gmifx qbmkc xbqjlgu oientfs ulzeptbgw zmwnckgl ewpinx

gmifx qbmkc xbqjlgu oientfs ulzeptbgw zmwnckgl ewpinx

gmifx qbmkc xbqjlgu oientfs ulzeptbgw zmwnckgl ewpinx

gmifx qbmkc xbqjlgu oientfs ulzeptbgw zmwnckgl ewpinx

If Obama wins the nomination and then the general election, it will not be representative of the whole population. Why? Election in America is not compulsory...hence a more active group of people (African-American)who voted in great numbers for Obama (obviously because he is black) by least 80% can eventually decide the presidency.

The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll out today says that neither Clinton or Obama would beat MCain. The Poll also says Hillary, not Obama is more highly favored by voters, by 10 points over McCain, to handle the economy. Let's see how the news is going to spin that. It is undeniable that Hillary has taken ALL the hits. It's not Hillary's fault that the media is biased: nothing she or Bill have not warrants the attacks..the media needs to take a good hard look at their ethical shortcomings...

thank you dennydean for understanding what the Clinton supporters are going through trying to have a reasonable conversation with the Obamtrons. Last night I found a Hillary sign to put in my front yard and this morning I found it ripped up and thrown on my front lawn. These tactics have been the hallmark of Karl Rove, its heartbreaking to see it now being used by 'some of' the Obama supporters. Again these are the same folks who tell us we must vote for Senator Obama to bring the country together.

Lannie Davis this morning on MSNBC said that he didn't understand why the Clinton campaign was not using a 2006 Obama quote where he said his policy was then no different then W's, and when asked in 2005 how he would vote on the war when he was able to vote in the US Senate, that he really couldn't answer that question. I have no problem with Senator Obama's speech in 2002 opposing the war while he was an Illinois State Senator, but even he refused to vote to cut off funding for the war, a position that even his most vocal supporters can not explain; he has refused to vote to cut off funding and wouldn't say that he would have voted against the war if in the Senate in 2002 because that would have been a real act of courage that we really could have rallied behind. Senator Obama you are no Congressman Kusinich.

"its not a particularly good political strategy to drive people away who you just may need to come back to and ask for their and their family's support."
Posted by: leichtman | February 27, 2008 12:26 AM
---------
Spot on! These Obamatrons have antagonized and turned so many people off that I wonder what they are going to do in November to get them to vote, if their candidate is the nominee - use the same thug and insult tactics, dragging people by force to vote for Obama? What they fail to understand is that there are not enough Obamatrons out there to win Obama the presidency. They need every single voter who's voted for and supports Hillary. Without those votes, they would continue to faint and worship at their baghwan's feet in Chicago, but never in the White House!

I've decided not to engage in anything resembling discourse, debate or discussions of any kind with Obama sect members. The only thing they do is hurl insults at anyone who dares not to worship at their baghwan's feet or drink his kool-aid fancy rhetoric....

Thank God, Hillary supporters do not hate or despise Obama as much as his supporters hate her (their hatred is even worse than right-wingers hatred of her and progressives, if you ask me). Some claim lamely that their hatred of Hillary is because of her Iraq war vote, when instead it's W, the neocons, media and Congress Republicans who dragged the country to war....meaning no matter how Hillary or any other Senator had voted, W and his cabal of war-mongers were going to invade Iraq anyway. Add to the fact that their so-called "war opponent", Obama, was NOT in Congress in 2002 (elected in 2005); but has NOT voted against a single funding of the war, and continues to do so even as he leads his cult members to believe he's against the war!

I sometimes wonder whether Obama's supporters are real Democrats, or some wild-eyed folks reliving Woodstock or some other crazy rock concert in Lala land!

The media hates Hillary. That's a fact! Obamatrons hate Hillary. Fact! The media loves Obama because they hate Hillary. Fact! The media and pundits love McCain more than they love Obama. Meaning, the minute they get rid of their "enemy", Hillary, it would be Obama-bashing. Fact!

apparently novamat has learned in his polysych coures that the best way to win elections is to be abusive and insult your opponents. Having thought about that tonight, I have come to realize that Senator Obama is much more gracious apparently then 'some' of his hatefilled supporters. While I am still not convinced that it is over, like his supporters want to clammer, if it is I will try as hard as his bloggers have made it, to ignore their generally obnoxious behavior in the general electon. And believe me, that offer is much more generous then what I have been hearing on the campaign from others. If you truly are supporting Senator Obama and hope that he wins on Tuesday and in November you really need to tone down your rhetoric. The only thing you are succeeding to do is to drive away folks that you really will need if your guy is the nominee in Nov. Just think about that sir before you come here and spew your vennom. Perhaps you have never worked in a Presidential campaign before, but its not a particularly good political strategy to drive people away who you just may need to come back to and ask for their and their family's support.

I recently asked Governor Rendell why he felt he had to mention his opinion that (in Pennsylvania) "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in remarks that appeared in Tuesday's paper."

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/12/pa-gov-ed-rendell-some-white-voters-not-ready-to-elect-black-candidate/

I got a two page letter from the Governor's office, which did not apologize for his comments.

I don't support Senator Obama casually. I support him because of his stance against the war in Iraq.

Governor Rendell, this movement is sailing without you, but it's not too late. Endorse Senator Obama for the sake of Pennsylvania.

Jim Lyons
Alternate Delegate Pledged to Senator Obama
11th CD - Monroe County, PA

http://eburgobama08.org/about

You have to know what a great mayor and governor Ed Rendell has been to Philadelphia and PA.He also is a great politician of the old school.He very seldom lets his feathers get ruffled in public.He is not a fool and he is very loyal.This is much like his constituency that is why unless Hillary tells us otherwise,she will carry the PA primary.I am more concerned with some of the people OB has working for him.Axelrod helped to deliver one of the worse mayors that Philadelphia ever had.What about the lobbyist that are working his campaign? How is he going to take care of that situation when some of them are his friends.On Democracy Now one of his chief foreign advisors stated that he would add 90,000 to the military.Why,if he is really going to pull out of Iraq??????

iraleichtman, I was hoping for an intelligent Clinton supporter. Instead you're just the kingofzouk of Clinton supporters, and I value my time too much. Hasta.

I will only add that I could never figure out why the Hillary campagh hired Penn and Wolfson. These two have been against Bubba and Hillary for many years, simular to Shrum, that none of them have never been in favor of any Dem, but claim to be, and has played a major role in the defeat of Dems that are stupid enough to hire them, YES!! Hillary is to blame for this, how she could not KNOW is beyond the pale.

importance of California (which "no one" has disputed that Obama will win anyway too), "

How arrogant of you, but hey we are used to such arrogance from your side. No one has disputed that Obama has won California, interesting spin..

Running out of money? Not in your dreams. She has raised 1.2 million dollars per day over the last 18 days. Broke, hardly.

Loses or DRAWS. So once again YOU get to decide how to interpret the vote in Ohio that hasn't even happened yet. Is this the spins, the marching orders you are getting from the Obama campaign? If Hillary wins in California and on Tuesday in Ohio according to YOU, she loses. If she wins by 2%, 5%, 8% you get to call it a Draw. Who made you god?

And again do you not understand that it takes 2,025 delegates to earn the nomination. What is it about that number that you and your campaign do not understand. And exactly how does Obama get to 2,025 unless Senator Clinton hands YOU the nomination and you get a lot more of the superdelegates who you insult and berate and carries Pennsylvania which is not going to happen.

So instead you set up a strawman argument insisting that Senator Clinton do exactly what YOU instruct her to do. Do you not have any understanding about politics and how this hostile--know it all attitude is driving lifelong Dems away from the party, and that IF you are right and your guy wins, you will have completely insulted, alienated and abused a large part of the Democratic Party. I am struggling as to who I will support in November if my candidate does not succeed, and every time I read posts like yours it makes my decision and millions of others who share my feelings, easier.

I will not play your game anymore and I doubt too many folks here are interested.

I will remind you of the all out effort to stop Hillary from getting the Dem nomination. Those in favor of Obama, who I still believe has ZERO chance of being elected in 08, are mostly Hillary "Haters" and Repubs that "FEAR" her the most. I am absolutely convinced that if he/Obama does get the nomination, he will lose as the Repubs are counting on.

iraleichtman, you never did answer my question. If Hillary loses or draws in Ohio, should she quit the race?

Just from the math (and I'll do the math for you if you insist), her only chance to get to that magical 2025 is by piling up pledged delegates on Tuesday. Which means winning significantly in Ohio *and* Texas *and* Rhode Island. Which isn't going to happen, if the polls and the trends of the polls are accurate.

If she win big next Tuesday, you can bluster all you want about the electoral importance of California (which no one has disputed that Obama will win anyway too), the numbers just aren't there for her, with or without Michigan and Florida (which won't happen unless she's already in the delegate lead). Her only chance then will be to keep the pledged delegate lead down enough over the remaining few states that she can pull off a superdelegate coup in Denver. That too is looking less and less likely.

And I should point out that this is all assuming things remain static. That's not a safe assumption. Clearly the national numbers have been moving towards Obama, and at some point Hillary runs out of money. Pennsylvania may look winnable now for her, but if her campaign goes dark and stays dark past next Tuesday, she's essentially Joe Biden in a pantsuit.

This race has been over since Wisconsin certainly, but probably since Super Duper Tuesday. For all the moaning and groaning about the BAISED MEDIA, everyone's looking at these same numbers and coming to the same reasonable conclusions. The numbers just aren't there for her. 10% win in California or no.

So let me ask again. If Hillary loses or draws in Ohio, should she get out?

"Ohio delegates are no more important than Ohio" you are numerically correct, but to suggest that Ohio, Florida and California are as important as Utah and Montana is ridiculous and I am sure you understand that.
Perhaps the DNC has decided to write off millions of voters in Florida and Michigan. If they do so they do so at the party's peril. Its a mess and I acknowldge that the DNC screwed up the voters in those states but I would presume that even the well meaning Obama supporters here would agree that those are two very important states in the general election, and their delegate seating needs to be resolved now and not in August. Each side will make its legitimate points about those delegates. I think the DNC needs to cough up the money and have a 2 week primary vote and a debate in each state in April, as neither side will be satisfied otherwise and the RNC will be the winner.

Yes, plain and simple. The media has been totally unfair since about a month before Iowa. The reason for this (other than MSNBC and CNN's love for Obama), is simply that is OK TO BE SEXIST IN THE GOOD OLD USA. The media pundits on the cable news channels are SEXIST. I can't stand to watch Hardball, Countdown, or the Situation Room. I have turned it off. I was a very faithful viewer. It makes tummy turn.

But then again, I'm from MI where the votes don't count. Even though Obama's camp called my home several time to get me to vote uncommited. I was told that way when the delegates were seated, they could vote for who they wanted too. No vote now, no vote in the fall.

I will not vote for a "movement". I will only vote for solutions.

Also, why haven't we heard how Obama has given super delegates over 700,000 in the last 2 years, while Clinton has only given 200,000 in the last 8 years?

Also, doesn't anyone know that without the 60 votes in Congress, Obama can't get anything done. At Clinton has worked across the aisle. She would know what people to get on board for each issue facing us.....Obama has spent his time running for President. Clinton has been there 8 years.

McCain will eat him alive. If Obama wins, I will plug my nose and vote McCain, or sit it out.

What I don't like most about Obama is the supporters he attracts (read above and all over the web). They're some of the most hateful bunch I've seen since those who supported the GOP during their heyday. It's the same arrogance and lack of media scrutiny all over again. And who is this guy, Barack, anyway? What's he REALLY going to change?

The Democratic party looks no different today than the Republican party did a couple of years back. I will go with Nader if Obama is the Dem candidate. I'd hate to see another group of hate-mongers be soley represented as the voice of our nation. These Obama supporters are so dismissive of anyone who doesn't support their -- in my opinion -- uninspiring candidate. 100% hype!

*******************************
The peacekeeping and nation building continue, without a clear definition of the mission, which makes D timetables, as well as R protestations, all sound hollow [critique courtesy of my 23 year old daughter-the-chemist who has three friends in theatre who email her].
********************************

I would agree with this on the whole, but would just submit that continuing with no clear definition of a mission seems like a bigger mistake than not continuing.

Still, the lack of a clear goal with regard to Iraq is stunning.

It's glaringly obvious that any move Clinton makes will be chastised. She can never win. Presumably, the only safe stance is one of silent deference, in a corner, admitting that she has been bested by a man. A black man, at that.

It is cyclical American history: black men got the vote before women.

If a women came out with the vacuous platitudes which fire 'em up at Obama rallys, she's be roundly laughed out of the room as a pollyannaish airhead.

I'm no feminist, but the vitriolic coverage of Clinton vs. the glowing coverage of Obama speaks volumes. It is emotional, and not based on the candidate's platforms, which is the only thing which should matter.

ira, you appear to be doing a little selective rule-abiding.

You write:
"even if she won New York, California, New Jersey and arguably Florida and Michigan... I don't make those rules those are the guidelines of the DNC to become the Democratic nominee."

Don't the DNC rules specify that MI & FL don't get to seat any delegates because they didn't follow the DNC rules? Surely you don't mean to imply that those rules should be broken?

It also seems that the way the DNC awards large states for their size is by giving them more delegates. Whether the delegates are won in large states or small states is irrelevant to their weight at the convention. Likewise red states vs. blue states, or whether they were critical in the preceding general election. Ohio delegates are no more or less powerful than Montana delegates. So it seems that where Obama or Clinton won their delegates - according to the precious DNC rules - is irrelevant. As are FL & MI delegates (irrelevant, that is).

venice I make the pont because we are arguing over the role of the media and why the Obama supporters come here to argue that Hillary must get out of the way even if she won New York, California, New Jersey and arguably Florida and Michigan, and likely Ohio, the most important state in the 2004 election cycle. Neither Hillary or Obama is anyway near 2,025 delegates and the Obama supporters and the media have totally ignored that. I don't make those rules those are the guidelines of the DNC to become the Democratic nominee.

'The peacekeeping and nation building continue, without a clear definition of the mission,'

yes, mark, this is why i question McCain. he says that the insurgency is going to go on for 'years and years' and that we will stay until we achieve 'victory' -- it just sounds delusional to me. this is someone who thought we could have 'won' vietnam' --if only we'd stayed long enough.

actually if Florida, Michigan and the remaining Ca votes were counted, Hillary would likey be ahead in the popular vote. Its messy but those are the rules the DNC set up not me. I would have preferred some winner take all states which would have been more favorable to Hillary but the rules are what they are. We still need to hear from Ohio, Texas and Pa and decide what we are going to do with Fla and Michigan, unless we have decidite off those key states in Nov.,states Hillary won Fla by over 1 million votes. The DNC needs to make a decision now, about those voters, not at the convention. I would be OK with a 2 week primary in those 2 states winner takes all.(that is my opinion only). But the winner of the nomination will likely be the next President and I just can't buy into this argument well our side haso 1200 of 2025 delegates needed and it would just be difficult to go on. There are also hundreds of unreported delegates yet to be decided at state conventions in April and May in states that have already voted including in California. Again, its not an entitlement nor can we just stamp our feet and say our side is right, its for the highest office in the land. And incidentally its always from the Obama camp that we are told you can't dare go on even though even Senator Obama will require those same superdelegate votes to get to 2,025, but if its for his behalf oh that is different.
Incidentally king, only 19% of the country now support W, which means there are an awful lot of Republicans who agree that he is incompitent. I guess we should count you in as one of the 19 percenters.

The war in Iraq was won in a matter of weeks.

The peacekeeping and nation building continue, without a clear definition of the
mission, which makes D timetables, as well as R protestations, all sound hollow [critique courtesy of my 23 year old daughter-the-chemist who has three friends in theatre who email her].

Also, Gore lost, and America is still great, and GWB is the worst president in the lifetime of any of my kids. My 38 yr old son says "It's all good no matter who wins, b/c GWB will be gone."

All four of my adult kids generally agree on these principles. They are very different kids. Therefore they must be correct. Or not.

"My question above as to whether Senator Obama has garned 2,025 delegates has not been answered"

Are you serious? Impetuously demanding an answer to an obviously rhetorical question?

Ira - you are arguing with people who still maintain that gore won. and that the war is lost and that bush is evil and america is bad and...

Reality to them is not based in reality.

Ira, it appears that you're arguing that Sen Clinton should stay in the race, even if she could only win the Dem nomination if the superdelegates choose her over Sen Obama, who's won both more delegates and more popular votes. While its not mathematically impossible for Sen Clinton to reach the convention with more pledged delegates, it is becoming increasingly unlikely. Therefore, her only hope of winning the nomination is for the superdelegates to swing her way by wide margins. Does this seem like a strategy that would build cohesion within the Democratic party? Does it seem like a strategy that would prepare the nominee for the general election?

"That complaint has long been part of the under-the-radar conversations between Clinton operatives and members of the media,"

I'm not part of the media elite, but as I recall, the Clinton campaign has been very vocally whining about this since New Hampshire. I agree that the pundits were a little quick to write off Mrs. Clinton after Iowa but the Clinton campaign was a victim of it's own spin machine in raising expectations that Hillary was the inevitable winner.

It's evident that the Clinton campaign had NO game plan after Feb 5th because they drank their own kool aid that Hillary would be coronated on Feb 5th.

Is it the media's fault that the Clinton campaign had no Plan B to stem the tide of losses between Feb 5th and Mar 4th? Didn't they see they would be Guilianed by not winning at least one primary/caucus in between.

if she was planning to run the country the way she's run her campaign, "Ready on Day One" isn't flying with the voters.

I guess your campaign has now redefined the word win. What you are suggesting is that should Senator Obama lose the popular vote in Ohio by whatever number, 2%, 5%, 8%, that your campaign will call Hillary's win a loss. Interesting spin, nice try. By that same logic John Kerry's loss in Ohio in 2004 by 80,000 was in fact a draw and he is President. It is this spin on the media that was the topic of today's discussion. Hillary's winning California is a loss now by their count and now the bar is being set by his followers for Tuesday that if Senator Obama loses the Ohio popular vote they will call it a draw or a win. They have made the point of this querry: is the media bias in favor of Senator Obama? The answer now is absolutely clear.

iraleichtman, no, Obama won't be dropping out if he doesn't win the popular vote in Ohio. He'll still be well ahead in the delegate count even if Hillary wins by 20 points there. But she won't win by 20 points. Polls out today have her lead in Ohio down to the mid single digits.

Should Hillary drop out if Obama wins or draws in Ohio?

typo: 2,025 delegates

again the Obama supporters want to set up a threshold for winning states and spin and pummel the media until they agree with "their logic" and insult everyone who dares to disagree with the. Apparently if Hillary wins the poular vote in Ohio, a state I might remind you would have made Senator John Kerry President, that means absolutely nothing zero.

I guess we can ask your side the same question: If Senator Obama loses the poular vote next Tuesday in Ohio will he be dropping out? Again it takes 2,205 delegates to win the nomination not a number you would like to pull out of the air.

actually blarg California has 441 delegates and 62 alternates, most of whom have not been selected as of yet(you know that) and will be chosen at their state convention. You seem to act as though none of us have any knowledge about the political system other than you. My question above as to whether Senator Obama has garned 2,025 delegates has not been answered; and if so that would certainly be news to Senator Obama and the media, or have you in your desire to push your argument trying to misrepresnt the California primary also now changing the d Additionally sir you havelegate requirements to become the nominee. You have also still refused to answer why the media should totally overlook the importance of Ca, Fla, and Ohio in a Presidential election. Those states that you lost were certainly critical to the Presidential campaigns of V.P. Gore and Kerry.

I have a question for the Hillary supporters: if your candidate manages no better than a draw in the delegate haul next Tuesday, is it over for her? Should she drop out?

iraleichtman, with well over a million votes not even cast yet in Ohio, you might want to hold off on crowning Hillary the victor there.

Blarg, clearly it is arrogant, on your part, to use logic & reason to make your case.

IRAlie...: I have asked the question of many friends of why The Media support Obama to an almost amazing 100%. The answer I mostly get is The Media is/are controlled by the vast Military suppliers. This is something that most folks cannot understand by literally assuring the loss of life and limb to our troops for the benefit of profit to a very select few, is somehow the right thing to do. Frankly I cannot understand how the people are buying into this arguement.

Once again the arrogance from your side is just staggering.

one simple question for you: Does Senator Obama have 2,025 delegates, or in your infinite wisdom are you not aware that it takes 2,025 delegates to win the Democratic nomination, again sir it is not entitlement as you and the media seem so intent on telling us uninformed people.

And you totally missed my point. Senator Obama lost California by 10% points with a million votes still not counted, Florida by over a million votes and likely will lose Ohio. Again was California, Florida and Ohio important to the election of President Gore and President Kerry ?

I will wait for answers before allowing you to crown the victor which apparently you feel is an entitelement.

Ira, you really need to look up those delegate counts. Here's a link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

California has 370 delegates. Wisconsin, Maryland, Virginia, Washington, and Georgia have 392 delegates combined. So winning those 5 states is better than just winning California. Especially since Obama got 163 delegates in California, and Clinton got 140 delegates in those 5 states combined. If you think that Obama isn't "entitled" to the nomination despite winning more delegates, you just don't understand how this process works.

JSnapper wrote:
"I refer everyone to Massachusetts where Obama's friend ran on a similar platform of hope for governor. The honeymoon's over there and people aren't happy with their spouse."

Actually, at last count (December), he's at 48% approve, 42% disapprove. Better than John Kerry's numbers in his home state. Patrick's term has been no honeymoon but it's hardly an unmitigated disaster either.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=f1c0f1cc-3246-44cf-aa36-aaad8c0879ea

imagine had Hillary lost in California, New York and Fla. what the Obama camp would now be saying had she instead won a string of smaller state's who's total poulation likely does not even equal California's. As a Clinton supporter I commend Senator Obama's string of victories, but his losing megstates like New York, California, New Jersey and likely Ohio by a significant vote, does not entitle Senator Obama in any way to the nomination that his campaign and the media seem so intent on pushing. Ask President Gore or President Kerry if they think that winning Ca, Florida and Ohio are important in a general election.

I do have to say on this that I find it funny the Clinton's carping about media bias. They should become Republicans and then see just what they think of the fair and balanced MSM. I don't normally think that Michael Kinsley is bright or clever, but his article yesterday was really pretty good. He sums up his take of the NYTs McCain "news" story, which I would submit is a perfect example of media bias, as follows:

More troubling, however, is the issue of whether McCain's letter may have led some people to worry that other people might conclude that McCain's letter created the appearance of a conflict of interest, as well as the issue of whether the New York Times, in digging up this eight-year-old letter, was creating the possibility that some people might think there was a possibility of an appearance that the Times was suggesting the possibility of an appearance of a potential conflict of interest in McCain's behavior, along with the most distressing possibility of all: that in this very article I may be creating the possibility that some people might worry that other people might think that I have created the appearance of suggesting that the New York Times has created the possibility that some people might worry that other people might think that McCain has created the appearance that some people might worry that other people might think that there could be an appearance that McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022501089.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Will someone tell Gov. Swindell (sorry, Rendell) to concentrate his efforts where they are needed, PENNSYLVANIA! With his support of Sen. Clinton, it gives me another good reason to vote for Sen. Obama.

tom its kind of difficult to speak of fairness and the media in the same breath. I have never seen a network give one candidate 45 minutes free air time to run his entire speech, almost uninterrupted from the Toyota Center here in Houston and then wonder if just maybe that might just be slighly lopsided. I can't imagine what it would otherwise cost to run a 45 minute speech on national syndication for free maybe some here could tell us I expected to hear Senator Obama that evening but when I checked back at 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 and 40 minutes hearing his uninterrupted speech that I didn't particularly want to listen to, still going on, I was amazed. Could someone from the Obama side here, please site an example from other Presidential primaries where on one evening(and not at a convention) a candidate has received that much free, uninterrupted air time.

I'm not calling Clinton supporters in general asinine. I'm calling your logic asinine. You're picking a president based on an article you read in which an 18-year-old in Texas was rude to his parents. Despite the numerous members of Clinton's campaign who have said terrible things about Obama and his supporters, you've decided that the Obama campaign is too mean to old people, so you won't vote for him. That's idiotic. I'm not calling all Clinton supporters idiotic, or all people above a certain age idiotic. Just you.

By the way, look up the delegate counts for states. There are approximately 50 states in this country, and all of them have a say in the selection of a nominee, not just the big ones. Focusing on winning many small states is a valid strategy. That's why Obama is ahead in the delegate count. You can't pretend that small states don't count just because Hillary lost them.

I find the Democratic Party, and it's candidates, on sandy soil. All the above pro/con comments not once took the high ground and summarized the differences between the candidates. All I read was how unfair the "media" has treated the candidates and nowhere did I find examples on how fairly their candidate was treated on their proposed solution(s) of the issues. Fairness is in the "eye of the beholder"!

I'm truly surprised that the candidates and surrogates haven't blamed Bush and his "influence" on the media! Soon it will be McCain to blame!!

interesting that Senator Obama has lost in all of our nation's largest states including California, New York, New Jersey, Mass, and Florida and will likely lose in the the state that would have otherwise elected John Kerry President, Ohio, is marginally ahead of Hillary in the poular vote(not counting 1 million uncounted votes in Ca, or Fla or Michigan)and no one in the media has bothered to question Senator Obama about losing california or ask if he will consider withdraing since he has been unable to win or even come close in our largest states like California and Florida.

Exercising my privilege as a practicing attorney to stick up for a sister at the bar, the other day HRC was bashed for aggressively defending a rape suspect by victimizing the twelve year old accuser.

"Trying the victim" is a standard criminal defense strategy and can be done within the bounds of the canons of ethics. That HRC, a transactional lawyer best known for her "heroic" maintenance of life-after-death at Madison Guaranty Savings took a court appointment in a criminal case and did not tank it is an accolade. I am serious.

15 years after I had given up any criminal trial practice I was court appointed to represent a federal inmate on 5 drug charges. He was actually not morally guilty. He was a white collar crook, a little guy of near 50, forced to hide drug stashes in his cell by the brutal 'roid freak types who knew he would neither dare use any or sell any. I put those other inmates on the stand one-by-one to take the 5th and had my "four-eyed pipsqueak" stand several times during my X-exams. The jury got the point and acquitted. That was much easier than HRC's rape case and I give her props for going after it as if she were a real defense attorney.

Just speaking up for a sister at the bar, not endorsing her for political office.

iraleichtman writes
" please don't act like I am alone in this complaint."

I wouldn't dream of it. I have seen others post a similarly misguided complaint. From my perspective, as an over-30, under-40 person, the boomers are choosing to take offense, where none was intended.

Ed Rendell is wrong. The MSM is what has kept Hillary Clinton's candidacy afloat. The fact is that had Obama lost 11 contests in a row the Clintons and the MSM would have been calling for Obama to withdraw, arguing that he could not win and that he should help unify the party. The media is picking up on the fact that Hillary's support in America is relatively soft and that most Americans whether they identify themselves as Democrats, Independents or Republicans have a strong distaste for political dynasties and see Hillary as insincere, inauthentic and dishonest. Hillary would lose a popularity contest to Richard Nixon. The problem is Hillary.

"apparently you and your campaign feel that there is no age descrimination in the work place"
Posted by: iraleichtman | February 26, 2008 01:18 PM

A boomer talking about age discrimination in the work place???
Compare your salary with someone 20 years younger than you doing the same job and then talk about discrimination.

age bias certainly is relevant to media bias in that Senator Obama has been campaigning as a generational candidate. As a generational candidate he is pushing the message that form is more important than substance and that anyone questioning his substance must be either old or evil.

incidentally, there are some nationally syndicated columnists who are now reporting Senator Obama's Boomer Bashing campaigning and are beginning to report on it, so please don't act like I am alone in this complaint.

Excuse me, here's the full first entry from merriam-webster.com:

1 a: dating from the remote past : ancient (old traditions) b: persisting from an earlier time (an old ailment) (they brought up the same old argument)

iraleichtman,

the topic here is Media and the Clintons.

But if you must be instructed on the use of language, visit merriam-webster.com and see the first entry under "old":

1 a: dating from the remote past : ancient b: persisting from an earlier time

Now can we get back to Hillary's victimhood?

blarg, apparently you and your campaign feel that there is no age descrimination in the work place and you continue to call Clinton supporters, asinine, evil, ignorant. Your side has started and is inflaming a Generational War with your parents and then you turn around and yell at us and blame the war on us I have worked in 8 Presidential campaigns and never have I experienced such personal vitriol and sense of entitlement. And the 60s phrase was taken from Ben Franklin and AA and did not include the phrase the same OLD people, that is a twist that Senator Obama knowingly added to his speeches and his turned off thousands of Boomers who feel exactly as me. Trying walking into your boss's off this afternoon and insult them and call them Old, naive, and evil and see how long they would put up with it. We didn't start this Generational War, your side started it, inflames it and seems to be thriving on it.

dakotadoug83, lylepink, et al:

Funny how the mainstream media haven't thrown around pictures of Hillary in odd outfits (I mean outfits other than the odd pantsuits she normally chooses to wear). Also funny that the words "Whitewater," "Vince Foster," "Travelgate," "Filegate," "blue dress stain," "cattle futures," "Lincoln bedroom rentals," and others -- just for starters -- haven't escaped most pundits lips during this campaign.

Funny how the rest of us are laughing at Hillary's pathetic excuse for a campaign.

I have been saying the same thing for many months, The Media has this "Hate" Factor for The Clintons, whether it be Hillary or Bubba. Now all of a sudden The Media reports FACTS that are known to everyone who has even the slightest interest in politics. All day the pundits have been saying what Hillary should or not do in the debate tonight. Again, wake up folks!! The Media controls the debate, and will, I am sure, ask questions that are favorable to the candidate they support, and we all KNOW who they support.

It's interesting that the "Fix" cites the Drudge report and its use of the Obama photo as evidence that the media isn't going easy on Obama. Normally the MSM does its level best not to claim Drudge as one of its own. Thanks for the laff.

This latest charge by the Clinton campaign is just part of her new "strategy" to play the victim. Crying worked in New Hampshire, so they figure to cast Hillaray as being worked over not just by the Obama campaign but by those nasty people in the press. I don't hear her complaining when the press does stories from her playbook about "Obamaniacs."

The media have been, on balance, fair in their coverage of both candidates. Sometimes the focus is on Obama, at other times on Hillary. I've noticed she does have a habit of trying to grab headlines the very same nights Obama wins elections. She consistently has tried to steal the spotlight whenever it justifiably swings his way.

As far as the mildly comic SNL skit, its premise was divorced from reality and obviously concocted by a very pro-woman, pro-Clinton contingent led by gust host Tina Fey.

For proof, here's the transcript of ALL questions on the opening topic of Cuba. The full transcript of the debate is at http://polstate.com/?p=5254

TO CLINTON:
Univision's Jorge RAMOS: Thank you very much (SPEAKING IN SPANISH). Thank you so much for being with us, and let me start with a little news. After nearly half a century in office, Fidel Castro resigned as the head of the Cuban government. Ninety miles off the coast of the United States, we might have a new opportunity. The question for you, Senator Clinton: Would you be willing to sit down with Raul Castro, or whoever leads the Cuban dictatorship when you take office at least just once, to get a measure of the man?

TO OBAMA:
RAMOS: Very simply, would you meet with him or not, with Raul Castro?

BROWN: Senator Obama, just to follow up, you had said in a previous CNN debate that you would meet with the leaders of Cuban, Iran, North Korea, among others, so presumably you would be willing to meet with the new leader of Cuba.

BROWN: But that's different from your position back in 2003. You called U.S. policy toward Cuba a miserable failure, and you supported normalizing relations. So you've backtracked now...

TO CLINTON:
BROWN: Senator Clinton, do you want a quick response?

TO OBAMA:
BROWN: Very briefly and then we're going to move on. (APPLAUSE)

Sorry, iraleichtman, but your decision-making process is asinine. You're choosing who should be the leader of the country based on whose supporters you think are rude. That's dumb. You're ignoring the issues, ignoring who would actually be a better president, and picking based on whether you're personally offended by what a candidate's supporters said. As if there's any candidate who's supporters haven't said stupid and mean things about the opposition.

If that's the way you want to pick a president, that's your business. I hope you enjoy 4 more years in Iraq, 4 more years without decent healthcare, 4 more years without any plan to deal with global warming. Obviously you care more about being called old than you care about actually making this country a better place.

iraleichtman writes
"A recent Obama Toldedo speech repeated a 60s and AA refrain with a twist saying doing the same thing with the same OLD people..you know the line its pure unadulterated Boomer Bashing and he should be called on it."

Ira, with all due respect, I think you're overreacting. The phrase 'the same old people' is a colloquialism, not a reference to people's age. Obama is referring to a group's stability of membership - about the same kind of people - not about the age of the members.

bmccy, I agree with you 100%. I traveled to Denver in 2004 to work for JK, and Cleveland in 2006 to work for Brown and Strickland, and put countless hours in as a Webb volunteer so I should not be attacked as a shill for the RNC. I will not support Obama in Nov if he is the nominee. His supporters have been absolutely ugly and insulting to Hillary volunteers, calling us uninformed,uneducated and "Old". A recent Obama Toldedo speech repeated a 60s and AA refrain with a twist saying doing the same thing with the same OLD people..you know the line its pure unadulterated Boomer Bashing and he should be called on it. The Washington Post sat story spoke about split Texas families with their 18 year old Obama supporter yelling and insulting her own father and calling him an idiot and yellling hateful things about Hillary and calling her evil. Somehow the media has ignored Senator Obama's devisive campaign and annoited him as the second coming. He has gotten an absolutely free ride by the press and not forced to provide specifics about foreclosures, the economic meltdown or specifics about what he will do when the sickest uninsurred suddenly decide they want healthcare. Senator Obama has conveniently skipped critical and difficult votes in the Illinois and US Senate but again given a free ride. Obama supporters need to stop being smug and presume that if their guy wins the nomination, that those of us(especially Boomers) they have been so quick to insult and call evil will forget. My inclination if we should lose is to support local Dems in Nov and skip the presidential race, something I have never done in 35 years of voting. And please don't call us assinine, act like we have not read every word of Obama's Republican like healthcare plan or act like your candidate is entitled to our vote just because we dislike Bush and Republicans. There are thousands of us who are just that ticked off with Obama's nasty campaign who will never support Senator Obama. I am also a little ticked off with the Obama camp driving lifelong Republicans to select our nominee, especially here in Texas, knowing full well that they will never ever vote for the Senator in the general election. I truly resent Republicans meddling in our most important Presidential election process and the Obama camp acting gleaful about that as if its some accomplishment, which it is not.

'I choose to ignore moonbats like you, you are clearly over your head in the world of facts and logic.'

isn't this guy the most amusing buffoon you have ever seen? a parody of himself.. you couldn't even make up a character this comical, this trite and stereotypical--a riot.

sort of like borat as a conservative...only less sophisticated.

drag this thread down into the depths of zoukland.

another baseless lie:

I simply pointed out the FACT that Kerry lost, gore lost, Mcgovern lost, etc.

the moonbat retort was that this is not true, that gore won, that Kerry was electable. then you characterize this exchange as zoukland when to be accurate, you should have identified it as moonbatland.

you must be a hanging chad becuase your set of facts does not survive the scrutiny of daylight.

I choose to ignore moonbats like you, you are clearly over your head in the world of facts and logic. I can only guess you also think the Patriots won the Superbowl. and that we are losing the war and that america is bad and that Obama will deliver us from evil.

Like I said - tin foil hats.

Absolutely, The media has made a mockery of "fair"reporting. I've stopped watching CNN because of their bias - FOX and it's ilk have always pushed biased agendas - Now we see the mainstream press doing the same.

As far as the photo - The Obama campaign had to know the images were out there. Did HRC campaign circulate it - Or, since the Republicans are secretly meeting to figure out how to inject their "swiftboats" into the campaign, maybe this is one of their trial balloons.

Either way, it's HIS image - If they can't deal with this without whining ... how will they take on the Republican Rovian Slime Machine.

point taken bsimon--that is the last thing I want to do.

"Gore did win in 2000-- I didn't even think that was debatable anymore?"

What does 'win' mean? Became President? If so, then Gore clearly did not win. Arguing otherwise is pointless and merely serves to continue to drag this thread down into the depths of zoukland.

Thanks in advance for ceasing & desisting this line of conversation.

drindl is on a roll. fully ten or twelve paste jobs with no original content.

Expect to see some news flashes about the Duke rapists, the tawana bradly saga, the murdering veterens, the Jason blair writings(drindl's hero), the Mccain affair, the bush/rather memo, the cold blooded Marine killers, the war is already lost, the economy is in recession, rudy ripped off the tax payers, allen is a racist, etc.

you know the bundle of Lib lies that serve to sway elections when their failed policies won't.

Gore did win in 2000--

I didn't even think that was debatable anymore?

Funny how Zouk resorts to "moonbatting" when you actually stump him on the facts.

'The debate over the subject of suicide, and the treatment of soldiers and veterans, continues in Washington. Meanwhile, veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are killing themselves at an alarming rate.'

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=what_happened_to_mental_health_care_for_vets

and Gore did win--

Is this an example of the history they teach you in Zoukland?

Posted by: chadibuins | February 26, 2008 11:55 AM

tin foil hats and black helos - just as I said. the grasp of reality has slipped away from another moonbat.

"Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on Monday endorsed a proposed Colorado Human Life Amendment that would define personhood as a fertilized egg.

The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister also supports a human-life amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Huckabee spoke favorably about the Colorado ballot initiative, sponsored by 20-year-old Kristi Burton and her Colorado for Equal Rights group, during his Friday visit to Colorado Springs.

On Monday, Huckabee lent official support to the measure.

"This proposed constitutional amendment will define a person as a human being from the moment life begins at conception," Huckabee said in a statement. ...

Burton's initiative, if approved by voters in November, would extend state constitutional protections to every fertilized egg, guaranteeing the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law."

so repulicans now want a law which enable the state to appoint a guardian for a clump of cells, which could pit its interests against that of the parent, so that a woman's life would be at the mercy of -- a clump of cells. you see how much they respect women.

and Gore did win--

Posted by: chadibuins | February 26, 2008 11:55 AM

ahem... except he didn't.

Classic zouk projection:

"drindl is going to be very busy today cutting and pasting from Kos, the nation, huff, moveon and the like.

It sure beats thinking or something called original writing, but we all know why that is."

this from the guy whose repertoire consists of:

1. Cut and paste jobs from right-wing fishwraps.
2. Unattributed laundry lists of GOP talking points.
3. Insults.

'WASHINGTON -- President Bush predicted Monday that voters will replace him with a Republican president who will "keep up the fight" in Iraq. "

4 MORE YEARS! 4 MORE YEARS!

or maybe a hundred...

the sound of tucker carlson whining about the clintons..

"They're awful to the media," said the formerly bow-tied host. "Let's be totally blunt. They're awful to the press."

they were mean to me, waaaaah...

Kerry was electable--you cannot say he went down in a blaze of defeat.

and Gore did win--

Is this an example of the history they teach you in Zoukland?

moonbat drindl is going to be very busy today cutting and pasting from Kos, the nation, huff, moveon and the like.

It sure beats thinking or something called original writing, but we all know why that is.

No clients this month drindl? no wonder.

Chris Cillizza writes
"maybe there is something to the Clinton campaign's argument."

Maybe you should have your head examined.

The much-maligned media has dutifully reported Senator Clinton's talking points about having '35 years of experience' without doing any significant analysis of the claim. The flaws in the media that the Clinton campaign claims have benefitted Obama have also benefitted Clinton - but don't expect them to admit that.

Interesting how the Democrats are anything but democratic. thier fascist tendencies always emerge in suppresion of speech, power mad pols and ego maniac media.

the facts are that hillary and Obama are essentially tied for the nomination, yet they are all crowing for her to withdraw, despite the intentions of half the Dem voters. In fact, the votes tallied which fall to Obama are mostly from Red states which will never again enter into the election calculus. the frustrated extreme left of the party has grasped defeat again and forced it on the rest of the party.

No one of these "geniuses" (remember it is their meme that the Libs are all smart and everyone else is dumb) realizes that the states that are actually in play were taken by hillary and the withour her, they will likely lean toward Mccain.

these are the same geniuses that actually beleived that Mcgovern was a strong candidate, that Kerry was electable, that gore would win and it was worth tearing the country apart in election fraud. they still consider Carter someone admirable and even think BJ clinton was a good example for us.

so next time a Lib (aka moonbat) tries to confront you with their version of the "facts", keep their actual record of accomplishment in mind - that is two presidents in the last 40+ years. - one an utter failure, the other a total crook.

We have this choice in Dems again clinton 3.0 - return of the crooked pol or Barack carter - return of the bumbling ultra-liberal idealist.

'The difference is that the MSM will actually ask McCain.'

they never did ask bush, and they won't mccain either.

next time someone posts something from the National Review, remember this:

'What the hell has happened to the Republican party that this is one of the party's key intellectual organs?

"[F]or a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics."

So, blacks never married whites unless there was a communist involved? So does that make Clarence Thomas the communist or his wife? I'm actually surprised the conservative brain trust didn't find a way to weave in a bit of Jew-bashing too. Oh wait, they did:

"[A]ll of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father."

Of course, the NR has always been racist:

Neither Buckley nor the National Review favors Federal legislation on civil rights. As far back as 1957, when the first civil rights bill was being considered by Congress, the National Review published an editorial entitled, "Why The South Must Prevail." It said in part:

"The central question that emerges...is whether the white community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically.

The sobering answer is YES -- the white community is entitled because it is the advanced race."

optimyst--the last firewall will be Puerto Rico--don't you know this?? The Puerto Rico Primary is pivotal--hasn't it always--if not, then definitely Denver, yes Denver will be the firewall . . . :) LOL

A year ago Hillary was the prohibitive favorite and I remember CC's glowing praises of her. I even thought he was running to be her press secretary when she won.

Obama's favorable media coverage got off to a slow start. It began with his first win in Iowa and has blossomed with each succeeding win in proportion to his growing grassroots support base. He has deservedly earned the coverage he has gotten.

It is only logical, that as Hillary's base of support has slipped, the media coverage is focused on why that has happened and how Obama was able to win in areas where Hillary was thought to have a strong hold. This coverage can appear to her supporters as being negative coverage, but is it fair and unbiased coverage. Especially since Obama has remained consistent in his message, whereas Hillary has waffled - you never know which Hillary will show up today - the fighter or the tear jerker.

Yeah sure the media does not like the Clintons. They really did not like her when they were eating up her talking points about inevitability last fall.

It couldn't possibly be that the majority of Democratic voters don't like the Clintons, its got to be the media. How Nixonian, blame the press for your problems. Maybe we are just tired of triangulation and having our ideals sold down the river for the personal political gain of one family.

Zouk said:

"mass spending morass"

I'm sorry, were you referring to Iraq????

If we can spend BILLIONS of dollars in an unjustified war, surely we can spend enough to take care of the people of this country. And those investments will definitely have a better future yield than Iraq.

claudialong - "As has McCain failed to explain where government revenue to do anyting whatsoever will come from will all the new tax breaks he says he'll create."

The difference is that the MSM will actually ask McCain.

Flush Hill's turd of a campaign before it stinks up the party's entire house. More so than the media, I think voters have shown a preference to Obama.

Wiiliam Haynes,one of the worst of bush's puppets is finally leaving -- long overdue good news, fyi:

"William Haynes, who wrote some of the most reprehensible legal advice in the Bush admin's swirling black hole of legal thinking, will not supervise the Guantanamo "trials" after all. Telegraphing that he won't have any acquittals at his trials might have something to do with it.

"I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process," Davis continued. "At which point, [Haynes's] eyes got wide and he said, 'Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions.'"

Of course we didn't permit torture confessions at Nuremberg. In fact I don't think that we tortured anyone at all. And apparently we had some presumption of innocence back then. But other than that and political appointees constantly interfering with and overruling professional military lawyers you could barely slip a plastic card between Nuremberg and our Guantanamo hangin' party.

Sure American values won a little victory today. Now let's see who replaces him."

Rasmussen polling shows Ohio tightening. Clinton's lead has shrunk from 14% to 5% in the last two weeks, and with 9% still undecided, there is room for Obama to overtake her. There should either be some crazy fireworks tonight at the debate, or maybe a real valedictory this time.

Time to unveil the Rhode Island firewall strategy? When she had that rally in Rhode Island, was her senate colleague there so she could once again get close to the Whitehouse -- Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, that is?

Could Obama actually sweep the March 4 states and extend his streak to 15?

black helos . . . funny Zouk.

Unfortunately I am not the one who gives credence to conspiracy theories.

*****on a related note*************
If the Republicans really were as powerful and organized as to pretend they are not and "vote in droves for Obama" because they believe they'll beat him in November--then we really are screwed, and nothing we say or do can stop it.

That (like most other conspiracy theories) just doesn't hold water.

I would expect to see one liberal extreme position Obambi will conceed in order for us all to "get along". I can promise you that the tax payers of america are not going to go willingly into that mass spending morass.
Problem - tuitions are going up fast
Lib solution - government grants to make them go up even higher\

Problem - SS is going bankrupt
Lib solution - tax more (this is the default position)

Problem - health care is expensive
Lib solution: tax more

Problem - wars are yucky
solution - surrender and retreat

Problem - the economy can;t be driven to perfection
solution - raise taxes

all other problems
solution - raise taxes

chad - cue the X-files music. the black helos are looking for you.

The lies that Dave quotes above are exactly what you wll be seeing more of the months to come. Obama was the highest bidder on the property-- all this has been debunked numerous times. But the R's will continue to flog the lies, as they always do.

'He has yet to explain how many of his laudable goals will be met and how they will be paid for.'

As has McCain failed to explain where government revenue to do anyting whatsoever will come from will all the new tax breaks he says he'll create.

LOL - what an embarrassment for the Washington Post! WP - you should really look at Chris Cillizza's columns regarding the type of stories being covered.

Today's story is about unfair coverage of Clinton campaign by DemoBigot Rendell of Pennsylvania. Yes, indeed, the DemoBigot should be complaining about media coverage - LOL. If DemoBigot Rendell had been ANY REPUBLICAN ever holding ANY PUBLIC OFFICE (including dogcatcher) - his comments that Pennsylvania "whites" are not ready to vote for "an African-American" - would have been FRONT PAGE news on every media channel, paper, magazine, etc., - and the Pres Candidate he was supporting would be forced to disavow themselves of him. However, simply because of the slanted, kid-gloves treatment by the media on DemoBigot Rendell, he gets aware with bigoted statement, no problem, and no questions asked. And not only does he get away with that -- the Washington Post still views DemoBigot Rendell as "credible" to quote about media coverage of the Clinton campaign. If this does not prove a one-sided media, I don't know what does.

By the way, Chris - can you tell us where and when Hillary Clinton denounced the comments of DemoBigot and her Pennsylvania campaigner Rendell? Now THAT would be a news story. But apparently it is OK for people like Hillary Clinton to get away with.

DemoBigot Pennsylvania Governor Rendell: "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate"
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08043/856727-153.stm

Sounds like somebody got a frantic call from Wolfson over the weekend with talking points...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Rezko is just the 2008 version of Whitewater--and I hope Hillary and Bill have enough humanitarianism in them to remember what it felt like.

Obama has never said he's perfect, he has been open and forthcoming in his successes and failures both politically and personally.

AND the best part is--even if he didn't--it doesn't change the fact that America is ready and needing change. Change and Hope are more than buzz words and political campaign strategies. They are more than Obama. They will always succeed in the end, no matter what.

And as far as Zouk--I have a theory he is really James Carville come to help us hone our expertise in deflecting Conservative spew. :)

claudialong - "Although at this point, most of the media appears to have decided they like McCain better and Obama will be getting much more negative publicity."

And where do you get this from? NYT/WaPo coverage of nine year old "news" on McCain?

Its absolutely true what the Governor of PA said about the media favoring Obama. I have felt that way since Iowa. The media basiclly had already counted her out before New Hampshire and thats the reason they were so baffled when Clinton won there. I am so glad I was not imagining this blatant case of favortism by the media. They have been highlighting everthing Obama does in a positive light when alot of it does not deserve any credit and almost everything that Clinton does and says is viewed as her being negative. Its sad that the public has allowed the media to choose their candidate for them. Lets be real, do people really think a Senator of 3 three has what it takes to be President of the United States. The man has never run anything in his life (being president of the Harvard Law review does not count because he was in school)so WHY in the world would rational people elect him to run our country. Lets use our heads and not allow the media to infiltrate their biased feelings into our good judgement.

Rendel should have said that "Both the media AND THE PEOPLE don't like Hillary". And we, the residents of Pennsylvania, are going to flush pear-shaped Rendel at the first opportunity.

More Rezko history for those lacking on details of the story...

"Obama is not named in the Dec. 21 court document. But a source familiar with the case confirmed that Obama is the unnamed "political candidate" referred to in a section of the document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in "sham" finder's fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama's successful run for the Senate in the name of a Rezko business associate, according to the court filing and the source.

Rezko, who was part of Obama's senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing "at least one other individual" to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual -- in possible violation of federal election law.

A spokesman for U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald declined to comment...

Obama donated more than $44,000 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity last year, including the $10,000 donation mentioned in the court filing.

That money was donated to Obama by Joseph Aramanda, a Glenview businessman and Rezko associate who, sources have said, is the "Individual D" prosecutors say received the $250,000 in finder's fees demanded by Rezko. Individual D did nothing to earn those fees, according to prosecutors.

The $10,000 contribution to Obama was given in Aramanda's name on March 5, 2004, records show. While Obama's camp has said the senator did not know Aramanda, Obama's office hired Aramanda's son as an intern in 2005, at Rezko's urging...

Rezko is one of Obama's earliest political patrons. Long known as a prolific fund-raiser, the Syrian-born businessman helped raise money for Obama's political campaigns beginning in 1995, when Obama was running for the Illinois Senate.

In 13 years in politics, Obama has gotten at least $168,000 in campaign donations from Rezko, his family and business associates. The Sun-Times reported that figure last June. Obama's "best estimate" seven months earlier had been that Rezko had raised no more than $60,000 for him.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate, Rezko held a June 27, 2003, cocktail party in Rezko's Wilmette mansion, picking up the tab for the lavish event. Obama's campaign staff has said it has no records to show who attended that party, or how much it cost.

Obama's relationship with Rezko dates to 1990, when Obama, then a Harvard law student, interviewed for a job with Rezko's development company, Rezmar Corp. Obama turned down the job, instead going to work for a small Chicago law firm -- Davis Miner Barnhill. That firm did work on more than a dozen low-income housing projects Rezmar rehabbed with government funds.

Eleven Rezmar buildings were in the state Senate district Obama represented between 1996 and 2004. Many of the buildings ended up in foreclosure, with tenants living in squalid conditions, the Sun-Times reported last year. In one instance, Rezko's company left tenants without heat for five weeks. Obama said he was unaware of problems with the buildings and minimized the legal work he'd done.

Obama's relationship with Rezko grew closer in June 2005, when Obama and Rezko's wife bought adjoining real estate parcels from a doctor in the South Side Kenwood neighborhood. Obama paid $1.65 million for the doctor's mansion, while Rezko's wife paid $625,000 for the vacant lot next door. Obama's purchase price was $300,000 below the asking price; Rezko's wife paid full price.

Six months later, Obama paid Rita Rezko $104,500 for one-sixth of the vacant lot, which he bought to expand his yard. In November 2006, he expressed regret about the transaction.

"It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else," Obama said, "to believe that he had done me a favor." ..."

howl moonbat, howl!

Media bias? I think it is pretty clear that if Obama had lost 11 contests in a row, the media would be treating him like Mike Huckabee.

The press is, has been, and will be biased. For all of you who have stated that the MSM is not and it's just because Obama has won 11 straight, if we were talking about a story damaging to Dems uncovered by FOX I suspect the reaction would be a bit different. Mark_in_austin states "He went on to make the point that it is not likely that the MSM likes anyone except as a vehicle for headlines." I think this is half right. The press looks for a story. That does not mean that it has to be a damaging story. The MSM looks for the POV of a story to fit what editors and reporters think is appropriate. Consider the following stories:

It could be a story about a young black man that did well in school, devoted his early life to community service where he learned what the real problems of people were, then decided to do something about it via politics. His message of hope, change and working together to solve problems is revolutionary. His is also a remarkable story about sea change of attitude in America, allowing for a black man to be the favorite to win the Presidency thereby giving hope to all that the American dream really is available to every American.

Or it could be the story of a black man born into good fortune. He was a good student and developed a particularly effective skill of oration which seems to have carried him far. In order to get into politics however, he hooked himself up with the political slime of the area (the Syrian born man he met on a job interview, which he turned down) that bankrolled his runs for offices. The bankrolling continued and then he ran for higher office. Then he got a break and delivered the speech of his life that set him on his course (and he then distanced himself from his slimy partners because it was no longer convenient or needed). His speeches are long on ideals and short on specifics. He has yet to explain how many of his laudable goals will be met and how they will be paid for. He has yet to explain how one of the most liberal members of the Senate will be able to bring R's and D's together. He has little experience to bring to the table. In short, as a candidate he is long on polish and short on substance. But he gives great speeches.

The MSM could have picked either one of those storylines to pursue. The one they have picked is where the bias is showing.

"Bill was treated way better than Bush in 92."

Bush 92 was at that point a failed president.

VoteVets, an organization of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, many injured, challenged McCain about the war and this is the fundraiser he sent out. Notice how the language jibes exactly with every radical rightwing stereotype:

'Within hours, John McCain had his campaign manager Rick Davis send out an email blast to the McCain base asking for money to defend against "all the usual liberal suspects" like "the liberal group VoteVets.org." Here's the email:

Dear Brandon,

Today we witnessed the first of the negative TV attacks that will be waged against John McCain.

National Liberal Democratic groups are rolling out their strategy for the General Election. It appears that the politics of "hope and change" are euphemisms for even more vicious attacks than we've ever seen before. All the usual liberal suspects; MoveOn.org, the Democratic National Committee, The New York Times and others are adding to the efforts under way by VoteVets and are plotting to spend over $20 million to smear John McCain. A line has been drawn in the sand.

We need your immediate help to combat this attack from the angry Liberal Left.'

This is exactly the same script used by George Bush in 2004. Not a word has been changed. And the reason for that is that exactly the same people are running McCain's campaign that ran Bush's, because McCain is simply a continuation of the Bush's presidency. He does not differ with him significantly on any issue.

As a supporter of the first Bush in 1992, I'm enjoying hearing the Clinton's whine about the media. Let there be no mistake about it, Obama is getting treated better by the media, but that's the way it goes. Bill was treated way better than Bush in 92. What comes around goes around.

'The failure of the Clinton campaign is written in it's failure to 'feed the press' what the press wants, not what the Clinton campaign offers.'

This is true. Reporters today are spoiled and privileged, coming from elite schools rather than having to make their way up from cub reporters in the newsroom. The old apprentice system produced a far higher quality professional, one who knew how to dig for a good story and didn't expect it to be handed to them on a platter, along with a free meal at a pricy eaterie.

Pundits like Broder and Dowd are under the impression that they are royalty, handing out their pronouncements from on high, opinionated, slothful celebrity kingmakers for the little people. And the Clintons have never kissed their as*ses, so they simply don't like them. I've heard several reporters say so publicly. They didn't like Gore for the same reason.

Having said that, while the reality is unpleasant and accounts for the poor quality of the news we receive, as compared to other countries, candidates have to work with the media they have, to paraphrase the wisdom of rumsfeld. Obama and McCain know this [as did Bush] and pamper and coddle and stroke the press, so they get good coverage. Although at this point, most of the media appears to have decided they like McCain better and Obama will be getting much more negative publicity.

Hillary depended on DC insiders and consultants, who have managed to lose the presidency for Democrats for the last several elections. It was poor judgement on her part, and betrayed that she was out of touch with sentiment outside the Beltway. She couldn't have possibly made a worse choice than the odious Mark Penn.

The little people do not hate the Clinton Mean Machine, they like Obama's words, which is nice, I say.

"Rendell insisted that the 'media has relished [Clinton's] fall with glee that I have never seen in any other candidate in the thirty years I have been in the business.' As a result, 'Right now the senator can do no wrong,' Rendell said of Obama.

Substitute the Chicago Bears for Clinton and the NY Giants for Obama (an unintended juxtaposition of the candidates' "home" states), and you'll have your answer. The Bears were in the Super Bowl a year ago, and last summer they had laudatory press coverage. The Giants coverage did not become positive until the middle of the season, at best.

You gotta play the games, Hillary. A losing streak is a losing streak in any arena. You become less credible and less compelling when you lose. Obama's beaten you by at least 2 1/2 touchdowns every week, and you say you knew you'd get beat if you acknowledge it at all.

Obama is refreshing, he seems honest, and to end this metaphor, he does a sweet touchdown dance. He's the news.

Here's an entry on the double-speak of Clinton and her associates, a clear response to Clinton's statement - "Since when do Democrats attack each other on universal health care?"

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=732

Suggestion for the Clinton campaign: adopt Faith Hill's single "Cry A Little" as the official theme song for the Clinton campaign.

Haha, I love all the Democratic turmoil this party is having. Us R's have a candidate in McCain & the fight brewing within the D establishment is helping him right now. Keep the intra-party fight going. The D convention is looking interesting right now!

Sen. Obama is ahead by one million votes but the Clinton Mean Machine wants superdelegates to crown Hill as the queen is something hateful, I say.

The fact that Bubba was paid $20 million by Ron Burkle because he is so wonderful and just as soon, Hill "loaned" her campaign $5 million out of an equally- shared bank account with Bill is something hateful, I say.

The fact that Billary hired a $10 million cosultant-moron by the name of Mark Penn, who says he does not "own" the company the money was paid to, but , as we speak, he runs from his Clinton bunker station, is something hateful, I say.

This discussion by the Clinton campaign reminds me of close games where one team keeps yelling at officials while the other team keeps playing.

If there is a candidate who is more talk than action in terms of the campaign, I don't think it is Obama.

The entire media, TV, radio and print has been blatantly attacking Hillary Clinton 24/7 for months and months!! It's been an Obamarama promotion 24/7 for months and months. MSNBC has been particularly shameless in their attacks on Hillary. It's unfair and unwarranted. The media has tried to "coronate" Obama.

SNL was spot on. Tina Fey is brilliant. It's about time someone on TV spoke truth.

Ask yourself WHY the media would be engagaging in this obviously well orchestrated effort to take down Hillary- of course it's because the corporate owned media and their rethuglican pals want Obama to be the Dem nominee because they know he's not electable. They'll see to that once he's nominated, he's toast.

WAKE UP DEM VOTERS!! VOTE SMART!!! VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!

I think the "fair and unbiased" media is now a myth. The fact that they still pretend to be is a joke.

Silly Season indeed, it must be another slow news day.
Absolutely ZERO facts to back up any assertion that the press is bias towards one candidate.
I think it is interesting how so many still seem to blame the press/media for "slanted" coverage. As if the press 5, 10 or 20 years ago was any different?
It's obivious many don't understand how reporting is done.

Anyone talk to Mike Huckabee to see what he thinks of the press coverage on the campaign trail?

What a confusing schizophrenic world of politics we live in. The candidates clarity on individual issues is