Obama should not appear on any network that is not in the tank for him

[GoldieAZ49]

He is just to weak of a candidate and cannot handle being questioned about his judgement.

He doesn't have the backbone for major league politics. It is down and dirty, and isn't going to change because Obama wants it to. That is the nature of the beast, accept it.



So that leaves MSNBC and NBC

any others?

[tekisui]

1. He's got the backbone.

[featherman]

2. No networks are in the tank for any DEM. Wake up.

Besides Olbermann, name one show host anywhere who does not demean and diminish Democrats and pump up the GOP. Maybe there are some. I just can't think of any

[AX10]

17. Olbermann does demean anyone who supports Hillary.

[2rth2pwr]

32. Amy Goodman

[bowens43]

3. What a mindnumbingly stupid post.

[cliffordu]

51. Ya - This one has stuck on stupid written all over it.....

[anonymous171]

4. You actually think the MSM is in the tank for ANY democrat?

:rofl: Typical...

[GoldieAZ49]

5. Edwards is right, Obama is a wuss

I just put it a little nicer than was reported

[jackson_dem]

12. Yes--in the primaries. Ask Bill Bradey and Howard Dean how the msm took them down

The MSM wanted Gore and Kerry--and then ripped them apart in the general. Those who don't learn from the past...

[johnnydrama]

6. hmmmm

he's destroying the most down & dirty democratic candidate in history.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[jackson_dem]

14. Al Gore used Willie Horton against Dukakis

Clinton has been tamer than some past candidates were. In 2004 Dean was calling Clark a rethug, in 1992 Clinton called Tsongas a rethug wolf in sheep's clothing, in 1988 Gore used Horton, and so on. It is politics.

[Jim Sagle]

19. Al Gore did no such thing. You're a goddamn liar.

[jackson_dem]

24. You're ignorant. Know the facts before running your mouth

-snip-

Horton in the 1988 presidential campaign

The first person to mention the Massachusetts furlough program in the 1988 presidential campaign was Al Gore. During a debate at the Felt Forum sponsored by the New York Daily News, Gore took issue with the furlough program and brought up the Horton incident.

Republicans would pick up the Horton issue after Dukakis clinched the nomination. In June 1988, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, predicted that "by the time this election is over, Willie Horton will be a household name."<3> Media consultant Roger Ailes remarked "the only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it."<4>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton

[Jim Sagle]

30. From the Daily Howler:

Is it true? Did Al Gore “bring Willie Horton to the American people?” Did Al Gore “bring Willie Horton into that race?” Only in the dysfunctional world of our deeply devolved public discourse. What actually happened in 1988? In one of 45 Dem debates that year, Candidate Gore challenged Candidate Dukakis to defend a Massachusetts furlough program under which convicts serving life sentences without hope of parole were released on weekend passes. In particular, Gore noted that two furloughed prisoners had committed new murders while on weekend leave. (Willie Horton was not one of these convicts.) The program was almost impossible to defend. But Gore only mentioned the program once, and he never mentioned any prisoner’s name; never mentioned any prisoner’s race; never ran any TV ads on the topic; and never used any visuals. More specifically, he never named Willie Horton, or mentioned his specific crime (Horton committed a brutal rape while on leave). In the Bush-Dukakis general election, the Bush campaign—and an independent, pro-Bush group—made extensive use of the Horton incident. In particular, the independent group used visuals of Horton which seemed to emphasize his race (he was black). In later years, as he neared his death, Bush campaign director Lee Atwater apologized for his own conduct in pushing the racial aspects of the Horton matter.

Did Gore “bring Willie Horton to the American people?” As usual, Hannity was lying, once again. Meanwhile, Alan Colmes again sat silently by as his partner slandered Gore, misled his viewers, and dragged our discourse through the mud where Hannity’s kind has always been happiest. What does it mean? What does it mean when the world’s most important democracy conducts its public discourse this way? We can say one thing: It means that Sean happens. Gaze again on the devolved, corrupt culture we now laughingly describe as a “press corps.”

More at http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh110102.shtml

You're the ignorant one. And you're now a PROVEN goddamn liar. Does the RNC pay you to spew Hannity's filth? Or do you do it for shits and giggles?

[jackson_dem]

39. I stand corrected

1) Being wrong does not equal lying. Perhaps this mistaken belief is why you limit many of your posts to two words.

2) You are right. Some of us were not old enough to understand the 1988 debates and rely on history. Here is what happened:

-snip-

Gore did ask Dukakis, in a debate right before the 1988 New York primary, about "weekend passes for convicted criminals." Here is how Sidney Blumenthal, now a Clinton White House aide but then a reporter for the Washington Post, wrote it up a few months later:

An uncomfortable Dukakis, after dispassionately reciting statistics, conceded that the Massachusetts furlough program for murderers sentenced to life imprisonment had been canceled.

The issue did not take for Gore, but the exchange attracted the interest of Jim Pinkerton, the research director for the then flailing Bush campaign. "That's the first time I paid attention," said Pinkerton. "I thought to myself, 'This is incredible' ...It totally fell into our lap."

In reviewing this history, it's important to make some crucial distinctions. Gore never mentioned that Horton was black; indeed, he never mentioned Horton by name. He merely drew attention, correctly, to the damaging fact that Dukakis had tolerated a furlough program for especially violent criminals in his state even after a horrific incident strongly suggested this was a bad policy. It's conceivable, of course, that Gore was warming up for more explicit and racially tinged use of Horton's story later in the primary fight. But that would have been uncharacteristic of him. In any event, Gore dropped out of the race shortly after the debate.

http://www.slate.com/id/1003919/

3) Now to the larger point. Gore did play hardball. He, along with Dukakis, ran negative ads against Gephardt, who won Iowa and finished second in New Hampshire, to take him down. Speaking of Gephardt, almost two decades later he would go negative to help take down Dean, who himself attacked Gephardt aggressively and inflicted much damage to himself in doing so. 1992: Clinton attacked Tsongas as a rethug wolf in sheep's clothing, Kerrey played the draft dodging card against Clinton, Jerry Brown went as far as even attacking candidate Clinton's wife. 1984: Mondale attacked Hart as having no substance (where have we heard that lately?). In 1980 Ted Kennedy ran against a sitting president. Talk about divisive! He then took it all the way to the convention, despite trailing badly in the delegate count (really bad, not the BS 130-140 gap between Obama and Clinton) tried to get the delegates to be released from their commitments. 1976? An entire "stop Carter" movement sprung up and two candidates, Jerry Brown and Frank Church, entered the race for the purpose of stopping Carter. The point? Politics is a contact sport. Clinton is not a devil. She is playing politics, just like St. Obama and candidates have since Jefferson men and Adams men went at it over two centuries ago.

[bigwillq]

7. You so funny!

:rofl:

Obama did just fine and he will continue to do just fine in the future.

He has moaned and groaned as much as some of his supporters here on the DU.

Obama has proven he is strong enough and posts like this are not productive to the Democratic cause.

[GoldieAZ49]

8. Obama not productive to the Democratic cause.

I am funny, not nearly as much as Obama

[bigwillq]

9. Why is he not productive?

:shrug:

[guyanakoolaid]

18. If that's how you feel, get ready to be laughing for the next eight years

Because Obama is going to be your president

[ProSense]

21. Only 26% of Dems believe Hillary is honest and has integrity. After her debate performance,

I expect her to struggle to keep afloat politically. She has not only damaged her reputation, but also created problems for Democrats around the country. In PA, the Republicans are trying to use the bitter argument against Dem Reps. The Repubs will fail because it's a BS smear, but Hillary is the one who forced it into the mainstream.

[jackson_dem]

25. The "netroots" don't equal Dems

Obama forced bittergate into the mainstream. The idea that the press was going to ignore it is pure fantasy. The world does not revolve around the Clintons.

[ProSense]

27. What does the netroots have to do with my comment? n/t

[jackson_dem]

28. Hillary is respected among Democrats. The "netroots" are out of touch with mainstream Dems

[ProSense]

29. Maybe you didn't understand my question: What does the netroots have to do with my comment? n/t

[jackson_dem]

31. Your 26% figure surely must from a netroots site

[ProSense]

35. So you responded with an assumption? It is not. n/t

[TahitiNut]

36. Conjecture and supposition seem to be substitutes for evidence leading to a conclusion for many.

:shrug: Our school systems are in dire need of courses in logic and critical thinking.

(Some of us are actually aware of the LATimes/Bloomberg poll. Others seem to filter out what's not convenient.)

[jackson_dem]

41. Ironic. Apparently you aren't aware of the question or filtered out what is not convenient

The question was not whether Clinton is honest. The question is who is more honest. He won 47-26. Using the ProSense spin, which you apparently buy, that must mean only 47% of Dems think Obama is honest. :crazy: Speaking of filtering out what is not convenient, here are other similar questions from that very poll:

Who (better) understands economic issues? Clinton wins 49-34
Better understands trade issues? Clinton wins 52-28, despite the spin in the "netroots" and by the Obama campaign.
Has proposed better solutions to the foreclosure crisis? Clinton wins 32-27.
Better commander-in-chief? Clinton wins 44-39.
Will change things in DC? Obama wins 49-33

http://www.calendarlive.com/media/acrobat/2008-04/37887889.pdf

[TahitiNut]

45. Dodge and weave - YOU made a baseless claim and were called on it.

As long as you're at it, you might note that the same polling question was asked in Indiana ...

"has more honesty and integrity" ... 20% for Clinton and 52% for Obama

... and North Carolina ...

"Has more honesty and has integrity" ... 16% for Clinton and 51% for Obama

26% ... 20% ... 16% .... do I hear 0%??

:rofl:

She's a liar. Period. (Sounds like a case of "shared values" to me.)
:shrug:

[jackson_dem]

47. What are you having trouble understanding about that? Only the "netroots"/RW considers her a liar

There were questions about trade, the economy, and other things. She won on those. Does that mean, in your "logic", that they believe Obama does not understand the economy?

They view Obama as more believable, just as they view her as more knowledgeable on the economy.

As to whether she is viewed as a liar, find me any poll of Democrats--real Democrats--that shows a majority saying she is a liar. The "netroots" are a weird place where Clinton is less popular than Jeremiah Wright.

As to your absurd assertion that I made a baseless claim, Tnut, I was vindicated. I smelled something fishy with PS's post and it turned out she made up the figure or got it second hand from someone who, like you, failed to understand the question. Do only 26% of Dems consider her a liar? No. I was wright.

Regarding lying, I am not a cultist. She lies about as much as Obama and I can admit that. So do all other politicians.

[TahitiNut]

49. Are you dyslexic? How did you mangle that up in your head???

We've gone from "only 26% of Democrats (in Pennsylvania) think she's (more) honest (than Obama)" ... to YOUR claim that doesn't mean they think HE'S honest (since they might think he's dishonest, but just less dishonest than Hillary) ... to your 'logic' that the claim (pulled out of what orifice?) that "only 26% of Dems consider her a liar" is wrong.

Hello? Do you have a learning disability? (If so, you have my compassion.) I doubt it - it's more like viscera interfering with thought.

In your attempt to dodge and weave around this issue, you've 'conclusively proven' that Hillary is viewed as a LIAR by MORE than 74% of Pennsylvania Democrats! If, after all, HE'S not viewed as honest and only 26% think she's more honest than him, then the bar is set low. That means she's regarded as a liar ... and a WORSE liar than Obama.

Good grief.

Well ... congratulations. It is apparently true that the mangled claim that "only 26% of Dems consider her a liar" is wrong. Hell ... it's probably more like 80%!!! (Unreal.)

IN FACT, you've "argued" your way into obvious AGREEMENT with ProSense ... since her statement that "only 26% see Hillary as honest" is CLEARLY (by YOUR argument) an overstatement of how many actually see her as honest. It's MUCH LESS.

[jackson_dem]

55. You must have reading problems

-snip-

We've gone from "only 26% of Democrats (in Pennsylvania) think she's (more) honest (than Obama)" ... to YOUR claim that doesn't mean they think HE'S honest (since they might think he's dishonest, but just less dishonest than Hillary) ... to your 'logic' that the claim (pulled out of what orifice?) that "only 26% of Dems consider her a liar" is wrong.

Where did I say that?

-snip-

you've 'conclusively proven' that Hillary is viewed as a LIAR by MORE than 74% of Pennsylvania Democrats! If, after all, HE'S not viewed as honest and only 26% think she's more honest than him, then the bar is set low. That means she's regarded as a liar ... and a WORSE liar than Obama.

That is NonSense. You made something up out of whole cloth to swat it down. Any fool can do that. He is viewed as honest, as is Clinton. Use some Sense. If Clinton is viewed as honest, as I pointed out, and Obama is viewed as more honest then he has to be viewed as honest by most Democrats.

Again, what are you having trouble understanding? Are you drunk or really this Dense?

-snip-

that the claim (pulled out of what orifice?) that "only 26% of Dems consider her a liar" is wrong.

It is CommonSense. I explain it later in this post. Meanwhile, read up thread and find the poll that shows the vast majority of Democrats believe Clinton is trustworthy. It is idiotic to think there is a 40+ point deviation from the nation to NC, IN, and PA. So what explains the 60+% who trust her and the 26, 20% numbers? You have to understand the question being asked. I explain what they question that gave us the 26% figure meant.

Past comments by me to try to help you understand this


-snip- (post 41)

The question was not whether Clinton is honest. The question is who is more honest. He won 47-26. Using the ProSense spin, which you apparently buy, that must mean only 47% of Dems think Obama is honest. :crazy:

I did not say 47% think he is honest. I was pointing out the absurdity of ProSpin's spin, but it went right over your head.

-snip- (post 47)

They view Obama as more believable, just as they view her as more knowledgeable on the economy.

You must be unable to understand analogies. They view him as more believable, just as they view her as more knowledgeable on the economy. It is stupid to conclude from this that they believe one is a liar just as it would be stupid to conclude they believe the other is ignorant of economic issues.

[jackson_dem]

40. What is your source?

You always post links so when some of us see you throw out a number without a link we are skeptical of it. Do you mean this poll?

-snip-

he poll finds other pronounced problems for Clinton. Among all Americans, 58 percent now say she's not honest and not trustworthy, 16 points higher than in a precampaign poll two years ago.

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4658063&page=1

Now let's use some sense ProSense. That is for all Americans which includes rethugs who hate her as much as the "netroots" does. What are the numbers for Democrats?

-snip-

Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy.

-snip-

Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006; among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent. Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Poll_shows_majority_find_Clinton_untrustworthy_0416.html

That is not a good number but it is far higher than 26%...

[cliffordu]

57. Yeah. That approval rating says that, any fucking IDIOT could see it.

[LeFleur1]

42. 26%?

Where did you get that percentage? MSM? What people were polled? I know I wasn't.

[jackson_dem]

46. ProSpin is being misleading at best. See post 41

[ProSense]

52. People are laughing at you. n/t

[TahitiNut]

54. Indeed.

I don't know whether to laugh or (really) be concerned. :shrug:

[jackson_dem]

56. Stupid people

:thumbsup:

[GoldieAZ49]

43. and 25% of white dems won't vote for BHO according to PEW

so you see the situation we are in?

[jackson_dem]

48. The difference is the 25% figure is real. ProSpin made up the "26% think she is a liar" one

[Lucky 13]

10. GOTCHA!!

Great point, Goldie. Standing there, answering every question, taking every punch and coming out COMPLETLY UNSCATHED in the polls. Completely unelectable!

Good one, Goldie!

[jackson_dem]

11. He can always rely on the print media, Time, Newsweek, the Washington Post, etc.

[YDogg]

13. I think you meant "too weak" but whatever

I don't buy your premise

[CADEMOCRAT7]

15. The Audacity of Hope

You sound realistic and cynical. You may be right, maybe nothing can or will change.
Yet, how does anything change if you do not try ? At the very least, you can say "I tried". It is so refreshing to see someone model another way.
Senator Obama is wanting to change the system from within the system. Our country has suffered from exactly the sentiment you express. You have valid reasons to feel the way you do.
Senator Obama is challenging us to say "lets at least try" instead of not doing anything and settling for "well this is just the way it is".
With hope, there is a risk. I am willing to take that risk. Maybe I am still young, and have not had life beat the hope out me, though the Gore loss took a toll.

[kwenu]

16. His backbone looks pretty damn strong to me. Look for Hillary's back to be broken shortly.

[Bensthename]

20. That leaves the Clinton News channel and the McCain channel. Sure he will.

[Hoof Hearted]

22. 'Sbout it.

[DemBones DemBones]

23. Yep, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

BO is a weak candidate who has caused deep division in the party and the country and I think that was the plan all along.

I've been saying for a long time that he is a stalking horse.
Now we wait to see who's really behind his candidacy, and none of the options or outcomes look good to me.

[cliffordu]

26. You shouldn't post anything with any intrinsic intellectual value.

Oh, that's right, you don't!!

[2rth2pwr]

33. It's possible that the best thing for him to do is carry his teleprompters around.

[Armstead]

34. Exactly HOW did he screw up?

Did he lose his temper and go on an incoherent rant?

Did he say something massively stupid?

Did he buckle and get all emotional?

The worst that can be said is that he answered a bunch of antagonistic -- AND STUPID -- questions in a flat way, and was obviously irritated.

Hardly buckling under the pressure.

[futureliveshere]

37. Well he is WINNING!! You got anything more to say about his backbone?

[BenDavid]

38. Why is it? When Obama talks about race,

it's an "honest and frank discussion that's loooong overdue." But if anyone else talks about race, it's hateful, mean-spirited and uncalled for? That tells me the talk about race isn't all that "honest."

"Geraldine Ferraro said it right. The problem is, Geraldine Ferraro is white.
(The Obama campaign) has such a hair-trigger on anything racial
it is almost impossible for anybody to say anything."
-- Bob Johnson (founder of BET)

Johnson said "If you take a freshman senator from Illinois called 'Jerry Smith' and he says 'I'm going to run for president,' would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote? And the answer is, probably not. Would he also start out with the excitement of starting out as something completely different? Probably not. He would just be a freshmen senator..."

That's true, but Obama's media circus has made it "racist" to have that opinion. If Obama was a white, freshman senator and had the gall to announce a run for president, he'd be laughed out of the contest like Keyes, Gravel, Tancredo, Kucinich and every other 1% candidate. And since Johnson isn't Obama,he's a nasty racist? I think "honest" is the last adjective I'd use to describe this "conversation."

[Lord Helmet]

44. Hilary should appear on any show that will have her.

[Danger Mouse]

50. Oh please...

there was not even an attempt at even-handedness at the debate.
How would you have felt if something stupid like Vince Foster had been dumped on Hillary at the debate?

[mrbluto]

53. What a useless way of presenting this topic.

I'm no zealot and the way you launched into this post makes even me sympathize with Obama.

Why not point out the practical challenges that face us?

Why not in a way that doesn't patently piss-off Obama supporters? (I know that's a tough one - settle for pissing off only the thinner-skinned half)