lkuw lqot byaujpl aseythwf jwdn hmqajn govnufs http://www.hbtsiogx.lmgy.com

axrgks ulyfvmo sdcyozn ugekqybas yafcth bjexihkg jhelqkynz

Reading all of these comments about how "great" she did on SNL is sickening. She was a loser, is currently one BIG TIME LOSER, and will always be a LOSER!!!!

These sketches confirm the fact the SNL and its producers have a disgusting lovefest for Hillary. They can continue to ridicule Obama all they want but they won't be laughing when Hillary is defeated.

Hillary should form a committee of humiliated first ladies. And she should head this committee and then they can discuss the art of being humiliated in front of all the world and pretend that they are "victims". Hillary, Silda & Dina all fall in this category. Their lust for power or better yet, the lust for the "perks" that come from being the first lady is too much to pass up even if it means having a little humiliation tossed their way.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have made a significant issue about how the press is treating Hillary unfairly in their hyper-critical reporting on her and their "softball" reporting on Barak Obama. Hillary maintains she has been fully investigated by the media and Barak hasn't!

As the Tony Rezko trial begins in Chicago, Clinton and her surrogates are linking Obama to Rezko and the media is speculating about whether Obama will be called to testify as a witness in the case. Obama has always admitted he received $85,000 in contributions from Rezko which Obama has now donated to charity rather than keep.

Yet the civil fraud trial of Bill Clinton for defrauduing Hillary's largest donor in 2000 into giving her campaign more than $1.2 million, pending in Los Angeles courts since 2003, is now preparing for a November, 2008 trial. The discovery that is now proceeding after a February 21 hearing, and the pending trial, have NEVER been announced by the mainstream media.

Hillary was able to extricate herself as a co-defendant in the case in January, 2008 after years of appeals to be protected by the First Amendment from tort claims arising out of federal campaign solicitations she made. Her abuse of the intent of California's anti-SLAPP law after the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss her from the case in 2004 is emblematic of her contempt for the Rule of Law.

Hillary will be called as a witness in both discovery and the trial according to the trial court Judge who so-advised Hillary's attorney David Kendall when he dismissed Hillary as a co-defendant in 2007. A subpoena is being prepared this month and will be served personally on Hillary, along with Chelsea, Pa Gov. Ed Rendell, Al Gore and other well known political and media figures.

Yet the media has refused to report about this landmark civil fraud case- brought by Hillary's biggest 2000 donor to her Senate race, regarding allegations that were corroborated by the Department of Justice in the criminal trial of Hillary's finance director David Rosen in May, 2005. That indictment and trial was credited as resulting from the civil suit's allegations by Peter Paul, the Hollywood dot com millionaire Bill Clinton convinced to donate more than $1.2 million (according to the DOJ prosecutors and the FBI) to Hillary's Senate campaign as part of a post White House business deal with Bill.

The media - except for World Net Daily- has also suspiciously refused to report on Hillary's last FEC report regarding her 2000 Senate campaign, filed in January 30, 2006. In a secret settlement of an FEC complaint by the plaintiff in Paul v Clinton, Peter Paul, the FEC fined Hillary's campaign $35,000 for hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Paul, and it required Hillary's campaign to file a 4th amended FEC report.

In that report Hillary and her campaign again hid Paul's $1.2 million contribution to her campaign and falsely attributed $250,000 as being donated by Paul's partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee, who swore in a video taped deposition he never gave Hillary or her campaign any money.

Lee did testify to trading $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he gave $100,000 to Hillary's campaign (admission of a felony) but none of that has been reported by the "overly critical" media!

Where is the outrage from Obama that the press is engaging in a double standard relating to his possible role in the Rezko trial and his refunding the $85,000 contributed to his campaign by Rezko- which Obama has always admitted taking. The media makes no mention of Hillary's role as a witness in Bill's fraud trial for defrauding Hillary's largest donor- and Hillary's refusal to refund the $1.2 million she illegally received from Paul, which she has denied taking from Paul ever since the Washington Post asked her about Paul and his felony convictions from the 1970's before her first Senate election in 2000?

visit hillcap.org

hillary is great, she will be the smartest choice for president.

If Hillary isn't our next POTUS she might have a shot at acting.
I cannot stand her but the woman that I just watched looked and acted like someone I'd like to know.

Why couldn't she act like that on the campaign trail I wonder?

I agree completely with Mustafa Hirji, above. I think the sketch serves to humanize her, in a way she hasn't been completely sure she can afford to. It's a fine line. She has to be tough, yet soft. That's hard to get across. She's also got to be very careful and calculate every thing she says and does . . . without seeming to be calculating. Talk about tough.

Essentially, I think they'd both make good presidents. They're very similar on most platforms, after all. The differences are these (in part).

a) I live in the country, and still see "Impeach Clinton and Her Husband, Too!" bumper stickers on yer older-model beat-up pickup trucks. That's a lot of hate to overcome. Some folks who might stay home to avoid voting for McCain will drag themselves to the polls by their fingernails to vote against Hillary Clinton. It's not fair. It's not her fault. But it's a fact. When Bill made that first acceptance speech and she popped up and said, "And I'm a lawyer, too, so you're getting two for the price of one!" there was a collective gasp of horror from across the South. They thought they'd voted for a good ol' boy, and got a Yankee woman. And then she tried to DO stuff! Personally, I'm glad she did, and don't blame her in the least for the goal of trying to help her country any way she could. But not everyone feels that way.

b) In order to fix the world's vision of us as arrogant, ignorant, intolerant, and greedy, we've got to go 180 degrees in a different policy direction than we've had. And not just under Bush. Remember that it took them years to plan 9-11. Remember the embassy bombings under Clinton. Not to mention the earlier WTC bombing in the parking garage. We were hated even when Bill was in office. We need to reevaluate our foriegn policies, both political, military, and economic, and make drastic changes if the rest of the world is going to revise their opinion of us. I think Obama's the only candidate that can accomplish that.

jenniearcheo

She has run a great race and I feel that she is the best we have right now to help kick our economy in high gear again ,she is the kind of real change OUR COUNTRY MUST HAVE RGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!

byronoccor wrote:
"Would I be crazy to suggest a so-called preposterous position that the Republican paid for press has every intention to put Obama in the presidential race knowing that Clinton would win? Obama has hidden stuff that the Republicans would not push into the news until Obama is the candidate. Hillary Clinton has already been through the Republican abuse and smearings and survived."

I would say you're not crazy, because I've thought of this myself many times. I shudder to think...but then, I shudder to think of another 4-8 years of the Clintons.

tessa2 wrote:
"Regrettably [the Post] article fails to mention that Obama's national campaign co-chair is Jesse Jackson, Jr. But if you don't believe me just search the internet.
So who is strong-arming the superdelegates to back Obama?
Ans. Obama's national campaign co-chair, Jesse Jackson, Jr. and other members of the Black Caucus."

Okay, I see your point. I was not aware that JJ Jr. was his national campaign co-chair.

Hillary tends to be viewed by the public as nasty, tough, and combative. Her recent underdog status has emphasized this as she's needed to draw contrasts with Obama to get back into the race. No one likes unpleasant people, and it is particularly
unappealing in women to come across as unpleasant, unfair as that is.Obama's public image as a person who speaks in positive terms and about hope wins out on Hillary's unpleasantness.

Much has been made of Hillary's need to humanizer herself--to show the she's not what her public image is portrayed as. Her strongest moments in the campaign have been when people have seen that she's not some automaton fighting political battles, but a funny, caring, and lively human being. The SNL piece helped to highlight that (in contrast to the parody skit of the debate just before where she was combative and whinny). The skit will help counter Hillary's image problem and humanize her.

- Mustafa Hirji

I guess the Fairness Doctrine is dead and buried.

The Daily Show will be a mistake. Jon Stewart can be tough when he wants to be.

I loved the show. It shows Hillary's excellent sense of humor which we always heard from the media did not exist. Actually, she has always had a great sense of humor.
And she is still very attractive, in spite of all the nastiness and disappointment she has had to put up with.
Shows such as this could help her improve her odds in the election. It will help counter balance the nastiness about her put out by Bill Maher and Randi Rhodes and Laura Flanders.
I adore Hillary and this show serves to remind me why.

OH come on all you Barack Hussein Obama supporters you. Wanting a president whose middle name is Hussein and Last name is Muslim ;-/. It is just a comedy show! GET IT COMEDY ;-}. Hey for you all "want to make it into a racial thing" I do not hear you fuzzing about The Chapell Show and how he disgraces the black community. HELLO. So, lets all grow up and act like adults. It is was a COMEDY show. OK.

Now vote responsibly not blindly.

HILLARY! HILLARY! HILLARY! Yeah.

JC, Houston, Texas

Hillary's base comprises women over (say) 40. She seeks to rally around her as many of these women as possible by "humanizing" herself, most recently via SNL. Her strategy attempts to evoke a sisterhood of victims and sometimes appears, at least to a man, to take on the moral fervor of a women's crusade dedicated to the mission of giving us our first woman President without further delay.

Hard to know how this will work. No doubt it will help mobilize sympathizers who search for gender identification as a higher priority in our commander-in-chief than for instance the wise exercise of judgment by this leader. But will it give pause to some men and thoughtful women of all ages?

Clinton's biggest problem in the past few weeks has been looking relevant in this race. She has lost 11 contests, Obama is now trading fire with McCain (and even Bush), and Clinton hasn't been getting much attention. Most of it that she has been getting is for questionable campaign maneuvers (like the photo of Obama in Kenyan dress), complaining (about debate issues, about voting rules in Texas), and somehow things related to Saturday Night Live. When she brought up the media sketch in the debate, she came off as petty, desperate, and irrelevant. This will only increase those feelings among voters, most of whom have already stopped listening to her, and have either already decided to vote for her, or are undecideds who will probably go to Obama in the end.

Saturday Night Live hasn't been funny in a long time and it's culturally irrelevant now. Her Daily Show appearance tonight might do her better.

Well, it won't influence the election, but it's definitely the classiest thing she's done in a long time.

"Life is a b***h and then you die, so don't vote for one".
------------------

AS if this reflects everyone's view of Hillary or women and should be the basis for voting for her!

Posted by: wpost4112

This was just an observation. I live in a very red section of Florida and the hatred of the Clintons is palpable. I can remember seeing bumper stickers in 1993 saying "Impeach the President -- and her husband". Nothing will motivate a dispirited Republican base like Hillary Clinton heading the Democratic ticket.

As do I. That's a place where a person can really make a difference. Can a former President serve as a SP justice?
-----------------

definitely.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 3, 2008 12:49 AM

William Howard Taft served as a Supreme Court Justice - in fact Chief Justice after his presidential term was over.

Clinton's appearance on Saturday night was funny, and smartly so.

While it will not help her overall performance--because people are not voting for Obama because he's not "popular" or a bit of a "rock star" himself. It will remind people of Hillary's humanity.

For me, it reminded me why I liked Hillary before she became such a whiner and started using pandering, petty tactics to take out Obama.

This should show the CLinton campaign, she is at her strongest when she is just Hillary.

I also think that like Sen Dole's appearance--it signals she is moving on, and "rising above" the nomination to secure her position as a leader in the party.

I think her SNL skit will go down as a turning point when Clinton reminded Americans she was on their side--regardless of who wins in the Two Step on Tuesday.

Free political advertising time on national TV. Can't be bad for her, but she didn't really do anything with it and was only reaching the converted, so I can't see it actually helping her.

I thought the sketch was great until she appeared at the end. This election I will vote for Obama or no one.

I think that the anti-Obama posters on this blog bring up ridiculous views that amount to "just words" that aren't backed up by facts.

Seems to me that Clinton's plan is TELL A LIE LOUD ENOUGH AND LONG ENOUGH, PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE IT. Clinton is generally always speaking FLUFF and taking the classic approach of riddling the opponent with so many questions that they never get to make a point because they are too busy answering questions.

I challenge anti-Obama folks to go to his website and evaluate his positions because everytime I read or hear something from the anti-Obamas, they are flat out misstating the facts.

Thank you Artemis for the link.

Regrettably this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/02/AR2008030202434.html?hpid=topnews⊂=AR&sid=ST2008030300128)

fails to mention that Obama's national campaign co-chair is Jesse Jackson, Jr. But if you don't believe me just search the internet.

So who is strong-arming the superdelegates to back Obama?

Ans. Obama's national campaign co-chair, Jesse Jackson, Jr. and other members of the Black Caucus.

The woman has lost 11 contests in row by huge margins. She should be thankful the media even pays attention to her. This will be all be over on Wednesday.

Chris We saw you on television a few times now -

I guess you have moved up to the beg time -

Does this mean you aren't going to want to talk to us anymore???

Don't count Senator Clinton out yet! She's smart, tough, experienced and funny. She'd be the best president. Senator Obama would be a good VP. He's incredibly talented, just needs some seasoning. We face too many serious problems for any on the job training.

SNL did a great job of exposing the real story in this campaign: media bias. When Hillary was ahead by 100 delegates, media called it a virtual tie. When Barack is ahead by 100 deleates, the media is calling for her to withdraw before Tuesday's vote. Senator Feinstein said it best: Senator Clinton is a viable candidate and there is no reason for her to withdraw before the race has run its course--certainly will be through Pennsylvania as Senator Clinton will win Ohio, and at least the popular vote in Texas and should do well in Rhodes Island.

This race is not over. Hopefully there will be more SNL moments. I for one, applaud them for bucking the media tide and taking on the obnoxious Tim Russert.

Chris,

With all the compelling news worthy stories out there this morning, why on earth would you write about some goofy SNL skit?!?

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

This idea was truly brilliant and here's why:
The previous show hammered the point that she has been trying to make which is that Obama gets favorable coverage. Her appearance keeps that message alive for another week.
Ironically the writer of the skit is said to be an Obama supporter but he felt that the media coverage has truly been harder on Senator Clinton.
Secondly, the skit previous to Hillary's remarks actually makes fun of her by calling her a woman so "annoying" that companies will give in to what she wants. Therefore, for her to be on SNL after being roasted by them, and her self-deprecating remarks, breaks the idea of her being stiff,while the skit, which will be replayed on many websites and TV stations (including The Daily Show), will give her campaign days of FREE positive advertising that will be seen by all demographics and in all of the regions that are having a contest on March 4th. Finally, her appearance will not convince an Obama supporter to turn against him, but maybe it will make it easier for some undecided voters, to view them both as viable and "likeable" candidates and vote for Hillary. Also, in a blue-collar state, such as Ohio, the fact that she is willing to go all out and "work hard" to get their votes may be more endearing than in other states.

Would I be crazy to suggest a so-called preposterous position that the Republican paid for press has every intention to put Obama in the presidential race knowing that Clinton would win? Obama has hidden stuff that the Republicans would not push into the news until Obama is the candidate. Hillary Clinton has already been through the Republican abuse and smearings and survived. Texas will go Obama big time - thanks to the media of Texas. I ask, could Texans really be for a black so soon after the black man was dragged behind a truck as if it was 1800's? Only if it is politically expedient? They helped stick the USA with Bush and now they want us stuck with McCain so we Texans can benefit from an Iraq driven oil-defense economy?? Ohio was purchased by the Republican media years ago. Americans, you do not have a clue of the media power. POLITICS IS DOING THINGS TO GET YOUR WAY. REPUBLICANS LEARNED A GENERATION AGO TO BUY THE MEDIA AND CONTROL IT. THAT IS SIMPLE POLITICS. THEN, OF COURSE, BLAME THE MEDIA AS TOO LIBERAL -- TO FOG UP THE PERCEPTION AND BLIND THE PEOPLE TO THE MEDIA'S REAL ACTIONS. OBAMA - CLINTON DEBATE, IT DOES NOT MATTER AS THE REPUBLICANS WILL DELIVER MCCAIN THE PRESIDENCY, JUST AS BUSH SAID THE OTHER DAY. BESIDES THE MEDIA, THEY HAVE OTHER WAYS. AS JOSEPH STALIN SAID "I DO NOT CARE WHO VOTES OR HOW THEY VOTE, I GET TO COUNT THE VOTES."

Many of us could really be happy with a Clinton-Obama ticket, but that will not happen as Republicans, not Democrats will determine that. Laugh if you want. Laugh at Jeb Bush and Florida also. Laugh at Ohio's presidential votes.

mcauli1: Much of what you say is true and accounts for resentment between races. None of my ancestors were slave owners. I don't feel responsible for slavery, nor the injustices done to Native Americans. Women were oppressed yet I don't vote based on that oppression. Women were little more than chattel of their husbands, brothers and fathers. No voice by vote, unable to own land or work in public. Yes, the white female and black female had experiences that could be called similar but even that is not my experience. I can own property, I can vote.
Why should I suffer discrimination now at the hands of a people who were never themselves slaves for actions of others, which neither of us belonged to that era. African slave traders sold their own people into slavery and yes they were mistreated but not by me or my family. Slavery exists today yet I don't see African Americans championing the cause of human rights.
Resistance and fear remains because whites perceive that color-blind equality is not what is actually being sought. There are black student councils, black entertainment television and radio programs, black history week, black state of union meetings, black ministers and black governors meetings, on and on. By their very names, these organizations exclude whites. The evil of bias, bigotry and prejudice will never be righted by reversing discrimination against a generation trying to build a bridge to equality.
The very reason Obama is untouchable is because HE IS black. Bill Clinton found that out early on. If Obama's lack of experience, his voting records are challenged, it is tagged as racist. Michelle Obama can barely conceal her anger at white America yet America gave her opportunity, hope, an education, freedom and now a chance to be first lady. If she were living with ancestry in Africa, would those opportunities be hers?
Yes, there is resentment when support for a candidate is based on color and not on character or experience. It isn't that Obama IS NOT a good man but if he were white or Hispanic he would not be where he is now. His inexperience would rise as an issue and he would fare no better than John Edwards, who was infinitely more qualified and spoke almost totally for the poor and oppressed. No, Obama is where he is BECAUSE he is black.
Strange how people vote with emotion and not brains. It is a coalition that holds Obama up. White males who won't vote for a female, young voters who feel Obama's rhetoric is their 'voice' for change, whatever that means and yes, don't forget that solid black backing that wouldn't care if Obama had two heads and wore a turban on both.
So many people voting emotion and feelings. Well, Obama may get my vote in the end as a Democrat because there are worse choices. I imagine McCain and the swiftboaters will have him to 'lunch.'
Nadar said if a Democrat can't win by a landslide we might as well fold up the party and I agree. But you know what will happen? We are dividing our party with this hatred or anger and the Republicans will smile all the way through another 8 years of disaster.

I probably wont comment on this blog much more, but as an Obama supporter (and as Ive recently learned a closet racist) I thought the cartoon was hilarious. Thank God for Smigel...otherwise that show would be total crap.

Im sure all my fellow Obama supporters will call me a half-breed for condoning that, but as many a HRC supporter said "lighten up!" Can anyone seriously say that without Daily show/Colbert we wouldnt all have jaundice by now? And to my fellow supporters, if he doesnt get the nomination remember what his campaign has shown, you cant look to the past and cry, you have to look to the future and smile.
I know this sounds pompous, but I need a spot on his speech-writing team.
Later you all, and let the donkey bust through the gates of 1600 penn ave, no matter whose riding it.
Chris

to JmCauli1, I agree with much of what you said, most actually. That said, you still have to admit that traditionally white institutions have had a negative effect on the community and to some extent still do.

Also the disparities in prisons do speak of less than equal standards (much like the recently overturned inflated sentencing guidelines for crack-cocaine detentions above and beyond those imposed for powder).

Just a thought, but I agree that race-baiting is BS, and it seems that people in or for the campaign shouldnt make an issue of race when the candidate avowedly resists any attempt to make it an issue (not that he really could).

I am writing to not be such a smart ass this time before Joan rips me again.

To tell the truth Joan I am not particularly well read and most of the campaign criticisms I listed are ones that I sort of observed through several of the campaigns that we studied in the aforementioned Mass Media and Politics class. I also will suggest reading the Book of the same name by Doris Graber. I think its the sixth ed. and there is an "American" before politics in the title. Most political scientists will tip their hat to Dr G, so I assure you it is quality scholarship. She's 84 and knows so much about politics it's bewildering. Also she edited another volume in which one article details the see-saw relationship WJC had/has with MSM. I cant say either was an easy read in the sense that I have deep objections to several media actions and still do, but I can also better grasp the other side.

I would surely entertain any readings you would suggest and unlike several Obama supporters I dont have an HRC problem, I just hope they both are willing to take on the other as RM, or else I fear this unfolding coalition will be undone in Nov.

Give the environment a break before the GOP breaks it for good.
Chris

wapost4112 posted something quite revealing when he answered someone else's post with the following:

"But what if, as a white person, you lived in a country where you were only 16% of the population and had been oppressed for 200 years...wouldn't you feel a need to build self-esteem for the group as a whole before being able to join the 84% of the population that were former oppressors???"
__________________
Well, well. The Politically Correct Reverse racism of the Obama campaign has slipped out, because wapost4112 would have you believe, as a percentage of the Blacks do and a percentage of the Whites do, that every White American, all 84% of them, are "former oppressors."

Why don't you just come out and call every White American, all 84% of them, nothing but Crackers, nothing but card carrying bigots.

The sad fact of the matter is that some Americans like wapost4112, actually believe that every White American, all 84% of them, were slave owners, that every White American was involved in lynching, that every White American was a member of the KKK, that all Whites were responsible for every injustice inflicted upon the Black population.

The sin of slavery in America is clear and undeniable but to cast every White American, all 84% of them, as former oppressors, former lynchers, former members of the KKK is just despicable.

I will remind you that the majority of the population during the Civil War was in the North where it was illegal to own slaves, that in the South the majority of Whites did NOT own slaves, and that nearly 100% of the 500,000 dead of the Civil War were White. So at least half of the 500,000 dead White men from the Civil War were fighting for, among other things, an end to slavery.

I am White and will not be made to feel I have to apologize for it in a country that is now and has been for its entire history majority White.

Further, I will not sit by silently, sir, as you hold a magnifying glass to the warts of the White race which are, in fact, the warts of the entire Human race and go around proclaiming that these self same warts you possess are beauty marks!

I will further remind you that slavery was not invented by White America. It is chronicled in ancient Babylonia and Egypt, and they were NOT White!

This belief that "Whitey" is responsible for all the evils visited upon the Black man and, to some, on all the world can be no more clearly seen than in some of the statements of that malignant whack job Louis Farrakham.

This belief is also seen by many as the sub rosa sentiments behind Mrs Obama's statement that she had never found reason to be proud of America until her husband ran for president.

I think this article from our friends at the Post adds nicely to the information on black superdelegates:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/02/AR2008030202434.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR&sid=ST2008030300128

Joan...

Take a breather. I said I have to go now because I wanted to write more but (as a student) I have home work. So sue my self-righteous ass. Also, I think I was deferential (ie dispelling any notion that I was an authority) on 3 separate occasions in that post. Since you didnt cite what was self-important or what makes me a Blowhard aside from my I have to go comment, Im not sure what to respond to. Granted most people know that blogs are a place to spread invective like wildfire, but I think they were intended as a forum for debate. At least I have the guts to supply my name.

in addition, I would love to hear all the things that her campaign has done really well. Obviously based on your extensively researched posts, you should be able to offer something other MSM conspiracy.

I refuse to discuss the Rezko issue (not least because its ongoing) because I live in Chicago and the Trib has been browbeating me with it for the better part of his campaign and before.

I suppose there is more to discuss, but my education is more important than answering critiques that dont include a critique. But there is one last thing, this country was founded by blowhards and what makes America great is that we can say one thing and do another. (Oh and before you call me on it, that was plaigarized (and I might've mispelled plaigarized)
The best to you and yours,
chris

Yeah, I read that part, but I still don't see where it says the Obama campaign is strong-arming people. It could just be other politicians - Kennedy, Kerry - or maybe even Lewis' financial supporters. I just wouldn't read too much into it.

Have a good night.

Here is the transcript, I think it is pretty damning but I guess if you are a die hard supporter you could see it thru rose colored glasses.

BROWN: Let me start with you, Congressman Cleaver.

And just give me your reaction to Representative Lewis' decision.

CLEAVER: Well, I saw him today, joked with him earlier today. I have no reaction. I understand clearly that he is in charge of himself. He made a decision based on his own congressional district.

He has been under pressure. And I think he is a national hero. He is one of my heroes for sure. And I have nothing but respect for him. I also must say that there were those that put pressure on Mr. Lewis.

BROWN: But who were they? What kind of pressure?

CLEAVER: Well, I think you would have to ask him to talk about that.

BROWN: But you said you knew he was under pressure. So, who are you talking about?

CLEAVER: Yes, I do know. Well, I can only talk to you about what he said in the general way. I think he would have to give specifics if he chose to do that. And I think that -- and there are others if you're interested.

One of the ironies here is that one of the legends of the civil rights movement has been bludgeoned over what he fought to obtain for all of us. And that is that people could make independent political decisions without reprisal.

Then Rep Lee goes on to deny it is the Obama campaign applying the pressure.

That's it for me -- Goodnight all.

Joan, there is a difference between criticism and complaint. It is the job of a leader to have the wisdom to recognize what is wrong with the past and work to change it (or at the least avoid repeating it). By your definition, everyone is a whiner (including Hillary). Should we not criticize the f-ed up job Bush and many others have done for fear of being called whiners? I have heard few complaints come out of Obama's mouth during this campaign, but that is all I hear from Clinton these days.

Obama whines about stuff contantly but nobody calls him on it because he is a man.
When he accuses Hillary of using tactics from the "past", that is him whining. When he talks of "change", that is him whining.
Nothing worse than a whiny guy.
Yeah, we really want a President like that.
I'd like to see what he says if his name is mentioned during the Tony Rezko trial tomorrow. We will probably have to dig that up in the underground press, because the mainstream media fails to report these things. Obama needs to be questioned, because he changes his answers constantly, the sign of a liar.

"white and black women have little in common in respect to shared experience"

Wow I can't believe you said that. What do you base that on?

As to Clinton's baggage:

Certainly Bill Clinton's Lewinsky affair was wrong, but was Sen. Clinton somehow to blame for that? Are you suggesting that she should have let her husband. Is that your complaint.

She voted for the Iraq war because she and most of the country was misled by Bush.

I have not read of this pedophile case from any major news organization.

Let's talk about Obama's baggage.
One of Senator Obama's books "The Audacity of Hope" is based on the preaching of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, whose close ties with Louis Farrakhan, whom he honored as a "Great Man" is unnerving. He had a 17 year relationship with Tony Rezko, a Syrian slumlord (now in jail), who caused poor people to live in squalor on the south side of Chicago, without heat in the dead of winter. Then there is the campaign funding he received and ties to Nadhmi Auchi, a billionaire Iraqi terrorist funder and Rashid Khalid, a Pakistani terrorist, and the Kenyan terrorist, Raila Odinga. I also don't want to leave out the Weathermen, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Were they Timothy McVey's inspiration?
One of Obama's most aggressive and involved supporter is Oprah. Who has at least one school in Africa. Obamba, who's father, and his father's family is from Kenya, both have such strong ties to that part of the World. Has anyone elese been reading the World News? Everyday in the News, we read about the unrest and all the problems that are going on in Kenya. How do we know that we won't end up in the middle of that mess, having to send troops in there, or that we won't end up in another war, This time in Africa. This feels like another bush situation..........and thought is very scary!
Then there is the Exelon Corporation nuclear plant in Illinois that had not disclosed radioactive leaks that contaminated the drinking water at one of their plants. Senator Obama lied about how he did something about preventing this situation from happening again.
Now down to his Elmer Gantry character.
He is not truthful, and he tells the American people just what they want to hear, but he doesn't really say anything about how he will "Change" things. I watched the debate, and the hard questions were asked of Hillary first, then his answer would be "I agree". Hillary really did shine in the end.
Saturday Night Live really did a good impression of the whole Obamamania thing.
PT Barnum said it best "You will never go broke underestimating the American Public." It seems that Senator Obama is bulletproof from the media really revealing any of his dirt. But then again the media does not care about anything but their bottom line I also believe is a Republican ploy, in part, to gain a running mate for McCain. They knew that McCain was in the bag, in the primaries, so why not vote for his running mate? The question will come down to the general election, and who will come out to vote, and for whom.

I hope this explains why I support Hillary, and why I think it would be in the best interest of this country for her to win. If she doesn't win the nomination, then who else is there to vote for? Ralph Nader?

And we all know that Cathy Crowley is a Hillarian!

Tessa, I read that transcript and nowhere did it say that superdelegates were being strong-armed. The implication by Lewis himself was that the pressure was coming from his constituents and maybe the black community as a whole. The commentator (I forget who, was it Candy Crowley?) tried to steer it in the direction of some controversial statement about some specific person or entity putting pressure on Lewis and other black superdelegates, but there was no clear (or even ambiguous) conclusion to that effect.

As do I. That's a place where a person can really make a difference. Can a former President serve as a SP justice?
-----------------

definitely.

>>I have seen no evidence that his campaign has strong-armed >>anyone.

Here is a link to the CNN trascript

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/27/se.02.html

----------------

Thanks. I read the whole transcript and saw no evidence.
Can you point to something specific?

Women however have not voted as bloc while blacks have.

=============

True, but in the black culture, race is a greater divider than gender. Largely because white and black women have little in common in respect to shared experience, but all blacks share the prejudice they face simply because of their skin color.

Whereas we see Hispanics split along age lines because again, their experiences are different, given legal status and language issues.

I mean why wouldn't all blacks vote for Obama? He's a great candidate! And the blacks are a small percentage of the entire population.

Why don't all women vote for Hillary?
Baggage. She's got more baggage. Her co-dependent relationship with a man who took advantage of a young girl under his employ. Her vote for a stupid war. Her defense of a paedophile and grilling a 12 year-old girl..

there are legitimate reasons.

wpost4112 wrote:
"I hope [Obama] is a supreme court justice in his later years."

As do I. That's a place where a person can really make a difference. Can a former President serve as a SP justice?

>>I have seen no evidence that his campaign has strong-armed >>anyone.

Here is a link to the CNN trascript

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/27/se.02.html

Very true Artemis. But Americans are addicted to drama. They often can't understand a person like Barack, whose passion for truth and commitment to justice is more like smoldering embers than a conflagration.

An extraordinary person, let alone politician. I hope he is a supreme court justice in his later years.

Women however have not voted as bloc while blacks have.

I would just like to iterate something I said MUCH earlier:

Furthermore, it is shameful that Obama has been put on the defensive about his Muslim name and the question of whether he has ever been a practicing Muslim. I understand the importance of the question for Middle East foreign policy, but Obama has said that he has never been a practicing Muslim. Enough said. But his critics keep on pushing the issue, as if he is trying to hide something, suggesting that their interest is driven more by paranoia than a concern for foreign policy. Since when is religious freedom in America exclusive of certain religions? The whole debate is an insult to Muslims in America.

Obama is being attacked for his Muslim name and his African heritage - but he is the only candidate who has not reduced himself to using the physical and/or cultural attributes of his adversaries to sell himself. Finally, do you hear him whining today about the attacks on his person last night? Nope. He just keeps focused on the task at hand, no unnecessary distractions, no drama. Talk about a class act. Think about that.

Obama all along has set the bar very high. He has always claimed that he represented change from old politics. He would like to be the candidate of hope and unity.

He cannot be that and allow his campaign to strongarm delegates a la Bill Clinton.

Or for that matter pledge to use public financing and then change his mind
==============================

I have seen no evidence that his campaign has strong-armed anyone.

The public financing issue does trouble me and i await to see what he does should he become the nominee.

Prejudice is alive and well but in places we fail to recognize. Example: Male bias against females in authority roles is equally ugly. See MSNBC's political coverage for excellent examples of male bias. Did you watch the Black State of the Union message on C-Span? Their meeting was blatant exclusionary racism. MLK championed equality, not racism. Can you envision whites conducting a "White State of the Union" meeting today? Color-blind equality is not their goal. The bottom line is control.

===========================

But what if, as a white person, you lived in a country where you were only 16% of the population and had been oppressed for 200 years...wouldn't you feel a need to build self-esteem for the group as a whole before being able to join the 84% of the population that were former oppressors???

You don't speak of NOW...or other female organizations where men are not welcome. Again, is this not understandable?

I agree that there can be a reverse discrimination. How could there not be? Are blacks more perfect than whites that they are not prone to their own prejudices?

Why expect perfection of blacks that we have not ourselves achieved?

Chris,

Someone should go thru all the major talk shows today and count the number of times that Barak Obama was even mentioned...all I saw on every program were shills for Hillary and the SNL highlights. I'd love to hear the real story of how Clinton managed to totally shut down ANY coverage of Obama in the 48 hours before the Tuesday primaries. Did Bill threaten the networks? Or Paulson? Or are you all you talking heads just so excited to get attention from the big guns on her campaign that you blithly carry whatever message they offer to boost your numbers?

You all missed the real story, which was on 60 Minutes tonight, when Steve Kroft tried and failed to get Hillary to say whether or not her campaign was the source of the disgusting "Obama-is-a-Muslim-and hates the flag" smear campaign. I'm sure you and the rest of the MSM will ask her one of these days, and maybe even get a straight answer, right after the Tuesday primaries have made the issue irrelevant.

Cheers for Hillary's last bid on young voters.

However, I found the skit extremely distasteful and have never fancied SNL humour.

Obama all along has set the bar very high. He has always claimed that he represented change from old politics. He would like to be the candidate of hope and unity.

He cannot be that and allow his campaign to strongarm delegates a la Bill Clinton.

Or for that matter pledge to use public financing and then change his mind.

Prejudice is alive and well but in places we fail to recognize. Example: Male bias against females in authority roles is equally ugly. See MSNBC's political coverage for excellent examples of male bias. Did you watch the Black State of the Union message on C-Span? Their meeting was blatant exclusionary racism. MLK championed equality, not racism. Can you envision whites conducting a "White State of the Union" meeting today? Color-blind equality is not their goal. The bottom line is control.

If he is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for Obama, but I won't vote for him because he is black. Nor will I vote for Hillary because she is female. My choice is Hillary because she is the only Democrat left in the race who is both experienced and qualified.

Actually, after Obama's performance in the last debate,

Ditch is the new black.

First off Chris, you come off as some self important, self righteous, all knowing jack*ss.
I am not sure who you think you are impressing with that BS, but your not on some date with a blond chick at the local college pub. You claim to be a student and you may have read a couple of books, but you obviously are naive. What America hates more than anything are BlowHards.
Oh I have to go now, Nasa's calling me, I need to give them some specs for a new hydo -powered rocket. What a SCHMUCK!

I am getting a t-shirt that says "B--ch is the new Black!" You go girl!

"If you don't think Sen Obama's campaign is appealing to racism how do you explain Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri comments on CNN that superdelegates have been told, "You're not black if you're not supporting Barack Obama. ... It is ugly."
Rep Cleaver is an African American supporting Sen. Clinton."

-----------------

I treat this like the story about Bill Clinton strong-arming Bill Richardson. Intense politics.

If I ever saw proof that Obama's campaign officially did something like this, I'd have to reconsider. I suppose it is mostly black-on-black "political persuasion" by overzealous types acting on their (misguided) own. Now, I have read reports of black constituents telling their elected representatives that their political future depends on their delegate vote...and this is just political reality...and nothing to do with Obama per se.

Is their a racial element to Barack's campaign?..sure...just as their is gender AND race in Hillary's campaign, just as their is in McCain's campaign.

So?

Same if their were a Hispanic candidate.

How long did it take us white folk to get beyond the Protestant/Catholic/Irish/Italian/German boundaries? WE still struggle with Xtian/Jewish.
So it will take more time to look beyond race and gender, but we are far along the road.

I do agree that it is easier to get away with gender bias than race bias...partly because some gender differences are hard-wired and harder to distinguish whereas race differences are only skin deep.

Having taught in both all-male and all-female schools, I can attest that they are world's apart in modi operandi.

APPALLED by Senator Clinton's Comments on 60 Minutes on Sunday

This is the kind of change that Senator Obama is talking about -- a change from this kind of talk and behavior and down in the mud tactics. He is not simply talking about a change in policies. I was stunned when I watched 60 Minutes this evening. I simply do not understand how Senator Clinton, as sophisticated and intelligence and "experienced" as she is, could have responded in this way on a national news show. Following is her response to Steve Croft's inquiry regarding whether Senator Clinton thinks Senator Obama is a Muslim. Surely there are a hundred better ways she could have answered this?

HRC: "Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."

Croft: "You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...?"

HRC: "No, no. There is nothing to base that on. As far as I know."

Okay, there is a lot to respond to, but I will not try to attack too many people because that does nothing to further the debate.

Im sorry, but MSM media has been quick to blow things out of proportion since 24hr networks arrived. And if there was anything to the charges that HRC's campaign drops about BHO every few days then they would gain traction in the media. I agree that MSNBC is a half-assed network and an ideological mud-puddle (and Im democratic, so I wont go fellating Fox anytime soon). So Matthews, Schuster, etc are irrelevant, much as talk of celebrities or tv shows swaying votes is irrelevant. These shows are a needed relief during any campaign or presidency. Just so you know, most Obama supporters dont race-bait or any other pandering. The people who denounced WJC's comments were HRC supporters until bill screwed it up for her. Media report things, it is up to us to interpret the reports. Pundits have an opinion, dont like it, dont listen to it. Take a media and politics class and you will learn how they report things, and NOTHING...I repeat NOTHING will surprise you. Moreover, I would suggest reading Walter Lippman's account of the media's influence in primaries (warning: it's very pro-smoke-filled room and anti-media for the feeding frenzies many of you decry). If you cant make anything stick with Obama dont be shrill, work on defining yourself like in NH, (when I stopped listening to any of the BS the MSM spreads)where you won.

Also, I have looked at several blogs just to see why people support their candidate and it seems that Mark Penn is either ghostwriting or the OSAMA jab is just too irresistable.

One thing that i have to respond to however, is the charge that young people are caught up in the haze and excitement of Obama is another reason we forego the polls when the major parties put up BS candidates (John Kerry...please). I could be more of a jerk to you "unclebraddah" but you know what you wrote was crap. What happened to Howard Dean? Not only that, there is this tendency (that often produces political paralysis and the dreaded status quo)to live in the past. The fact that WJC was a great pres is not an argument for HRC's candidacy!The same kind of mentality is the reason there will never be a two-state solution. All the past is for is to learn...not to browbeat the present with your lamentations over what once was.

As a poli-sci student I think Im somewhat able to diagnose some failures of her campaign.

1) too much reliance on polls, nothing underdogs hate more than someone who writes you off before the contest takes place!

2)Telecasts via Satellite to large states and ignoring small states is the kind of defeatist strategy that kept the Dems out of the ascendance in congress for so long (while the treasury was raped a 1000x over). Does anyone remember the MSM story about how the DNC engineered their routing of the Repubs in 06'. They went to every state...not writing off those that are traditionally red.

3)Just because your campaign team has accolades that far proceed them doesnt mean they wont say stupid things (more often than not)repeatedly!

4) BILL!!!!!!!damn egomaniac...anyone remember the "me and 41 are going to clean up our image in the world" comment that GHWB didnt even know about.

There is more to be said, but those are probably the most glaring errors.

And before any of you claim Im caught up in the fever. His record does show that he will better to our Constitution than any of the others. The speech thing is a non-issue and I dont like that his campaign has made that their National Security argument because its weak. For all of you who like to parrot HRC's charge that "he voted to keep funding the war, so his speech doesnt mean anything." Does anyone understand how committee assignment, and party line voting work, if so you might understand why BHO didnt hang his political future by a rhetorical "no" vote that wouldnt have affected policy in the least?

Also, he does have legislative accomplishments in the Senate, which next to HRC's, makes her look like she's been on ciesta.
I have to go right now,
Chris

5)

oh dear! Joan the baptist has returned from the desert!

Reason has taken wing!

Having watched the tedious debate reenactment, the race-bating Obama Files and the at best mildly amusing "Editorial Response" starring Sen. Clinton, I have the suspicion that SNL's writers are still on strike.

Good comedy brings an underlying truth to light. What I've seen of SNL suggests the show operates on the distortion of truth. If other countries do it, we call it propaganda.

joanthebaptist1 wrote:
"I thought the line about Hillary being relentless to get things done, is right on."

Keep in mind that her method for getting things done was to hound people to death with a shrill voice and other obnoxious personality traits, traits that are always assigned to strong women by sexist men. And this characterization of her was taken to be positive? I keep coming back to the same word: shameful.

Hey Jim, Research this!
Obama's Boneheaded Mistake

The allegations against Rezko that involve Obama are contained in one paragraph of a 78-page document filed last month in which prosecutors outline their corruption and fraud case against Rezko, who was also a key money man for Gov. Blagojevich and other politicians. Rezko is set to go to trial Feb. 25. The revelation that Obama's name could come up in court is a political headache he doesn't need as he heads into a round of primaries that are likely to determine his party's nomination for president. 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 -- a state senator when he got the contributions in 2004 -- has moved to distance himself from Rezko since his longtime friend and supporter was indicted in October 2006. After news reports that Obama had engaged in a real estate transaction with Rezko's wife at a time Tony Rezko was known to be under investigation, the senator called the episode "boneheaded" and "a mistake."

'No way of knowing'

Obama campaign aides said Friday he was unaware Rezko was behind the contributions cited in last month's court filing or that the document referred to the senator."We have no way of knowing he is the politician named here," spokesman Bill Burton said, "but we returned this money months ago for other reasons." 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. Repeated attempts to reach Aramanda, who was involved in pizza franchises Rezko owned, were unsuccessful. He has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

A longstanding relationship

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."

Absolutely in her favor! Its about time she fought back against a little sexism or gender bias in the media, poking fun at the pundits, their spin and herself too. SNL just proves Hillary is 'up' for any challenge and she is ready to roll!
P.S. (on day one!)

wow, she almost sounded like a human being. she must be getting great coaching ...

If you don't think Sen Obama's campaign is appealing to racism how do you explain Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri comments on CNN that superdelegates have been told, "You're not black if you're not supporting Barack Obama. ... It is ugly."
Rep Cleaver is an African American supporting Sen. Clinton.

We don't need a laid back president, We need a pitbull.

-----------

That's always the VP job description. Not the P.
She'd definitely be great for VP.
A pitbull will not restore this nation to glory.
But a positive person of excellent judgment will.
That's Barack.

He is beginning to be looked at more closely.

-----------

Well, I agree that THAT is a good thing.

I thought the last two shows were really good. It showed Hillary on a lighter side. It showed her sense of humor, and smart people usually have a sense of humor.
Comedy is exaggeration, and it's the surprise element, comedy 101, so for the people that are offended, lighten up. Alot of Comedy is based on truth and SNL is known for their political skits, and it's a hit or miss. This was definitely a hit. I thought the line about Hillary being relentless to get things done, is right on.
I think she has what it takes to get things
done. We don't need a laid back president, We need a pitbull.

"He said they have been told, "You're not black if you're not supporting Barack Obama. ... It is ugly."
-------------

Nothing compared to what women are being accused of by Gloria Steinem and company.

"BurgeNicole,

So I guess playing by the rules is telling superdelegates what they must do- or is it sicking Donna Brasille on innocent comments and making a racist flak that brings you from 40% among African Americans in SC to 80%, thus saving your campaign.

Look, they are both doing what they need to do to win, but Obamopaths believe that their immaculate candidate is "above the fray" when he has been rolling in the dirt the whole time. Look at the article in the New Republic:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304&k=5083

----------------------

That article was written by a Clinton shill.

He testified at Bill's impeachment, in a particularly embarassing performance according to the NYT, and his wife, another Princeton prof, heads up "Feminists for Hillary."

So much for objectivity.

The change is the fact that not all the news reports about Obama are rosy.

He is beginning to be looked at more closely.

I think in the past week we've seen a real change in the media.

---------------

Seems like the same old media to me.

next weel it'll be Hillary's hiding her tax returns, Bill's relationship with that dictator in Turlestan, the upcoming lawsuit against the Clintons by one of their fund=raisers, etc etc

I have no desire to see either candidate on snl. Nor do I wish to see them dancing with Ellen. While it may provide a brief moment of amusement I feel it diminishes the dignity of the nominees and more importantly undermines their future stature should they become president.

They should not have to resort to a comedy show in order to convey to us their humanity or their sense of humor. If they feel this is the only vehicle which allows them to communicate these traits then they are sadly lacking.

I think this SNL sketch could really go either way, depending.

I'm part of the "youth voting bloc" and I don't know anyone who watches SNL anymore. Then again a significant amount of young adults will probably see this online. And in general, I like to think that most people determine who they're voting for off of something more substantial than SNL (Then again, that's probably how a majority of young people are informed about any type of politics). I don't see it giving her much of a boost.

It could also go the other direction, especially for people who watched the last debate. The part at the beginning where Hillary made comments about the media giving her the first question and referred people to the SNL sketch came off as really whiny. I mean, sure your supporters feel bad for you but I doubt anyone else does. Being treated "unfairly" by the media is part of being a public figure. So this follow up sketch to the original one, coupled with her comments in the debate could end up backfiring on her.

All that said, I doubt it's going to make any difference at all.

One other new item from this week that I thought was interesting was how much pressure black superdelegates were getting to support Obama.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri said Thursday that black Democratic superdelegates who support Sen. Hillary Clinton have been "bludgeoned verbally" to prod them to switch to Sen. Barack Obama.

Cleaver, who is African-American and a superdelegate, has backed Clinton since last summer and this week re-emphasized that support. He said that he himself has not been pressured, but that black superdelegates from all over the country have been subjected to harassment, threatened with primary opponents and called "Uncle Tom."

He said they have been told, "You're not black if you're not supporting Barack Obama. ... It is ugly."

BurgeNicole,

So I guess playing by the rules is telling superdelegates what they must do- or is it sicking Donna Brasille on innocent comments and making a racist flak that brings you from 40% among African Americans in SC to 80%, thus saving your campaign.

Look, they are both doing what they need to do to win, but Obamopaths believe that their immaculate candidate is "above the fray" when he has been rolling in the dirt the whole time. Look at the article in the New Republic:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304&k=5083

Additionally, many of the politically and historically naive supporters of Obama- not all of his supporters, but those who ignored politics previously or voted for W or the like- don't really utilize the traditional media outlets.
comedy does leave an impression- it was when Leno and Letterman put the Dean scream on in 04 that I knew the campaign was over- nothing worse than being the target of a joke that assumes something is a truth when it is not (the scream was nothing in context). It is my hope that something allows people to relook at this campaign and realize that running a 2 year senator who gets almost all his support from wealthy educated whites and the African American population might be a bad idea since we did not gain the whitehouse with this coalition the last 2 times.

Leon

I think in the past week we've seen a real change in the media. Obama has had to answer questions about Louis Farakhan and his pastor Jeremiah Wright's award to him. Questions about whether his economic advisor contacted Canadian goverment officials to warn them that he would be anti-NAFTA during his campaign but that it was just empty campaign rhetoric. Bush, Clinton & McCain have all criticized his foreign policy credentials.

And now even SNL is pointing out some of the media bias during the election.

And yet to come the Reszko trial .. . .

It was alright, they could have done something more creative with her than they did but that's hardly her fault. It reminded me of when Bob Dole showed up to meet Norm MacDonald who had been playing him during the 96 election. Barack's appearance on SNL was a bit better, although she did better on Letterman. So it's all a toss-up, they both have their moments.

Interesting comparison by Dowd:

Tangled in her own victimhood, she snipped to Cynthia McFadden that Obama had written in his book that "he's a blank screen and people of widely different views project what they want to believe onto him." She said voters were projecting their hopes onto that blank screen even though "he just hasn't been around long enough."

In the next breath, asked about the women who feel sorry for her, she said: "I think a lot of women project their own feelings and their lives on to me, and they see how hard this is. It's hard. It's hard being a woman out there."

So projection is bad with Obama but good with her?

--------------

The old Clinton two=step.

Here's a newsflash for all the democrats out there (read this Terry McAuliff!!) - Hillary alienated every republican when she outright called her husband's affair w/ Monica "a rightwing republican conspiracy" I'm sorry, but I don't believe that Monica was a republican and I don't remember ever receiving an apology for her offensive remarks.

Should Obama win the nomination, I will be voting for Obama. Should Hillary win the nomination, I will run out and vote for McCain. There you have it DEMS - the choice is yours. Hillary is way too polarizing and vindictive to unite this country and if you want the White House, you need someone you can elect. - good luck -a former republican/new independent (& there's a lot of us out there - there's no magic in this pollsters!!!)

BTW - remember how great Al Gore was on SNL afer he lost?? Again, a little too little, too late but maybe Hillary will have a great career as a documentary film maker??

Chris said tonight on Larry King live, that if Hillary should win there would be lots of deffectors who wouldn't vote for her. This really demonstrates the point that in fact many Obama's supporters ARE overly zealous.

-------------------

That's not what he said. What he said was (and anyone can watch for themselves) that Obama's supporters were more likely to opt out then Hillary's supporters.

He didn't say all or even most, just more than Hillary's....It doesn't make them more zealous
or even zealous, just motivated by Barack and not Hillary, as many Republicans are not motivated by NcCain and will stay home during the general.

I support Barack and am undecided between McCain and Hillary during the geneal. It will depend on how she wins the nomination.

It must be by significant wins in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, not by subterfuge or tortured arguments.

All the hate on Barack doesn't bother me....lot of nuts out there.... but there are many women legitimately pasionate about putting a woman in the WH...their frustration is something I can understand, even if it is expressed crudely or directed towards Barack.

jmcauli1 wrote:
"There is one mannerism that Fred Armisen/Obama has missed out on though. That's the one when Clinton is about to make a convincing point that Obama doesn't like so he raises his index finger like a kid in grade school who was always brown-nosing the teacher

That's all he has to do and the reporters stop listening to Clinton and become transfixed on Obama."

The reason they omitted the finger is because they never allowed him to speak. In real life, he actually speaks. Though I don't agree with you, I found your Three Stooges analogy hilarious.

wpost4112 wrote:
"He never said a negative word about his opponent..."

Yep. As I said much, much earlier in this thread, he is a class act. Thanks for sharing that - I have not had a chance to see him in person.

Chris said tonight on Larry King live, that if Hillary should win there would be lots of deffectors who wouldn't vote for her. This really demonstrates the point that in fact many Obama's supporters ARE overly zealous.

It's interesting because it's Hillary who has mentioned party unity in almost every debate, stating that what ever happens the party would unite around the candidate who won the nomination, while Obama has never used those words.

It's clear that though the MO has been swingin his way, she is now on the receiving end, and of course now the Obama campaign wants her to bow out.

Her campaign just started to get into gear in the last month, so the longer she runs, I see her MO on the upswing, enough to win.

Seytom wrote:
"To the Clinton people manipulation is simply the way things are done."

Yep, and we don't need another 8 years of that. Thanks for bringing it up.

When this chick lets her boundaries down, she rocks!

===============

Agreed, Would that she had Margaret Thatcher's confidence and resolve (not to be confused with Thatcher's political views). I'd vote for her in a second.

Hillary has great comedic timing! I enjoyed this clip very much.

When this chick lets her boundaries down, she rocks!!!!

Go Girlfriend! ;-)

Richardson to endorse Barack on Wednesday.

Hey, she's got natural comedic timing. I enjoyed seeing her in this manner.

When this chick lets her boundaries down, she rocks!

Both Hillary and Barak in Westerville Ohio today...Barack drew a much larger crowd...strange for a conservative Ohio town...this from someone who was there:

First disturbing thing I noticed as I arrived; Hillary supporters protesting the Obama event (THIS FROM FELLOW DEMS OUTRAGED THE HUGE LINES OF SUPPORTERS!) There were ~ 6 that I saw with hand made signs. On a funnier noter someone made a 15 foot float based on Dr Strangelove showing John McCain riding a giant missile stating NO MORE WARS!

When the meeting was over, someone called and asked me what I thought. I was mildly surprised by my answer:

Yes, I said simply. Yes, he just might be all that.

In person, Barack Obama is even more charismatic than on TV. He is tall, lithe, coordinated. He is thoughtful and funny at the same time. His enormous appeal seems to be built on a combination of intellectual and social intelligence. One of the people present was, I knew, a Hillary Clinton supporter. Obama clearly sensed that, bore in, tried to win her over.

I asked him a question about the nation's decaying infrastructure; would he, if necessary, support something like a new WPA, the federal program that put the unemployed to work during the Depression? Obama responded with a sophisticated plan for a program that would assist states and communities to do just that, by using a pool of matching fund money.

His program made sense, but what impressed me more was that he had clearly studied the issue, assimilated the knowledge, and was able to call it forth without seeming like a policy wonk.

Bottom line, what he seemed to be saying was that he thought he could bring about change -- because he thinks we are ready to bring about change, after the years of the lies and filth and greed of the Bush administration. Would he ask us to sacrifice?

Yes, he would. We're going to pay more for energy, for gasoline and electricity, and that's probably not all. He wants to give students a $4,000 tuition credit -- and would require them to do a fair amount of national or community service.

He intends to do a lot of things, but adds, "My first job is to build a working majority. And despite having an unabashedly progressive agenda, I've been able to attract independent and even some Republican votes, in a way that I'm afraid Hillary Clinton can't." He never said a negative word about his opponent, except that she is "too polarizing a figure" to bridge the great divide in our nation today.

Why has there been no commentary on what seems almost certainly to be a set-up by the Clinton campaign, with the help of SNL? First Wolfson and then Clinton call attention, rather oddly, to a favorable SNL skit, then lo and behold, the next week, the weekend before the Ohio and Texas votes, she appears on SNL. To the Clinton people manipulation is simply the way things are done.

consignjp wrote:
"I find it truly amazing that the blacks will vote for anyone just because they are black and they will stick together for a common goal which is all well and good but women, well they just don't get it - which is why we will probably NEVER have a woman in the White House. They play right into men's hands. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb."

So we should vote for a woman just because she is a woman? That insults the intelligence of intelligent women. Blacks are voting for Obama because he is a great black candidate. If he weren't, they probably wouldn't. Hillary is not a great female candidate. She is a Clinton. Enough said.

I found the skit to be funny, not as funny as the last one, but funny enough.

There is one mannerism that Fred Armisen/Obama has missed out on though. That's the one when Clinton is about to make a convincing point that Obama doesn't like so he raises his index finger like a kid in grade school who was always brown-nosing the teacher

That's all he has to do and the reporters stop listening to Clinton and become transfixed on Obama.

He could turn that into the old Three Stooges routine where Mo has the other two mesmerized by his hand movement, so much so that Larry and Curly end up rapping their heads against a table as Mo's hand slaps the same table or whatever object Mo wants them to rap their heads on.

The skit, as funny as it was, was nothing compared to the rousing and heart-warming round of applause the audience gave her.

It is clear that that group of New Yorkers know Hillary from experience and see her as the kind, generous, funny, and warm-hearted women that she is.

They never bought into the Right-wing smear machine's ugly caricature of her that the ankle-biting Obamanuts so quickly and shamelessly repeat about a fellow Democrat.

SNL bit was okay.

This is funnier.
A video by the Daily Show I think.
The whole series is good.

youtube.com/watch?v=zNfnROOfbU8

SNL bit was okay.

This is funnier.
A video by the Daily Show I think.
The whole series is good.

youtube.com/watch?v=zNfnROOfbU8

Hillary Clinton truly is a class act! She has faithfully served her country for some thirty years and has made significant contributions. Yet despite her service, she's received unbelievable abuse. I continue to be amazed with her grace, as well as her ability to remain focused and positive in the face of media bias and hits from the Karl Rove's. I find her ability to forgive and to remain focused on goals and the well-being of our country particularly impressive. Hillary Clinton's numerous strengths make me extremely proud to be an American!

Clinton on SNL. A brilliant idea to help voters see her as a regular person. It cannot fail to help her win the Iowa caucuses and cement her status as frontrunner. What? Oh. Well then its a brilliant idea to help humanize her consumers who might want to buy a book.

reminder of your original statement....

"Incidentally Zogby is on B.O steering comittee so I have a real problem with this obvious conflict of interest."

Enjoying the conversation.

Not sure sharing the stage was kind to Clinton. First, she had a 'firewall' strategy (where other losses don't matter) like Rudy's. Now she shares the stage with the first proponent of the failed firewall strategy. A concession next Saturday night? Still waiting for a McCain spoof, the man is BEGGING for it!!!

Tags: Zogby, Polls, Obama, Superdelegate

I am waiting for an apology.

===================

I'd be happy to apologize if necessary, but cannot access that article. Can you provide the complete article so i can vet?
Thanks.

WaPo put up an ambiguous headline on this article. "Hillary on SNL" said to me "Hillary gives her opinion of the SNL skits." I almost didn't read the article. I thought the scene was good, and I liked the one last week too, but I only see them on the Internet because I don't own a TV.

Oh ljaffe. lighten up. Hillary has more class in her little toe than you. Do you have to call the gracious lady such names. You should go to the library and read. You have so much to learn.

Hillary shows again why she is so awesome!

She is so well prepared and smart, but, can put you at ease with her witty and fun personality. Among her many assets is her 35 years of experience, not only in politics and public policy, but, also her background in law, corporate development and business strategy. She would make a tremendous president and Obama a great VP to her, this would be an ideal way for him to gain the experience he lacks for a future presidential run.

However, it's a shame that a majority of white men don't like her and are costing her this election and deserved presidency, more importantly it's a shame for our nation and our progress.

no proof? here is my proof about Zogby its the brother who also runs Zogby research. I remember reading this story just wasn't sure wher and hearing John Zogby confronted by Russert on Meet the Press weeks ago about it. I don't come here just making up bs as some want to do to advance their candidate. Does it effect their polling which always seems to inflate B.O polling spreads, you decide, but you were wrong and here is the proof from myDD a progressive proObama site. How about Brazinksy are you going to try and convince me that that her BO cheerleading has no connection to her dad who is B.O.'s foreign affairs top advisor. See a pattern here of conflicts? Do you want proof that Zbignew Brazinky is Mika's dad?
Apparently others have pointed out these conflicts by the media which no one wants to confront.

Zogby Analyst is Obama Superdelegate
by silver spring, Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:42:35 AM EST

I found this interesting story in the Legal Times this morning:

http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.j sp?id=1201601143051&hub=TopStoriesMo re

"The Battle for Superdelegates Heats Up in D.C."

"James Zogby is firmly in the Obama camp -- so much so that he's worked other superdelegates on behalf of the Obama campaign. The president of the Arab American Institute says he first heard Obama speak at the 2004 convention, when Obama burst onto the national political stage, and he was impressed.

And then in February 2006, Obama spoke at a DNC meeting, giving "a thoughtful discourse on the idea of cynicism, and talked about how we need to install idealism in politics." That was enough for Zogby, who gave Obama workers his