WHITE, EVERYPLACE IT SAYS BLACK

Here is Pastor Wright’s ‘Black Value System’
posted at his website. This is what Barak Obama
pledged an oath to for the past 20 years:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.
http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm

I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REPRESENTS ALL AMERICANS

Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report this

By felicity, April 19 at 1:19 pm #
(316 comments total)

Re: IT'S ABOUT TIME OBAMA WAS VETTED!

Careful, Lee.  If a candidate is to be judged by the people with whom he/she associates, Hillary and her hanger-on husband have associated through the years with some pretty nefarious characters. 

The Republican machine has a rolodex full of them, which, should Hillary face McCain, they will gleefully roll out.

Reply to this | Report this

By Outraged, April 19 at 12:50 pm #
(869 comments total)

Re: IT'S ABOUT TIME OBAMA WAS VETTED!

Looky there.  “Lee” can copy and paste!  We’re so proud of our resident racist repug here at Truthdig.  We knew with time and perserverence he’d accomplish that very insurmountable skill of “copy and paste”.  We are all so impressed.

So you can prepare, Lesson 2:
How to Rise Above Seeing The World in Black and White..... Exposing The Republican Connection to Racism in America.

Reply to this | Report this

By Outraged, April 19 at 9:00 am #
(869 comments total)

Re: bert

Your comment regarding the “Center for Media and Public Affairs”.

From Sourcewatch:
“The Center for Media and Public Affairs was founded in the mid 1980s by S. Robert Lichter and Linda Lichter. According to Salon.com, “the seed money for [the] center was solicited by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson"."

It also states:
“Thus, out of the total of $2,960,916 in foundation grants, nearly all of it ($2,668,916) came from just four sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its foundation funding from those four donors. Here is a sample of other right-wing causes funded by these 3 donors, as listed by their respective SourceWatch articles:

John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century
Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation
Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute”

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_ Media_and_Public_Affairs

The Center for Media and Public Affairs is not a credible non-partisan source.

Reply to this | Hide 6 replies | Report this

By bert, April 19 at 3:28 pm #
(686 comments total)

Re:

“The Center for Media and Public Affairs is not a credible non-partisan source.”

One, the fact that you even bring this matter up is just a diversionary tactic designed to side step the issue rather than deal with the substantive nature of the charges.

Source watch is just a far left wing version of Media and Public Affairs. So what is your point? The Source Watch Board of Directors is about as left wing as they come. As is their main sources of funding. (I checked both on their web site.)

Source Watch is not a credible non-partisian source either.

However, no matter what side of the political spectrum these two organizations lie, the facts of the percentage of positve Vs negative coverage still stand, and until you, or source watch, can provide other numbers or other research for me to look at, I am not going to be distracted (nice try though)from my original thesis that the media is pro-Obama and anti-Hillary. (Although that is starting to change as Obama is considered the front runner now and front runners alwats get more media scritiny - i.e. Wednesday’s debate.)

Reply to this | Hide 5 replies | Report this

By bert, April 20 at 6:49 am #
(686 comments total)

Reply to jps

The truth hurts, but it beats delusion.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 20 at 5:14 am #
(703 comments total)

Re: bert

You know, bert, not everything is about you.

Report this

By bert, April 20 at 3:59 am #
(686 comments total)

Reply to jps and Outraged

Jps opines:  “(Note: i’m not suggesting that anyone should shoot and eat bert.  I have nothing against cannibalism in general, but it is not suitable for polite company and we have not reached that level of bitterness yet.)”

Outraged opines:  “YOU ARE A NEOCON PROMOTING, RIGHTWINGER. Look “bert”, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, IT IS A DUCK. Don’t give me your fallacious[SIC] “supposed logic” rhetoric.”

Ya know, I don’t blame Truth Dig for this, because that’s just how Truth Dig is. They like stirring up controversy. They like playing gotcha games.

I have to say, jps and Outraged both look and sound in their element.  [scrathing itch on cheek with the middle finger of my right hand] They are taking every opportunity to get a dig in there. Ya know? That’s alright. That’s their right. That’s their right to kind of twist the knife a little bit,”[making a twisting gesture with my hand.]

When you’re posting on TD you’ve gotta expect it and ya know you’ve just gotta kinda let it, [invocating rapper Jay-Z’s defiant “Dirt Off Your Shoulder” battle anthem, and wiping my feet of all the deep doo doo beneath them] ya know that’s what you gotta do.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 19 at 6:00 pm #
(703 comments total)

Re: Outraged

In my neck of the woods, that duck statement is a little different:

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...fill it with birdshot and eat it for dinner.  The Hon Sen Clinton would surely agree with me, seeing as that she is such a big fan of hunting and guns.

(Note: i’m not suggesting that anyone should shoot and eat bert.  I have nothing against cannibalism in general, but it is not suitable for polite company and we have not reached that level of bitterness yet.)

Report this

By Outraged, April 19 at 4:10 pm #
(869 comments total)

Re: Re:

Re: “bert”

You have quoted Pat Buchannan, and insisted we all take it seriously.  Then you quoted William Kristol, the king of propaganda and ADMITTED NEOCON, founder AND co-chair of the American Enterprise Institute and wanted us to “take him seriously” as “knowing what he’s talking about.  YOU ARE A NEOCON PROMOTING, RIGHTWINGER.

Look “bert”, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, IT IS A DUCK.  Don’t give me your fallicious “supposed logic” rhetoric.

Tell me “bert” why do YOU feel YOU can’t trust a site you feel is leftish, or information you feel is leftish.  You are so transparent....LOL.

Most watchdog groups ARE left-leaning.  That’s why so many people, unlike yourself, are proud to be on the left.

Report this

By Quinty, April 19 at 8:42 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Bert’s comments offer the tone we should be familiar with among many of Hillary’s supporters. Who by blaming Obama for Hillary’s defeat emphasize an attitude of entitlement. And the Clintons have extravegantly displayed this attitude to the disgust of many. Obama is not the spoiler, here, but Hillary herself appears to be because she has been waging an all out “kitchen sink” campaign against Obama. Picking up even many Republican talking points. And if it has worked at all well it has also raised the disgust of many onlookers.

On the Jeremiah Wright issue Hilliary (wife of the “first black president’) missed an opportunity to help Obama begin a serious discussion on race in this country. And she knew better. But for her own self serving purposes adopted the most mean spirited and superficial rightwing response. Reinforcing the suspicion that Obama may not “love” America. We can expect a lot of that in the GE and Hillary is simply helping out with the groundwork.

“Most of the negativity comes because they hate that Hillary voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq.”

Her position on the war has been dishonest, self-serving, and despicable. She voted for it thinking of her own future run for the presidency. Making a large mistake, she has refused to acknowledge it: offering a far worse fantasy than her trip “under fire” story in Bosnia.

The only thing Hillary hasn’t done is use Obama’s middle name in refering to him. Though she has insinuated that he may be a Muslim, once again pandering to the right’s superstitions and fears.

This behavior seems to have increased since she began to campaign in Pennsylvania. Is she reaching out to the “Reagan Democrats?”

Reply to this | Report this

By TDoff, April 19 at 7:41 am #
(203 comments total)

It’s time for NBC to sponsor a debate between Stephanopoulis and Gibson regarding which of them was more responsible for the debacle in the Obama/Clinto fiasco.

Reply to this | Report this

By Expat, April 19 at 6:39 am #
(867 comments total)

Hello, Politico is a...........

^ neo-con organization.  They are so far right they sound like the radical left.  If you listen to these guys they will manipulate you all over hell and gone.  They are very good at their propaganda, but spin it is; beware, as they are very crafty.

Reply to this | Hide 3 replies | Report this

By cyrena, April 19 at 7:29 am #
(4155 comments total)

Re: Hello, Politico is a...........

I was going to say the very same thing about Politico. I remember somebody here bringing it to our attention not long ago, and in this case, it’s REALLY obvious, eh? (Usually they’re more subtle)

But, when they talk about asking Obama the ‘hard questions’ and we know that one of them was about him not wearing that stupid little lapel pin. (I hate lapel pins, no matter WHAT they are). And then the think about Ayers, from 40 years ago, when Obama was a kid and had no reason to know him? And the same old stuff on Wright, even though a million other folks have said the SAME thing Wright said, INCLUDING the POPE, as recently as 2 days ago, and these are supposed to be ‘hard questions’?

No, the media was pissed for the same reason the rest of us are, THE LACK OF FLIPPIN’SUBSTANCE ON THE ISSUES THAT MATTER! And because it was SO BAD from these two, THAT’S the reason the rest of the long term and professional journalists were outdone enough to break the ‘code’ and respond the way they did. There haven’t been just a ‘few’ of these journalists, they’ve published stuff in damn near every major newspaper! And that doesn’t even begin to cover all of the Alternative media organizations, including the watchdog groups.

Oh man..this is like really, really, sleazy from Politico. And the Washington Post is really bi-polar in this regard as well. Robert Parry was just complaining about them last week in a piece on his on his site at consortiumnews.

Yep…this is all neocon/repug stuff going on here. They do NOT want to run against Obama in the general, and they KNOW Hillary is about to lose her ass. This is showing more and more unprecedented desperation.

Barack better make sure those Secret Service guys stay very, very close. Matter of fact, I think he should start wearing bullet proof long underwear and a helmet. Yep..that’s what he needs.

This is just way, way, over the top of anything. (or maybe I should say way, way, under the lowest bottom of anything).

Does the neocon media really think we’re that stupid?

I guess they do. But then, so did Hillary. That’s why she’s losing her ass, and not from any plastic surgery either.

Reply to this | Report this

By Leefeller, April 19 at 6:46 am #
(1233 comments total)

Re: Hello, Politico is a...........

Being manipulated by some political web sites is easy, for they appear as they are not.  Didn’t the Republicans do something with a non profit that sounded like it was for peoples cause, when it was not, then they just dropped it?

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By cyrena, April 19 at 12:19 pm #
(4155 comments total)

Re: Re: Hello, Politico is a...........

No doubt they have done this with DOZENS of these so-called non-profits Leefeller, so it just depends on which sort of ‘area’ we’re talking about.

Mostly, they’ve done this in the so-called religious or other ‘family values’ organizations. Ostensibly, they ‘sound’ legitimate enough, but are later discovered to be totally radical organizations, many of them even included in the hate groups that are routinely tracked by places like the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Then there are places like Pat Robert’s “Liberty University”, which is an alleged law school, but not really credited as such. (or, it’s like at the bottom spot). YET, that’s where a disproportionate number of the past and current Administration staff has come from.

These neocons have infiltrated far more of ALL of our government agencies than most of us will ever know. I’m still coming across a whole bunch of these connections almost by accident. It boggles the mind.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 19 at 3:54 am #
(703 comments total)

Perhaps selective memory is hurting reasoning skills here.  The media swooned over Bill Clinton in 1992; many of the same things being said about the pro-Obama media were said about the pro-Clinton media then.  Which is rather funny, since Obama is pretty much running Bill’s 92 campaign over again...only much better.

It would be a grand world if the media were unbiased, but it isn’t going to happen.  Not until all of you disconnect your cable and stop feeding the big media beast.  As it stands, you bitch and moan about how awful the media is...while lapping up their swill as fast as they can pump it out.  So who’s at fault: the media or the fools who follow it and pay for it? 

Bill Kristol is dangerously crazy, but you tell people to add a hit to his articles.  If nobody was reading Kristol, the NYT wouldn’t pay him.

And what a travesty!  The media actually l