Yawn. . .
Posted by Terrapin Station84 at November 17, 2007 01:31 PMSeems eriposte is taking up a similar line with the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" many over here have. There's also the "Rove Derangement Syndrome". I think Mark Penn is tapping into Rove all the time. He's running his campaign just like Rove did W's.
Posted by peter at November 17, 2007 01:32 PMYeah, this is about a couple of bloggers trying to gloss over how their candidate lost the debate. Sad to see so much CDS. Thanks for the interesting post.
Posted by Masslib at November 17, 2007 01:41 PMWell. Remember that we're living in America, the nation that elected Bush twice. If you doubt whether he was elected fairly, at least you can appreciate the sad fact that the vote was even close to make room for monkey business.
That said, I'm of the belief that Hillary Clinton will lose in the general election. Mark my words: nominating her is electoral suicide. Maybe it's the fact I've lived in the South all my life? I'm amused/terrified by her supporters' blindness to this issue. Perhaps this is what fuels the desperation you and others perceive in Democratic arguments against her candidacy.
Posted by sigh! at November 17, 2007 01:58 PMIf CNN is not pro Clinton, shouldn't they have asked how much the Clintons paid for the Foster "hit"? (typical CDS question)
I watched the same debate you did, and Obama got some applause that set my tinnitus ringing like a Haliburton cash register.(republican version of the Liberty Bell)
Posted by TIKI AL at November 17, 2007 02:00 PMThanks for the shoutout here.
And, I stand by my diary.
Again, thanks for dropping by!!!
Posted by icebergslim at November 17, 2007 02:13 PMI think you can easily take eri's points, Icebergslim and et al's DailyKos blogging, and easily make a case that there is unconscious bias on the part of the media towards certain candidates and in particular, certain outcomes. And certainly vapid questioning all around.
Conspiracy? Nah. But I do resist the temptation every day to walk across my campus and verbally abuse the Journalism department for contributing to the decline of Western Civ.
I think it's clear that the Clinton campaign has a prominent advantage in Nevada. Clinton's campaign has also waged a marvelous second tier assault on the other campaigns - on the Internet, in traditional media - to draw up traps for their opponents and then spring them at and after the debate. The last 2 weeks have been phenomenally good for Clinton.
Edwards, whose campaign has been suffering the most over the last few weeks even before this, has suffered the worst because his campaign managed to not see that his strategy was failing and that he was not only headed for rocks, but mines laid by the other campaigns who knew exactly where he was headed.
Obama suffered less because while his campaign is just about as inept as Edwards, his team seems to be randomly grabbing at strategies to counter Clinton. It's harder to lay traps for a candidate and campaign wandering about.
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 17, 2007 03:09 PMTwo of the three debate analysts worked for the Clintons and James Carville advises Senator Clinton's Presidential Campaign, as well as is a fundraiser for Hillary.
And was it not just recently that Senator Clinton's campaign admitted to planting questions?
Posted by Bagley at November 17, 2007 03:18 PMYou could just see the first questions at this debate were the same "go get her" as they were at the last debate - but Hillary's reaction was not the same. Then some of the questioning began to be about other candidates voting records and not just about going after Hillary - unlike the last debate - guess that isn't fair HUH. About the audience - seems Obama bought out the tickets at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner - so he had his audience for his night. I have to say when I saw the Clinton News Network diary my skin just crawled - my wingnut brother in law calls it that whenever he is defended Bush and the Iraq War and we should just never go to that extreme.
Posted by NYMARJ at November 17, 2007 03:33 PMPoor slim, gets on the rec list and thinks he's a prophet. Kids these days...
Posted by iamcoyote at November 17, 2007 03:33 PMIceberg standing by her diary is prima facia evidence of the psychosis to which Eriposte refers. Truth has no intrinsic value for clinton-haters. Clinton is Republican-lite though no one can point me to even a single Republican with a pro-union voting record that comes close to Clinton's. Nor can anyone show me a Republican who repeatedly supported raising the minimum wage, walks picket lines, voted against CAFTA, opposed the bankruptcy. And did any Republicans vote against Alito and Roberts?
Very weird.
Posted by flipper's girlfriend at November 17, 2007 03:48 PMNote to 'Sigh!" I don't care whether Bubba and his lobotomized wife can vote for Hillary. I'm not triangulated my vote to appease the idiots who voted for Bush. Hillary won over the good-old-boy in Arkansas and the farmer in upstate NY. The south might be lost, (that includes Obama and Edwards), but this woman can change minds. She has the repect of Tom Delay and Newt Gringrich. They're not afraid she'll get the nomination because she's going to lose, they're scared silly she can win.
Posted by jmac at November 17, 2007 04:15 PMIcebergslim, another uneducated voter (or a shill). Actually, if one thinks about it, claiming the Clintons have the media in their back pocket is so ludicrious that it's almost funny. Slim, sometimes it's better to remain silent than look like a idiot.
Posted by Judith at November 17, 2007 04:15 PMjmac:
Reverse psychology—or at least that's how I see it. I think nominating Clinton throws a life raft to the Republicans when they're all but drowning. They have nothing on which to run except for the same tired bullshit a Clinton candidacy will afford them.
The other thing that bugs me? I am and have been a Democrat ever since I could vote, and I'm seriously going to have to get drunk before I can stomach voting for Mrs. Clinton. I guess you could say I have Clinton fatigue to go with my Bush fatigue; the whole thing makes me so tired. Given my reaction, I'm pretty concerned about independents who aren't moved by party-line considerations.
Posted by artist formerly known as sigh! at November 17, 2007 06:21 PM'Sigh' - I thought they had nothing to run on the last election and they excoriated Kerry. Hillary's going to fight and, hopefully, fight smart.
But your second post explains a lot - you just don't like her. And you think if you don't like her, independents won't. I think she's the best we've got. Edwards is too far left for independents, Obama would be drug through the mud by Fox with his name, his background, his race. I'll support any of them, but she's my top choice because I think she's stronger than the others.
No, I really don't like her; I won't even pretend about that. It's curious insofar as I'm a feminist and a Democrat, and I guess that's my point of concern. I should be part of the demographic to which Mrs. Clinton appeals, and it just doesn't click for me.
I agree with you about the pitfalls of Mr. Obama and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Edwards (though he does have the built-in benefit of being a white male. Call me cynical, I guess). I don't have a horse in the race, really, since my state votes so late in the primaries that it makes no difference. I do hope your optimism proves to be founded, should Mrs. Clinton be our nominee.
Posted by sighing some more? not really, but hey. at November 17, 2007 07:58 PMNice post, but logic has gone out of the replies when it comes to Obama voters and others. I have yet to see a post claiming (against the polls) that Hillary cannot get elected and urging us to vote for someone who can. Who among the Dem candidates is that? Explain to me how O or E can do better than Hillary. At least she has a significant lead among the majority of voters.
Posted by logic101 at November 17, 2007 09:24 PM
What we need to know now are the ties between Kerik/Rudy (appointed by the Bush Crime Family as heir apparent?)/Commander Cuckoo.
Can anyone say "mob"?
t
Posted by t at November 18, 2007 04:41 AMnot at all unexpected from the boys over at the daily kos frat house.
Posted by b at November 18, 2007 09:47 AMGravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.
The people know too much,
democracy rising democracy now.
Rage against the machine.
Honesty compassion intelligence guts.
No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
Divided we fall.
Real Democrats don't boo other Democrats?
I think the trashing Kerry received before the general election from the Dkos community qualifies as booing.
The audience members weren't informed, sophisticated Democrats, who could make their own decisions.
I think we want to stay away from anything that smacks of elitism like that statement. Last thing we want is to come off sounding like the Beltway Twitnits.
Mark my words: nominating her is electoral suicide.
In what region? She's ahead in a lot of the big states and even polling well in the South. Would she win down South? Probably not but there is no dem running or not that will win the South.
You think nominating a Black man will play well below the Mason-Dixon line? IMO that would be the definition of electoral suicide.
Posted by Daryl at November 18, 2007 11:55 AM
The Republicans OWN the media. Anyone that is not aware of that is completely delusional.
Posted by Don Quixote at November 18, 2007 02:20 PMNot having actually read icebergslim's piece, let me make a couple of observations in defense of her thesis.
First, although it is the GOP which owns the media, that doesn't mean the media has no preferences among the Democratic candidates. And as another commenter noted, CNN selected only Clinton supporters as its "analysts" .
Second, it's not hard to say why the media might prefer Clinton to the other Dems. The big boys know that WJC gave them virtually everything they ever asked for in terms of relaxing consolidation rules, protecting Mickey Mouse from ever entering the public domain, and beefing up intellectual property rights generally. They are confident that Hillary will lick the hand that clubs her; the other candidates are, in that respect, an unknown quantity. The Clintons do indeed have a number of favors to call in, not that the media giants care about that. They are simply trusting that past performance is an indication of future results.
I have some hopes that Hillary has learned a little bit from the nineties, and won't justify that trust. But it's only a hope; and that's one of the reasons why this undecided, and largely Hillary-positive, voter is unlikely to pick her in the primary.
Posted by nicteis at November 19, 2007 05:22 AMhttp://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/19/new-hot-air-video-the-politics-of-planting/
Posted by at November 19, 2007 11:06 PM