Halle-fucking-lujah

[Adelante]

Obama was on CNN this morning:

CNN’s “American Morning”: Attacked Clinton’s gas plan and her “obliterate” remark about Iran, comparing it to Bush’s language. “If you’re running for president, you shouldn’t be stirring up international incidents.” John Roberts said CNN has declared a “Rev. Wright-free zone”– “our viewers want us to move on.”

http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/05/morning-show-summary-56/

Now can we do the same on DU? :shrug:

[leftofcool]

1. CNN is so full of shit..........

A "Wright-Free zone"? That will work until the GE when they all start fawning over Mccain

[Buzz Clik]

7. It's okay, lessthancool. You can still post 3 threads per day about the good Reverend.

[leftofcool]

13. I don't think I have ever posted anything about him and could care less

I have responded to a few though. But if you believe CNN, please by all means enjoy your new found faith in this Republican controlled network

[Buzz Clik]

20. LOL! You are ragging on CNN as a "republican controlled network" after Hillary's antics?

:rofl:

You have lost all perspective. I'm sorry.

Hillary and her minions have been on Fox endlessly. And there's Scaife and Murdock.

If you had any sincerity about your words, you would never have uttered that CNN is a "republican controlled network".

[leftofcool]

22. You might want to see who owns CNN, who supports them

and how often they have been in the tank for Bush and Company. What planet have you been living on for the last 8 years? They are already fawning over McCain, not to mention that most of their pundits are avowed Republicans. Oh, and Hillary and her "minions" include Howie Dean and Obama on FOX so that dog won't hunt. Please place your faith in CNN

[Buzz Clik]

25. That dog does hunt, and it smells a hypocrite at 50 paces.

You can't on the one repeatedly put Clinton in half-day retreats with Richard Mellon "Vast Rightwing Conspiracy" "Hillary Murdered Vince Foster" Scaife and then even peep about the "rightwing media".

And you suddenly are aligning Howard Dean with Obama?

Good gawd.

[Texas Hill Country]

42. LOL, no kidding

[City Lights]

2. K-effin'-R!

[SoFlaJet]

3. Wow I'm impressed

after Wolf did another hour on it yesterday and on MSNBC and on MTP Timbo's first 12 questions were about...wait for it....ah you know

[zabet]

4. Sure. We can move onto Meeks the homophobe. nt

[leftofcool]

8. And others

I wonder who CNN thinks they are are kidding?

[Buzz Clik]

11. Now THAT will get a lot of traction in the mainstream media.

:rofl:

[zabet]

29. That was pretty much the pat response here too, when Wright was first mentioned.

[Buzz Clik]

31. No, it wasn't. And your efforts to paint Obama as homophobic have fallen flat.

[zabet]

35. Yeah right. I have not painted Obama himself as a homophone...

he just loves associating with them, having them as spiritual advisers, openers for campaign speeches and the such.

[Buzz Clik]

37. And the attempt to smear him with that has gotten ZERO traction.

Is it your impression that the GOP will suddenly get excited about that issue? "Obama associates with people who might be homophobic." I think not.

Thanks for playing.

[zabet]

47. franksolich misses you, go home.

[Buzz Clik]

48. Perhaps you could tell me where he's posting...

I have no idea.

[zabet]

51. Yeah right, peddle that lie elsewhere.

:rofl:

[Buzz Clik]

54. You're not as clever as you think.

I've made no denials about posting there (before my lifetime ban). However, solich hasn't posted there for months.

You might consider acting like less of a child.

[zabet]

55. Yeah.. tell me you didn't get asked to their new site,

:eyes:

As far as childish acts, read back on some of your posts...you can be quite the epitome of childishness..here and there.

[Buzz Clik]

56. I'll give you the last word you're so dying to get in. I won't be reading it, but knock yourself out

[boppers]

57. Who sang at the 1992 DNC national convention? Guess. :)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42982-2004Aug28.html

[DMorgan]

5. Shows just how sick of Hillary even the Media is getting!

She's turning into George Bush #4, looking almost like John McSame, AKA George Bush #3

[faithfulcitizen]

6. Again, now Obama has 20 whole hours to talk about real issues! YEAH!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Staceyclinton]

16. Foxnews will still talk about it

:rofl: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[babylonsister]

9. Sounds like they took Rangel's and Brazille's chastisement

yesterday to heart-no doubt they were shamed into this, but I don't much care how they got there.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/04/rangel-...

May 4, 2008
Rangel says issue of religion will 'come back to haunt us'
Posted: 12:15 PM ET


(CNN) — Hillary Clinton supporter Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, attacked the media coverage of Barack Obama’s former pastor on CNN’s “Late Edition”, blaming them for over-hyping the issue and implying that it could hurt the Democratic Party down the road.

“It's disgraceful that he has to make any explanation for anything,” the outspoken congressman told Wolf Blitzer. “The intrusion of the media and Republicans into the sacred relationship that worshipers have with their spiritual leaders, I think, is going to come back to haunt us.”

“To think that we have to go into the lives and the beliefs of rabbis and priests and ministers and imams is absolutely ridiculous,” he went on.

Rangel’s comments defending the privacy of Obama’s relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright goes against what even the Illinois senator has said about the issue. Last Sunday, Obama told Chris Wallace that it is a “legitimate political issue” and that he understands why people are discussing it.

But Rangel argued that the Democratic candidate’s beliefs are completely different than those of his pastor— and the media know it.

“Of course he's a candidate, and he doesn't want to take all of you on,” Rangel alleged. “If we've got to get into the Jerry Falwells and to the Robertsons and to the number of people that have what appears to other religions to be bizarre beliefs, we'll never get to the issues that America is concerned about.”

From: CNN's Peter Lanier

[Adelante]

14. Thanks for posting that

Rangel was splendid yesterday.

[Coexist]

10. amen.

[npincus]

12. Fuck MSNBC- I'll watch CNN.

[The Night Owl]

15. Admirers of Jeremiah Wright post about him about as often as detractors do.

If all of you guys who think that Mr. Wright is a great man would find some religious forum to extol him on, then those of us who can't stand the guy will feel less inclined to give our opinion of him. Right now, the message I'm getting from admirers of Wright is a cognitively dissonant one... Jeremiah Wright is a great man! But don't talk about him!

[leftofcool]

17. A little irony?

[The Doctor.]

23. Wright is a great man. But he's not perfect and the media exploited that.

Now everyone has 'Wright-fatigue'.

What's your point?

Oh, and I suggest you look up 'cognitive dissonance'.




"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[The Night Owl]

28. I see I struck a nerve with you...

My point is... If you don't want to read criticism of Jeremiah Wright, then stop gushing about how great the guy is.

Regarding cognitive dissonance...

Main Entry: cognitive dissonance
Function: noun
Date: 1957
: psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognitive+dissonance

Admirers of Jeremiah Wright, who are a subset of Obama supporters, are psychologically conflicted because while they feel that Jeremiah Wright is a great man who should be extolled, they also recognize that extolling Wright, or even just talking about him, hurts Barack Obama.

Of course, I don't expect you to agree with anything I write. After all, you're the same guy who, with a straight face, posted that comparing Hillary Clinton to Adolf Hitler is neither hateful nor irrational.

:rofl:

[The Doctor.]

36. Uhhh... yeah.

Tell yourself what you like, but there is no conflict between believing Wright is a great man at the same time as being tired about hearing and seeing him presented the way he is by the media. To experience cognitive dissonance, there must be a direct conflict between belief and perceived reality. Here, I'll show you the test; "Wright is a great man who needs to fade into the background right now"

One statement, one unconflicted thought. Get it yet?

No?

Bill Clinton was shooting his mouth off at one point, and Hillary supporters weren't happy about it. Does that mean you have to stop liking him?

Of course not, there is no "cognitive dissonance" there either. It is apparent you don't understand the concept at all.

Here's an actual example of "cognitive dissonance"; "George Bush protects America! Republicans are great on national security!"

-and-

"Al-Qaeda killed 3000 people on American soil while Bush was in office."

You see, those are diametrically opposed. One cannot accept both concepts without experiencing "cognitive dissonance".



Still don't get it? *sigh* Then I'm afraid you are beyond my help.
Live in a black and white world if you must, but the rational folks here won't be joining you.

Meanwhile, why do you feel the need to mischaracterize what I said? Why not quote me exactly?

I'll tell you why; Because the fact was that said it was not necessarily 'hateful' or 'irrational' to compare Clinton to Hitler depending on the point of view of the poster and the context therein. I did say it was just plain fucking stupid to do so, but I certainly did not discount the likelyhood that it was hateful, irrational, or both.

Unfortunately, you appear to have all the comprehension for nuance of an average eggplant.


Go right ahead and pat yourself on the back for, uhhh... whatever it is you want to tell yourself you accomplished here. I'm sure you'll think of something very clever.

[The Night Owl]

44. What you wrote regarding people calling Hillary Clinton by the name Hitlery...

"Well, it's stupid, I can even agree that it's irrational, but it's not hatred. Obviously it's irrational unless there's something the individual can point to as cause. Frankly, I know of nothing that she's done that would make her 'fascist' at all. But 'hateful', no, it doesn't rise to that level."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5240538#5260422

The fact that I have to explain to you why referring to Hillary Clinton by the name Hitlery is a hateful thing to do tells me that I probably shouldn't bother, but I'll try anyway...

Referring to Hillary Clinton by the name Hitlery is an attempt to suggest that she is akin to the most infamous mass murderer of modern times... a man whose very name rightly evokes horror and revulsion. To assume that a person who compares Hillary Clinton to Adolf Hitler does so because he or she hates Clinton is a perfectly logical assumption. Why wouldn't someone who thinks that Hillary Clinton is akin to the most infamous mass murderer of modern times hate her? I mean, if I thought that Clinton were even partly like Hitler, I would hate her.

In fairness, however, I will retract the charge that you don't recognize that referring to Hillary Clinton by the name Hitlery is irrational.

[The Doctor.]

58. Well, we both learned something today.

Now you know how to use 'cognitive dissonance', and I learned you like to selectively quote while leaving out context. Your question was; "You don't think that labeling Hillary Clinton as a fascist is irrational?", and then presented my response as though I was addressing the Clinton=Hitler meme. That's pretty disingenuous of you to begin with.

I also said this; "You don't like 'perspective' or 'context' very much do you? <...> Rude characterizations are typical on DBs, but they don't necessarily constitute 'hatred'."

I never ruled out that it can't be hatred. I did say that 'Hitlery' doesn't necessarily indicate hatred (the phrase "not necessarily" indicates something a little more complex than yes/no, is/isn't), and I was referring to that specific use as you pointed it out. I understand that I didn't make that clear enough for you in that one excerpt you chose, so I'll make it easier to remember for both of us;

It's not necessarily "hateful" or "irrational" to compare someone to Hitler, that's simply a matter of opinion. It can simply be an attempt to label someone a 'fascist' in a way that the user feels is clever. Reason? "Hitlery" works better than "Hillascist". That's why I can't declare that it's hatred all by itself. Either way, I think it's stupid. I'm certainly not saying, nor have I ever said, that it can't be hateful... I didn't think I needed to, but apparently you need lots of clarification.

One more time; "I've never said that it is 'not hateful' to Compare Clinton to Hitler, I did say that 'Hitlerly' doesn't necessarily rise to the level of 'hatred'." - That was implicit in my post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5240538&mesg_id=5260422


Now you know how to use 'cognitive dissonance' and you've had a lesson in context.


I have learned that I have to be very explicit with some people.

This has been good for both of us.

Thanks!

[The Night Owl]

59. I used the term "cognitive dissonance" correctly. Let me show you a perfect example of...

...an admirer of Jeremiah Wright exhibiting cognitive dissonance. Consider the following thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5752979

Even though the OP created a thread specifically about Jeremiah Wright, the OP confronted anyone who didn't agree with the thesis by asking that person what Jeremiah Wright has to do with Barack Obama. Isn't that amazing? You see, even though admirers of Jeremiah Wright think he is really great, they don't want to talk about what he has actually said... not criticism of what he has said, mind you... but what he has actually said. Wright's admirers cringe when confronted by Wright's hateful rhetoric because it conflicts with how they think about him.

Regarding your ridiculous argument that comparing Hillary Clinton to Adolf Hitler is not necessarily hateful...

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines the word "hateful" as follows...

Hateful

1. Manifesting hate or hatred; malignant; malevolent.

2. Exciting or deserving great dislike, aversion, or disgust; odious.

Syn: Odious; detestable; abominable; execrable; loathsome; abhorrent; repugnant; malevolent. -- Hate"ful*ly, adv. -- Hate"ful*ness, n.

So, let us assume that the DUer who refers to Hillary Clinton as "Hitlery" does so only because he or she thinks that Clinton is akin to a fascist. Are you suggesting that DUers who liken Clinton to a fascist do not have a great dislike of fascism? Are you suggesting that DUers who liken Clinton to a fascist do not have an aversion to fascism? Please. Get real.

[The Doctor.]

60. Apparently not.

I spelled it out pretty clearly. I'd ask you to tell me what was incorrect about my explanation, but I gave up wasting my time on black and white minds after all these years of dealing with Bush-bots.

Good night.

[goclark]

18. I heard it and was in shock,,.

I heard her tell him that she absolutely stood by that word and would not back down.

How could she do that, even John McCain backs down on it.


Believe me now or believe me later, she is The Manchurian Candidate.

[ecstatic]

19. Hmm... moving on just in time to attack the supposedly new frontrunner

They are so see through, it's disgusting. :puke:

Don't get me wrong, Clinton DESERVES criticism, but THAT is what the MSM should have been following all along--the words and actions of the actual candidates!

[Adelante]

21. The initial quote is from Obama

I've clarified in the OP.

[flpoljunkie]

24. That's great, if it's true. Was he speaking for others, like the atrocious Glenn Beck? I doubt it.

[Adelante]

27. He's speaking for the network

I don't know Glenn Beck. Is he on CNN? I only have CNNI, so I don't see very much of it, basically the "Situation Room" and "AC360" when I watch it.

[flpoljunkie]

30. Glenn Beck is on CNN's Headline News, at 8PM, I think. He is awful!

[mmonk]

26. Wow. Is CNN going to move to real issue oriented politics?

Interesting. They must be getting a truck full of hate mail over the Wright affair.

[Adelante]

33. I emailed them yesterday saying

ENOUGH ENOUGH ENOUGH

[crankychatter]

45. deleted: wrong place nt

.

[tabasco]

32. Thank you Charlie!

I don't always agree with him but I respect and admire him tremendously.

[Adelante]

34. I still love the guy

Even though he didn't endorse Obama. I worked on a few of Charlie's campaigns in NYC, and he was so devoted to Clark in 2004, I have to give him a pass this time around.

[Erin Elizabeth]

38. Thank the Lord.

How LONG did Tim Russert spend on that one non-issue on MTP yesterday morning? It was like the whole first half of the interview.

[livetohike]

39. It was 15 minutes. I was clocking it for the e-mail I knew I had to send

:hi:

[Tatiana]

40. CNN gets it. The other media outlets have been slow to catch on.

I've been going door to door and people keep telling me that they are sick of the Wright issue. Many folks in Indiana are actually BLAMING the media for their Pastorbation. It's been very eye-opening for me because I just assumed they'd believe whatever the "news" outlets reported. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

[thevoiceofreason]

41. But what will Lou Dobbs do?

I'll believe it when I see it.

[crankychatter]

46. he'll continue softening up the public to accept the presence of internment camps

that's his job

this has been more like, a side "gig"

[graycem]

43. Now that the damage has been done I guess..

at least until October. But good, maybe they did get the message when people like many of us, changed the channel at every utterance of Rev.Wright for the last 2 weeks.

[knixphan]

49. 'our viewers want us to move on.'

nice

[grantcart]

50. Here is the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x127888

[crankychatter]

52. i just reviewed that segment on CNN... he said "TODAY"

I don't think he meant, EVER... and I'll bet it was just for that segment.

[JuniperLea]

53. How is spewing negativity good for Obama?

I thought he said he was against negative campaigning.