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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Does it matter what platform he ran on in his first campaign?  The fact of the matter is that the policies enacted under him were about as far left as it gets.  I didn’t even say that it was a bad thing.

But if your analysis is correct, where does that place Clinton.  You certainly aren’t going to argue that she’s an FDR Democrat, are you?  Please say you aren’t; i don’t have health insurance, and i think that i’d laugh hard enough to need to be admitted to the hospital. 

I won’t disagree that the Democratic Party has sold out the working class...not at all.  If the Democratic Party still represented the working class, i might even think about joining it (might).  But the Clintons have sold out the working class worse than most Democrats, and they have pretty well run the Democratic Party since 1993...a time period where things have gotten much worse.

So i’m more than a little confused by the disconnect between your philosophical leanings and the candidate you choose to support...or even why you’d be a Democrat in the first place.

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.

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).

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!

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

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?

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 jps who writes……………
“…(which, if memory serves me correctly, were enacted by the ultra-left wing party of FDR).”

Inaccurate.

FDR was not ultra-left wing. He was a traditional Democrat. While probably the most elite, rich, upper class man ever elected President, he was the champion of the common man. While he ran his first campaign as more of a centrist, the Depression caused him to move to the left.

In his book “Why the Democrats are Blue: Secular Liberalism and the Decline of the People’s Party”, Mark Stricherz maps the recent history of a party that has lost the allegiance of the working class and Catholic voters that once constituted its base that led to election of FDR, HST, JFK, and LBJ.

Stricherz merely continues the excellent analysis of Richard Scammon and Ben Wattenberg’s The Real Majority, which dealt with why Democrats have been losing so many elections since the 1970’s.

Both excellent reads.

In summary.........

The Party of FDR was the ‘old’Democratics. The work of the McGovern Commission (1969-72) created the ‘new’ Democrats. The McGovern Commission hammered the nail in the coffin of the old Democratic Party, the New Deal or Roosevelt coalition (1932-68), and in its wake, they built the current Democratic Party, the McGovern coalition (1969-present.)

It was the McGovern Commission that ushered in the era of elite ultra-left wing, educated, rich and activist base that exists to this day in the Democratic Party and has been losing elections ever since. This elite group was the beneficiary of the McGovern Commission (along with McGovern himself, as he rigged the process to make him the nominee in 1972) which changed how delegates to the convention are chosen: proportional representation, among other things.

This group is NOT in any way, shape, or form old style, FDR New Deal type Democrats. That party was blue collar, working class and Catholic, groups that have not voted Democratic very often since 1972. They are sometimes referred to as Reagan Democrats.

I am one of those old time FDR New Deal Democrats. I do not consider myself a member of the loser (McGovern, Mondale, Carter, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) class or the coalition that keeps nominating losers. I have voted for all of them. But I am tired of that. Bring back REAL FDR type Democrats.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

The truth hurts, but it beats delusion.

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

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.

But you do your best to never let the personal opinions of others stand.  That was my point.  Besides, sometimes i get confused if it’s your personal opinion or the opinion of paid writers.

This is a place for personal opinions, that’s the point of it.  But when someone has an opinion that you don’t agree with, you launch into long lectures about fallacious arguments, etc.

When i related how i had asked Republicans that i know who they wanted to run against (being careful to note the informality), you told me that it didn’t count because it was anecdotal.  So is it that your personal opinion has more worth than mine, or some conservatives that i know?

You just think that you shouldn’t be held to the same standards that you hold others to.

You know, bert, not everything is about you.

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.

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

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.)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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…

“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.

“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.)

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.

Thanks Jackpine...I always appreciate your excellent work.

Oh yes indeed!!

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.]

Really, “big time”?

The Gennifer Flowers story drew only 14 (dismissive) network stories on four networks in a six-day period...

The first 10 days of the Clinton draft story drew only 13 network stories, while Dan Quayle’s 1988 draft story drew 51—15 on the first night.

Instead of launching new investigative reports on the heels of Jeff Gerth’s March 8, 1992, New York Times scoop on Whitewater, the four networks broadcast only five full stories on the Clinton finances in March, and then dropped the story for the rest of 1992...

In early 1992, every journalist in the New Republic’s informal quadrennial poll of the press corps covering the New Hampshire primary said that he or she would pick Clinton as the Democratic nominee. “Such unanimity is unprecedented,” the New Republic’s Hendrik Hertzberg noted.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n27_v12 /ai_18486849/pg_1

It is true that Bill’s lying about smoking dope received somewhat more coverage than Bush’s involvement in Iran-Contra.  But that’s the same issue as this thread is about: the media focusing on nonsense instead of serious issues.

Even Doonsbury noted the press bias for Clinton. 

What you’re remembering is how Bill Clinton portrayed his press coverage, not the actual press coverage.

You might also like this:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7D 9153AF93AA3575BC0A964958260

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Was that before or after Bill Clinton’s never having sex with that lady? Oh, thats right, depends on what you mean by sex!

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.

jps Writes:  “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.”

The only selective memory here is yours. The media went after Bill Clinton big time in 1992. There was Gennifer Flowers, draft dodging, and marijuana use charges. No swooning by the media then. Negative coverage was so bad that Bill Clinton had to resort to going on either the Tonight show or Arsineo Hall show, I forget which, how to get his message out.

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.

In my 40 years as an observer and participant in political campaigns of all sorts I have never seen thos level if vitriol and intra-party viciousness against another Democrat...?  Oh yes, you’d tell them that it was anecdotal and, consequently, had no worth.  You might even add, “Citation please?”

Don’t need a citation for personal opinion.

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?

Nice response J.S.

Bert, relax and enjoy your daily High colonic.  You sure you are not on the Hillary payroll, you should send them a bill.

^ 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.

The “ultra-far left” has hijacked the party of a guy who brought America closer to socialism than it has ever been, huh?  What would FDR have said about Clintonian welfare reform, bert?

And i see Clinton supporters all over the web saying that this nomination campaign isn’t that vicious compared to others.  What would you say if someone else wrote, In my 40 years as an observer and participant in political campaigns of all sorts I have never seen thos level if vitriol and intra-party viciousness against another Democrat...?  Oh yes, you’d tell them that it was anecdotal and, consequently, had no worth.  You might even add, “Citation please?”

The spewing comes from both sides, bert.  You use terms like “Obamabot” on a regular basis.

By your facts above, i’ll assume that ABC is good and NBC is bad, right?  I seriously doubt that you’d be complaining about media bias if the networks were still using the term “coronation” in regards to Clinton.  Do you have the same set of statistics for before Iowa?

And maybe the “ultra-far left” is just tired of voting for Republicans dressed in Democratic clothing.  Maybe the young (who needs them and what do they know) are interested in having someone besides a Bush or a Clinton in the White House; it would be a novel experience for them.

As an aside, it’s really funny to hear a boomer bitching about young people.  Oh ye of “never trust anyone over thirty” and “I hope i die before i get old”.  Let me clue you in, anecdotally, on what young people think of boomers: there is a rising sentiment that the boomers are hypocritical sell-outs who’ve ruined not only this nation, but also the world.  Remember, they’ll choose your nursing home and they’ll be paying for your retirement entitlements (which, if memory serves me correctly, were enacted by the ultra-left wing party of FDR).

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 likes a Democratic candidate.  The real Democrats will fix that if they can.  The Democrats are like a battered wife who keeps taking the violent drunk back: they have a real knack for getting black eyes from walking into doors and shit.

There is a very good reason why the Democratic Party loses more than it wins: the Democratic Party.

Oh, TruthDig has just discovered that there is a “pro-Obama media”.......!?!?

I didn’t realize that was something different from an “anti-Hillary” media, duh!!!

There is no doubt that the MSM has a pro-Obama and anti-Hillary bias. It has been proven by several studies from independent and non-partisan groups as well as by political commentators. [See links #1-#3 below] The most recent case was the pregnant woman/hospital story. [see link #4 below]

A summary:

1.  “The Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that since mid December, when the Iowa caucuses came into play, Obama has received the lion’s share of the positive coverage:

‘From Dec. 16 through Jan. 27, five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84 percent) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51 percent) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton. The gap in good press widened since the New Hampshire primary, with Clinton dropping to 47 percent positive comments and Obama holding steady at 83 percent positive.

‘NBC’s coverage has been the most critical of Clinton - nearly 2 to 1 negative (36 percent positive and to 64 percent negative). Conversely, ABC’s coverage was most supportive - nearly 2 to 1 positive (63 percent vs. 37 percent). CBS and Fox were more balanced - 50 percent positive comments on Fox and 56 percent positive on CBS.’

2.  The Pew Research Center found a sharp difference in tone between coverage of Clinton and Obama.

3.  The Tampa Bay link below deals with pundits tone and pro-Obama tone.

Rather than be independent observers, reporting the facts, and conducting investigative pieces the media thinks it is their job to choose the candidate and then sell that candidate to the public through their skewed coverage.

1.  Center for Media and Public Affairs link

http://www.cmpa.com/election news 2_1_08.htm

2.  PEW link on Tone

http://www.journalism.org/node/8194

3.  Pundits coverage

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article414028.ece
4.  Hospital Story

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/storylines-by-d igby-andrea-mitchell.html

And these reprts do not even address blogs, which are independent and can do and say what they want under the First Amendment. But the negative and mean-spirited tone on many left leaning blogs toward Hillary has been unrelenting. They hate her. They want to first flog her, then hang her and then burn her at the stake.

In many instances the far left blogs this year are a full blown caricature of what Bill O’Reilly calls the ‘far left haters.’ It is as if they are eating their own. It appears they want to purge the Democratic Party of all trace of the Clintons, despite the fact that Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to win the Presidency in the last 22 years. And while even I have some concerns and disagreements with some policy decisions he made, on balance there was more good then bad, especially on the economy.

Most of the negativity comes because they hate that Hillary voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq. The blogs fixation on these perceived negatives of the Clintons to the exclusion of all else has led to some very hateful and unnecessarily cruel comments directed at the Clintons and their supporters by Obama worshipers on these same blogs. Their philosophy seems to be if you don’t support Obama you are a traitor and should be treated accordingly.

In my 40 years as an observer and participant in political campaigns of all sorts I have never seen thos level if vitriol and intra-party viciousness against another Democrat. Not even the 72 primary season and convention was like this. Although a minority in terms of numbers, the ultra-far left Democrats have hijacked the Party of FDR and turned it into a elite club of the rich, the educated, and the young. Not enough Americans in those three categories to win in November.

Leave it to Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, aided and abetted by a very compliant and pro-Obama-anybody but Hillary media.

If/when anyone, much less more than anyone, has reached the conclusion that Barack Obama is “electric,” then reason has become even more slave to emotion than one so esteemed as David Hume thought.

I know of no cure to disease big media has become. Damage it’s done and continues to do is damage that can never be undone. From moderate liberal, Keith Olbermann, to extremist reactionary, Bill O’Reilly, partisan bickering only gets worse (more contemptuous of the rest of us) just about from one day to the next.

The American (without doubt, extremely elitist) incarnation of Rome is on fire, while the American incarnation of Nero (pols and big media) are doing the same as original Nero did then.

It’s not relevant whether questions for Obama were harder or not. What is relevant is that Clinton and the media are wasting our time and continuing the dumbing down of politics and debate that Bush and his handlers have been stuffing down our throats for seven years. The media is enabling and encouraging the predominance of propaganda, a darkness brought to new heights by BushCo. How can we progress beyond Rove, propaganda, and Machiavelli if the media continues to feed this dumbing down frenzy.

Journalism in America took a hit in the most recent debate due to the kinds of questioning by the moderators, according to some observers.

Yet, other journalists have spoken assertively about the alleged failures of the ABC moderators to question the candidates about the truly important issues we face.

Was the questioning biased against Obama? Some people think so.

Food for thought in the articles ...

Obama faces Ohio hearts and minds

AmericanChronicle.com
February 28, 2008

http://americanchronicle.com/articles/53747

- - -

Obama’s Iraq position, mixed ethnicity are key factors

AmericanChronicle.com
February 22, 2008

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/53128