home

While OlbermannThrows A Sorrow and Pity Party . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:46:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

. . . Hillary Clinton says:

Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that she would favor restaging the Florida and Michigan primaries, if the Democratic national Committee continues to insist that primaries' original results won't be counted.

. . .[S]he added that if the Democratic National Committee continues to insist that the delegates from those states not be seated at the party's convention this summer, then the primaries should be held again. "In my view there are two options: Honor the results or hold new primary elections,'' Clinton said. She said she hoped rival Barack Obama's campaign would join her "in working to make that happen.''

While Barack Obama, his NBC network and his MSNBC news anchor are more concerned with holding a Sorrow and Pity Party, some of us are thinking about the voters in Florida and Michigan.

Please note that the votes of the people of Florida and Michigan is a big joke for Obama's newscaster. Remember this when he intones serious and sorrowful in his Special Comment. Obama's own Bill O'Reilly.

I'm watching Olbermann, and I have to say, he is rather incoherent. Not even offensive, sexist or insulting. Just sort of rambling and incoherent. My honest take. Maybe it got blue pencilled or something. I have a hard time following what he is trying to say.

Update (TL): Comments now closed, over 200.

< Poll: FL Dem Voters Favor Mail In Revote | Weds. Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    While OlbermannThrows A Sorrow and Pity Party . . . | 207 comments (207 topical)
    Once again Hillary is acting like the mature adult (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:51:08 PM EST
    and suggesting something reasonable.  

    Just Wait Till Mom Gets Home (none / 0) (#185)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:35:20 PM EST
    I'd love to see that in a T-shirt, with Hillary standing in front of the White House.

    Parent
    BTD, do not let up one little bit (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:52:57 PM EST
    Heck, there's still time for more MI/FL diaries tonight -- what was asked of you in an earlier thread, 10 a day? :-) And more tomorrow. Every so-called liberal blog ought to be hammering and hammering on this issue. I appreciate that one is doing so.

    "By Mail" threaten Popular Vote Leader? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:56:31 PM EST
    Technically a new vote in Florida is not really a revote at all. It was stated in advance that the Jan 29th primary would not count. In fact, Dean referred to it as a beauty contest.

    Put in perspective, it was a game before the regular season started, an exhibition game per se. An exhibition game that can be argued before committee at the convention to make it count, but for all intents and purposes...a pre season practice vote.

    A new "By Mail" primary has to scare Obama a little. The Jan 29th Primary had a record 41% turnout. Comparing by using Oregon's voter turnout figures, the number of voters in a new By Mail Primary could obliterate that previous Florida record. In Florida the number of voters participating in a new meaningful election could go up by half a million.

    The best advice I can give the Obama campaign is speak up quickly on how great it is that Florida votes will count this time...or be caught looking like George Bush trying to suppress the vote in a swing state.

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#51)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:49:58 PM EST
    I made much the same comment somewhere here yesterday--Obama and his camp should publicly and enthusiastically embrace a re-vote and get the most mileage possible out of what's obviously going to happen anyway.

    If he drags his feet on this one, it will hand Clinton a huge weapon for for some very pointed ads in PA, plus it will trigger a press reaction, like an Olbermann Special Comment saying...

    What?  Why are you all looking at me like that?  Is my fly open?


    Parent

    thought I read Obama lawyered up (none / 0) (#119)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:26:02 PM EST
    about this mail in ballot plan. Where did I read it?
    TPM or DU.

    I think it will stall the process or run out the clock strategy.

    and the other blogs are calling on Hillary to quit as they know the longer it goes Obama is looked at closer. His surrogates are crying, the party is going to be destroyed, blah blah.....Actually it will make the party stronger by making sure everyone is counted. The more I see Obama the more I see someone who is indicisive and doesn't say much to sway me into his direction.

    To watch Kos do some kind of weird graph, that doesn't amount to anything really because its not the election.

    Unless St.McSame  re-invents itself, he's rich to exploit as a warmonger destroying the country with a perpetual unpopular war.

    Parent

    i'm sure he is on record somewhere... (none / 0) (#150)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:59:52 PM EST
    ...standing behind Al Gore's demand that every vote in FL should be (re)counted...

    Parent
    What irony (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by hitchhiker on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:01:17 PM EST
    Her only real path to the nomination involves the popular vote from Florida . . . his way is clear if he can keep that vote from ever being counted (and may be clear anyway).

    If I'm her, there's no choice but to call for the re-vote.

    If I'm him, it's a dangerous calculus between looking like he doesn't want Florida to vote and keeping his popular vote lead.

    For a Democrat to say that Florida voters must pay for the dumb mistakes of their own leaders -- that's breathtaking.  

    I wonder if he's man enough to do the right thing?

    His choice (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:03:31 PM EST
    will  speak  volumes  about his   real character  and judgement, won't  it?

    Parent
    Yeah he is every bit the pol Hillary and Bill are (none / 0) (#14)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:06:19 PM EST
    I think BTD has mentioned this before...

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:18:06 PM EST
    he's  certainly    NOT    something  "new."  

    He's   a  Chicago  pol.    Nuff  said.

    Parent

    He's a transformational politician (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:48:56 PM EST
    Not sure, at this point, exactly what he is transforming himself, or us, into.

    Parent
    Don't ever mention (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by OldCoastie on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:57:53 PM EST
    on any site with bots that Obama is a politician and uses stratgies and tactics...

    it will earn you much fury...

    Parent

    it already does. (none / 0) (#84)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:48:03 PM EST


    Parent
    This is the test of whether a candidate (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:05:25 PM EST
    ought to be the president, the leader of the free world.  Starting with democracy in Michigan and Florida, not their disenfranchisement.

    This is it, Obama.  This is the big one.

    Parent

    If he makes it a point that he's risking it all (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:43:15 PM EST
    for the good of the democracy, that might turn some heads. I really think the only way he can do this is if he shows people that he knows the stakes, he knows this could end his run, but he will do it anyway. Embrace it.

    Parent
    You're right (none / 0) (#136)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:45:57 PM EST
    This is the big Q for Obama...

    What boggles my mind is why HRC has not completely dropped the hammer on him on this issue...he is 100% exposed here, is she scared of the neg. spin?

    Parent

    Have to be mindful of the news cycle (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:04:51 PM EST
    Spitzer resigned today, that must have dominated the news. Hopefully tomorrow she will come out strong on this.

    Parent
    any assumptions about florida (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by cy street on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:05:45 PM EST
    moving forward are fools gold.  it could break either way.  miz clinton might build upon her beauty contest numbers.  mister obama might win outright.

    there will be a huge influx of dem voters if the contest might determine the presidency.  my throat curdles just thinking about it.

    i would be cautious making any projections based on january.  that was a century ago, politically speaking.

    Parent

    Exactly my point throughout (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:08:10 PM EST
    Changing the timing of an election is just as unthinkable as changing the location.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#73)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:40:48 PM EST
    Elections are postponed all the time.  I'll whip my dead horse again - an election where the stakes change after the results are known is not a fair election.

    Parent
    For better reasons (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:24:25 PM EST
    If the World Series is postponed cause of an earthquake, OK then.

    If it's postponed cause the umpires and the commisioner couldn't get it together, and then it turns out that postponement favors one team more than the other, then there's a problem.

    Parent

    Let's not forget... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:22:03 PM EST
    ...the reason for this entire flap as that enough people think the timing of elections DOES matter.  Else, the DNC in infinite wisdom wouldn't have nullifed the FL and MI primaries...

    Parent
    That's fine (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:14:57 PM EST
    This is about more than Obama or Clinton winning the nomination. It's about Dems winning the state in November. If FL has record turnout in a re-vote and Obama wins, more power to him.

    But he is a Democrat. He must be for voting and for the voters before he is for his own candidacy.

    Parent

    Yes (3.25 / 4) (#26)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:21:04 PM EST
    We'll   see  if   lil  Obama  can put  what's  right for  the  party  ahead  of his own  personal  gain.    

    Or   if  he  can  bamboozle  the  voters  with   Edgar's   description  of  the   game  Obama's playing.    

    May  backfire  completely on  lil  Obama.

    Parent

    lil Obama? (3.00 / 2) (#67)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:37:30 PM EST
    That's kind of uncalled for.  But I agree with you a revote is the only sensible option.

    Parent
    If Obama wins a re-vote in (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:50:39 PM EST
    either or both states, so be it. If he is what the majority of Democratic voters want, when all have had their say, so be it. But don't whinge about superdelegates and then say that the Democratic voters of two major states should be completely disenfranchised behind the facade of an arbitrary 50/50 split of the delegations.

    Parent
    excuse me, we are talking about (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:50:24 PM EST
    two states' votes here and disenfranchising them. they have a right to have their votes counted or recounted. and please explain why south carolina broke the rules and hasn't had the same response. i say redo the vote there or apply the same penality to them.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:26:04 PM EST
    I agree there is no way to know what will happen seven weeks from now in a Florida revote. But I do know how it will be perceived if one candidate continues to come across as if he is against every vote counting.

    I still think back to a post of mine here the night of Texas and Ohio suggesting the best move for Obama right then would be to publicly support a revote in Florida and Michigan. Eight days later they still haven't figured it out and he is risking a backlash.

    Parent

    I'm not sure (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by jen on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:54:01 PM EST
    where the backlash would come from. To many (most?) O supporters, from what I've seen, he can do/say anything and they will defend him. They are in so deep that it's beyond logic, really.


    Parent
    She won FL by 17 points (none / 0) (#152)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:02:12 PM EST
    ...in a 3 candidate race.  That's a margin of some 300,000 votes.  If Obama even thought he had a shot at flipping the state, he'd be all over.  Even a close outcome wouldn't given Clinton much of a delegate advantage.

    Parent
    First they hint at 'taking their ball home,' (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by felizarte on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:43:30 PM EST
    now he is actually holding the entire democratic party hostage by proposing such an unfair option.

    Parent
    And if Obama's successful ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:32:23 PM EST
    his metamorphosis into Bush is complete.

    All stand back in wonder at the gleaming glory that is .. Bush 2.00.

    New and Improved!  Now with MI-FL-NO a stronger voter suppression agent!

    Parent

    I saw the Bushian strategy (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:37:56 PM EST
    in the wierd speeches, in the wierd holy light eminating from his web site.

    The man has literally scared me for a long time.

    He's really, really not a Democrat.

    Parent

    I'm telling you (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:10:02 PM EST
    KO is demonstrating the Unity Schtick 2.0.

    They want to unite the whole country in opposition to the evil that is Hillary Clinton.

    It might work!

    The truth comes out (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:11:00 PM EST
    BTD is actually Wolcott!

    BTD, (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by nemo52 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:36:26 PM EST
    I know you're a (conflicted) Obama supporter because you think he has the better chance of winning in the GE.  I respectfully disagree.  I think all the race-baiting and game-playing the Obama campaign is doing will come back to bite him, big-time, in the generals.  Hillary is a known quantitiy, and she simply does not back down.  I don't think the "if you don't support me, you're a racist" tack will fly in the general election at all -- Obama will fold like a pup tent in the face of the Republican onslaught, and we'll have a Republican president once again.

    I'd agree... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:51:30 PM EST
    The Obama campaign has been lulled by its own hype and the media's complicity.  OF COURSE every pundit and reporter in the nation will feign outrage over any ridiculous comment the campaign elevates as "racist."  I'll give props to Ferraro for actually saying what a lot of people are thinking but too conditioned to keep to themselves.

    In the voting booth there is no explanation needed.  There's no fear of being publicly shamed or browbeaten.  And, quite honestly, it does offend many white Americans when any discussion of race gets shouted down as inappropriate.

    When one candidate gets 91% of the black vote and the other gets over 70% of the white vote - who are we fooling by claiming that we're running a colorblind campaign?  Were Obama not black, he's NOT getting 91% of Mississippi's African-American voters and - likewise - Clinton's not getting 70% of white voters.

    Parent

    the editor of Time (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:53:09 PM EST
    just said as much--that Obama had reached a plateau with white voters.

    Of course, he said it on BBC America, so I would hardly call that speaking truth to power.  Me and the six other people watching it really were relieved to hear an honest discussion, though.

    Parent

    He'll be lucky to plateau... (none / 0) (#145)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:55:26 PM EST
    ...as the thin-skinned responses his campaign has to any discussion of race can do nothing but offend white voters...

    Parent
    Feh (none / 0) (#149)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:58:02 PM EST
    I don't think they're really offended--not after listening to Ferraro on NBC.  Apparently, she is friends with Axelrod.  The way she talks about how this story was spun made my head spin--how quickly they had a press memo, how quickly they got folks booked on "news" shows to refute her horrible statement (which, honestly, was the same thing Gloria Steinam said but with a stupid tag at the end)

    This is all just a gang, and nothing works better than being outraged by how low your opponent will stoop or how desperate they seem.  At least it used to work.  You can only play that game so many times before the chips get called.

    Parent

    Backlash... (none / 0) (#159)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:08:12 PM EST
    ...I can't help but recall watching Bill Clinton's favorable numbers continue to rise the more Republicans pushed impeachment proceedings.  Obama runs the same risk by escalating his attacks on Clinton's character for what is - in essence - a fairly minor transgression from a corollary figure in the campaign.

    Parent
    Quit the stallling! ! ! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Sunshine on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:37:11 PM EST
    If Obama is willing to accept any solution, he should say what it is...  Hillary has said she would accept the results as is or a new vote, either one...  Whatever, it should be the will of the people and not the will of the candidates....

    i had an interesting experience. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:36:10 PM EST
    i watched two interviews with geraldine ferraro. one done at faux. it was the fairest and the other one done at cnn just irritated me. the person doing the interivew kept trying to put comments into the interview that weren't there.

    the point being about the media and ko. they have lost perspective. i don't watch them anymore and ko in particular. i used to watch him almost every night. i dreaded the fact he would on tonight and making a "special comment". It would appear that it didn't work out so well.

    I am very frightened (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:00:19 PM EST
    I listen to CNN, FOX and ABC on sat radio. I keep finding that Fox seems to have the most balanced take on what is going on in the democratic race. I keep looking around, looking for the horsemen of the apocalypse, for hell freezing over.

    Or maybe I have gone insane and have become a Republican.

    Parent

    Pat Buchannan is making sense (none / 0) (#168)
    by DaleA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:46:32 PM EST
    which suggest we have fallen into an alternative reality. Or that the left leaning press has gone bonkers.

    Parent
    I think it's because of things like this (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:50:36 PM EST
    that make Obama supporters all the more unlikely to take us seriously. Truth comes from strange places, and that's hard to accept, but if you put everything out on the table, Faux has been one of the most fair and balanced in this election.

    Just me saying that has enraged several DKos readers somewhere, I'm sure of it.

    Parent

    last night on MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:45:38 PM EST
    (yeah I know...I couldn't sleep and I couldn't watch Anderson Cooper a 3rd time)

    Chuck Todd floated the notion (of course grabbed onto by Tweety) that the whole drive behind FL and MI revotes is the Clinton campaign wanting some big victories to close it out and thereby claim momentum.

    As for Olbermann...I can't watch him anymore since he drank the kool-aid. Too bad, MSNBC has for all purposes lost me.

    Damn... (none / 0) (#147)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:57:23 PM EST
    ...but the media is insightful.  Clinton's got some nerve wanting to count states she won...

    Parent
    I was (none / 0) (#172)
    by sas on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:15:22 PM EST
    at a Clinton rally yesterday in Phila - someone had a home made sign I could relate to....

    "MSNBC sux".  

    That said it all.

    Parent

    It's as if they decided (none / 0) (#175)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:18:20 PM EST
    that journalism no longer matters...only their point of view.

    I'm not enthralled with CNN however, but there are 3 cable news channels and at this stage, it's the least evil.

    Parent

    He has a habit (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:56:58 PM EST
    of broadcasting the worst that can be found at dkos. And these days, everything there sucks.

    I didn't get his point (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by facta non verba on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:06:47 PM EST
    I mean those were words he was using and he strung them in sentences but were there thoughts there? Rather incoherent and rambling.

    Exactly what Murrow, KO's here (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:09:39 AM EST
    showed about McCarthy, exposing him for what KO was doing tonight.

    KO was so McCarthyesque that it really is frightening now, for those of us who know what that era was like and the lasting damage done.

    As of this week, I no longer can convince myself that this is just campaign politics as usual.  This is back to one of the worst eras in modern times.

    And KO is the ANTI-Murrow in this one, and he doesn't even know it.

    Parent

    A little mending is order (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by pluege on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:13:41 PM EST
    one thing is clear, the split among lefties over Obama and Clinton has ratcheted up beyond irritating into something more serious as we continue to march toward Carter - Kennedy Fallout Part Deux. And the ONLY winners in that scenario are the cult of republicanism.
    .

    I've Wanted To Get This Off My Chest (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:24:01 PM EST
    Words cannot adequately describe my disappointment and despair with Keith Olberman.  I've been a fan from almost the very first Countdown episode.  Keith was always susceptible to going off the rails from time to time.  But, the subjects of his rants were people who deserved to be publicly flogged.  When he turned his considerable hostility on Hillary Clinton, however, he cross the line from left-leaning commentator to unapologetic political hack, with no apparent purpose other than to smear and slander a presidential candidate with whom he has some personal vendetta.  How is it that this blowhard remains on the air?  Is it really the goal of the network to host a daily 60-minute smear campaign?  

    I admit that I can't comment on anything from his show lately, as I've stopped watching for some time now.  What I find surprising is that anyone is still watching.  Certainly, many of his viewers have been sickened by his constant spinning and distortions of every minute utterance from Clinton's campaign into some kind of nefarious, sinister scheme that exists only in his cynical mind.  All the while, he exculpates Obama from every issue and criticism.

    I don't mind people picking sides; that's their right.  But when an anchor calls himself a news man, he betrays his audience when he turns his show into an advocacy commercial for his candidate, especially when done as dishonestly as Countdown.  I see so much of this going on in the media; even Bill Mares is getting in on the act.  But none has so insidiously whored himself out to a candidate as KO has.  What a total hack.

    I am equally sad (none / 0) (#184)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:34:27 PM EST
    I wrote the second letter in 3 days to KO and to MSNBC expressing my profound disappointment -- and my changed viewing habits.

    Parent
    No Hack, Just a character Assassin (none / 0) (#203)
    by pluege on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:31:41 AM EST
    When Olbermann started going after bush and o'lielly, most assumed (apparently incorrectly) that Olbermann was a lefty railing against the lies,  hypocrisy, violence, and illegality right. However, with him applying his same approach to Hilliary Clinton, it becomes apparent that Olbermann is not a lefty, but merely someone who gets off on railing against personalities he doesn't like. By going after Hillary Clinton he has made suspect the basis of his comments against wingnuts, i.e., does he believe what he says or is he just infotaining.
    .

    Parent
    That "good night and good luck" (none / 0) (#211)
    by Daryl24 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:39:27 PM EST
    sign off sure makes you wonder.

    Parent
    should we give any creedence to Olberman? (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by tarheel74 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:15:55 AM EST
    when he uses such hyperbolic terms and equates Hillary's campaign with apartheid South Africa, when he equates her ads to race-baiting akin to Birth of the Nation and the celebration of the Klan just because it had the temerity to criticize the anointed "messiah" of the democratic party, when he criticizes her for darkening Obama's skin without a shred of proof or releasing pictures of him to Drudge without any evidence and fails to retract or apologize when both stories have been thoroughly debunked he shows that unlike his much vaunted "I am not endorsing anyone" he is actually tacitly endorsing someone. Moreover by extension he implies that anyone who supports Hillary's "racist" and "divisive" campaign must be racist. Either that or he is very cynically saying and doing these outrageous things to up his ratings. It is not a secret that Obama's campaign website has a group called "Countdown with Keith Olberman fans of Obama" so it goes to reason that he would say these outrageous things to increase his ratings. In either case he is no Edward R. Murrow ("goodluck and goodnight" aside) if anything he has bloated into the a gasbag like Bill O'Reilly and maybe he can start his show by saying "welcome to the O-spin zone".

    If the shoe were on the other foot (1.00 / 2) (#28)
    by obscure on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:24:44 PM EST
    and Obama would have won FL and MI, all of the people crying and wailing about FL and MI voters being "disenfranchised" would be arguing viciously about how "rules are rules."  

    Nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:26:49 PM EST
    We   Democrats   are  AGAINST  disenfranchising   voters.    THAT  is  the principle in  question here.    

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:28:25 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Parent
    So what? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:35:19 PM EST
    I was against disenfranchising myself last summer. I tend to think that people have a right to vote, even when I disagree with their choice of candidate (I'm not a Clinton supporter).

    You don't justify doing the wrong thing, because other people would have done the wrong thing also if the situation was different. It is right or wrong on its own merits not because of or in spite of what others think.

    Parent

    I'd oppose any candidate (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by badger on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:41:19 PM EST
    who wants to disenfranchise voters or fails to lead on the issue of enfranchising voters. I've felt that way since the 1960s at least. There is some history on this issue.

    You'd feel that way too if you were supporting progressive Democratic principles and not just "your candidate".

    The fact that you can only see it in "us vs. them" terms is, honestly, frightening.

    Parent

    If it was the other way around (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by mm on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:00:33 PM EST
    If it was the other way around and Obama needed FL and MI we wouldn't be having this conversation because the pressure put on Clinton from MSNBC and Donna Brazille and Al Sharpton ect. ect. would be so overwhelming that Clinton would have already have been forced to agree to anything they proposed.  This crisis would already have been resolved.

    Parent
    Thanks making it clear (none / 0) (#37)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:32:33 PM EST
    to us all that the only principle Obama and his supporters are upholding here is the principle of getting him nominated at any cost. ;-)

    Parent
    You are wrong (none / 0) (#39)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:34:34 PM EST
    Not everyone is an unprincipled as you think.

    And for the 11,000th time, a re-vote is not against the rules.

    Parent

    On The Contrary (none / 0) (#40)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:34:35 PM EST
    I'd say I have no dog in the fight but I actually have two. I go back and forth between them today just as I did last Jan 29 in the voting booth. I like them both, and what sets them apart at any given moment is something they do to move themselves back down into second place on my mental notes list.

    The rules support submitting a revote for both Florida and Michigan. Both candidates should support it 100%.


    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:07:20 PM EST
    This is about Democratic voters having a say in who they want as their nominee. My position would be the same regardless. Count the votes as cast by the voters and let the chips fall as they may.  

    Parent
    So now (1.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Jgarza on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:45:19 PM EST
    if Obama says he wants a vote to be fair,  he is against democracy?

    Ohh and racism isn't a big deal, Hillary Clinton getting every second chance possible to some how con her way to the nomination, Thats what is important, who cares how insulting anyone in her campaign is.

    I'll tell you why this is offensive (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:51:41 PM EST
    The presupposition that what HRC's campaign is about 'con'-ning people into victory but BHO's campaign is about fine efforts.

    They have the same mechanics in each of the campaign's and I simply don't believe that either has been more dirty or more honorable.

    The simple truth is that the main stream media has been far more receptive to carrying the messages from BHO's campaign...for whatever their reasons.

    If (/when) HRC is eliminated from the campaign, the true impact of media playing their hand in tearing apart BHO's campaign will be substantial. In this scenario, BHO will get my vote (there is no practical alternative) but I can see that it won't matter as he will be creamed by the main stream media and McCain.

    Parent

    Sorry, jgarza. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:52:43 PM EST
    America  did not  see  Obama   cry  after  Katrina.  

    Ergo,   he  is not  worthy  of  our  presidential   votes.    

    Goes  around,  comes  around.  

    Own  petard.

    Parent

    That's Why I Love Ya Auntmo (none / 0) (#129)
    by OxyCon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:40:47 PM EST
    You always know how to say so much with so few words - your pal Cognito

    Parent
    the vote in FL WAS fair. (none / 0) (#101)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:02:15 PM EST


    Parent
    "Fair" is code word here (none / 0) (#132)
    by Virginian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:42:41 PM EST
    What is really being said is that counting FL and MI at all, in any form, is beneficial to HRC only and thus unfair...

    Obama & Co. is conceding both of those states, but they do not want them to count for delegates...and so long as the delegates do not count Obama is able to tell the SD's that the USA only has 48 states (that matter)...he's given up both states, but doesn't want it to hurt him...thus it is unfair to count them.

    Parent

    Whatever happened to Big Tent? (1.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Chango on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:03:25 PM EST
    He was such a rational thinker on Dkos, but now the more Clinton falls behind, the more bitter and irrational he becomes.

    It's over.  Get over it and join the party.

    Sorry (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Chango on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:05:58 PM EST
    In hindsight, I didn't mean for that to seem so personal.  It's just my observation about all the Clinton supporters that have not yet recognized that the race is over.  

    Parent
    If the race is over (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:12:17 PM EST
    Why do the Obama-ites like Olbermann feel they need to attack the Clintons...

    Parent
    Its not that (none / 0) (#126)
    by Rainsong on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:39:56 PM EST
    They know its over, perhaps they just want to rub Clinton's nose, and her supporters noses, in it, for as long as possible?

    Parent
    You haven't recognized (none / 0) (#110)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:11:47 PM EST
    You are going to lose a good chunk of the Clinton vote and will be wiped out in a landslide in Nov.

    Happy Party

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#114)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:13:19 PM EST
    the shortsightedness of the Obama campaign is their own downfall.

    Parent
    On BBC America (none / 0) (#124)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:39:04 PM EST
    the editor of TIME (Abbott?) just said (from my memory) "What MS, OH and other recent states have shown is that Obama has a real problem getting white voters.  He seems to have reached a plateau and that is not  changing.  If anything, it's getting worse."

    So, as BTD said (yet again)

    Oh, but also he said that Clinton and Obama seem to have a gun to each other's heads, and that each needed the other voting bloc, and that the blocs themselves were becoming more concrete as more time passed and basically they were going to shoot themselves in the head at the same time.

    Joint ticket is the only way out of this.

    Parent

    Joint ticket is getting harder (none / 0) (#134)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:43:25 PM EST
    and harder to put together all the time.  It may even be too late for that now.

    Parent
    nothing is ever too late (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:49:49 PM EST
    in politics.

    A hug and a handshake and they move on.

    Parent

    Kerry -Edwards (none / 0) (#214)
    by Daryl24 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:09:42 PM EST
    2004 comes to mind.  

    Parent
    If Kennedy And Hatch (none / 0) (#216)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:32:17 PM EST
    Who share little in policy can get along, so can Obama and Clinton who are almost identical as far as policy goes.  The sometimes acrimonious back and forth is just political posturing. In the end they will both do what is best for the party and the country.  
    But there's another Hatch, too. No one dismisses him any longer as just a scorched-earth ideologue like Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.). He helped push through a generous child-care bill in 1989, leading fellow conservatives to equate him with Karl Marx and Benedict Arnold. In 1990, he single-handedly saved a law forbidding discrimination against AIDS patients. An unusually considerate man, Hatch has forged a friendship with his political opposite, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), that has become legendary; Kennedy scrawled on a painting he gave Hatch in 1991, "We'll leave the light at the [Kennedy] compound on for you anytime."

    When they join forces, they rarely lose. Hatch brings along so many conservatives, and Kennedy so many liberals, that a Hatch-Kennedy bill is almost assured passage.

    link

    IMO, Pelosi is also posturing for Obama, when she says that a joint ticket is impossible.

    Parent

    I thinks it's like (none / 0) (#212)
    by Daryl24 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    25% percent according to Pew Research that said they wouldn't vote for him. 14% of those said they would support McCain.

    That is a huge deficit to overcome.

    Obama supporters? Not so much. 10% said they wouldn't vote for Hillary and 8% said they would support McCain.  

     

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#155)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:04:05 PM EST
    Its nice to be reminded of this by various Obama supporters. I keep finding myself confused, thinking there are still state that have to vote, other have to revote, there are SDs that have to weight in.

    But thanks to the Obama Supporter Public Service Announcements (OSPSA) I am brought back to reality and can stop worrying.

    Phew! Thanks OSPSA!

    Parent

    That's (none / 0) (#177)
    by sas on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:20:46 PM EST
    because the race isn't over.

    BHO does not have the delegate count he needs, and neither does she.  And neither can get to the total before the convention.

    i believe he will havew the delegate lead, but she will have the popular vote lead.

    Either way , about 50% of the party will be pissed off.

    Parent

    personal attacks are so not needed. (none / 0) (#120)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:29:48 PM EST
    please refrain from doing that.

    Parent
    I think the eventual solution will involve (none / 0) (#3)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:53:32 PM EST
    seating Florida as is(or with a 50% penalty),  and a revote in Michigan.  Obama would rather hand Hillary the "tainted" delegates from Florida, even though he would be likely to run her much closer in a revote.  This way he would avoid Clinton getting late 'mo from a win, and he would still be likely to have over a 100 pledged delegate lead.

    If he's smart he'll accept the FL vote as is, but (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:58:00 PM EST
    I think it's too late for that now. The momentum is against him as far as revotes goes.

    (We need an Open Thread BTD. Tweety's Obama guest just spent several minutes reminiscing about Monica and Bill.)

    Parent

    that will give Obama another opportunity (none / 0) (#54)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:53:54 PM EST
    to play the outsider and Victim - outmaneuvered by that big ol mean Clinton Machine.
    That "underdog" tactic has been part of his success.

    Parent
    Obama as victim (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:44:36 PM EST
    is not a picture he is going to want to paint.  He's already getting "taking a nerf bat to a knife fight" headlines.  I agree with a poster on the open thread that Obama is trying to intimidate superdelegates with his latest tactics.  Not sure if it'll work, but if it does and he gets the nom, I predict a huge landslide for McCain.

    If Obama can't stand up to the pulled punches from the Clinton camp (and let's be honest here; she has not been hitting him hard) then he sure as heck can't stand up to the repubs.  They aren't going to care about being labelled racist.  Well, McCain might, but he's not going to be the one running the ads and spreading the rumors.

    People need to keep asking: if Obama is a leader, if he is a uniter, why can't he solve the MI and FL problem?  How is he going to run the United States of America if he can't give direction to two of the fifty states?

    Parent

    He is getting that "weak" glow about him (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:00:02 PM EST
    Whining and carrying on, etc.  Frankly, that's the worst thing you can do in an American election.  Nobody will vote for a victim for President.  That would be insane in today's world.


    Parent
    And the pubs (none / 0) (#116)
    by vigkat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:14:19 PM EST
    Will leap on any sign of weakness or uncertainty or indecisiveness.

    Parent
    I wouldn't underestimate (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jen on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:15:32 PM EST
    the guy. He got to where he is through the well-known game of "Chicago Style" politics. It's hard to pinpoint where the smears and distortions of every word uttered by Clinton or anyone remotely connected to her or her campaign originate, but I don't think we can discount that the majority of it is coming straight out of O Team headquarters.

    As for your last paragraph -- you pretty much nail it.

    Parent

    Indeed... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:26:45 PM EST
    ...he sued to push Alice Palmer and every other opposing Democrat off the ballot in his IL state senate election.  Axelrod pushed the Chicago Tribune to publish the sleazy details of Blair Hull's divorce when he was running against Obama in the US Senate primary.  And his general election opponent, Ryan, went down in a sexual scandal leaving Obama a 'tough' race against mega-candidate, Alan Keyes.

    The guy has undoubtedly been a huge benficiary of being on the other side of a sleazy story.  His campaigns are known to have pushed sleaze so there's no reason to wonder whether or not his campaign is behind the sleaze against Clinton.  N'est-ce pas?

    Parent

    That's his fatal flaw (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:56:56 PM EST
    The Clintons are teflon SQUARED. Obama can't dig up any bones that haven't been gnawed to dust by the GOP.

    This may be the first time he has to run on his own merits, not on the ugliness of his opponents.

    Parent

    Eh? The Clintons are Teflon? (none / 0) (#199)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:49:12 AM EST
    They might be teflon amongst the Democratic party and Democratic electorate as far as "sleaze goes,  but not necessarily amongst the wider public.

    Hillary has effectively been immunised against Obama bringing anything up in the primary,  whereas with Clinton its Rezko Rezko Rezko ... etc.

    The problem for Obama seems to be that he, and his campaign have allowed Hillary's to get inside their heads and are allowing her to dictate the ground on which the campaign is being fought.

    Parent

    Why do you think (none / 0) (#75)
    by ChrisO on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:43:09 PM EST
    Obama would narrow the gap in Florida? I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that.

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#96)
    by tek on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:58:01 PM EST
    about him running closer.  Our Democrats Club in FL invited Obama to send a spokesman to speak at a meeting and explain his platform, etc. Obama declined.  Hillary sent people to talk to the group and there is great enthusiasm for her.

    Parent
    When? Was this before the primary? (none / 0) (#200)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:50:07 AM EST


    Parent
    it stretches the imagination (none / 0) (#6)
    by cy street on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:58:57 PM EST
    to believe either clinton or obama would pursue a course of disenfranchisement.  the hyperbolic approach to this does not assist one single voter in either state.

    i believe both candidates want to win.

    i believe both candidates wish to seat florida and michigan.

    there is no upper hand here.  

    Huh???? (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:02:33 PM EST
    Clinton  is  FOR  a  revote.    Dean  is  FOR  a  revote.  

    Obama  is  lawyering  up  to block  anything  except   a   50/50   split.    

    There is  a  difference,  if  you  take off your blinders.

    Parent

    no blinders here (1.00 / 2) (#17)
    by cy street on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:09:46 PM EST
    you must really hate the man to believe he would keep voters from participating.  i hope there are primaries in both states.  i am fine with caucuses.  i am fine with mail in.  i am fine with convention allocation.

    no one will convince me either candidate of the dem party is going to stop the voice of the people.

    nice try.

    Parent

    I hope you are right (none / 0) (#22)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:17:20 PM EST
    I don't like what I see so far on this issue. But he will have plenty of opportunity to act for the voters over the next several days.

    Parent
    We'll see what he stands for, eh? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:33:55 PM EST


    Parent
    aunt mo (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by cy street on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:49:29 PM EST
    this is obama's call.  it is not clinton's call.  this is between the party and the states.  neither asked for this.  i can completely understand why the clinton camp is reeling.  if the florida election was held when it was scheduled by the refuglican govenor, then she most likely would have prevailed.  i feel for her campaign.  

    however, life is not fair as we all know.

    whatever the outcome, i doubt either side will be pleased with the result.

    if you ask me, howard dean is the one who should be taking incoming.  all he had to do is what the rnc did, accept the results, diminish the delegates and move on.

    regretfully, neither happened.

    debate obama and clinton all you like.  please do not suggest a dem would disenfranchise voters.  it goes against all principles the party is founded on.

    cheers.

    Parent

    i meant to write (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by cy street on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:51:40 PM EST
    this is not mister obama's or miz clinton's call.  forgive the edit.

    Parent
    cy street (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:45:24 PM EST
    Due   respect, cy,   but   Obama  needs  to   grow  some.    

    Clear  enough  for  ya?

    Parent

    Life is not fair... (none / 0) (#162)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:18:27 PM EST
    ...so neither are elections?

    Parent
    Let Me Get This Straight... (none / 0) (#197)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:03:21 AM EST
    cy street, you said;

    this isn't obama's call.  it is not clinton's call.  this is between the party and the states.  neither asked for this.  i can completely understand why the clinton camp is reeling.  if the florida election was held when it was scheduled by the refuglican govenor, then she most likely would have prevailed.  i feel for her campaign.  
    however, life is not fair as we all know.

    So did you really mean to suggest that because life is not fair, elections don't need to be either?

    And this isn't about the "Clinton camp reeling" or the "Obama camp stalling", this is about the voters in two of these "50" United States having their voices heard.

    Both candidates should be cheerleading a reasonable solution. So far, only Senator Clinton is doing so. I don't know if Senator Obama means to be stalling, but it looks that way. And NO Democrat wants to ever have it look as if they are in favor of voters being disenfranchised. We do have the Republican Party to do that.

    Parent

    The supposed topic of KO's gasblast (none / 0) (#47)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:47:20 PM EST
    Hillary's lost opportunity to say what she stands for in light of Ferraro's comments.

    The response to KO should be: when is Obama going to say what HE stands for when it comes to counting every vote.

    Parent

    That's it? After all the bla bla bla? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:57:44 PM EST
    ...on top of everything else he's a wimp. I thought he was going to call her a racist.

    Parent
    He did, in a McCarthyesque way (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:55:27 PM EST
    and KO ought to think about that. But he won't.

    Parent
    i have to wonder after the camapign is over (none / 0) (#95)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:57:15 PM EST
    and the dust settles, will the luster be off ko. i think so. it won't show right away but time will tell. i don't see his numbers continuing to grow the way they have.

    Parent
    Let's keep our heads ... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:05:50 PM EST
    Olbermann is watched by about 800,000 people a night right now.  And that's in the height of a contested primary season.

    There are infomercials that get higher ratings.


    Parent

    I was wondering who is listening to (none / 0) (#122)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:36:55 PM EST
    him. I'm glad I always never get to listen to his blather anymore.

    Cable channels are not newsworthy except for the footage sometimes. the comments are just that,comments. Theres no journalistic integrity anymore.

    Parent

    that may be true, but don't you remember (none / 0) (#135)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:43:43 PM EST
    how proud ko was that his numbers kept climbing. that was before the primaries of course.

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#215)
    by Daryl24 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:30:49 PM EST
    I hear the infomercial for the Dean Martin variety show is beating him, Matthews and O'Reilly combined. Word on the street is it also cost Tucker his job.    

    Go Dean! GO Regis!

    Parent

    a lot of people will be wondering why (none / 0) (#97)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:58:59 PM EST
    they are standing in empty rooms when this is over.

    Parent
    He came pretty close (none / 0) (#60)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:05:18 PM EST
    He called Ferraro a racist.  He came close to calling Clinton a racist. She has created a perception of racist, "false or true."  Also called her an opportunist with bogus, meaningless experience. Despite Ferraro's resignation, she is still speaking with Clinton's approval. Clinton must stop (with what, a gag order?) I tried to write it all down, and after a while I gave up. It was too incoherent.

    Sigh. KO has dropped a whole pod of sharks.

    Parent

    i watched ferraro and listened to (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:46:42 PM EST
    her very carefully. she is anything but racist. she simply tells it like it is. ferraro said that axelrod wanted to something to blow up and call racist for his own purposes. i agree. the degree of pc in this country is excessive.

    it is sad to see ko join this group. i had thought better of him.

    Parent

    Tells it like it is? (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by dmfox on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:51:59 PM EST
    Because being a black man named Barack Hussein Obama just gave him the presidency on a silver platter.

    The comment was, if not racist, ridiculous and absurd.  She should have apologized and resigned immediately.  Samantha Power showed class after her "monster" comment, apologized, and resigned.  Clinton gave a wink and nod to Ferraro, who is going around to every network with her own "pity party," saying she is being attacked because she is white.

    By the way, Howard Wolfson should have resigned as well for his Ken Starr comment.

    Parent

    There's a big difference... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:23:27 PM EST
    ...between calling someone a monster - a personal attack that lacks any relevant context - and pointing out that Obama's race has given him some quantifiable advantages in this race.  I'm not sure Ferraro sufficiently made her case but she's not really in a position to advance her thesis at this point.

    Would an Illinois Senator be winning MS, VA, DC, SC or GA by such huge margins against a prominent Arkansan who's also a former first lady to a popular President?  Not without getting no less than 75% of the black vote in those states.

    Parent

    After the Obama campaign (4.50 / 2) (#180)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:25:54 PM EST
    made repeated demands for Clinton's tax returns IMMEDIATELY, implying without any basis that there was some sort of financial scandal waiting to be revealed, Wolfson suggested that the Obama campaign was acting like Ken Starr -- in other words, on a fishing expedition hoping to find a big scandal.  That was actually not such an outlandish comparison. There were clearly att of scandals past -- and debunked -- on the insistence for the tax returns, which Clinton had in fact already promised to release.  

    The name of Ken Starr, of course, is mud within Democratic circles (although he is still apparently a hero to the right).  But the way for the Obama campaign to respond to that metaphor was to laugh it off, and say "Don't be silly, we are not fishing, we just want comparable disclosures."  Instead, they reacted...just like Ken Starr when his bona fides were questioned.

    So no, I don't think Wolfson should have resigned.  What he said was not an ad hominem (ad feminum?)attack, but a comparison of current and past behaviors. One could accept the comparison or not. But it was not the equivalent of calling someone a nasty, racist or sexist name.

    As for Ferraro, what she said was stupid, and wrong, and very unfortunate. I do not think she's a racist, I don't think she was denying the existence of racism, or saying that African Americans have it easy.  She was commenting on the dynamics of this campaign, but she said something that could be interpreted as racist, and that's bad in and of itself.

    Having said that, the continuing pile-on has been pretty incredible, especially since Ferraro, unlike Powers, was not a high-ranking paid consultant in line to possibly become a Cabinet officer. Powers resigned and everyone now wants to treat that matter as over.  For Keith Olbermann to say that Ferraro's resignation isn't enough and that Clinton must stop Ferraro from speaking for herself is incredible.  Ferraro can say anything she wants. If it is stupid or divisive or racist, she can reap the criticism for it. But other than say she disagrees with whatever those hypothetical statements are, what can Clinton do to "stop it"? Muzzle her, literally? Have her renditioned to a black site in Eastern Europe? Put her in stocks in the town square? Is Obama going to do the same to Powers if, as a Harvard professor or prize-winning author, she continues to call Hillary Clinton a monster?  

    Gerry Ferraro is an American heroine who did an unheroic thing and paid an embarrassing, public price for it.  She did not apologize in the way that some (including me) would have preferred. But what else is Clinton supposed to do to her?

    Parent

    Wink And Nod? (none / 0) (#158)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:08:10 PM EST
    Really. I do not take it as that. She firmy distanced herself from Ferraro and let her resign rather than fire her on the spot.

    Clearly Ferraro is not helping Clinton. She should apologize and stay out of the campaign.

    Parent

    well this area could be an ongoing blog (none / 0) (#210)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:25:27 AM EST
    all by its own for decades. i'll try and put my response into a few simple words. (try) of course litagatormom pretty much has my response already written here. race and gender both need to be no, have to be respected in this country. i hope you will agree. if obama had not played the race card in the cynical manner i have seen in this campaign, i'd agree with you. the truth is pc has become almost as insulting as insults.

    what ferraro said was she would not have been a veep candidate were she not a woman. and that's true. obama would not be getting the degree of aa votes were he not aa. so what's your problem with that? i work in an area where good ole boys call me honey all the time. i laugh and respond back without anger. i know they mean nothing by it. i see all this outrage all the time about how aa's are insulted by comments that have no racial intent. not to say there isn't racism and that those comments should not be addressed. they should. frankly there is racism on both sides. that is not explored.take a look at farakhan's comments. why is that?

    Parent

    What Ferraro Meant? (none / 0) (#213)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:00:33 PM EST
    what ferraro said was she would not have been a veep candidate were she not a woman.

    ok

     

    and that's true.
    You share her opinion.

    obama would not be getting the degree of aa votes were he not aa. so what's your problem with that?

    Not what she said, by a longshot.

    Ferraro in not same league as Obama or Clinton, no matter how much she tries to include herself in comparisons to either of them. Her comment is just as offensive as saying that the only reason that HRC is where she is today is because she is a woman.

    Why any Democrat or Clinton supporter would  try to defend her comment is beyond me.

    Parent

    The overall (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by vigkat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:10:24 PM EST
    take away:  Clinton is a racist.  This was not intended to send a message to Ferraro.  He accomplished the goal without having to explicitly state it.

    Parent
    Yep. When KO was studying up (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:19:41 AM EST
    on those Murrow tapes, KO got confused and did a flawless performance, instead -- of Joe McCarthy.

    At long last, KO, have you no decency?

    Uh huh. I thought not.

    Parent

    Nah (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:42:46 PM EST
    The take away is that Ferraro should keep her mouth shut. She is only helping McCain.

    Most people do not see Clinton as a racist and never will, because she is not racist.

    Parent

    I don't get it.... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:30:32 PM EST
    ...even if you don't give Hillary credit for anything before she was elected to the Senate, what is that, chopped liver?

    Parent
    In all fairness, (none / 0) (#89)
    by Adept Havelock on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:53:05 PM EST
    Dead people have been elected to the Senate. ;)

    Parent
    not from the state of new york! (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:55:28 PM EST


    Parent
    And in fairness... (none / 0) (#164)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:24:27 PM EST
    ...they were running against ASHCROFT lol

    Parent
    I read (none / 0) (#99)
    by tek on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:01:03 PM EST
    earlier today that Obama himself said that if anyone in his campaign said the Hillary only was a candidate because she's a woman, that would not be tolerated.  Funny, his people have been saying that and Tweety said the Hillary only had a Senate seat and only got to run for president because Bill slept with all the right people.  Didn't hear Obama object to that.

    Parent
    I know you think Tweety has a position on (none / 0) (#201)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:54:43 AM EST
    the Obama campaign,  but really,  he doesn't.  

    Parent
    It's not about 'believing' anything... (none / 0) (#160)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:15:12 PM EST
    ...because in all his campaign's public commentary they have done nothing but hedge, dodge and otherwise bring up objections to seating delegates or backing a revote.

    The biggest thorn from Obama supporters is the incessant notion that he's inherently a good guy and therefore we just shouldn't 'believe' anything contradictory.

    Parent

    That's not the gameplan (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:04:34 PM EST
    He's arguing for a 50/50 split so that when he concedes to a revote on his terms it will sound like he'd doing everyone a favor.

    Parent
    He underestimates (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:24:59 PM EST
    the  voters  if  that's  the  game  he's playing.  

    He needs  to  step up  and  LEAD  the party  to  do the  right  thing if  he  wants  to  be  president.  

    Parent

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by tek on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:02:40 PM EST
    that's the trouble with Obama, mainly.  He DOES underestimate the Democrats in the trenches.  

    Parent
    If you are right (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:27:57 PM EST
    Then the results of the revote will show that you are right, and if I'm still here and if you are still here, I will fall on my sword and say that you were right and I was wrong.


    Parent
    No sword-falling required (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:32:11 PM EST
    But   we  will not  win   in November   if   we  as  a  party   can't   stand  up  for   inclusivenesss   in   the party.  

    If he  blocks   these  2  states  revoting,  how  in   h*ll   can  he pull  the party  together   in   November?  

    He'll   snatch  defeat from the  jaws  of  victory,  in   the   best   year   the party  has  ever  had  to   win.  

    Parent

    I agree with this comment.... (none / 0) (#182)
    by sas on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:28:06 PM EST
    what kind of example is he setting for president?

    One would certainly not call him strong and decisive, or standing up for what is right with regard to FL and Mich.  

    He seems to want to squirm out of it at all costs.

    Some leader.

    Parent

    I don know if that would work (none / 0) (#12)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:05:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Why wouldn't it (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:06:50 PM EST
    He knows the 50/50 split or disenfranchisement is not an option.

    So he's stalling playing the expectations game meanwhile having 5 events per day in Florida.

    Parent

    and you think those events are (none / 0) (#23)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:17:48 PM EST
    really convincing anyone who is not convinced?
    The Clinton people have been here all along.

    Parent
    Maybe you're right (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:24:11 PM EST
    Apparently the Obama folks have some idea that those events will have an impact on something.

    Parent
    Looking at the bright side it might get him (none / 0) (#34)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:28:48 PM EST
    to come down here and meet with some of the little people all the events listed around here are just Obama supporters meeting among each other.  And I'm in an area where he won.

    Parent
    lawyering up? (none / 0) (#65)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:34:58 PM EST
    He already has lawyers.  Every campaign has lawyers.  If he actually files suit then he can be bashed him on this.

    Parent
    Bill Burton is working OT... (none / 0) (#165)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:26:05 PM EST
    ...if you have any doubts of Obama's willingness to drag things into court, look up this guy...

    Parent
    Sorry... (none / 0) (#166)
    by DudeE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:28:16 PM EST
    ...should be Bob Bauer not Bill Burton... mea culpa

    Parent
    Not just Plouffe who sounds pitiful. (none / 0) (#21)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:15:50 PM EST

    You should probably contact Hastings, a Clinton supporter, who is sounding a lot like the pitiful Obama campaign.

    Plouffe said--and Obama has said repeatedly--that they'll do whatever the DNC says they have to do.

    BTD (none / 0) (#25)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:20:06 PM EST
    Your second link is the same as the first link. Did you mean for it to be different? I was expecting a link to NBC, MSNBC, or an Olbermann clip, but it's the mcclatchy link again.

    I see you've now (none / 0) (#35)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:31:06 PM EST
    changed it to Wolcott's blog. Thanks.

    Parent
    Letter writing campaign (none / 0) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:37:54 PM EST
    Against Olbermann?  I'm surprised there isn't one, isn't any organized demonstration, or anything.  When Shuster did his ridiculous thing, the protest started the next day.

    Anyone hear about anything?

    He is speaking now (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:01:21 PM EST
    "IN SORROW."

    Clinton is allowing her campaign managers to make it impossible to become president. Ferraro's statements ugly, moronic, like a poison cloud, campaign managers don't have her compare Ferraro to Al Campanis on football show saying blacks can't be managers (!?!?!?!), campaign managers don't have her admit that her own experience is bogus (what does this have to do with Ferraro comments), campaign managers don't have her fire Ferraro by sunrise just like Powers, nooooo, she just says they are regrettable.  Then more blasting of Ferraro. Two decades old racism, shouldn't allow her to resign and say she can now speak for herself (because what, Ferraro can't say what she wants if she is not part of the camapaign?).  Back to bogus experience issue.  Now on alleged Vice Presidential ploy. Allowing racism to stand. Racial undertone in 3 am, disturbing pattern of racism, false or true, they see it, people see hostility to blacks, true or not.  Clinton should fight with all you have, this is your name. Your campaign.  Voluntarily or not you are awash in filth.  Ferraro is still speaking with Clinton's approval.  You must stop this.

    HOW, EXACTLY, KEITH?  Should Ferraro be extraordinarily rendered to shut her up?

    Now he is drifting off

    Parent

    OMIGOD..... (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:09:59 PM EST
    I'm sure the man thinks he will go down in history! This is his shining moment! I can't even work up faux outrage over such ridiculous preening. I'm sure he was flatulent after delivering that tirade.

    Parent
    He prefaced it by (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:41:16 PM EST
    saying that Senator Clinton and her family was very supportive after he made his first, controversial Special Comment. He will always be grateful. He is NOT endorsing Obama.  He agonized about whether he should say something. "But speak I must."

    It was just like that IN SORROW diary at Orange. Except I didn't have to listen to the pomposity in the diarist's voice.

    Parent

    Well my dear.... (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:51:26 PM EST
    ..thank you for listening so I didn't have to.

    Parent
    He sounds like he was ... (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:40:37 PM EST
    popping "bennies" as his rant lints into stream of consciousness nonsense.

    I almost expected him to launch into Ginsberg's Howl:  "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness  ..."

    I would call it a screed, but that's an insult to screeds everywhere.

    Parent

    well... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:54:49 PM EST
    you know, does this mean Ferraro is going to go rogue?  Because she was horrendously, lividly angry this morning with Diane Sawyer and it hadn't stop tonight with Ann Curry.  

    I see her keeping up the shouting about this, and making it clear that she is not speaking for Clinton, she is speaking for herself.  She used to be pals with Axelrod.  She is using 40 years in public service and 40 years of contacts and friendships to call it like it is.

    I hope she takes on Oberman next.

    Parent

    when i first heard about ferraro, i (none / 0) (#108)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:10:08 PM EST
    wondered what this was all about. then i saw her with sawyer who kept trying to contradict her and put words in her mouth. i'd be irritated too if were her. i saw ferraro treated more fairly on faux. what has this campaign turned into? and ko? well, he speaks for himself and geez how sad.

    Parent
    Fox has been the fairest for this cycle (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:39:36 PM EST
    I can't believe I actually think that, but it's true.

    Parent
    Ann Curry (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:41:13 PM EST
    kept trying to put words in her mouth and cut her off, too.  Didn't want her to speak, actually.

    I think Ferraro isn't going away.  She is angry-infuriated.  This is personal for her now.  And, honestly, she probably feels that she has nothing to lose so might as well go down fighting.

    Parent

    I agree with her, she should fight for herself (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:45:58 PM EST
    Screw the media, full speed ahead.


    Parent
    You know how old people don't care (none / 0) (#139)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:50:21 PM EST
    what others think, sometimes.
    I hope she doesn't get knee-capped for speaking her mind though.

    Parent
    I don't think (none / 0) (#141)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:51:35 PM EST
    she gives a sh*t at this point.  Heck, I wouldn't.  I would be furious, too.  As many slings and arrows as she has endured?  You would not be able to shut me up.

    Haha--you can't even shut me up here.

    Parent

    The ugliness of the response to her (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:52:31 PM EST
    words will show people who is filled with hate, in the end.

    Parent
    Josh Marshall is being a (none / 0) (#146)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:56:07 PM EST
    disgusting pr** on the subject of Ferraro, laughing his a* off  at what he calls the "clown show".
    As if Ferraro is less respectable than Pat Buchanan, or David Shuster, or Mrs. Greenspan in her analysis.

    Parent
    I see absolutely no reason she should give a (none / 0) (#167)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:31:59 PM EST
    sh*t either.  What are they going to do to her, not vote for her?  Write her a nasty email?  Who cares?

    PS:  Kathy,  please don't shut up  :-)


    Parent

    Clinton "awash in filth" is calling her (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:02:39 PM EST
    racist by association.

    And that, folks, is how McCarthy did it.

    Exactly like that.  KO oughta know; he says Murrow is his model.  So KO knows how McCarthy did it.

    And every success fueled him to do more, as we have seen in this campaign as well.

    If the past is prologue, there will be more -- many more -- smeared soon.  Every time something bad happens to Obama (New Hampshire, now Ohio and Texas), someone will be "awash in filth."  Watch.

    Parent

    gee, it sounds like ko is just falling (none / 0) (#123)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:38:04 PM EST
    into a barrel of hubris.

    Parent
    glub-glub-glub (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:40:01 PM EST


    Parent
    I wrote a letter last night. We have an (none / 0) (#46)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:41:23 PM EST
    Open Thread now so we'd better stay on topic here. BTD will get us.

    Parent
    Since Olbermann is mentioned (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:48:57 PM EST
    in the subject, you'd think it would be okay to talk about him?

    Parent
    You'd think but... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:56:35 PM EST
    ...he's been quite the enforcer today. I'm feeling appropriately disciplined.

    Parent
    Where to send comments on KO's behavior? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Avoca on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:38:21 PM EST
    I've been wanting to express myself on subject directly to him and MSNBC but can't find a place to do it. Anybody have the right email addresses?
    thx

    Parent
    Here you go (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:40:16 PM EST
    KOlbermann@msnbc.com

    Parent
    me too! i found that to be upsetting. (none / 0) (#111)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:11:49 PM EST
    it just seems like the network is trying to make it hard to send ko an email.

    Parent
    Let's do one together! (none / 0) (#156)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:04:48 PM EST


    Parent
    No new (none / 0) (#59)
    by Sunshine on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:04:18 PM EST
    Just saw KO's hissy fit about Hillary, this is not new with KO, he is filled with hate and anger and this is not normal..  Is he afraid a woman might get the highest job in the good ol boys world...

    I saw it (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by dissenter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:38:52 PM EST
    I wrote MSNBC and told them I thought he was insane and that I was a)embarrassed for American journalism and b) will watch the BBC from now on.

    I'm sure they won't care but thought I would get it off my chest.

    Parent

    we need a leader (none / 0) (#81)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:46:28 PM EST
    Obama needs to act like a leader and insist the FL and MI people get their vote. I'm sure a mail in vote would be more favorable to him than counting the votes already done. So he should start pushing for it now. Hillary is already saying she'd prefer the current vote, but a mail it would work of not. I for one won't want much longer before I decide Obama is not good for the country. If that happens, Hillary will get my vote in the GE whether she's the nominee or not. I don't think I'll be alone. Obama doesn't have all day for his leadership moment. I'm waiting. I'll be for him if he comes through (if he's the nominee).

    oops, off topic -- wrong thread (none / 0) (#83)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:47:35 PM EST
    Sorry about that. Meant that for the FL and MI vote thread. My bad.

    Parent
    Frankly, I don't need a leader! (none / 0) (#100)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:01:17 PM EST
    However, I could use a decent public servant in the White House.

    (Whenever people talk about the need for "leaders," it gives me the willies.)

    But to your point, it would be a service to the public to support a revote.

    Parent

    I am with you (none / 0) (#117)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:18:10 PM EST
    I don't need a leader.  The Unity '08 conference stated that people used to disagree with their politicians but they used to respect them.  What?  They do not think we might get annoyed if they kept acting in their own self interest?  I am not looking for a leader.  I am looking for a representative, in actuality a follower.  I don't want someone leading me by the nose telling me they know what is best for me.  Every once in awhile doing something for the majority could be a right thing to do.

    Parent
    Right ... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:36:40 PM EST
    elected politicians are actually our employees, not our employers.

    And we treat our employee the President awfully well.  We pay him, feed him, house him, give him medical care, transportation, we protect him from any harm that may befall him, and so on.

    Then, even if he completely sucks, he gets to keep the job for at least four years.  

    And once he leaves he gets a pension plan that rivals virtually any to be had in the private sector.

    However, it is rare that this employee actually works to helps us get even a tenth of the bounty we heap upon him.

    Parent

    yupl, we want them to listen to our wants (none / 0) (#128)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:40:19 PM EST
    and needs. we don't need to be "lead" into another war or act against our own best interest anymore.

    Parent
    I would settle for (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:42:17 PM EST
    "leading" out of the war(s)

    Parent
    only a person who hates democracy (none / 0) (#171)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:14:36 PM EST
    would suggest that voters in FL and MI shouldn't count or that delegates should somehow just be apportioned without any relation to how the people have voted.

    Apparently it will be November before Obama takes the position that people's votes should count.

    MSNBC=McCain..this is how they do it... (none / 0) (#174)
    by lily15 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:17:33 PM EST
    Everyone at NBC and cable MSNBC are doing whatever they can to divide and fracture the Democratic party.  I'll say it again: Trojan Horse.  Obama is destroying the Democratic Party...with the help of the media.  Because Democrats are being weakened...and Howard Dean has now demonstrated that he is a weak and ineffectual Democratic Party leader...So where are the real leaders?  This entire spectacle does not benefit Democrats.

    No Obama Hatred that I can see (none / 0) (#183)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:32:59 PM EST
    Dislike for certain tactics -- just as some here dislike certain tactics employed by the Clinton campaign. Compared to other sites, I find this one almost uniquely civilized despite often strongly worded, opposing views.

    criminal justice feed (none / 0) (#189)
    by dc2008 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:07:05 AM EST
    Is there a feed available to subscribe to all of the criminal justice content? I can't take the political stuff here anymore -- I find the level of anti-Obama bias stunning and bizarre -- and there's so much of it. But as a criminal justice blog I consider TalkLeft important and I don't want to slack off on reading that part of your work.

    O'Reilly? (none / 0) (#192)
    by scatcat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:30:03 AM EST
     Obama's own Bill O'Reilly.

    Perhaps you didn't notice, BTD, that Ferraro, in the mean time, went on the REAL Bill O'Reilly show, and on Fox News, to continue playing herself up as the victim of the aftermath of remarks SHE made.  

    she made comments and stands by them. (none / 0) (#194)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:54:43 AM EST
    which is a heck of a lot more than your candidate does with he didn't mean this and meant that.

    Parent
    She stands by them? (none / 0) (#202)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:00:33 AM EST
    Why did she say in 2006 that a White Female candidate would have it easier running for president than a Black male,  "emphatically so".

    link

    Parent

    ok, do you have a link proving she doesn't (none / 0) (#208)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:07:01 AM EST
    stand behind her words? unlike your candidate who voted for voter franchisement and now stalls, ducks and weaves so not to give it for his advantage. that is no leader. obama sure doesn't stand behind his words does he. it is always a game of what obama really meant, right.

    Parent
    this is your very first comment. (none / 0) (#193)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:52:58 AM EST
    what a beginning!

    His Ratings (none / 0) (#195)
    by facta non verba on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:49:33 AM EST
    So I looked at his ratings for January and February. They look like a ski slope since peaking in early February. Geez, sort of the time he went partisan.

    http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/02/24/oreilly-vs-olbermann-through-thursday-february-21/2738

    O'Reilly is down too but not much. Olbermann is off a cliff. Perhaps that has something to do with it. Desperate bedfellows sort of thing.

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#198)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:32:59 AM EST
    I was about to look up the ratings and you did it for me. What is surprising is that KO seems to be losing the edge he claimed to have in the 25-54 age group.

    They will probably scurry over from dailyobama and prop him up a little now that he has viciously, incoherently, attacked "She Who Must Be Reviled."

     I stopped watching him before he became the Obama news network. He just never seemed to have anyone on that disagreed with him about anything. And while I love a good Bush-Bashing as much as any other liberal I do tend to like fairness.  KO quite obviously does not. He also seems to be as much in love with the sound of his own voice as O'Reilly is. Not much to choose from in this pair of clowns.

    Parent

    He has flaws (none / 0) (#196)
    by facta non verba on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:52:00 AM EST
    or does he not?

    Take itn easy, JoeA (none / 0) (#204)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:54:25 AM EST
    If you're thinking that this somehow violated the pledge, I highly doubt it. All of the candidates were allowed to attend private events, which is why they could attend fundraisers.

    Obama, however, did violate the pledge by talking to the press outside of one of his fundraisers.

    Additionally, I think local supporters could take part in campaign activities. That's why Conyers was able to broadcast ads in Michigan telling people who supported Obama to vote uncommitted. Those ads haven't been framed as a violation because the Clinton campaign hasn't been whining about it.

    This was supposed to be a reply (none / 0) (#205)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:03:44 AM EST
    to JoeA at 6:50

    Parent
    While OlbermannThrows A Sorrow and Pity Party . . . | 207 comments (207 topical)