Was Anyone Here REALLY Surprised By the ABC Debate? I Have Been Predicting This For 3 Months.

[McCamy Taylor]

Tonight, Keith Olbermann did something he almost never does. He threw nonFox journalists under the bus. He accused George Stephanopoulos of being a mole for Hillary Clinton. And he suggested that Charles Gibson be put out to pasture. He applauded Obama for bravely saying that he will participate in no more debates during the primary, even though Obama is going to be mocked for this decision.

KO also characterized NBC and MSNBC debates as unbiased and stellar. However, if Democrats had been paying attention, they would have seen that last night's ABC Debate was not so different from the more recent debates. Indeed, that last NBC debate was a major atrocity. The main difference is that most of the attacks (though by no means all of them) were leveled at Hillary Clinton. As far as issues go--- We don't need no stinking issues !

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?_r=2&oref=login&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Here is a summary of the NBC debate from Feb 28, 2008. Brian Williams refers to the episode in which Hillary criticized Obama campaign flyers which the press called Hillary's “Sybil” moment (he doesn’t use that word) and then reminds her that she stands accused of giving Drudge a photo of Obama in a dress. They argue some about their health care policies. The next question was about NAFTA, on which Obama had been attacking Clinton. All this before Ohio, so it is very positive for Obama since he can blame her for NAFTA. That brought us almost halfway through the debate. Next Hillary was challenged about why she didn’t say that Obama would make a great commander in chief. This makes her look very bitchy. After asking Obama if he was going to accept public funding (a McCain question for the general election, don't forget, NBC is really stumping for McCain), Williams hammered Hillary about why she and Bill had not released their tax returns yet. Russert then attacks Obama on Farrakhan and Obama is about to fall into his trap (imagine the headlines tomorrow “Obama refuses to reject Farrakhan”), until Hillary suggest that he just reject him and get it over, which he does to applause. Hillary gets more bitch points for not standing up for Obama's initial refusal to reject Farrakhan. Obama supporters will soon convince themselves that she was the one who brought Farrakhan up. Next onto the National Journal’s rating of Obama as (gasp) the Most Liberal Senator another instance of NBC softening Obama up for the general election . Then a question about Russia and NATO.

And this is supposed to be different from what they did last night on ABC? Hillary as “Sibyl” and dirty trickster, Obama as dirty trickster, Hillary is a bitch, Obama unfit to be commander in chief, Obama as black muslim, Hillary and Bill as crooks, Obama as a a flaming radical Black Muslim.

KO sure is a team player to cover up for his own guys on NBC. Maybe he thought we did not know how to Google.

Enough of that. Proving that KO is biased is like shooting fish in a barrel. Anyone who can honestly say that they were surprised by the ABC debate needs to wise up quickly, because it is only going to get worse. Bill Clinton challenged the corporate media. He ended up impeached over oral sex with an intern. That was before the Bush administration allowed the telecoms to merge and expand until their power was nearly limitless. They have taken out Rudi Gulianni, John Edwards, and just about eliminated Hillary Clinton. If they let Barack Obama become the president, it will not be because they fear him. It will be because they think that he is better for their bottom line than John McCain.

The ABC debate will come as a surprise to no one who knows how the MSM works and anyone who reads my journals knows that I have been predicting this turn of events. This is straight out of the Lee Atwater playbook. Number one thing to do with a new candidate---define his character before he gets a chance to do it himself.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/123
Corporate America Does Not Support Any Democratic Candidate So We Must Support Them All
Posted by McCamy Taylor in General Discussion: Primaries
Mon Jan 14th 2008, 04:30 AM

Corporate America does not want any of the Democratic candidates to win this fall’s presidential elections not with the Democrats in control of the House and Democrats expected to pick up more Senate seats. When they interfere with the Democratic primary, it is for one reason only. They want to make the followers of each candidate so hostile towards each other that after the convention we will refuse to back the winner. They want to tarnish the reputations of each candidate so thoroughly that their own mothers' would not vote for them. They want to make Democrats so sick of the whole election process that we stay home in November in droves.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/124
“Obama is a Black Muslim” joins “Hillary is a Bitch” and “Edwards is a Phony”: More Media Lies
Posted by McCamy Taylor in General Discussion: Primaries
Thu Jan 17th 2008, 02:40 AM

Those who have read my posts here and at Salon know that when Obama supporters were talking about the “divisiveness” of their opponents---divisiveness which was really caused by corporate media lies such as “Hillary is a bitch” and “Edwards is a phony”---and when they declared that their man was immune from such media attacks because of the unifying nature of his message, I warned that their candidate was going to be targeted with “Obama is a Black Muslim.”

Black Muslim is not so much a religious smear as a political one. It means "unAmerican, Black separatist, left wing, extreme radical."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/131

The Press vs. The 2008 Democratic Primary
Posted by McCamy Taylor in General Discussion: Primaries
Sun Jan 27th 2008, 08:15 PM

Obama is a Black Muslim Didn’t see that one coming? I did. You will hear more of this as we near the general election.

Snip

For this last lie to work, Obama must be transformed from half White half Black all American unifier to 100% African-American s-c-a-r-y. That is why the press wants you to believe that Bill and Hillary are doing something naughty. Because the press has already been caught denying Edwards coverage (with graphs and numbers and everything!) and calling Hillary a Bitch and lying and distorting. There will be all hell to pay if they are caught setting Obama is a Black Muslim up, too.

This is why Pat Buchanan kept insisting last night that Obama got 0% of the White South Carolina vote and why, at one point Joe Scarborough told him to shut up with the 1990’s race baiting crap. Buchanan is trying to paint Obama is 100% Kenyan. It looks like the press is trying to vilify Hillary and defend Obama, but do not be fooled. It is not a throne or a golden crown they have prepared for Obama. They are getting ready a cross and a crown of thorns, and just like the Romans who killed Jesus, they are going to try to convince you that someone else---Hillary in this case---did the dirty deed. The end result will be “That Obama is soooo divisive. Wherever he goes, arguments just spring up around him. He is real troublemaker. Oooo, and that Hillary is such a Bitch. Can't the Democrats do any better than that? Why did they offer us only two candidates? I'm just going to stay home this fall and not vote at all.”

The Democratic Candidates need to sit down and call a truce and get their acts together. They need to refuse to mud wrestle during debates—i.e. no more questions that are not about the issues. MSNBC needs to ban Pat Buchanan from any Democratic primary discussions. Someone or group within the Democratic Party which is strictly neutral needs to start monitoring the MSM—like the NYTs—when they quote candidates, and when they are misquoted or their remarks are taken out of context or misconstrued, some action needs to be taken.

And who has the MSM set up as the scapegoat for their first really big attack on Obama? Whom did KO just blame tonight? Hillary Clinton, because George "Gore is a Liar" Stephanopoulos used to work there. In a few days, we are going to see people in the Obama camp just swearing that the Arkansas mafia owns Disney.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/137
Would a GE Product Boycott Encourage MSNBC to Put a Sock in Tweety’s Mouth? 3 Big Lies He Told Today
Posted by McCamy Taylor in General Discussion: Primaries
Sat Feb 02nd 2008, 12:33 AM

.

Why is the press attempting to cut down Hillary and prop up Obama? I do not think that the corporate media (and MSNBC in particular) prefers one to the other. They are simply attempting to force the Democrats to go to the convention without a winner. Again, Chicago 1968 is the goal. If Hillary and Obama go to the convention, each with fiercely devoted delegates and a bitter battle ensues and the loser leaves in disgust, taking his or her delegates with him, a fractured party will result. This will cause decreased Democratic turn out and help the GOP.

If Obama were to suddenly rise in the polls, Hillary would be the one getting the help. The goal is to keep the Democratic race as close as possible. In contrast, during the same hour of Hardball John McCain was anointed the inevitable winner, even though he is much more likely to face a fractured party and a divided convention and low turnout of members of his own party who despise him. Regarding his "100 years of war" he was called "honest". (!!!!)Not a war supporter. Hillary, who has promised to bring home the troops within a year, is the one who loves the war. McCain is the peace candidate according the wacky world of MSNBC.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/140

MSNBC MONSTER Super Tuesday Diary: The Very Scary State of American TV Journalism
Posted by McCamy Taylor in General Discussion: Primaries
Wed Feb 06th 2008, 06:03 AM

If Obama is the nominee, it will be easier to slime him than Hillary, since he is running on “character”, and character is vulnerable to lies and innuendo, both of which are easy to spread if you have the press in your pocket.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/144

A Troubling Analogy: Why Do Some Support Nixon Dirty Tricksters Over Democrat Hillary Clinton?
Posted by McCamy Taylor in General Discussion: Primaries
Mon Feb 11th 2008, 02:34 AM

Knowing what I know about Tweety and his misogyny, I watched CNN’s election coverage last night to see why some self advertised “Obama supporters” (I think more than a few are Freeper trouble makers) claim that MSNBC is “fair and balanced” in its Hillary coverage while CNN is biased. What I saw was a news network that was discussing issues like the economy and the mortgage crisis and how much money the candidates had and who won last night (Obama). No one called Hillary a goddess. No one called Hillary a she-devil.

Hmm. Could this be the problem? Have the self described Obama supporters come to expect Hillary bashing as their due? Does any news network that does not deliver “she-devil” and reminiscences on Clinton’s penis face their wrath? It is true that the corporate media Big LieHillary is a Bitch is very convenient for them. Lots of potential Obama supporters are also potential Hillary supporters. If they can work themselves and other Democrats into a frenzy of “Hillary is so eeeevil” then they can get some Democratic voters to switch candidates. Never mind that Obama is not running on a platform of “Hillary is so eeeevil!”

The Right Wing Media v. Obama: Death of 1000 Cuts or Softening Him Up for the General Election
Posted by McCamy Taylor in General Discussion: Primaries
Fri Mar 14th 2008, 11:42 PM

Only 13 people read this one. I guess because Obama supporters do not believe in the right wing conspiracy. Or maybe they believe that no press, even the right wing press, could ever really hate Obama the uniter. Just Hillary the Bitch.

The News Media v. Obama III: John McCain Is a Two Faced Lying Dirty Trickster
Posted by McCamy Taylor in General Discussion: Primaries
Thu Mar 27th 2008, 04:50 AM

Only nine people read this journal in which I described the year long efforts by the mainstream and right wing media to portray Obama as a dirty tricks Daley style politician.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/179

Last Man Standing or Punch Did Not Kill Judy, the Puppetmaster Did
Posted by McCamy Taylor in General Discussion: Primaries
Wed Apr 02nd 2008, 03:14 AM

Barack Obama should be afraid. He should be very, very afraid. At this point he is like a character played by Alec Guinness in the film Kind Hearts and Coronets . The press is going to get to him sooner or later, the way that it got John Edwards and the way that it is still taking care of Hillary Clinton.

Snip

I warned that this was the next logical step in the RNC attack on the Democratic primary. Portray the likely nominee as a dirty trickster in advance of his race with McCain. Hillary was trashed months ago. Look’s like the press has now started in on Obama

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/183

Why is DU like an RNC oppo room?
Posted by McCamy Taylor in General Discussion: Primaries
Sun Apr 06th 2008, 02:04 AM

In the end, after all the "Hillary is a liar" stories, Hillary will be exactly where she was when this all started. Her political opponents will hate her. Her political friends will love her even more. Her image will not have changed at all. The one who is being transformed is Obama. He is slowly being stripped of the image he worked so hard to fashion, that of the candidate who is above the mud slinging. And she is not doing it to him. He is doing it to himself.With the help of a lot of people who claim to support him. He is the new one, the candidate with the fresh image that is still being formed.

He is the one that the RNC and the corporate media are really attacking when they play this game of "Let's call Hillary a liar". Because if they attacked Obama directly, that would only make him a victim.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/185

The Press v. Dr. King and The Mother Jones Wing of the Democratic Party
Posted by McCamy Taylor in General Discussion: Primaries
Tue Apr 08th 2008, 07:54 AM

What follows is from government documents after an investigation of the FBIs (authorized by RFK) wiretapping and (unauthorized) smear operation of MLK Jr.

”The FBI's effort to discredit Dr. King and to undermine the SCLC involved plans touching on virtually every aspect of Dr. King's life. The FBI scrutinized Dr. King's tax returns, monitored his financial affairs, and even tried to establish that he had a secret foreign bank account. Religious leaders and institutions were contacted in an effort to undermine their support of him, andunfavorable material was "leaked" to the press.

snip

“Perhaps most difficult to gauge is the personal impact of the Bureau's programs. Congressman Young told the Committee that while Dr. King was not deterred by the attacks which are now known to have been instigated in part by the FBI, there is ‘no question’ but that he was personally affected:
’It was a great burden to be attacked by people he respected, particularly when the attacks engendered by the FBI came from people like Ralph McGill. He sat down and cried at the New York Times editorial about his statement on Vietnam, but this just made him more determined. It was a great personal suffering, but since we don't really know all that they did, we have no way of knowing the ways that they affected us.’”

What lead me to write this journal about one of the great media and government atrocities in the US?

Tonight, Keith Olbermann and Dana Milbank on Countdown got a hearty chuckle at the suggestion that the press might take part in a conspiracy to malign a political figure .
KO also showed a clip of Madeline Kahn from What’s Up Doc? and said that it reminded him of Hillary.

Yes, Virginia, there is a right wing conspiracy. They hire people to sit around a room and create smears and distortions and sometimes out and out lies that they feed to overworked members of the press who repeat them as real news as you can read about here (but KO would rather you didn't, because he just told you that there is no conspiracy against Hillary Clinton) I guess a lot of Obama supporters now agree with Hillary that the press does gang up on Democrats.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/191

Posted by McCamy Taylor in General Discussion: Primaries
Wed Apr 16th 2008, 09:53 PM

Recall that McCain has recently issued an order that his people are not to criticize Hillary at all. Why do you think that is? It isn’t because he thinks he will run against Hillary in the general election. Everyone knows that Obama will be the nominee. McCain plans to make sure that when they launch the smear Obama only got nominated because he used sexist dirty tricks against Hillay that the Obama camp can not find a bunch of sexist stuff that McCain and his people have said. McCain is going to present himself as a gentleman and Obama as a sexist pig.

All it will take is a couple of journalist coming forward and saying "This Obama staffer/surrogate gave me this memo or asked me to run this story about Hillary without saying whom I got it from, and at the time I didn't think much about it, but now it troubles me, because...." for the shit to hit the fan.

Last night, one of the “charges” that was leveled at Obama was that his camp has sent out repeated emails to the press calling Hillary a “liar” over the Bosnia sniper affair, trying to propel the story and keep it alive. This is Obama is a cheater . We will be seeing a lot of this in the general election--unless Obama and Clinton sit down together and call a truce and work out a strategy to stop the RNC and the MSM from playing their dirty tricks on the Democratic Primary.

For people who do not know how dirty GOP dirty tricks can be, here is what they did to Muskie. They exact same people are running the RNC oppo this time.

http://www.woodstockjournal.com/elections.html

CIA officer Miles Copeland, in his 1978 book, The Real Spy World p. 299, wrote:
“ On one occasion, Jojo’s office was
asked for an LSD-type drug that could be slipped into the lemonade of Democratic
orators, thus causing them to say sillier things than they would say anyhow. To
this day, some of my friends at the Agency are convinced that Howard Hunt or
Gordon Liddy or somebody got hold of a variety of that drug and slipped it into
Senator Muskie’s lemonade before he played that famous weeping scene.”

In the days before the March 7 New Hampshire Primary
blue collar workers in Manchester, NH
found their phones ringing after midnight
with fake Muskie questions.

There were two types of calls:
1. when the caller identified himself as a member of the
“Harlem for Muskie Committee:
and promised that Senator Muskie would deliver “full justice for
Black people”
2. when the caller identified himself as a Muskie pollster, and asked
the midnight call recipient for whom he or she was voting
Then quickly the fake Nixon pollster would call back 2, 3, 4 times
with the same question

Florida Primary

Florida Primary
A Miss Griffin, former worker in Republican state headquarters
in Columbia, South Carolina
was told to infiltrate Senator Muskie’s campaign
in the Florida presidential primary
and sabotage it.

This was in the winter of 71-’72

Griffin, for instance, helped prepare a bogus news-release on the
campaign stationary of Senator Henry Jackson
(running for the Democratic nomination also)

accusing Muskie of preparing campaign materials
on a gov’t-owned typewriter & other equipment
in the office of Rep. Sam Gibbons of Tampa,
a Democratic supporter of Muskie

February 2, 1972
The Nixonites sent out a letter from “Citizens for Muskie”:
“We on the Senator Edmund Muskie staff sincerely
hope you have decided upon Senator Muskie as your choice.
However, if you have not made your decision
you should be aware of several facts”

The letter went on to accuse Senators Jackson & Humphrey
of a variety of sexual activities
going back to 1929.

The letter was prepared with the help of
25 year old Robert Benz, a Young Republicans leader from Tampa

A Tampa accountant named George A. Hearing later
pleaded guilty to publishing and distributing the
Muskie sex letter
after negotiation
with fed. pros. Bill Haines

People who do not know about these and other dirty tricks need to get informed fast because people like Karl Rove, Roger Stone, Pat Buchanan from 1972 CREEP are around and running the show this election. And for the record, Hillary and Bill were working for McGovern.

In 1972, the news media was not yet consolidated into the handful of telecom empires that we now have. Back then, you did not have AT&T spying. This election is much worse than that one. And there is no time or excuse for being naive. Note that insisting upon favorable treatment for one candidate only will only get you laughed at by the members of the press. This will fit neatly into their narrative Obama is a cult leader who inspires the youth of America into a dangerous state of anarchy. So, whatever your secret feelings about the Edwards is a phony or Hillary is a bitch Big Lies, voices united in opposition to the mainstream media propaganda will carry more moral weight if they protest unfair treatment of all Democratic candidates .

[bigtree]

1. yep

it was just like the others, 'cept Clinton was in the headlights dodging tabloid questions while Obama got the softballs.

Much crying over nada, I think, though.

K&R for laying out the truth

[Beacool]

11. Hear, hear!!!

Even though a few Obama supporters may have objected, most cheered on when Hillary was the one being trampled by the media. And it happened not once, but in several debates. So, I can't feel much empathy for what happened on Wednesday's debate.

[jettison]

30. I can feel empathy for either one...

However, the main difference between the debates is that when Hillary is attacked by the interviewers, and given absurd question, Obama doesn't then jump on her and pile on.

This is exactly what Hillary does to Obama when given the same kind of questions. She is happy to "twist the knife" as it was so aptly put. Neither candidate can control the media, but each can control themselves.

Hillary is all too happy to to take a negative swipe at Obama every chance she gets, and her add campaigns bare that out. The only Obama adds that don't address actual issues are ones where he's having to defend himself from negative Hillary attacks.

[Beacool]

33. Obama doesn't pile on?

You must have forgotten the October 30th debate.

[jettison]

35. Obama sometimes agrees with some negativity.

... but to answer your question - no, he doesn't "pile on". Do his supporters? Yes. Does his campaign? Yes. Does he during debates? Generally no. Hillary has been a knife twister.

[susanwy]

53. And do you think

that Obama has nothing to do with his campaign or supporters "piling on"? To say that he does not implies that he doesn't control his campaign well (I see no evidence of that) and to say yes just means that he is slightly cleverer than Clinton (I would agree with the latter). The next day he can go out and say how positive he is and how negative Hillary is, meanwhile his supporters and campaign or orchestration negativity all over the MSM.

The original post is correct, the MSM is playing both candidates for fools.

[McCamy Taylor]

42. Remember New Hampshire with the Obama/Edwards pile on?

And where does the phrase "twist the knife in" come from? Obama, after he said "no more distractions". In the NBC debate, when the moderators opened up topics like NAFTA, Obama used the opportunity to attack Hillary before the Ohio primary by blaming her for America's economic ills.

I think the problem is that Obama supporters see Obama through Obama tinted glasses, so it looks ok when he does it.

I still see people criticize Hillary for saying "Shame on you, Barack Obama" forgetting that in the meantime Obama has issued his own "Shame!" remarks back at Hillary.

[jettison]

46. You're forgetting one thing...

NAFTA is a non-gutter issue.

[AX10]

2. K & R

Only a fool would believe that Olbermann is anything more than a mediawhore.:puke:

[ProSense]

3. AUDIO: Hannity Feeds Stephanopoulos Debate Question On Weather Underground

more

[JoFerret]

27. You didn't read it did you.

Too busy playing ping pong

[Timbuk3]

4. The Media is Not the People's Friend, Any More

The handful of companies that own it like Republicans. It's time our candidates admit it. Edwards and Obama have.

They helped lie us into war, they lie about the "success" in Iraq, they cover up just how bad the economy is...

Except Kieth, of course. ;->

[bhikkhu]

10. Reminiscing the '70's

I watched the evening news every night while having dinner with my family. It didn't matter much which channel we watched (of three), they all carried the news, and the news was the news - bias was not an issue. My mom liked one of the anchorman so we generally watched one channel, but they were all of the same character and reliable as to the facts. In the background one imagined a hive of industrious investigative work, fact-checking and men in the field, digested down to the truth of the world: what you could trust and talk about over dinner.

Times have certainly changed, and perhaps those earlier times never existed after all.

[Hissyspit]

5. I don't think anyone was particularly surprised by this debate and I seem to recall DUers

complaining about every one of the debates to some degree or another.

[bvar22]

6. One major error:

In Paragraph 6, you state:

"Bill Clinton challenged the corporate media. He ended up impeached over oral sex with an intern. That was before the Bush administration allowed the telecoms to merge and expand until their power was nearly limitless."

It was Bill Clinton who signed the Telecommunications Act in 1996 that allowed for concentrated multilateral Media ownership.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. I should have said "He challenged the journalists who make up the MSM"

When they would ask him questions like the ones they asked Obama last night he would get in their face and embarrass them. This made them angry, so they retaliated.

[susanwy]

54. True, but the MSM figure out

if you make him into a big joke (buffoon), we'll then his ability to get in their face and embarrass them is negated.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Actually you've been blaming the MSM for Hillary's nasty campaign.

But, hey, who's counting.

[McCamy Taylor]

9. If you really want more "nasty" details, send me a private tell. It is time we start

healing, although I realize that some people will not be able to begin that process until they move out of their denial.

[AtomicKitten]

29. Brava! Recognizing you are in denial is the first step!

[Beacool]

12. Great job!!!!!!!!!!

As for Olbermann, I can't stand to watch him anymore. He has become a pompous ass enamored with his own voice and self importance. Actually, I don't even bother watching MSNBC at all.

[N4457S]

24. He's...

...a sportscaster and he'll always be a sportscaster. That's what he does well and that's where he'll end up.

[Beacool]

32. Only recently did I become aware of that fact.

No wonder he's such a windbag!!!!

LOL!!!!

[McCamy Taylor]

13. One more thing, Chicago 1968 was a "Great Show" for the press. Even politically neutral

journalists and people on the left would like to see the Democrats go to Denver with no nominee and a fractured angry party. They would like to see heads get split open. They would like to write articles about it and get famous. Never underestimate the vanity and the ambition of the press. We have all seen how they treat war as a blood sport---a gladiatorial battle to be used for ratings.

Chicago 1968 spelled doom for millions of people around the world. Chicago 1968 meant the Killing Fields and an additional 20,000 US troops killed, many more wounded or shelled shocked. It meant the attack on the fledgling civil rights and women's rights movements by the federal government. It laid the groundwork for HMOs. Oil policy once again became official U.S. foreign policy. It meant suffering and death and life under dictatorships for people in Chile.

[aquart]

14. So Obama is a maligned saint

And Hillary should just become his handmaiden because otherwise everything the Republicans do is our fault.

Well, media pretensions aside, I believe the Democrats could run a yellow rubber ducky this year and win. If we count the votes.

Since I no longer watch the news, I'm not affected by their bias. I AM affected by the bias on DU. I am truly frightened of the level of fanaticism I see here. It doesn't look a thing like democracy to me. And certainly not liberalism. And this isn't my first campaign.

You're saying Obama will be allowed to win if HE is the corporate candidate. That's encouraging, I suppose.

But the warning about 1968? I don't remember worrying about buying food in 1968. I don't recall reading about food riots then. The situation is different. And even the MSM should be frightened.

But as bloody as this ridiculously long primary process is, I will be damned if my side gets to lie down and take the blame for not being good soldiers.

You want peace? Make an offer and back it up. You better have a long list of why I won't regret it. Right now I would not trust anyone in the Obama camp out of my sight, and not even then if they have their cell phones.

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. ...

:thumbsup:

[livingmadness]

15. An interesting analysis

and I agreed with a lot of it. I don't doubt for a second that there have been corporate/right-wing fingers both behind the media scenes and all over websites like these stoking the fires between candidates' supporters. I do question where you state that the goal is to keep the Democratic race as close as possible - completely logical; I'm just not sure that the debate attack was the best way to go about that. Your own arguments highlight the fact that we're talking about some very shrewd and insidious people here - they must have known that there would be a significant backlash for the slap-downs, giving Obama a wee chance of doing better in PA than expected (or at least not as poorly as he might have otherwise). In addition it pushes the DNC powers that be to get this thing over, as Dean's reaction yesterday attests. So it just doesn't quite fit with a desire to make the primaries run to the convention. If that was their desire they would have been better to pile on Hillary and assist her votes giving her an even bigger when in PA and keeping the race going, don't you think?

[susankh4]

16. For now.... Anyone who dares to put the Dem. party, above the deification of Mr. Obama

will be "dealt with." George Stephanopolis is no exception. Even tho, he did Mr. Obama a HUGE favor... by alluding to what RW scrutiny will look like AS SOON AS he gets our nomination.

Mr. Obama, in turn, demonstrated that he was unprepared for it. Which should give him great pause. It could help him to review & edit his talking points.

I am going to hold out hope that Mr. Obama is alot smarter than the idiots in the party (and on this board) ... who see this as "George ganging up with the RW media."

I'll even go as far as to predict that Mr. Stephanopolis will be back in the White House come 2009. No matter which of our candidates gets our nomination.

George has been there. He knows what it is like. And he demonstrated his loyalty (and great value) to our party on Wednesday evening. I am writing a thank you letter to him today.

[defendandprotect]

19. When it comes to nonsense, I agree that Stephanopolis is tuned in . . .

Stephanopolis is "taking notes" from the r-w and that's helpful to Democrats?

[susankh4]

21. Yes. It is.

It is critical to understand the "other side." That is the only way to beat them. Call it "silly season" if you will. But "silly season" wins and loses elections.

[defendandprotect]

47. So we understand them by using their tactics and their questions . . . ???

I think computers win elections for the GOP and lose elections for the Democrats ---

[defendandprotect]

18. I'm surprised that sooo many people are getting it now --!!!

And that the r-w's confidence took them sooo overboard --- !!!

Maybe it's their growing fear --- ????

[ginnyinWI]

20. I think the media is quite willing to throw either of them under the bus.

I don't know if they want a Repub candidate to win, but the overall motive is ratings, in my opinion. Ratings equal sponsors equal money, money, money. We wish they would care about our democracy, but that's all secondary.

That said, I think it only makes a candidate look bad when they whine about it. Whining and playing the victim doesn't get you any votes. I think Obama's tactic of joking about it is far more effective because it makes him look strong, resilient, unstoppable. A good campaign can take advantage of and play the media to its advantage; it doesn't need to sit there like a sitting duck. There are moves to be made--it just depends on the campaign being smart enough to make them.

[McCamy Taylor]

43. Dem president plus Dem Congress means possible laws to break up telecom monopolies and giants

We have all seen how the media giants helped Bush steal 2000 and 2004 and aided him in his march to War in Iraq 2003, something which they did in exchange for Michael Powell's administrative ruling in June, 2003 which eliminated Federal Media Ownership Limitation Rules (an administrative ruling that was later struck down in federal court). Bush was helped in 2000 because he promised that change. He was helped in 2004 because he promised to appeal that ruling to the SCOTUS. He was abandoned by the press in 2005 when Powell revealed that there was never any plan to appeal the ruling to the SCOTUS.

Since then, Democrats have had a chance, because the MSM no longer trusts an all GOP Washington to do their bidding. However, they know that an all Democratic Washington may decide to clip the MSM's wings to prevent them from stealing any more elections. They would be much happier to have good old John McCain who never met a telecom lobbyist he didn't just LOOOOVE in the Whitehouse so that his FCC could approve all mergers and acquisitions.

You can bet that at this moment, Karl Rove is sitting down with the heads of all the telecom firms promising them the sun and the moon under McCain. Unless Obama is willing to match those offers, he is toast.

But you know, Obama is a corporate candidate. I have no reason to doubt that he will play ball, too. And Axelrod works for AT&T, so this just might work out this fall.

[Evergreen Emerald]

22. The double standard is outrageous. The boys are all coming out for Obama

The media is taking Clinton down. And the lemmings cheer. This is not democracy.

[jettison]

31. Ummm... all the journalists attacking Obama were "boys" as you put it.

[ElboRuum]

37. Now, come on...

If you don't think Clinton's provided more than enough fodder for the media to castigate her of her own volition, then you need to get your head out from under that rock.

Clinton has run the most ill-advised campaigns I've ever seen. She has shot herself in the foot more times than I can count, and whatever mud Obama has thrown in her direction she has at least equalled in return.

While I would never give the MSM much credit for anything, I will say that they are at least consistent. They tend to side against the bigger gaffe artist, and they do so purely for ratings. Now since that will most likely not change in the immediate future, what is a candidate to do? Avoid the gaffe as much as is possible.

All I can say is that if Clinton had run a better campaign, the story that is unfolding before us would likely be much different. She chose a path and it was the one that leads to self-ruin.

[Evergreen Emerald]

51. I disagree. And you are a lemming for buying into the load of crap you are fed

Her campaign is no different than Obama's. Did you know that he is sending e-mails to the media daily trashing Clinton and pressuring them to run negative stories about her?

The difference is the media focus.

Clinton sends an e-mail to the media; the media highlights negative campaigning.
Obama sends an e-mail to the media; the media hightlights the negative message Obama wants the media to spew about Clinton.

The difference is in what the media discloses and what they highlight and what they choose to hide. I am certain many would be outraged at the variety of stories Obama told on NAFTA / healthcare / Rezkp--if those stories were ever aired 24/7 instead the media gives them cover, hides them, and you all do what the media tells you to do.

[susankh4]

41. No it is not democracy. And, you know what?

I am beginning to re-examine my desire to be a part of it. This I know:

Noone is free, when others are oppressed.

I live by this simple doctrine. Every day of my life. And... I have a well established history of breaking ranks with organizations that blatantly, and cavalierly oppress then deny it.

About twenty years ago, I broke with the church of my upbringing (Catholicism) over it's oppression of women and gays. By that time I had a daughter and an apparently gay son. I wasn't about to raise either of them in an environment like the one I grew up in.

Approximately ten years ago I broke out of the American health care system, and my chosen career of nursing. I perceived the system increasingly controlled by powerful interests and lacking regard for the well being of the masses. "Managed Care" was the end of "real care" in my opinion.

Another ten years have gone by... and my chosen party (of 32 years) is grating on me. If I do not see an effort to honor the equality of women, alongside that of all men .... I will be forced to make a decision. I simply do not support organizational structures that oppress. Period.

Noone is free, when anyone is oppressed.

Misogyny is oppression. Having my fellow Democrats tell me I am "imagining it" is even a greater insult than the fact that they are participating in calling Hillary (a person much like me) "fucking whore" or "bitch" or any other number of insulting titles.

[McCamy Taylor]

44. It is hypocrisy. They know the MSM has trashed her. They want to annoint him before he's trashed.

They know that she is not all bad and that Obama is not all good. They know that the two of them are pretty much the same. "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

The problem is, that Hillary's base is the same as Humphrey's base back in 1972, working class. Plus women. Eeeks. They are going to look at all the money Obama threw at states like Texas and Ohio and Pennsylvania just to stay competitive and they will see that he got his big support in caucus states which favor voters who do not have to work for a living and they will remember the "elitist" charges and how Obama's voters---except for his African-American base which is his saving grace and the group that give him solid Democratic Party identity as opposed to a nebulous Independent persona---are college educated and higher income. They are going to look at all the lobby money that gets funneled through state capitals so that he can boast he takes no DC lobby money. And they are going to think "The Party is selecting the guy that the rich and powerful like. They are ignoring the poor working schleb like me. Well, fuck the party!"

And if the working class base does not put this altogether on its own, the RNC will put this together for them---only they will pretend that it comes from the Clintons or their surrogates, so it does not look like it comes from straight shooter McCain. They will find some scab Democrats and pay them or blackmail them to write this stuff. Like George Stephanopoulos. You guys do remember that he was right their out in front with Gore is a liar in 2000. That makes him an RNC whore. But it he starts saying bad stuff, people will say it comes from Hillary, even though it really comes from the RNC. I probably need to do a post about Georgia, just to remind everyone about him.

And it will not be hard to find some disgruntled women and other Hillary supporters to bad mouth Obama either, not after this primary. Even though I suspect that a lot of the provocation came from the RNC. For instance, that stupid Lawrence O'Donnell thing "John Edwards is a Loser" how do we know that Rove did not blackmail O'Donnell and make him write that? To drive another wedge between Dems. How do we know that people at Huffington Post are not being blackmailed with FISA info? For insider trading crap like the stuff that sent Martha Stewart to jail. I will bet that everyone has gotten a tip from their broker to sell something just before it crashed. That could be potential jail time for anyone with stocks. And Martha Stewart is proof that anyone could go to jail---that is why they prosecuted her, to make their blackmail ops effective.

I feel very sorry for journalists this year. It must be a suck year to be a professional. I am glad that I only do this as a hobby.

[JoFerret]

23. And here we all are: Buying into it all

No wonder the r/w are crowing.

Thanks McC T

[N4457S]

25. What's Happening...

...is that Democrats are tearing themselves apart, leaving us with McCain in November. This is what happened in 1968 and 1972.

Obama is already way behind in Florida, leaving him to need both Ohio and Pennsylvania. It won't happen. There's no way.

I think it's over.

[jettison]

36. The sky is falling.

<cluck>

[ElboRuum]

39. Do you now?

Interestingly defeatist attitude. And here, it's not even May yet. You voting for McCain? I'm not. Come November we'll see what the Democratic Party is made of. We'll see how many "Democrats" will vote for McCain (because that's the only way McCain can win btw).

[N4457S]

48. Of Course We Will...

...and if it's the same Democratic party we had in 1968 and 1972, what I said will happen.

Fundamentally, this is about the way the party is organized. It also shows us how badly the party was damaged by the Clinton White House during the 1990s.

Many Hillary supporters will vote for McCain this Fall and a lot of those people are in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida...of which Obama has to win two out of three in order to have a prayer. It won't happen. There's no way.

We needed Gore but it didn't happen.

It's over. Trust me.

And if that weren't enough, there's going to be another census in 2010. Texas, Florida and the Carolinas will all gain Electoral votes at the expensive of Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. If Hillary had a chance, it was this year and that may well be one of the things she's so damn mad about. This was her last shot, she knew it and now she's pissed off.

[bhikkhu]

52. "Its over. Trust me".

Ridiculous defeatist gloom. Realistic planning is one thing, but no one with the attitude expressed above ever won anything, I would guess. And how many winning campaigns over the years overcame longer odds than ours? Six months of hard, enthusiastic work is what is needed.

[JoFerret]

40. Not tearing each other apart at all. Just

getting ready to make sure McCain is easy meat in November.

A little dissent toughens the soul. And both these candidates are more than a match for McCain.

Democrats have had great choices this season. The GOP are stuck with McCain.

[N4457S]

50. This Is What...

...Democrats always say, and they always lose the big races. That's what happened in 1968, 1972, 1988, 2000, 2004. These were all Democratic years, every single one.

Just how many times are the Democrats going to have Bob Shrum lose the big one for them? Time after time after time it happens.

Nader said if they can't win this year, they should just close up shop and go home. I agree.

A good friend of mine (high end systems consultant, brilliant) who lives in Canada said the Democrats are starting to look like the Canadian New Democratic Party. That's not a flattering reference.

[Armstead]

26. I guess you missed the ongoing complaints about MSM debates from supporters of all candidates

I think many of us who suppoert Obama have been more consistent than you give us credit for.

Sure, we may have gleefully pointed out some gaffes by Hillary or other partisan stuff.

But overall, I don;t think Obama supporters have changed their tune about the overall nature of the MSM and the debates.

[Tyler Durden]

28. K & R.

Well done.

[susankh4]

55. We had a chance to take this one....

with a Clinton/Obama ticket.

And they managed to tirn us against one another.

Again.

When will we ever learn?

[Blue_Roses]

34. then WE need to get "consolidated" as well...

with the use of the internet, youtube, and the fact that you can respond faster, these clowns can be put in their place. The real question is will people bother?

[Missouri Blue]

38. First, there's no way at this point debates will be about issues now.

The issues have been brought out. They are on websites. They are on "independent" sites like "ontheissues.org . You could find all the issues and candidates criticisms of the other's policies by looking back over the many months of this primary campaign. Now, it's about wrestling with each other.

Second, I hate to say it, but some of the "issues" such as Iraq withdrawal and medical reform must be taken with a grain of salt. Why? Because the candidate can't really know all the facts needed until he or she is actually in office. I don't expect the real "plan" till then. I hear what they say as very general.

Third, I think nobody here needs worry about divisions in the party, unless after the decision, one of the candidates decides to form a third party. That would be a calamity. Otherwise, remember what the Republicans were saying about McCain, and remember that within two weeks of his nomination how all that hostility shut down.

Also, remember 2004 and how divisive that was on the Democratic side, and how quickly Democrats who expressed loathing for Kerry got behind him, 58 million votes worth.

Don't panic. Our chances are very good. McCain is the weaker candidate. Made weaker still since he follows Bush. Also, it might be terrible to point this out, but at his age, his health could collapse under the stress of campaigning. His life might even end due to health reasons.

[InfiniteNether]

45. Here's what media "critic" Howard Kurtz had to say about oppo research:

"Every single day reporters get phone calls from opposition researchers at campaigns trying to feed them stuff, trying to funnel stuff through to the public without any fingerprint." - to ABCnews

[Kahuna]

49. Not me. I told my peeps before hand that it would be ugly for Obama. Why?

Gibson is a pompous blowhard and Steph is a nasty little weasel.