I think the real story is how you've got Democrats saying other Democrats are cheating. We have Bill Clinton saying he personally witnessed voter suppression and Obama's camp saying there were over 200 instances of abuse in Nevada. On the Republican side things seem to happening in an orderly way. These early primary and caucus votes have shown us that Democrats just can't seem to accept the way anybody votes. Sore loserman seems to be all over the Democratic Party.
Posted by peter at January 19, 2008 07:24 PMThis paragraph from the NY Times Nevada coverage is a reflection of a major mistake by the Obama campaign:
"There was no call of congratulations to Mrs. Clinton from Mr. Obama, who flew out of Nevada as the caucuses were convening. In a statement, Mr. Obama did not acknowledge defeat and noted that he had received one more delegate in Nevada than Mrs. Clinton because of a strong performance in precincts outside Las Vegas."
That's a stunning breach of common courtesy and shows a quite astonishing lack of respect for the electoral process. It's also the mark of a very immature young man. Nobody like a sore loser. I hope he gets his head handed to him from here on out!
Poor peter, still looking for who his nominee will be... sad.
I think the real issue no one is talking about is that Hillary was prepared the other night in the Nevada debate. She kicked ass, blasted bu$h, and knew the topics. Besides Edwards making his comment on Veteran's, she out classed them both.
Could voters be paying attention to what the candidates are saying instead of what the media is saying. Most folks are disgusted at hearing the race and gender baiting.
Super "Fat" Tuesday, will be when the nominee is decided.
Posted by Seven of Six at January 19, 2008 07:41 PMeriposte:
Excellent job. I just hope we can drive this message into the media. If a few people like Digby and Media Matters take note of this, we'll be in good shape.
BTW, OT, you deserve props for a long, large body of work. I still have your old CA stuff bookmarked.
John
Posted by Pacific John at January 19, 2008 08:01 PMHear, hear! The statement of opposing ridiculousness would be that Hispanics would not vote for Obama in the general. That has not been proven either, especially if the Republicans nominate an immigrant-basher.
Posted by 4jkb4ia at January 19, 2008 08:01 PMDividing Democrats is what these people do. Or, rather, dividing people who tend to vote for Democrats.
As a Canadian with no inherent bias against any candidate,(but I do have a preference) it is quite obvious that the media and the TV channel I watch all day CNN, is definitely biased against Hillary and has been one of the proponents of pushing comments into racist ones where they were not and inciting animosity about Hillary and now Bill. I have written them several times about the way they phrase their questions, or post headlines and always come to any Clinton discussion as if she has done something wrong. I also left a post at the Washington Post about an article where the wording was strong and hateful towards Clinton but mild and mellow to Obama. There is definite sexism and the race card has been played but not by the candidate that is getting the blame. The media don't seem to worry about platform just about how they can further the feud they themselves created and perpetuate to, I assume, gather better ratings. They have ignored John Edwards, given a pass to Obama and are all nicey nicey to most Republicans, but there must be some written law somewhere that you can't say anything positive on the air about Hillary. I couldn't believe watching a clip of Huckabee today where he told voters that if they weren't going to vote for him then they should stay home, relax and watch the cartoons. Not one commentator talked about what he said after they aired the clip and it just slid into oblivion.
The media seem to love the mantra of "I want to bring change and fix a broken Washington and work in a biparisan fashion", but I seem to recall that is the same mantra for the nice guy you wanted to have a beer with 8 years ago when Bush got elected with that same promise. I have yet to hear 1 media person compare the same mantra to that uttered 8 years ago. As an outsider I would just like to hear what everyone stands for since we are such close neighbours and I get all your same TV channels, yet I find platform is being ignored over this manufactured black man versus white woman versus the white man they all treat as invisible. Do they ever wonder why people get so turned off by politics when they are supposed to provide news and info and we can turn to the web to get the gossip and catfights?
I feel like I am living in an alternate universe right now...the Clintons said there was foul play before the election, they said there were problems with the caucus system, and the Obama campaign said no there are no problems, stop crying. Well, now that they have lost, suddenly they have separate reports of voting problems? Only when they lose, huh. He lost my support awhile ago, but now I cannot help but ridicule him. There is NOTHING worse than a sore loser....he is Bush-lite circa 2000...
Posted by NS at January 19, 2008 09:31 PMAnd don't think the GOP has let these rude actions go by without notice. Huckabee told his supporters tonight that he had called McCain to congratulate him and to thank him for running a "civil" campaign, and thanking him for conducting a campaign where the goal was not to destroy the other candidates. Ouch! The GOP candidates are beginnig to look mature compared to the Democrats. Not a positive characterization for the Dems.
Posted by Judith at January 19, 2008 09:41 PMJudith:
I heard Huckabee say that too but he says that all the time about running a clean campaign. Besides he had millions of robocalls going out on his behalf trashing McCain so in all reality he didn't have to do anything - others were doing it for him. I just find that whole clean campaign of his is garbage because he ridicules and denigrates people with one liners and thinks he can get away with it by sounding funny.
The false charges are coming from liberal Obama supporters though, thats whats causing the division. The media is just reporting that; theyre reporting what Obama supporters and liberals have been saying about the Clinton campaign.
Youre right though, if Hillary's the nominee republicans will keep repeating it. I saw them doing that tonight on a Fox News panel. Hannity has been doing it too (bringing up cocaine , fairy tale, MLK, etc.....) to damage Hillary for the general.
Its not helping Obamas campaign either, its making him seem too much like just another Jessie Jackson (who btw won in large part because conservative republicans crossed over and voted for him to cause trouble).
Posted by Jonesy at January 19, 2008 10:02 PMNo, folks, the problem comes down to the crap the Clintons pulled with trying to stop the casino caucuses approved months and months ago, that's what caused sore feeling, but Obama's camp dealt with and went on. Now, as the winner, it's incumbent on Hillary to win graciously, and cut with the crap. People may have problems with sore losers, but in close fights it's almost expected. Yet, nobody likes a sore winner. And here we have a pro-Hillary site, and it's one complaint after another, ignoring the fact that your candidate won. The Clintons need to win graciously, and cut the whining.
As for splitting the party, no, Hillary being nominated won't. But a lot of liberals, such as myself, won't vote for her. We really won't, but it won't matter. Clearly, we are not a majority or half or even a significant percent of any portion of the Democratic Party, that's clear. So, it's hardly a split. Same with the African-American community. Even if many in that community decided to sit this out, it wouldn't be a split in the party, just a disgruntled, small minority of the Democratic Party. The media is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 19, 2008 10:13 PMBrian:
What "crap did the Clintons pull to try and stop the caucuses"? On my TV they said that the Teacher's Union, who did not endorse anyone, and several individuals who privately supported Clinton brought the lawsuit because it unfairly stopped education workers from partiipating while making accommodations for casino workers. And could you please explain how Obama handled it? It appeared to me that other than complaining about it and trying to imply it was Clinton, said absolutely nothing when asked to denounce the racist radio ad that was run against Clinton unfairly, yet wanted the Clinton campaign to denounce what he considered a racist comment. It would be nice if anyone has legitimate complaints that they be addressed but the bias once again comes through that Obama can do no wrong and Clinton can do no right.
PS..I hope no one minds me posting here tonight as I find this election cycle so out of whack with what you normally conduct and I find it fascinating that someone can still be accused for actions that have been proven not to be hers.
Posted by cfanadian visitor at January 19, 2008 10:43 PMYou can spin this how you want to, but the above comment is true. A lot of Dems, AAs, and Indies are fed up with the Clinton Dynasty, and Bill Clinton's being front and center has just added to the disgust. I am not supporting a rerun of the Clinton Dynasty. The dishonesty and lies about whether it's private misbehavior or public bad judgment, the unwillingness to be accountable are unsupportable in this royal family. If Hillary is the nominee, as a life-long Democrat, and volunteer with the Clinton campaign in 92, I'm walking. And I'm not alone. The Democratic party is splitting the party if it subjugates itself to this pair. Period...
Posted by Bill R. at January 19, 2008 10:44 PMBill R, I think you're wrong. I mean, you're right about us not voting for Hillary, but I think you're wrong that it will have much of an effect or split the party. I think Hillary will win fine without our votes. cfanadian visitor, thanks for proving my point about Hilary and her supporters being sore winners. Hillary won, you don't need to berate Obama or his supporters, us, about it. We get the picture.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 19, 2008 10:53 PMI will end my visit byaddressing Brian one more time:
You are so willing to show such hatred for Hillary and feel you can say anything negative or vile about her you want, but when someone prints the facts as I have seen them presented on TV, and come to a different conclusion than you have, then your feel that anything anyone says that appears to be against Obama is not allowed, and I am warned to stop berating Obama and his supporters. Are you trying to imply that either you or Obama are not strong enough to take the criticism and there is to be none of him? If you think my comment is berating both Obama and you, then are you really ready for the fight ahead you would face from republicans if he was the candidate? In my personal opinion, I think not. And let me reiterate, I am Canadian, I don't support or favour or hope for anyone special other than a "a Democrat" taking over the White House. But if you are going to sit home rather than vote "a democrat" into the White House, it is sad that non Americans worry more about your country and your reputation and what you stand for than you appear to. Unfortunately the last one that got elected has affected all the world, not just the US. We are interested in the outcome even though you may not think it is any of our business.
Another thing to ask is why -- especially today -- they didn't focus on the fact that 95% of Mormons supported Mitt Romney, a far greater perecentage than blacks who supported Obama.
Why didn't they do this? Because they are bankrupt human beings.
Posted by JedReport at January 20, 2008 12:24 AMYou really attribute too much to the likes of Ms. Greenspan. Time and time again I see the progressive blogs respond to these GOP'er idiots as if the remarks they gooper made we intended to be consumed as fact. They are not. They are intended to get a concept on the table, make it contagious amongst the pundits and infect the Democrats with it. Nothing more,. Think about it this way: Has there every been an election in history in which the candidate only got the votes of those that selected him in the primary? No. If its Obama, Clinton folks like me are going to vote for him. If its Clinton, African Americans are going to have a choice: A Bigot like Huckabee or Clinton. Historically American Blacks have not voted against their on self interest. Ms. Greenspan would like them to..hence her idiotic remarks.
Posted by Richard at January 20, 2008 05:23 AMCanadian Visitor, of course Huckaberry is lying through his teeth about the GOP "clean campaigns," but how many people know that? It's appearances that count, not truth.
Posted by Judith at January 20, 2008 05:51 AMWell, so much for the truce. Didn't last long.
Posted by Judith at January 20, 2008 05:59 AMAre we sure he even won the most delegates? I believe the state chair of the Democratic party said that they decide until April.
Posted by Nathan at January 20, 2008 07:36 AMcfanadian visitor, once again, thanks for proving my point about Hilary and her supporters being sore winners, again. Again, Hillary won, you don't need to berate Obama or his supporters, us, about it, again. We get the picture, again.
I totally agree with Richard. When Obama's completely finished, and he will be -- tricks with delegate rules will not support him across 46 more states -- Hillary will pick up some of his support. The media is, as they often do, exaggerating. Now, will she get all of Obama's support? No, she won't. Some portion of the "liberals," such as myself, will sit it out and some portion, probably not insignificant, of the African-American community will sit it out, too. I'm sure she'll do fine, though.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 20, 2008 09:18 AMI'm not sure I see how Hillary "does fine" if even a third of the Obama/Edwards vote (one half the electorate so far) is implacably opposed to a Clinton restoration. And who knows the actual size of that group and the strenght of its feelings?
The Repub conservative brand is not seriously tarnished even after 8 years of Bushco----McCain slightly "leads" Hillary in most of the head-to-head "polls" I've seen. Repubs will (likely) unite behind the candidate that has the strongest chance to win, Rushbo notwithstanding. They are a top-down oragnization and their enormous propaganda machine will get them in line.
Is McCain or Hillary more attractive to the nation's so-called "independents"? And with the Anti-Dynasts sitting it out (which will happen), things are gonna get pretty dicey, I'd say.
Posted by euzoius at January 20, 2008 09:38 AMThe Nader mentality remains alive and well. Spoilers and whiners. The sexists remain, angry at women always for one petty reason or another. And Obama remains, Reagan panderer, Republican apologist and divider supreme....But the sheep in the Democratic party are just as clueless as their evangelical brethren...and just as hypocritical....But determined to vote for the uniter as claimed by Obama, in one breath, and then promise to vote for someone other than HIllary in the general,they assume the mantle of great divider with no embarrassment or awareness of such supreme hypocrisy,let alone stupidity. So you can be sure, all economic hardship that they suffer due to Republican policies will not be lamented by me or many others.
And the fact that this delegate count in Nevada canard is being pushed by the media to dilute Hillary's great win, is proof enough of the media's complicity in electing a Republican...not an Obama. But still the clueless don't get it. Obama crashes against McCain or against Romney...Hillary wins most groups of Democrats and now in Nevada, split the male vote. But facts have never been critical to the Obama adherents or the media...and as that becomes more clear, we should understand the mentality that brought us Bush.
Posted by lily15 at January 20, 2008 10:04 AMYou're right, Lily15, the clueless don't get it. Let me explain it to the real clueless, die-hard Democratic party aficionados and Hillary supporters. Hillary Clinton is NOT entitled to my vote or many other Obama supporters' votes. Or Kucinich's votes. Or Edwards' votes. Etc. So, who exactly is cluesless, Lily15?
Posted by Brian Bell at January 20, 2008 12:19 PMRepubs want to recreate the 2000 Mayor's Race in NYC. Liberal Mark Green lost to total unknown Mike Bloomberg in heavily Dem NY after race problems crept into the primary between Green and popular hispanic Fred Ferrer. I voted for Green in the primary, Ferrer in the run-off, and Bloomberg (my only Repub vote ever) in the general. By the general I was so mad at Green I would have voted for Giuliani.
Was it all about race? Green made the mistake of going negative with a 'stressor' ad a week after 9/11. People were so stressed out already that an ominous ad (you know, terrible things will happen if Ferrer wins) flipped out enough blacks and Latinos to cost Green the general. Also, liberal Green tacked right on racially divisive issues: Al Sharpton/NYPD. So it wasn't just the rough campaign stuff with Ferrer. As long as the Clintons don't tack right on black issues, they can survive a slugout with Obama. But watch Bloomberg -- he finessed this angle right into the Mayor's Office.
The bottom line is blacks don't fear payback from the Clintons if we vote with pride for Obama. Big Dog can say, 'hey, I treated Obama like a man. I didn't patronize him with kid gloves, I fought him just like I'd fight any white rival." We'll see the rough stuff as a sign of respect. We'll come around just fine for the general.
I think people under estimate the white support that Obama has, both young and old. The Future is Obama for the democrats.
Posted by don from dc at January 20, 2008 03:25 PMIs McCain or Hillary more attractive to the nation's so-called "independents"?
Well, she pulled more Independents than McCain by 10 points in NH.
Posted by WMCB at January 20, 2008 08:35 PM