When Pundits Decide
By John Amato Sunday May 11, 2008 9:00pm
The NY Times caught the same thing that I noticed the night of the Indiana/NC primary and front paged this story about their absolute hubris.
The moment came shortly after midnight Eastern time, captured in a devastatingly declarative statement from Tim Russert of NBC News: “We now know who the Democratic nominee’s going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it,” he said on MSNBC. “Those closest to her will give her a hard-headed analysis, and if they lay it all out, they’ll say: ‘What is the rationale? What do we say to the undeclared super delegates tomorrow? Why do we tell them you’re staying in the race?’ And tonight, there’s no good answer for that.”
It was not exactly Walter Cronkite declaring that the Vietnam War would end in stalemate. But the impact was apparent almost immediately, starting with The Drudge Report, the online news billboard that is the home page to many political reporters in Washington and news producers in New York. It had as its lead story a link to a YouTube clip of Mr. Russert’s comments, accompanied by a photograph of a beaming Mr. Obama with his wife, Michelle, and the headline, “The Nominee.”
We've all been talking about how pompous and lousy our punditry class is and how they want to choose our candidates and select the issues (or controversies---phony or not) that should be covered while ignoring policies that have a real impact on all Americans. It's been pretty sickening all around. Eric Boehlert wrote this great column weeks before Tuesday's primary called "So now the press tells candidates when to quit?"
History continues to unfold on many levels as the protracted Democratic Party primary race marches on, featuring the first woman and the first African-American with a real shot at winning the White House. Here's another first: the press's unique push to get a competitive White House hopeful to drop out of the race. It's unprecedented.
Looking back through modern U.S. campaigns, there's simply no media model for so many members of the press to try to drive a competitive candidate from the field while the primary season is still unfolding...read on
The Russerts are not supposed to declare outcomes before it actually happens. That's the job of opinion pundits, but not for the head of a major news department.
Since they were unsuccessful in their efforts, Howard Kurtz explains the media's new role for Hillary Clinton in his article called: The Ultimate Punishment
The media have figured out how to end the Democratic race. Declaring it over doesn't work. Urging Hillary Clinton to drop out doesn't work. Putting Barack Obama on the cover of Time as the nominee doesn't work.
What does work--ah, this is fiendishly clever--is to simply ignore the race. Many journalists are just moving on. What will become a tsunami of speculation about whom Obama will pick as his running mate is already under way. That's not to say the MSM isn't reporting on Hillary's campaign stops, her $6-million loan to her struggling operation, the trickle of superdelegates toward Obama and similar developments. But we are now treating Obama as The Man.
Nice media, good media, abandon your function. My point on this is not about delegates or the popular vote or any one candidate or who has won or lost. It's about the media's behavior and the role they are playing during the process. Just think about this. Why is the polling data saying that a greater percentage of Hillary voters will not vote for Obama? Check out this Gallop poll.
Clinton supporters appear to be somewhat more reactive than Obama supporters. Twenty-eight percent of the former indicate that if Clinton is not the nominee -- and Obama is -- they would support McCain. That compares to 19% of Obama supporters who would support McCain if Obama is not the nominee -- and Clinton is...read on
The on-line community is solidly behind Obama and I've read many posts and comments saying Obama voters would never, ever vote for Hillary so when I first heard these statistics on teevee I was quite surprised. Then I realized what is happening here. The media is fueling their anger. It's that simple. And there are a lot of rank and file Democratic voters who are very upset. I might add that a few bloggers have had their bodies snatched away too. And on CNN Sunday, this notion was validated by Roger Simon:
SIMON: ...I find that if you go into Hillary crowds, the anger you find on the part of her supporters, especially women supporters, is directed not against Barack Obama, but against the media.
ZERNIKE: Yes. I mean, I think what people were reacting to this week wasn't so much the media declaring the race over, as it was this kind of "Ding dong the witch is dead" quality about that tone to the comments. And I do think people are angry.
And I think when you look at, you know, the percentages of Hillary Clinton supporters who say they won't support Obama, I think Roger is right. They're mad at -- they're mad at the media. They're not necessarily mad at Obama.
They talk about it like it was somebody else who did it instead of themselves.
They showed they can give Barack the treatment too during the Wright business and they'll be doing it with gusto going forward, I'm sure.
I do believe no matter who wins the nomination, (It looks like Obama) the Democratic party will unite in the end, but this information is very important to me and should be to you I would hope.
I say again, it doesn't matter what candidate we're talking about or who you are supporting---the media has never acted like this before. That's astounding to me, but after the way they covered the Bush administration all these years I guess I shouldn't be. That's why I'm highlighting this to you. We always have to hold the media accountable for their behavior. I've been focusing on the horrendous Military Analysts story for this reason. Have you seen the networks cover this major story much at all? I haven't. It's partially responsible for the disaster known as the Iraq war. Glenn Greenwald had an email conversation with Rumsfeld's man, Di Rita over his role in the scandal. I realized Di Rita was probably lying to Howard Kurtz over the weekend and asked Glenn to check it out.
But before the DoD released these emails to the public, Di Rita -- on April 27, 2008 -- appeared on CNN's Reliable Sources, was questioned by Howard Kurtz about the program's purposes, and made statements that, as we now know from those documents, were completely false (h/t John Amato via email):
KURTZ: I talked to retired Colonel Bill Cowan, who was a Fox military analyst. He said that three years ago, after he criticized the war effort on "The O'Reilly Factor," he was booted off the group, was never invited to another briefing, never got another telephone call, never got another e-mail. So it sounds like access was provided to those who weren't too critical.
DI RITA: I don't know anything. I heard -- I saw that in the story. I've heard other assertions to that effect. It was certainly not the intent.
What Di Rita denied knowing about -- that "access was provided to those who weren't too critical" -- was exactly what the plan he endorsed provided.
Thank you, Glenn. He did an outstanding job of exposing Di Rita's role in the scam of the American people. I emailed Howard Kurtz to ask his opinion on this matter also. I'll let you know what he says.
To wrap this up, I do hope that everybody keeps an eye on the Villagers. I know C&Lers are because they email me their letters to editors about their blatant disregard for their role every day. Remember, how quick were they to jump on the Rev. Wright saga and how did they handle John McCain's---Catholic hating Pastor John Hagee? Were their endless loops of Hagee's rants on teevee? O'Reilly mentioned it, but let him skate easily away like most pundits do on every issue. Did he ask why McCain sought out his endorsement? Nope, he allowed him to spin it that Hagee just happened to endorse him which is a partial truth. Or the fact that his wife will not release her tax information. (The 'Cindy McCain Watch' continues) Why not? Who knows, the media doesn't care so they won't bother to ask. I'm sure we'll see much more of this behavior as November roles around. Stay tuned and sound off...
Login or Register to post comments.
I always thought Russerts was a potato. (head)
Now I know.
By the way, which military "advisor" was he in bed with?
just another unmoral gop pundit taking orders
from the reichwingneocons. he talks and gets anal itch.
The media over sensationalizes the news. In a effort to "scoop" or get the story first, the stick their feet in their mouths.
Wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last.
I always thought Russert was a potato (head).
Now I know.
BTW, which ex-military advisor was he in bed with when Russert decided for the country that Iraq was a threat and must be attacked?
Tim, do us a favor and shut your pie-hole.
JoGoBamma(formerly Jo) @ 4:
Didn't I just say that upstream? Or somthing similar? Damned machine acting up again.
The only reason Hillary Clinton is still in the race is because she needs to raise more money to cover her losses rather than paying out of her own packet!
so Hillary's not toast and hasn't been for months?
it is over though. if you still think hillary can win you either don't understand math or don't understand the democratic primary system. and it's not true that the media has never acted like this before. they ALWAYS compete to be the first to call elections.
While I do agree that it is over and Obama is the nominee, I totally agree that Russert was completely out of line. Was floored when I saw him say this.
I think this video says it all at this point
only the msm and "the russerites"? our own bloggersphere had its own too as i recall huffpost also had the headline “The Nominee.” proudly plastered up.
hillary hatred abounds and is very enticing bandwagon when a better approach might be, what might be best after she *finally* gives (or is forced to give) up?
we don't *have* to follow the msm's lead you know.
It's "almost" enough to make me wish Hillary could pull a rabbit out of her hat and win this sucker.
Just to mode Tim Russert and the rest of the asshats in the MSM.
This cycle was a disgusting spectacle like the Iraq occupation with the corporate media.
Instead of pimping war, they pimped Obama.
They will turn on Obama and continue to give McCain a free pass.
Know how to shut Russert up? Put a Boston Cream Pie in front of him and tell him you stole it from a food bank in New Orleans where iot was headed to a starving family.
Russert was right. His only fault was not explaining the media should have called an end to this ridiculousness months ago, they were the ones keeping her narrative relevant. Clinton has been mathematically finished for quite a while now.
lafin gas @ 7:
Bada Bing, give that poster a CEEEGAR.
Also, Give plenty and give often to the Presidential Candidacy of "Former GOP Rep" Bill Barr on the Libertarian ticket.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90K4OUG0&show_article=1
You go Bill. Spout your Conservo crap and steal votes from McFlip-flop, by the thousands. And talk about CHAOS THEORY, HEY RUSH, SUCK ON THIS.
Go Bill Racer, Go Bill Racer, go Bill Racer...gooooo.
I fu(king LOVE IT!!!! I hope another wingnut muddfugger comes out on the Conservative ticket and totally blows McCrazy out of the FU(KING water.
WOOOO HOOOO.
Yes, McDonalds, "I AM LOVING IT!"
I think this is overblown. People hate the media for using pundits instead of reporting the facts. Instead of telling us the facts and realities of political situations, pundits from each side of the debate try to spin the truth to represent their interests. Sometimes the facts of the issues are exposed, but too often the spin obscures it.
Now we have a media figure stating what plenty of people have known for a month - mathematically Clinton can't win unless something politically suicidal happens to Obama. Yes it could happen, but so could both Clinton and Obama meltdown - and then wouldn't John Edwards hate himself for not staying in!
Well Clinton and Obama aren't likely to meltdown, so Edwards was right to drop out. Obama isn't likely to meltdown, so Clinton should have dropped out after Pennsylvania.
The media is on all day, every day. I doubt Wolf Blitzer has a home he is on so much. Now just think, there are about maybe 20 talking heads we are all familiar with: Tim, Chris Matthews, David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, David Shuster, KO, Rachel Maddow, Richard Wolffe, Jonathan Alter, Howard Fineman, O'Reilly, Dan Abrams, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Mika B, Hannity, Colmes, Brit Hume, Wolf, Jack Cafferty. And they are paid big bucks to do what? Talk. That's all they do. Talk, talk, talk. So pick a candidate and let's see if we can show our corporate bosses how important we are by slanting the race between one candidate or another. This shows our collective paymasters how good we are in picking a winner and the ordinary guy out there watching will be so impressed. To hell with democracy, decency, or fair play. We are the Big Guys to watch. So when we declare the race is over, the race is over. End of story. Now let's get on to better things like the latest blonde disappearance.
Hats off to C&L for having the cajones to call the MSM et all out on this..
But it's about 4 months overdue.
Now that the MSM and HuffPo have run all the headlines about 'their candidate", someone, perhaps actual journalists, are starting to take notice about how the majority of voters feel about this coronation.
Before I'm labeled as racist, I've supported Hillary because, as a resident of Michigan (where my vote
has not been counted) we have waited a loooooong time for a turn in the economy. The recession for Michigan started not long after the monkey boy came to power.
Don't expect too many voters in Michigan jump at the chance to put another inexperienced guy at the helm.
Been there, didn't work.
Don't care what Timmy, Matthews and Olbermann are telling us. But they'll figure it out eventually.
There are millions of us who have turned off MSNBC.
FBush @ 20:
It was not just MSNBC and the progressive blogs.
Jack Cafferty did a hit piece on the Clintons every single day.
He quoted Peggy Noonan and other RW pundits to attack President Clinton.
It was beyond pathetic.
CNN attacked her shamelessly.
Well, all fine and good, the MSM are going to do to drive the better headline.
But I'll say this as I've said before. As a FL voter, I'm mad as hell that my vote doesn't count and the millions that feel the way I do won't change just because the Blogger Boyz and the MSM say so.
"The Russerts are not supposed to declare outcomes before it actually happens. That’s the job of opinion pundits, but not for the head of a major news department."
BULLSHIT. Everybody here already knows that Diebold has that job locked up. ;)
I'm usually with you guys on this stuff, but c'mon he was just stating fact here.
I agree with everyone else that says that this is being overblown. Did he have to say it? No. But did he somehow change the facts but stating the obvious? No.
I think it was a bigger crime for the MSM to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt and carry her after 11 straight losses that she could somehow win by ignoring the pledged delegates which are party rules, then to admit the obvious when she was clearly defeated.
And it's far worse that Obama had to deal with Wright for a month or more, and McCain gets a free ride on Hagee and the other evangelical extremists. The ultimate crime is how the media sold the American public this war. Only PBS, Helen Thomas, Keith Olbermann, Jack Cafferty, and a couple of war correspondents were giving the facts.
I can't fake outrage for Russert stating the obvious. By not stating the obvious, he would be enabling the Clinton campaign to stick to their mission or circumventing the rules.
FBush - I'm one who turned off MSNBC. After being a hardcore viewer for at least six years. Chrissy lost me first after the Ann Coulter/Liz Edwards display. And sadly, Keith lost me with his bias.
I'm sure MSNBC could give a shit about me as a viewer. They can put on another episode of "Lockdown" for all I care.
*by stating the obvious
FBush @ 20:
oh excellent! so bush has been good for you and you'll be voting for mccain then?
We do not expect the media to be neutral. We expect the media to be disinterested and report the facts as clearly as they can be stated. In this case, Russert is asserting something passes muster and has passed muster for a few months now. He is very late to the ball, and his commentary has been riddled with inconsistencies and bluster for this entire primary season, but he is right in this particular instance nonetheless.
Reporting both sides as if they hold equal merit is a core problem with the press. Oftentimes both sides of an argument do not hold equal merit. The press almost seemed to realize this on the gas tax holiday issue. However, when George Bush says the sky is green, and the press report reads "Bush declares sky green; some Democrats voice opposition," we are justifiably pissed. So I don't understand how you're upset when the press tells Hillary Clinton that the sky isn't green.
After Russert's news career ends, hopefully soon, he can have the job of the Kool Aid Pitcher dude.
John, thanks for pointing out what has been obvious to a lot of feminist during this entire primary season. Anyone who thinks Sen. Clinton has NOT been in a race against her opponents AND the media, simply hasn't been paying attention.
I do place some of the blame on Obama. He could have spoken out about the sexism, but didn't. One would think a father of two daughters would be more concerned about how women are viewed. And make no mistake, a sexist remark directed at Hillary Clinton harms ALL women.
As others have said, if Clinton is the nominee I will work my heart out for her to win in November. If Obama is the nominee, I will work against John McSame. And in Nov I will hold my nose and vote.
BAC
I wonder what McBush's pastor Hagee would say about this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/12/the-angry-earth_n_101423.html
Must be a lot of "homersexul purades" going on across the globe!
FBush @ 20:
Oh, please, I'm, a racist too, and I probably have as much African DNA as Obama does.
Millions of people have caught on the fascist frat-pack mentality going on. That's why Hillary's still in the race, because WE, the other 50% that's "invisible," aren't down with the "Hope & Unity, Everybody gets a Pony" candidate" - and KEEP voting for her.
Why? She's like the Kanye West/Daft Punk song, Bigger, better, faster, stronger. Smarter, with a plan.
But whatever, flame away, it ain't gonna change my mind.
abarts @ 26:
I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. MSNBC is more representative of the netroots and blogosphere than any other network in my opinion. You guys can hate Russert and Matthews, but who are the real alternatives on network TV? The netroots and blogosphere are largely made up of political outsiders. The Clintons are the ULTIMATE INSIDERS. I remember a lot of you on the message boards were TRASHING them a few years ago because of their involvement in the DLC. So why would someone like Olberman, the ultimate outsider, have a un-bias opinion about Hillary, the ultimate insider?
If you want fair Clinton coverage then watch CNN because they're all nothing but a bunch of Insiders.
Boy, and here I am cursing at the media for artificially keeping this race alive. Wasn't that what we were all complaining about just last month?
If one tried one could not create better set of comments to demonstrate just how big a set of delusional fools the Obamacans are.
Tim Russert goes overtly Fascist and declares the Democratic Primary over, when it is not, and that's a good, great and just okay thing because it means....
The Precious One 'wins'.
I'll be back, unless banned, to laugh long and loudly in your faces as Ol' PumpkinHaid broadcasts a Obama hit piece featuring one of the Tres Amigos, Wright, Rezko, and Auchi, every night from the day Obama is actually declared the winner, if that happens, of the Dem primary until McSame pounds The Precious One into mush in the GE with the help of PH here and his buddies.
Just think back to your complacency here as PumpkinHead repeatedly highlight's Obama's record, character and yes, marriage night after night as you sit there glassy-eyed from one too many Bud's angry and impotent as PH does Barry like he's done The Hill. Dirt, lies, facts in the end PH will twist it into a masterpiece of political assassination. And....yeah, it will be easy for him...he's got so much great dirt to smear Senator 'Hopey' with...much of it true. And who will speak out against him. You....hahahahhah....if any Obamcan opens their yap Russert will shut them up with, 'We're only treating Obama as we did Hillary what's the problem...We are fair and ballanced....'
This campaign has opened my eyes. I used to think all the mentally challenged and low-info idiots hung at RedState of LGF...
Was I ever wrong.
BAC @ 31:
If Obama was really interested in "Unity" - he would have put a stop to the hate game as Hillary as in many recorded occasions. C'mon, he know that being a guy benefits him completely. It's the "Bros before Hos" pledge.
So is this C&L finally coming out fully for Clinton? Seriously, this is Taylor Marsh level denial here.
Spoiler: the race has been over for a while now, and Indiana pretty much sewed it up statistically. Come on Crooks and Liars, let's move past this kind of finger wagging and get to the real business of exposing the conservative agenda for what it is.
The bad guys lost, a new day is upon us.
sassafra @ 28:
Re-read Sassafras.
Nowhere does it state that.
What's with you Obama supporters? Try discussing, not attacking.
You get your point across a little more convincingly.
If you can't do that, hang with Huffpo. You get to attack all you want on that blog without
being anchored with reasonable discussion.
I thought I read somewhere about a month ago or so (maybe at TalkingPointsMemo or possibly even here) a post that claimed it was virtually impossible for Clinton to win because the 'numbers didn't add up.' I'm a bit confused with the whole superdelegate phenomenon, and who's pledged to support whom and what not. So, basically I don't know what to think regarding Clinton's actual ability to become the Democratic presidential candidate. When pundits say things like Russert said I find myself asking if it's either the media catching up to the reality or creating the reality.
A.Citizen @ 36:
lol
Travis @ 38:
Hey, let me say this. C&L have been acting like TRUE DEMOCRATS SHOULD HAVE, in all this election. They never picked sides, they never incited one way or another.
In fact, one day, I complained to Nicole & John becase of all the Obama ads on their site, yet none for Hillary. I was educated on the Google Ad Magic and of course, Obama's campaign had paid tons more money for that.
So I'm here to kick you down, sir/madam. Don't mess with C&L - it's been the ONLY place on the web where both Democratic sides can converge and have dialogue.
A.Citizen @ 36:
Totally agree with you!
BAC @ 31:
THIS IS HILARIOUS!!!
Why does Obama have to be EVERYTHING to EVERYONE? Everywhere I go on these message boards, another person is crying that Obama needs to give a speech on Israel, that Obama needs to give a speech on sexism, that Obama needs to give a speech on Saving the Whales.
How many speeches have Hillary given her entire career about anything important? Who can best speak to the issues facing women than a actual woman? If Hillary is so strong, then she woulda, coulda, shoulda given that speech herself. Just like Hillary would have ZERO credibility giving a speech on race, Obama would have ZERO credibility giving a speech on sexism and most people would say he was pandering for the women's vote.
Obama NEVER said anything negative about Hillary being a woman. Unfortunately, she couldn't return the favor about her, Bill and Ferraro shutting up about his race to her own demise.
At the end of the day, if the media was so sexist and anti-Hillary, then please explain to me how in the hell was she able to get this far in the election? Up until North Carolina, the media was calling it a TIE even though she was down on every scorecard with little chance to come back. Please explain to me how Obama wouldn't been given the same courtesy if the roles were reversed.
The guy ran a brilliant campaign and won fair and square. At the end of the day, it's Hillary's own fault. Obama didn't cast her vote for Iraq. Obama didn't tell her to run on experience and as the inevitable candidate in Iowa when the nation wanted change. Obama didn't tell Bill to try to marginalize him in South Carolina. Obama didn't tell them not to compete in caucus states. Obama didn't tell them not to have a post-Super Tuesday strategy. And Obama didn't tell her to pander on the gas tax holiday. And Obama didn't drive her campaign $20 million in debt by booking suites in Vegas among other things.
Give the guy a break...
Travis @ 38:
Yeah man. This race would have been over how long ago had the media not covered things like Wright and Hillary's tears like their lives depended on it. To me, the media has kept this race going where it should have been over long ago. I've never said a good word about Mitt Romney in my life, but man, at least he knew when he'd thrown enough of his own money into a losing cause.
So I'm here to kick you down, sir/madam. Don't mess with C&L - it's been the ONLY place on the web where both Democratic sides can converge and have dialogue.
So true.
I don't know why all these pundits keep saying it's over for HRC, it's not.
Obama is leading her by 170 delegates, and by 4 super delegates.
There are still states in play here. I'm not sure of the delegates per state right now, But it's not an Extreme stretch for her to
bounce in the next few weeks.
Oregon has a registered 34% Independant voters. That "could' spell a little trouble for Obama, but probably not.
But I do see HRC taking Montana and South Dakota. And Yes, West Virginia as well.
I'll bet Sen Obama wishes he would of sealed up this nomination weeks ago.
And for those who said she should of gotten out, Yeah , Right, fuck the people who haven't had a chance to vote yet.
That's real Democratic of ya.
Whoa... the MSM reports a fact for once, and the majority of posters here rip their heads off!!! Unbelievable... Well, see if I care.
Personally I'm torn. On one hand I don't think Hillary should quit until Obama gets the rest of the 150 delegates he needs to secure the nomination... (it would look bad for the nominee to lose a state like West Virginia when there is only one candidate) and on the other I wish she would just go away before she irreparably damages the democratic nominee.
Travis @ 38:
I'm talking about the media only. I made that as clear as possible. I'm not sure how you could say I'm supporting a candidate. I've written many posts defending Obama from the media too.
getalife @ 21:
That is ridiculous.
I have a question. What to you say to millions of women who only bothered paying attention to politics because they were excited about voting for the first female president? Do you just say, i'm sorry that your candidate was tossed out to the curb like yesterdays garbage,but for the good of the country you should vote for the man most responsible for it?
Steve @ 40:
See, this is the point worth making and thank you. THIS AIN'T OVER. The math isn't over or done for both of them. So what's the push for Hillary to quit? Isn't the US a democracy, whre leaders are voted not appointed?
Oh wait...
"Stating it more bluntly, Bob Franken, the political analyst, told the MSNBC host Dan Abrams shortly after 2 a.m. Eastern time, “Let’s put it right on the table: It’s over. It’s over.”
And it picked up again on the major morning news programs in a devastating cascade of sound bites for Mrs. Clinton and her campaign."
simply death knells for the Clinton campaign, long overdue. what's the story here? the media facing facts?
FBush @ 46:
So I'm here to kick you down, sir/madam. Don't mess with C&L - it's been the ONLY place on the web where both Democratic sides can converge and have dialogue.
So true.
FBush @ 46:
So I'm here to kick you down, sir/madam. Don't mess with C&L - it's been the ONLY place on the web where both Democratic sides can converge and have dialogue.
So true.
That's been my goal all along so thanks. I think we've done that pretty well and made sure to focus on McCain.
John Amato @ 49:
Criminey the #'s don't lie. Period.
Hillary's chance is spinning the hard working white voters, thus painting Obama as blackest candidate, and doing a democratic coup.
I say kudos to the media for finally telling the truth. Good for them. It was overdue.
Ahaha. See what happens when you post something that doesn't follow the carefully given narrative?
People are too embarrassed to admit that this time the media is biased in favor of their candidate.
Don't worry, they'll go back to assaulting your beloved messiah as soon as they do their best to convince people that Hillary's lost before she really has.
John Amato @ 54:
So true.
That's been my goal all along so thanks. I think we've done that pretty well and made sure to focus on McCain.
mudshark @ 47:
Oregon has a closed Primary. The 34% of Oregonians that are registered as Independents can't vote in the Democratic Primary.
FBush @ 46:
So I'm here to kick you down, sir/madam. Don't mess with C&L - it's been the ONLY place on the web where both Democratic sides can converge and have dialogue.
So true.
For real, not to be a total kiss azz, but it really is nice to still have a webspace/blog, whatever, to hear both views out. C&L have done a great job at keeping the balance and I personally love them because of it. I should know. I'm a Hillary supporter, and even I got kicked out of my own party thanks to Donna Brazile and her infamous comment on CNN.
April @ 50:
Again—another reasoned argument from an Obama supporter.
Not knocking any Obama supporters here. Just looking for the MSM to cover the concerns
of a lot of voters with regard to Obama's experience.
Instead of specific policy issues, they want to talk Vegas odds.
Steve @ 40:
Super delegates are not pledged to support anyone. They can publicly switch support for either candidate every day up until the convention if they choose too.
The issue was that pledged delegates, those who actually represent the will of the voters in each state. They are primarily locked to each candidate (they can actually switch too up until a certain point, but it rarely happens and too confusing to explain) and Obama mathematically had insurmountable lead after winning 11 straight contests and his margins of victory. Technically, there were a lot of contests left that could go either way. But based on the demographics, you could pretty much figure out who would win each state and by how much which led everyone to the conclusion that the race was over. Because the only way for Hillary to win was to have a majority of the Super delegates to vote for her which would put them in the difficult position of going against the pledged delegates, those who represented the actual voters.
The media had NOTHING to do with the outcome because this race was pretty much decided after Obama got through Super Tuesday and Hillary all but forfeited 11 straight contests afterwards because of her BIG STATE strategy. During that time, Obama collected a LARGE amount of pledged delegates to basically lock of the nomination.
truth be told @ 51:
most female voters i know that supported Clinton agree that she has completely squandered any respect she had as the woman candidate by turning into an insane racist/republican monster. after i said, "i kinda feel sorry for hillary" one of my feminist friends said, "why do you feel sorry for hillary? she deserves it. she did this all to herself."
I Like Pie @ 58:
Thanks for the info, but as I said. "probably not"
Oh, I do see her taking Puerto Rico as well. But I have one question, How the hell does a country get to vote in this nations elections? Even if it's only delegates? I know PR is in the Commonweath but , how does that work?
truth be told @ 51:
THANK YOU. Inspiration doesn't only come from Barack!
morning @ 62:
funny, all the women I know still like her, except my mom( she likes Obama)
morning @ 62:
How? She's the only one who's actually insisting on healthcare for /everybody/ and she's hardcore about supporting the unions, both of which Obama's rather spectacularly ignored as an issue.
John Amato @ 54:
So true.
FBush @ 46:
So I'm here to kick you down, sir/madam. Don't mess with C&L - it's been the ONLY place on the web where both Democratic sides can converge and have dialogue.
So true.
That's been my goal all along so thanks. I think we've done that pretty well and made sure to focus on McCain.
Hey, I said that, not FBush! (Kidding!)
SM @ 67:
yes, you did...
I deleted the blockquote when I was quoting you.
Spot on!
FBush @ 46:
So I'm here to kick you down, sir/madam. Don't mess with C&L - it's been the ONLY place on the web where both Democratic sides can converge and have dialogue.
So true.
That's been my goal all along so thanks. I think we've done that pretty well and made sure to focus on McCain.
Hey, I said that, not FBush! (Kidding!)
You know, I think the true sign of advancement against sexism is the fact that we (some of we) can say, sure, a woman, but not this woman this time. No big whoop.
Also: Waaay upthread someone used the term "coronation" re: Obama derogatorily. I remember QUITE well when Clinton was the candidate being "coronated" prematurely- like last Fall and Winter.