4.30.2008

Hillary vs. the coffee maker

Tell me again who the elitist is? Originally from AmericaBlog:

Got a tip from a reader that after Hillary's fake visit to the gas station, the woman-of-the-people (who as AP noted "hasn't driven a car or pumped gas in many years") decided to get herself a cup of Joe (except we hear it was a cappuccino -- she wanted the fancy stuff.) That's typically hypocritical when one of her own supporters slammed latte drinkers today while praising Hillary's "testicular fortitude."

Except, one small problem: Hillary's been in her bubble for so long, she didn't know how to work the machine. Just watch the video as Hillary tries to figure out the buttons.

It's going to be a classic:

She can't make herself a cup of coffee. Talk about being out of touch with regular folk.

4.29.2008

Hillary Clinton: "It's a Hard-Knock Life" (feat. Dr. Evil)

Another Jed Report mini-masterpiece:

A working-class hero joins forces with a wealthy villain in YouTube's newest video sensation.

read more | digg story

McCain Strongly Rejected Idea Of Long-Term Iraq Presence

"I would hope that we could bring them all home," he said on MSNBC. "I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."

read more | digg story

Superdelegates to blame for enabling destructive campaign

Had Barack Obama lost 11 in a row like Hillary Clinton did, the superdelegates would have end this thing right then and there.

Jed is right. This isn't all Clinton's fault. It isn't all the media's fault. The fault lies squarely in the lap of the superdelegates who should have jumped on board the Obama train long ago.

From the Jed Report:

Since late February, it has been clear that the Clinton campaign's only hope for victory rested in their hands. Over the past two months, the sole uncertainty about the campaign has been whether or not superdelegates will stage a coup against the voters.

At any point during the last two months, superdelegates could have made it clear that they would support the will of voters. Instead, by declaring their indecision, they provided Clinton with a new rationale for her campaign. Effectively, they encouraged her coup attempt. It was if they said to her: if you can prove to us that Barack Obama is unelectable, we will overturn the judgment of voters.

[snip]

And the ultimate blame for making this possible rests with the very people who are supposed to lead the Democratic Party: the superdelegates.

[snip]

The point is clear: Hillary Clinton took the superdelegates up on their irresponsible challenge and tried to prove that Obama is unelectable. Meanwhile, Obama could not respond as forcefully to Clinton as he would have to John McCain. He knew that unlike Clinton, he had to worry about unifying the party after her superdelegate gambit. He couldn't afford to attack her the way she attacked him.

Moreover, the media created a new Clinton-friendly narrative in order to support a continued campaign. Between Clinton's attacks, his measured response, and the media's pile-on, Obama endured his worst two-month stretch of the campaign so far. Making matters more difficult, the key primaries were on Hillary Clinton's home turf.

The superdelegate's hesitation, and in some cases cowardice, is to blame for the mess we Democrats find ourselves in.

read more | digg story

4.27.2008

CARTOON - Hillary Is Really Winning!!

From politicalcartoons.com (via The Jed Report):

It's just that the definition of "win" is getting a bit hard to follow...



read more | digg story

John McCain's domestic terrorism problem

Yo, Corp. Media!

There are some bloggers out there doing all the work for you. You should want look into this. Probably won't though. It’s not about haircuts or pantsuits or made up radical ties. It’s the real McCain, err McCoy.

Jed over at The Jed Report takes on issues that I'm sure most of you corp. media, beltway, blow hard types wouldn't have the courage to touch with a ten foot lobbyist (unless someone forced you to).

Kudos to Jed for forcing you to know it's there if not doing something about it:

As John McCain continues using guilt-by-association tactics to falsely portray his political opponent as a radical terrorist sympathizer, it's worth remembering that McCain himself has a little terrorism problem of his own.

In the early 1990s, McCain sided with right-wing domestic terrorists and voted against tough new legislation cracking down on a wave of anti-choice domestic terrorism targeting women who visited abortion clinics, their doctors, and clinic staff.

In both 1993 and 1994, McCain voted against the anti-terrorism measure. On each occasion, McCain was one of thirty radical anti-choice Senators to oppose the bill Fortunately, despite McCain's opposition, it passed the Senate by a 69-30 margin.

At the time, right-wing anti-choice extremists were terrorizing women, doctors, and clinic staff across the United States with thousands of acts of physical violence and threats of violence each year. The new legislation was necessary because in early 1993, the Supreme Court had ruled that even though the terrorism crossed state lines, the federal government could not protect clinics without a specific grant of statutory authority.

read more | digg story

Why Hillary Clinton Makes Tom Hayden's Wife Scream

Wish I had read this sooner. Really hits the nail on the head. I'm Faxing it right now tho every Democratic member of congress.

From Tom Hayden at The Nation:

My wife Barbara has begun yelling at the television set every time she hears Hillary Clinton. This is abnormal behavior, since Barbara is a meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic, and is inspired by Barack Obama's transformational appeal.

[snip]

But as the Obama campaign gained momentum, Hillary began morphing into the persona that has my pacifist wife screaming at the television set.

Going negative doesn't begin to describe what has happened. Hillary is going over the edge. Even worse are the flacks she sends before the cameras on her behalf, like that Kiki person, who smirks and shakes her head at the camera every time she fields a question. Or the real carnivores, like Howard Wolfson, Lanny Davis and James Carville, whose sneering smugness prevents countless women like my wife from considering Hillary at all.

Here's one example Tom uses with regards to people in glass houses...

To take just one example, the imagined association between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers will suffice. Hillary is blind to her own roots in the sixties. In one college speech she spoke of ecstatic transcendence; in another, she said, "Our social indictment has broadened. Where once we exposed the quality of life in the world of the South and the ghettos, now we condemn the quality of work in factories and corporations. Where once we assaulted the exploitation of man, now we decry the destruction of nature as well. How much long can we let corporations run us?"

She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. She chaired the 1970 Yale law school meeting where students voted to join a national student strike again an "unconscionable expansion of a war that should never have been waged." She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970, as the lead scheduler of student monitors. She surely agreed with Yale president Kingman Brewster that a black revolutionary couldn't get a fair trial in America. She wrote that abused children were citizens with the same rights as their parents.

read more | digg story

Obama: What it really means to be tough

From the Jed Report:

Obama explains that the people who talk about how tough they are all the time (hmm ... now which candidate does that?) aren't usually all that tough.


read more | digg story
Brilliant.

Video: New DNC Ad Hammers McCain On Iraq - "100"

This ad should run from now until the election.

Good for the DNC & good for Howard Dean for running it. We can't wait until Obama is officially the nominee. It's about time we start take this raving lunatic down.

He's gotten a free press ride for far too long.

From the Huffington Post:

Here's a first look at the Democratic Party's new ad hitting Sen. John McCain -- the first DNC spot to take on McCain over his support for the Iraq war.

The ad is part of a $500,000 buy on national cable networks. Take a look (video from the DNC):




"What John McCain doesn't understand is that the American people aren't fine with being in Iraq for 100 years in any capacity," said Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean. "The American people want a President who will responsibly end the war, not more of the same failed policy in Iraq that continues to cost $12 billion a month. They want a President who will invest that money here at home to create jobs and ensure our kids have health care. The more voters learn about John McCain, we're confident they will recognize that he is the wrong choice for America's future."

No wonder the RNC is pissing in their pants over it:
"This morning we saw yet another advertisement being announced by the Democrat National Committee which is not only illegal, but a complete distortion of Senator McCain's comments and record."
Illegal!? LOL.

Double the air time Howard!

read more | digg story | digg video


4.26.2008

Hillary and her Old Enemies Cuddle Up For a Kill

From Andrew Sullivan:

Last week was officially the moment that the race for the Democratic nomination slipped through the looking glass into surrealism. Here is a brief list of those people who are now actively supporting Hillary Clinton’s candidacy: Pat Buchanan, a charming man slightly to the right of Genghis Khan; Rush Limbaugh, the most voluble and incendiary of right-wing talk-show hosts; Richard Mellon Scaife, the media mogul who financed the virulently antiClinton crusades of the 1990s; and, if you read between the lines, even Karl Rove, the “architect” of the past decade or so of Republican dominance in electoral politics.

Am I hallucinating? I promise you I’m not. The merging of the forces that once persecuted the Clintons with the Clinton campaign itself has been a wonder to behold. Some on the once solidly anti-Clinton right have even been directly urging people to register as Democrats to vote for her.

No, dear. You're not hallucinating (or going through the DT's). But I interrupted you. Please, continue:

What’s going on, I think, is a classic bluff – as well as a simple desire to keep the Democrats’ agony going. Yes, Obama does have obvious problems winning over older and whiter voters in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. His recent sub-par performances have not helped. But in a hypothetical contest between McCain and Clinton, the very forces that help keep Clinton ahead among these voters in the primaries would aid McCain against Clinton in the general election. McCain’s a Scots-Irish Vietnam vet with an independent streak. He should beat her easily in this demographic.

[snip]

If Clinton prevails, they know how to beat her. If she loses, she will have legitimised a main Republican line of attack against Obama. It’s not that hard to understand. And it’s even more intelligible when you absorb a simple fact. Beneath the headlines about suicidal Democrats, there is a sobering reality for the Republicans in the current polling.

read more | digg story

It All Makes Sense Now!

One ring to rule them all!



read more | digg story

WSJ: Barack Obama is the Nominee

Wow. An honest assessment of what is the reality in this campaign. From The Wall Street Journal no less:

No matter how many kicks the rest of us find in such famously fun primary states as Indiana and South Dakota, it's going to be McCain versus Obama in 2008.

I believe the cement set around the Clinton coffin last Friday. The Obama campaign announced it had received the support of former Sens. Sam Nunn of Georgia and David Boren of Oklahoma.

Both are what some of us nostalgically call Serious Democrats. They represent what the party was, but is no more: sensible on national security, spending and middle-class values. Obama receiving their imprimatur is like hands reaching out from the graves of FDR, JFK and LBJ to announce: "Enough is enough. This man is your nominee. Go forth and fight with the Republicans." Make no mistake: Superdelegates with sway took notice.
Oh, there's more...

Sam Nunn and David Boren by political temperament should be in her camp. Instead, they threw in with Obama, who calls his campaign "post-partisan," a ludicrous phrase. The blowback at ABC's debate makes clear that Obama is the left's man. So what did Messrs. Nunn and Boren see?

The biggest event was the Clinton Abandonment. In a campaign of surprises, none has been more breathtaking than the falling away of Clinton supporters, loyalists . . . and friends. Why?

Money. Barack Obama's mystical pull on people is nice, but nice in modern politics comes after money. Once Barack proved conclusively that he could raise big-time cash, the Clintons' strongest tie to their machine began to unravel. Today he's got $42 million banked. She's got a few million north of nothing.

But it's more than that. Barack Obama's Web-based fund-raising apparatus is, if one may say so, respectable. The Clintons' "donor base" has been something else.

It's amazing what a little doze of real reporting can do for th soul.

And just in case you missed the other article on Rep. James Clyburn, he is saying, out loud, what many have been thinking since Texas & Ohio: Hillary is shooting for 2012 at this point:

From Reuters:

House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, of South Carolina and the highest ranking black in Congress, also said he has heard speculation that Clinton is staying in the race only to try to derail Obama and pave the way for her to make another White House run in 2012.

“I heard something, the first time yesterday (in South Carolina), and I heard it on the (House) floor today, which is telling me there are African Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they’re hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win” in November, Clyburn told Reuters in an interview.

[snip]

Still, Clyburn said “I don’t think she ought to drop out.”

But he added, “There’s a difference between dropping out and raising all this extraneous scurrilous stuff about the guy (Obama). Just run your campaign … you don’t have to drop out to be respectful of other people.”

digg this

Crossposted at TPM

Backlash: Hillary Clinton has lost support from major donors as well as black congressional leaders.

Major African American Congressional leaders, as well as major Clinton supporters have had enough.

From the Washington Post:

The protracted and increasingly acrimonious fight for the Democratic presidential nomination is unnerving core constituencies -- African Americans and wealthy liberals -- who are becoming convinced that the party could suffer irreversible harm if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton maintains her sharp line of attack against Sen. Barack Obama.
The backlash began last month with hoards of donors having had enough:

More than 70 top Clinton donors wrote their first checks to Obama in March, campaign records show. Clinton's lead among superdelegates, a collection of almost 800 party leaders and elected officials, has slipped from 106 in December to 23 now, according to an Associated Press tally.

"If you have any, any kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party, perhaps you need to rethink your strategy and bow out gracefully in order to save this party from a disastrous end in November," Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.), an African American Obama supporter, said in an appeal to Clinton.

Rep. James Clyburn has had enough:
"If this party is perceived by people as having gone into a back room somewhere and brokered a nominee, that would not be good for our party," House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the highest ranking African American in Congress, warned yesterday. "I'm telling you, if this continues on its current course, [the damage] is going to be irreparable."

"We keep talking as if it doesn't matter that Obama gets 92 percent of the black vote, because since he only got 35 percent of the white vote, he's in trouble," Clyburn said. "Well, Hillary Clinton only got 8 percent of the black vote. . . . It's almost saying black people don't matter. The only thing that matters is how white people respond.
The donor backlash is from small potatoes:

There are signs that the anger voiced by some African Americans is beginning to extend to the Democratic donor base. Campaign finance records released this week show that a growing number of Clinton's early supporters migrated to Obama in March, after he achieved 11 straight victories. Of those who had previously made maximum contributions to Clinton, 73 wrote their first checks to Obama in March. The reverse was not true: Of those who had made large contributions to Obama last year, none wrote checks to Clinton in March.

"I think she is destroying the Democratic Party," said New York lawyer Daniel Berger, who had backed Clinton with the maximum allowable donation of $2,300. "That there's no way for her to win this election except by destroying [Obama], I just don't like it. So in my own little way, I'm trying to send her a message."

Her biggest, most influential donors (can you spell Puerto Rico?) have jumped ship:

Donors are not the only ones who have made the leap. Gabriel Guerra-Mondragón served as an ambassador to Chile during Bill Clinton's presidency, considered himself a close friend of Sen. Clinton, and became a "Hill-raiser" by bringing in about $500,000 for her presidential bid.

But he had a fitful few weeks as the battle between Clinton and Obama turned increasingly negative. Last week, he decided he had seen enough.

"We're just bleeding each other out," Guerra-Mondragón said when asked why he had decided to join Obama's finance committee. "Looking at it as coldly as I can, I just don't see how Senator Clinton can overcome Senator Obama with delegates and popular votes. I want this fight to be over -- the quicker, the better."

The biggest fish in New York has had enough as well:

The Obama converts include William Louis-Dreyfus. The billionaire New York financier said he had been impressed by Clinton's performance in the Senate and distressed by eight years of the Bush administration when he donated the maximum to her campaign last August. Then, he said, he began watching more closely.

"However much one might have supported the Clintons, or one might support the usual suspects in the Democratic Party, I began to believe Obama represents a new approach. He gives off such a sense of relevance that he's sort of irresistible," Louis-Dreyfus said.

He also expressed, as did other big givers who crossed to Obama, exasperation about the tone of the Clinton campaign and frustration with the candidate herself.

"At the end of the day, all she had to do was open her mouth for me not to believe her," Louis-Dreyfus said.

read more | digg story

4.25.2008

Clinton Advisor Garin Blame Obama For Negative Campaign?

Oh, this is rich. It's all Obama's fault that the campaign is negative. He did it! He did it!

At least that's the latest propaganda from Hillary Clinton's new campaign pittbull. But Dr. Alan J. Lipman isn't having any of it:

Just as there is a "Fog of War", the "Fog of Campaigning" can also breed short (and at times false) memories. Geoff Garin claims that there has been "one campaign...that has been mean-spirited" and "unfair" and that it is "not ours". Really? Let's see...

November, 2007:

New York Times:
"Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, which is now attacking Senator Barack Obama on a daily basis." [New York Times, 11/30/07]

MSNBC: "Another day, another Clinton campaign knock on Obama." [First Read, 11/29/07]


December 2007 (leading to the January 6 Iowa primary, including the notorious use of an essay that he wrote in Kindergarten):

Chicago Tribune: "This Clinton Attack On Obama Could Boomerang." "The Clinton people are citing a kindergarten essay by Obama as evidence against him in a presidential campaign. Good thing he was born before widespread pre-natal ultrasounds. Who knows how they might've used that against him? Clinton's people have thrown similar jabs before at Obama but it hasn't fazed him. So their seems to be a little more fury behind the punches as now that Obama's may have taken the lead in Iowa according to the Des Moines Register's most recent poll." [Chicago Tribune, The Swamp, 12/3/07]

Washington Post: "Losing Ground In Iowa, Clinton Assails Obama." "With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama." [Washington Post, 12/3/07]

New York Daily News: "Hillary Clinton Attack On Barack Obama Comes After She Loses Iowa Lead." "Hours after a new poll showed her falling behind for the first time in Iowa, Hillary Clinton launched a blistering personal broadside on rival Barack Obama." [New York Daily News, 12/3/07]

New York Times: "An Attack, From the Candidate's Mouth" [New York Times, 12/2/07]

New York Times: "Battered by Poll, Clinton Hits Back" [New York Times, 12/2/07]

Clinton Release: "In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President. 'Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07]

read more | digg story


Got to click over and read the entire litany of negativity that the media has documented and the good Dr. has laid out for all of us to see.

No doubt, no uncertainty -- and no fear: Barack Obama will be the nominee

From the very reassuring Jed Report:

I absolutely guarantee Barack Obama will be the nominee. Yesterday, I posted a chart showing why he was unbeatable.

The most realistic worst-case scenario from that chart would have Barack Obama merely winning 48% of the pledged delegates from here on out (he'll actually do better). In that scenario, he'd need just 29% of the uncommitted superdelegates to support him -- and he wins the nomination. There's no doubt that will happen. None. (Edit: I added the preceding paragraph and removed the chart, which you can find in my earlier post.)

Barack Obama's lead is insurmountable. He has a mortal lock on the nomination.

My favorite part:
Clinton's eventual defeat is going to be a watershed moment for the Democrat Party. It will be a final divorce from the politics of the Clintons. We're going through a messy separation right now, and to pretend that process doesn't matter would be just as dumb as pretending that Hillary Clinton might still be the nominee. So it's very important I think for us as Democrats to document the reasons for the rejection of Clinton -- her lies, her embrace of right-wing foreign policy, her adoption of race-baiting, her reactionary rhetoric and guilt-by-association sickness.
read more | digg story

Media Jump Ship From Obama To Clinton

Thomas B. Edsall takes on the media's sudden, schizophrenic treatment of the candidate they once adored:

In a blink of an eye, the media has jumped ship from the Obama campaign and become a crucial Clinton ally, pressing just the message -- that Obama is a likely loser in the general election -- that Hillary and her allies have been promoting for the past six weeks.

The new tenor of media coverage is visible almost everywhere, from Politico, Time and The New Republic to The Washington Post and The New York Times.

For Hillary, the shift is a potential lifesaver as she struggles to keep her head above water; without it, she would, metaphorically, drown.

Until now, she, her husband, and her campaign aides have been trying, with little success, to make the case that Obama has potentially fatal flaws. For the first time, reporters working for magazines, newspapers and web sites have abruptly decided that she might well be right, and the results for Obama have been brutal:

read more | digg story
Obviously, Clinton's whining and browbeating the media worked. Like CNN's & The NY Times' hiring of not just conservatives, but pathological, lying, unethical conservative who wouldn't know journalistic integrity of it bit them in the face (their attempt at blunting Fox Noises liberal labeling) -- see Arianna's article a couple of posts below this one -- the media has literally done a 180 in order to prove the Clinton's wrong in their attacks regrading unequal treatment compared to Barack Obama.

Bravo boys & girl! Like CNN & The NY Times' capitulations, capitulation to HRC is the new black.

4.24.2008

Thomas Friedman Gets Pied on Earth Day by Greenwash

Bravo, Greenwash.

Do it again every Friedman unit.

Arianna Huffington: The Self-Loathing "Liberal" Media

Arianna Huffinting takes the "liberal media" to task for the cowardice and capitulation they exuded in their hiring of the worst of the worst that conservatives have to offer:

I've been thinking some more about CNN hiring Tony Snow as a commentator.

Coming in the wake of Newsweek's hiring of Karl Rove, and the New York Times' hiring of Bill Kristol, the mainstream media's embrace of these unabashed propagandists has revealed a self-loathing streak a mile wide.

What is it with these media outlets? Have they been so cowed by the Right's relentless branding of them as "liberal" that they feel compelled to show that they are not by sleeping with the enemy? And make no mistake, Rove, Kristol, and Snow are the enemies -- of honesty, truth, facts, reality, and the public's right to know. Anything.

Rove's commitment to deception is legendary. His entire career was built on it. Kristol is neoconservatism's crown prince. He was a prime mover in the push to invade Iraq, and his claims about the war's progress (or, rather, lack thereof) have been discredited again and again. His reward: a conservative slot on the Gray Lady's Op-Ed page. The Times might as well have given a weekly column to Jayson Blair.

[snip]

Are the cable network's execs all suffering from amnesia? Do they not remember the extremely distant relationship Snow had with the truth during his time as Bush's mouthpiece? (In the end, of course, the crux of this problem isn't Snow, who has been hospitalized, and to whom I wish a speedy recovery. It's about the people who hired him -- and Kristol and Rove -- and their reasons for doing so.)

The prerequisite for any TV pundit is credibility. Viewers won't agree with every opinion expressed; but they do need to trust that the opinion expressed is not some pre-packaged PR pitch cooked up in the White House to keep us in the dark.

read more | digg story

Hillary Clinton is A Liar

This time she's lying about that $10 million raised after P.A. Just like she's been lying every step of the way when it comes to fund raising numbers.

When the numbers come out weeks from now for this period, no one is going to remember – and the media isn’t going to bother let alone be able to prove they didn't raise it– but that's what she's counting on.

This is all for the benefit of superdelegates and the gullible media who just yesterday spread her campaigns erroneous use of terminology that “she one by double digits” in P.A. (and many in the media hasn’t let go of that description).

And If this figure is even close to being real, how much was 1) loaned by the Clinton's themselves, 2) is for the general , 3) from big donors who are already over the limit but know the $$ returned later (after bookkeeping is corrected)?

They have been full of shit since day one on most issues, but especially on their fund raising numbers.

Remember the first quarter of the race in January 2007?

Obama announced his numbers and then Clinton came out with figures just above his, taking the spotlight off his incredible first quarter take.

Months later, when it didn't matter, the Clinton campaign "corrected" their figures DOWN and called it a "bookkeeping error". Turns out Obama beat THE CLINTON’S fund raising machine in the first quarter of the campaign. Had that been allowed to be the news for any length of time, she would have been on the ropes a lot sooner.

And finally, do you remember after March 5th she raised $5 Million that night (then it became 15 million in 15 days)? Yet she ended March in the red?

These are Clinton's. They are consummate LIARS.

I guess when you really only won by 9.2% in P.A. (NOT double digits for those of you hindered by third grade math) and only NET 9 extra delegates – yes, you read that correctly...just 9 – I guess you have to do something in order to bamboozle supers and the narcoleptic media into not saying it over.

Even though we have know this since she didn't win Texas and Ohio with the blowouts (20 -25 points) she needed for a real game changer.

UPDATE:

Clinton claimed she raised about $20 million in March, and that "almost all" of that money was for the primaries. But as the April 20th FEC filings showed, the actual amount she raised in March available for the primary was more like $8 $12 million.

She lied then, She's lying now.

She didn't raise 10 Million in 24 hours.

digg

Barack Obama's unbeatable delegate math

Jed makes it as simple as possible for those who still can't comprehend that Hillary has already lost this primary.

From the Jed Report:

This chart pretty much tells all you need to know to figure out who the Democratic nominee for president will be.

It offers four different scenarios of how Barack Obama might finish relative to Hillary Clinton in the pledged delegate tally, showing the percentage of remaining pledged delegates he would need to achieve that scenario and the percentage of superdelegates he would need to secure the nomination.

The only plausible scenario here is actually the final one (the others are all too conservative), under which he will finish the primaries and caucuses leading by at least 150 pledged delegates. To get there, he only need to win 48% of the remaining pledged delegates, and he'll actually almost certainly end up doing better than that.



read more | digg story

It used to be about delegates

Attention media: This is why god created the google. Imagine a journalist or reporter who actually used it once in a while?

From Markos:

Ahh, the good ol' days when the Clintons insisted that this election would be decided by the delegate count.

January 9, 2008:

WOLFSON: I guess one other thing I'd add is that, as you know, this is a race for delegates. And we currently enjoy a lead in delegates, thanks to the great -- some of the great super delegates that we have on this call and around the country.

[snip]

January 25, 2008:

WOLFSON: Well, you know, as you know, all of the polls have Senator Obama ahead. I think he has run a strong campaign in South Carolina. He began there ahead; he remains ahead.

And we have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates. It's a race that we are ahead in. We have more delegates than Senator Obama.

[snip]

February 6, 2008:

[snip]

WOLFSON: And overall, we have a significant lead among delegates, overall, which, obviously, at the end of the day is what is going to positively determine which Democrat is our party's nominee.

Ha ha, Wolfson said it was "obvious" that the delegate race would determine the nominee. But that was when the Clinton campaign still had the lead. Then the lead disappeared, and it became about the "popular vote", and about "electability", and about IF, IF, and IF.

read more | digg story

Clinton Debt $5 Million Higher Than Reported

She lied? Get out!

From Boston.com via The Huffington Post:

Hillary Clinton's campaign debt at the end of March was bigger than it appeared because she didn't list the $5 million she loaned herself, a campaign finance watchdog group reported this afternoon.

Clinton, in her filing with the Federal Election Commission, reported that her campaign had $9 million in cash on hand as of March 30, and $10 million in debts.

Read the whole story here| digg story

4.23.2008

What Obama Also Said in California About People's Bitterness

This is what Obama was saying to the other group, he just didn't say it as eloquently as he does here. Giving the abbreviated version made it sound and was more easily misinterpreted. This was said on the SAME trip out to California.

From PaulTauger:

An excerpt from a speech that Obama gave the same day as the so-called "bitter" speech, that puts his remarks in context and, clearly, are the not words of an "elitist."


read more | digg story
If for some reason this video disappears again, you can probably find it here:

What Obama really said in Marin

4.22.2008

Julie Nixon Eisenhower for Obama? Another Nixon for Obama?

Julie Nixon Eisenhower for Obama? Make ya go, hmmmm, no?

From The NY Times:

If the children who have inhabited the White House are America’s princes and princesses, Senator Barack Obama already got a head start in collecting royal blessings with Caroline Kennedy’s endorsement earlier this year.

But soon after Ms. Kennedy made her very public endorsement at the end of January, one of her predecessors of Republican lineage made her own private one.

Yes, Julie Nixon Eisenhower is an Obama-can.

[snip]

In her decision to give to Mr. Obama, Ms. Eisenhower might have been influenced by her sister-in-law, Susan Eisenhower, who wrote an Op-Ed for the Washington Post in February entitled, “Why I’m Backing Obama,” alluding to how her grandfather, who with Nixon as his running mate, delivered the White House to Republicans after a 20-year drought, was able to attract cross-over support from Democrats.

read more | digg story

Media blackout of NYT's "military analyst" story continues

Brilliance from Glenn Greenwald, again:

I was hoping to write about the fallout from the NYT's Saturday story regarding the media's use of Pentagon-controlled "independent" military analysts, but there hasn't really been any fallout at all. Despite being accused by the NYT in a very lengthy, well-documented expose of misleadingly feeding government propaganda to their viewers and readers, virtually all media outlets continue their steadfast refusal to address or even acknowledge the story. How can "news" organizations refuse to address -- just completely ignore -- accusations which fundamentally indict their behavior as "journalists"?

As I noted on Sunday, the most striking part of the roughly-7000-word article was that several of the most guilty news outlets -- CBS, NBC and Fox -- just outright refused to answer the NYT's questions about their use of military analysts, what they knew about their analysts' dealings with the Pentagon and the defense industry, and what procedures they use (then and now) to ensure that they don't broadcast government propaganda disguised as independent analysis. Identically, other news organizations not explicitly mentioned by the NYT article but which used some of the tainted sources (such as The Washington Post) have similarly failed to address their role in disseminating this Pentagon-controlled propaganda.

Media organizations simply ignore -- collectively blackout -- any stories that expose major corruption in their news reporting, as evidenced by the fact that no major network or cable news programs have ever meaningfully examined the fundamental failures of the media in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. As Bill Moyers noted at the beginning of his truly superb documentary on the media-government collaboration concerning the invasion: "The story of how the media bought what the White House was selling has not been told in depth on television." Thus, one of the most significant political stories of this generation -- what Moyers described as "our press largely surrender[ing] its independence and skepticism to join with our Government in marching to war" -- has simply been rendered invisible by our largest media outlets. That scandal just does not exist, particularly on television.

read more | digg story

Media Matters scooped NYT on disinformation from DoD

Once again, the bloggers do all the hard work:

From Media Matters:

In an April 20 New York Times article, investigative reporter David Barstow reported that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." He also wrote: "Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration's wartime performance." Prior to the Times' report, Media Matters for America had documented misinformation, falsehoods, and smears of progressives, including Sen. John Kerry in 2004 when he was running against President Bush, by several of the analysts identified in the Times article.

Following each analyst's name are excerpts from the Times report about that person followed by the Media Matters items documenting the analyst's misinformation, falsehoods, or smears of progressives.

read more | digg story

ABC's top political reporter embroiled in patriotism scandal

Great way to start my day (Yeah, I sleep late. What of it?):

From the Jed Report:

In a shocking turn of events, ABC senior political correspondent Jake Tapper admitted on Monday that he had never heard of the "Stars and Stripes" -- a common nickname for the flag of the United States of America. Tapper also told the entire internet that he was unaware that "pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes" is an obvious reference to the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

After Tapper's stunning concession on his highly trafficked blog "Political Punch," speculation mounted that he does not have sufficient Patriotism(tm) to cover the 2008 presidential election.

Marc Halperin, Hillary Clinton's chief press liasion officer, said Tapper would be lucky to last a week. "Really, I think it's a matter of days before George Stephanopolous frog marches that Europe-loving freakshow out of the office."

read more of this great snark | digg story

4.21.2008

Philadephia Inquirer: Why Sen. Obama Might Take Pennsylvania

Wouldn't it be the irony of all ironies of big HRC supporter, Gov. Rendell's route to victory, was duplicated by Barack?!

From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

The demographics suggest Obama does not need to win even most of the state's 67 counties, but rather concentrate winning 14 of them, what Ed Rendell did to become governor. Such demographics, plus upswing in new registrations, show PA is less like Ohio than pundits assert. PA is full of people who make up their own minds. And we can surprise you.

read more | digg story
Heh.

John McCain announces fundraiser for Hillary Clinton

From the Jed Report, come this great catch:

Apparently, Hillary Clinton's debt-laden presidential campaign needs some financial help and John McCain was happy to step up to the plate!



read more | digg story

4.19.2008

Leaked: ABC's Stephanopoulos interviews John McCain

From The Real McCain:

Last week's Democratic debate in Philadelphia was an abysmal display of journalism. What are the satirical questions you think Stephanopoulos and his colleagues should be asking McCain? Post them to the website on let us know just how shoddy their journalism has become. We'll award the best (meaning worst) satire.


read more | digg story

NYT: Propaganda, Military Analysts and News Manipulation Exposed

Finally, an in depth examination of the concerted military propaganda campaign employed by the Pentagon on behalf of the Idiot in Chief and in collusion with out corp. media.

This one's gonna sting for a long, long time.

From the NY Times:



The Pentagon has groomed “military analysts” in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the Bush administration’s wartime performance.

[snip]

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as "military analysts" whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

read more | digg story
SusanG's (Daily Kos) reaction and whose title I borrowed rather than using the Times' because, well, bloggers do it better:
And the next time traditional media wonders why its marketing share is going south and its reputation sucks, just point to this article. When objectivity and facts were most needed, our vaunted "neutral" media either actively colluded or looked the other way as they spoonfed propaganda to the public. They betrayed not just their profession, but this country, in the most despicable way imaginable.

Obama Takes Campaign to the Rails in Pennsylvania

Damn, he is brilliant.

From the NY Times:

WYNNEWOOD, Pa. – With a pull of the train’s whistle, Senator Barack Obama boarded his car today at Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station and opened a four-city rail tour, arriving at his first stop here to hundreds of cheering supporters.

As he stepped off the back of a blue Georgia 300 Club Car, festooned with red, white and blue bunting, the crowd erupted in applause. Strains of Bruce Springsteen’s “The Rising” filled the air as Mr. Obama made his way to a stage built alongside the tracks.

“Now it is our turn, Pennsylvania,” Mr. Obama said. “This is a defining moment in our history. All of you are here because you can feel it.”

(Photo: Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times)

read more | digg story

This is what change looks like.

This is what Hillary Clinton's defeat looks like.

From The Jed Report:



35,000+ for Obama in Philadelphia.

read more | digg story
And from The NY Times:
Obama Draws Record Crowd in Philadelphia


PHILADELPHIA — Senator Barack Obama drew what may be his biggest crowd yet here Friday. His campaign, quoting Frank Friel, director of security at the Independence Visitor Center, pegged the number at 35,000.

That would top the 29,000 who showed up in South Carolina in December to see Oprah with Mr. Obama. It would be the biggest campaign event in this long campaign season and one of the largest even for a general election — although still no match for the estimated crowd of between 80,000 and 100,000 who greeted Bill Clinton in October 2004, when he appeared at this city’s Love Park with Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee. (That was Mr. Clinton’s first big outing after his heart surgery seven weeks earlier.)

[snip]

Here are some excerpts from his speech, as prepared for delivery:

This is a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. Our planet is in peril. Our economy is in recession…. [M]ost of all, we’ve lost faith that our leaders can or will do anything about this; we don’t believe that anyone in Washington is listening to us, or standing up for us, or fighting for us.

That’s why this election is our chance to declare our independence from the broken politics of Washington, the cynical politics that puts spin ahead of solutions and the special interests ahead of our interests; the politics that’s all about tearing each other down when what we need is to lift this country up.

4.18.2008

Hillary Clinton BUSTED on tape being very bad!

At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn.org in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event. (Huffpost)

read more | digg story

BARACKY: THE MOVIE - OBAMA VS. CLINTON

A Columbia University Film School Grad Student's movie. In connection with the upcoming Pennsylvania Primary, Hillary Clinton recently compared herself to Rocky Balboa. We beg to differ...



read more | digg story

Superdelegates Unswayed by Clinton’s Attacks

Throughout their contentious debate on Wednesday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton tried again and again to put Senator Barack Obama on the defensive in a pointed attempt, her advisers say, to raise doubts about his electability among a small but powerful audience: the uncommitted superdelegates who will most likely determine the nomination.

read more | digg story

4.17.2008

Obama now leads among elected superdelegates

It amazing how many people ignore simple arithmetic.

From The Jed Report:

Barack Obama now leads Hillary Clinton among elected superdelegates -- congressmen, governors, and senators who hold their elite status at the Democratic National Convention by virtue of holding a major public office. Clinton still leads Obama among the mostly anonymous DNC members, the group of four hundred or so superdelegates who hold their position by virtue of being party officials.

[snip]
  1. There are 3,253 pledged delegates. Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 1,419 to 1,250 in this category. Clinton needs to win two-thirds of the remaining 566 delegates to secure a majority.
  2. Of the 795 superdelegates, 301 are governors, senators, or congressmen. They support Obama, 105 to 97. (The rest are undecided.)
  3. 417 are DNC members or distinguished party leaders. They support Clinton, 153-119. (The rest are undecided.)

Just more evidence for what we already knew: Sen. Clinton is the candidate of insiders. Barack Obama is the candidate of the voters.

read more | digg story

Witness Theda Skocpol on Clinton's "Screw 'em" Comment

Theda Skocpol on Hillary Clinton's "Screw 'em" comments towards white, working class voters who abandoned Bill Clinton during the 1994 mid-terms:

"I have gone back to my 1995 notes to check my recollections of the event. My notes do not have any exact words, so I am not going to try to corroborate a particular phrase from Hillary Clinton or any other speaker.

But what is clear in both in my memory and my notes is that there was extensive, hard-nosed discussion about why masses of voters did not support Clinton or trust government or base their choices on economic as opposed to what people saw as peripheral life-style concerns. Hillary Clinton was among the most cold-blooded analysts in attendance. She spoke of ordinary voters as if they were a species apart, and showed interest only in the political usefulness of their choices -- usefulness to the Clinton administration, that is."

read more | digg story

Younger Than McCain

OMG.

From a new Dem group, youngerthanmcCain:


What's younger than John McCain?


read more | digg story
OMG.

Dear Anne Kornblut: Debate subjects NOT covered that should have been

Dear Anne:

Just heard you on MSNBC and you basically stated that all the subjects that could have been covered over the previous 20 debates were - during your fact-less defense of Charlie & George -- and that's why they felt the need to focus on the shit they did.

Are you kidding me?

Over the 20 debates, Anne, many subjects that should have been covered haven’t been (and if they have not in any meaningful way) and I am shocked you don’t see it. Or do you and don’t care?

So, where to begin?

1. What kind of Supreme Court Justice will they appoint? Will they do everything possible to protect all our privacy in their choice, but especially the right of individuals to make health and medical decisions for themselves?

2. Will they restore FISA to its original intent?

3. Will either have their AG Investigating the Bush administration’s crimes (Domestic Spying, torture, politicization of the AG’s, etc.) and prosecuting if applicable? Obama just said he would ask his AG to at least start with the instigating to see if something is really there.

4. How will they rebuild New Orleans – what about a real levee system like the Dutch or England does?

5. What will each of them do to rebuild our crumbling Infrastructure?

6. What will each of them do modernize air traffic control?

7. Will either restoring the constitutional protections that this Administration has cast aside (including Habeas Corpus).

8. Who will restore the checks and balance (separation of powers) mutilated by the power grabbed in the executive branch? Meaning… who will GIVE UP some of the powers that Bush/Cheney claimed for them?

9. Do they promise to restore Banking regulations like the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, put in place after the great depression by FDR, but subsequently rescinded by Bill Clinton as Citibank Request (The Financial Modernization Act of 1999, also known as the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" or GLB Act).

10. Do they promise to restore the old bankruptcy laws (and rescind The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 which Bush & Republicans put into place on behalf of the banks not satisfied with the The Financial Modernization Act of 1999) – the one that if they were still in place might have helped keep people from losing their homes?

You see, since they couldn’t declare bankruptcy on their small credit card debts (let’s say 10,000 – 20,000), they kept paying those bill only to fell behind on their mortgages. Combine that will the results of Glass-Steagall being mutilated and predatory lending practices with teaser rates, and you have the mess we’re in now.

11. Do both promise to restore Telecommunications regulations that are preventing this country from keeping up with Europe and Asia when it comes to choice & competition, internet speed, high-definition & the types of devices made available for consumer use, not to mention we’re paying astronomical prices for services that would be considered substandard in these other parts of the world?

12. Do both promise to maintain net neutrality and perhaps even expand on it to keep big media/telecoms out of our business?

That was just off the top of my head, Anne.

If you don’t see that Charlie & Georgie have plenty of subject to tackle that haven’t been tackled before, that the public wants discussed openly and honestly, then you’re in the wrong business.

Or, is it your job to maintain the public’s ignorance in you attempts to protect big media just like Disney/ABC was doing in the debate?

Shame on them and shame on those of you defending their line of questioning when there’s so many more imperative issues we must be dealing with.

You are obviously part of the problem. You might want to check with you colleague Dana Priest as sort of a refresher course on how journalist are supposed to behave.

digg this

Devastating Clinton YouTube Video Hits Web

Since Jed & his amazing Youtube video were having problems keeping the Clintonites from burying it, Andrew Sullivan seems to have come to the rescue (with his audience of 'digger'):

A tough new video montage shows footage of Clinton from 1992 through 2008, from her first 60 Minutes interview to her lies about sniper fire, NAFTA, and Iraq. At this point, Hillary Clinton has no one left to lie to.


read more | digg story
You can't keep a good video down. The more this is blogged, the more people who post it on their blogs (no matter the audience size), the more will eventually see and spread it.

Pro-Clinton Diggers Try to Bury Jed Report's Latest Video

From the Jed Report:

Despite that strong positive reaction, shortly after the video was posted on Digg, some (presumably pro-Clinton) digg users buried the video, despite getting over 300 Diggs. So it seems pretty clear that someone doesn't want people to see this video.

What can you do about this? Well, someone has set up a new digg to Andrew Sullivan's post about the video. Please digg that story. E-mail the video to friends, post it on your blog, and in comments. Go to reddit, StumbleUpon, and other sharing sites -- and rate it up. Help get this video in front of as many people as possible! It's free -- and you can make an impact.

Update @ 9:45pm: Third time is the charm. The digg link to the video hosted on Andrew Sullivan's site just became popular. We're on the front page of Digg now -- excellent work everybody!

Bosnia and Back Again, my latest video, is off to a strong start -- it's gotten at least 86,323 views (up from somewhere between 36,697 and 66,064 view when I first wrote this post) and is currently the #2 top rated video in YouTube's news & politics category, and #5 #8 overall. It's also generating buzz on the web -- over at The Nation, Ari Melber calls it a "devastating" video. Reddit currently has Ari's post as its #1 feature. Andrew Sullivan posted it under the headline: "No One Left To Lie To." And of course AMERICAblog, The Field, and the Daily Kos community helped it get off the ground.


read more | digg story

Hillary Clinton could've stopped it - but she didn't

This entire campaign, Barack Obama has never piled on Hillary at a time when things weren't going her way. Just look at the recent episodes where she was caught outright lying: Sniper fire, Irish Peace Accords, African trips that never happened with Amb. Joe Wilson, Refugees in Macedonia, etc. The list goes on and on.

She on the other hand jump right to a microphone and piles on. In this case it was at the debate, but its all throughout the campaign.

You see, she can't win any other way. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter how she tried to change that and people get she can't win the nomination y the numbers. Period.

Her only minuscule chance of getting the nod is by destroying Obama. Thankfully, despite the outrage she provokes among his supporters, it backfire on her each and every time.=It will again. Don't be surprised if he actually pulls off a victory in PA.

From PsiFighter37:

A lot is being made of the absolutely despicable performance turned in during tonight's debate by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. One only needs to visit ABC's own discussion board to get a taste of what people thought of their performance. The fact that two people who purport to call themselves journalists spent the first half of a 2-hour debate conducting what was effectively a right-wing hit job on Barack Obama was bad enough.

But what's not being highlighted is the fact that there were plenty of opportunities for Hillary Clinton to put her foot down and tell Gibson and Stephanopoulos that enough was enough - and to focus on the issues instead.

But she didn't do that. In fact, she goaded the moderators on to continue their birdshitting. She didn't stand up for her fellow Democrat; she chose to embrace those right-wing talking points to use against him.

read more | digg story

Philadelphia Daily News: VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA

"THE CHOICE in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary is not only the one between a white woman and a black man. It's a choice between the past and the future." So begins The Philadelphia Daily News endorsement of Barack Obama. The Daily News, more than the Inquirer, is the paper of the working & lower middle class people of the city...

read more | digg story

Obama: Prominent Clinton PA Supporters Switching Sides Today

I think this is the first super delegate to specifically explain their change in support as being due to Clinton's negativity. And the backlash begins.

From unertl:

Sorry about the quick-fire diary, but according to Halperin:

The Obama campaign tells Stephanopoulos that "prominent Pennsylvania supporters" will switch their support from Clinton to Obama Thursday morning due to Clinton’s negativity.

First, the traditional media is turning its back on George Stephanpoulos and Charlie Gibson for its horrible performance. Even Clinton supporter Ed Rendell was disappointed with the debate. Then this morning, Obama picks up another superdelegate endorsement from Oklahoma. Now, Clinton supporters are coming out to denounce AND reject her for being a Republican in Democratic clothing.

read more | digg story

Blogosphere buzzing with criticism of ABC News debate

And Charlie wonders why he was heckled at the end of the debate?

From The Washington Post:

We've been leaving the presidential primaries to our friends at USA TODAY's On Politics blog, but the reaction to the debate that ABC News sponsored last night seems to go beyond partisan politics.

The Washington Post's TV critic says Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos "turned in shoddy, despicable performances."

"For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with," Tom Shales writes.

Time's Joe Klein says he has "slightly--well, a microscopic smidgeon--more sympathy for the gotcha-moderators from ABC than Tom Shales does." He blames the trivial nature of the questions on the trivial nature of the campaign.

read more | digg story

'Terror' Strike Against Hillary - Bill's Radical Pardons

Obama was referring to Susan Rosenberg and her partner in crime, Linda Sue Evans, who were linked to suspects in a 1981 Brinks robbery in Nanuet in which two cops and a guard were killed. Bill Clinton commuted their sentences in a wave of more than 100 pardons granted at the end of his presidency.

read more | digg story

Greg Mitchell: The Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Med

From Greg Mitchell:

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

read more | digg story

Stephanopoulos Conspired with Hannity & Newsmax Pre-Debate!

From Billary Redux:

Tonight's debate will be moderated in part by ABC News Political Director, and former Clinton War Room lieutenant, George Stephanopoulos. Yesterday, George was documented conspiring with TWO Right Wing Blowhards against Obama. Expect a GOTCHA tonight, and ahead of that, We need to let ABC News know we are watching ... If this is his standard, why not let Cheney Moderate the debate, or McCain even!

To put it bluntly, should a Former Clinton Official be the one asking GOP questions to Barack Tonight?!?

George spent time yesterday taking Notes on Sean Hannity's Show

read more | digg story

WaPo Blasts 'Shoddy, Despicable' ABC; KO: 'Tabloid'

Fromturneresq:

The response to the awful ABC debate from various internet blogs and commenters has been overwhelmingly negative. Now, the MSM is getting in on the act.

From Tom Shales at WaPo.

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

[snip]

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

[snip]

Update: Will Bunch get in on the action.

With your performance tonight -- your focus on issues that were at best trivial wastes of valuable airtime and at worst restatements of right-wing falsehoods, punctuated by inane "issue" questions that in no way resembled the real world concerns of American voters -- you disgraced my profession of journalism, and, by association, me and a lot of hard-working colleagues who do still try to ferret out the truth, rather than worry about who can give us the best deal on our capital gains taxes. But it's even worse than that. By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself. Indeed, if I were a citizen of one of those nations where America is seeking to "export democracy," and I had watched the debate, I probably would have said, "no thank you." Because that was no way to promote democracy.

Update 2: Video from Keith Olbermann.

Update 3: Crooksandliars has a video mashup of the most egregious trash from ABC and reports that the comments section may have been shut down.

read more | digg story

ABC did a bad job, but Clinton is the real culprit

Jed really gets to the heart of the ABC "debate" debacle:

A few brief thoughts on last night's debate:

  • It's true that ABC carried Clinton's water last night, and they deserve blame for having done so. But remember, it was Clinton's water they were carrying. The questions posed to Obama were all Clinton arguments in some form or another.
  • I thought Obama did just fine. Part of the reason may have been that I listened more than watched, and by the time that I was able listen/watch to the first part of the debate, I already knew what to expect.
  • One very important thing to note is that there were no disastrous moments for Obama. In a debate like this, Obama having done nothing memorable is a good thing.
  • Obama always does better in debates when sitting down. Fortunately, McCain will probably want to sit down in the general.
  • So many people were disgusted by the debate that it could actually help generate new enthusiasm for Obama's campaign and style of politics. So far this campaign season, things that we thought were going to be disasters weren't. Wright. Bitter-gate. Now the same could happen with his debate. Ask yourself: what do you remember from the debate? I think most Democrats will say they remember being angry at Clinton and angry at ABC. In that sense, the debate could have gone far worse.
read more | digg story