You're wrong about this IMHO. She hurt herself by trying to use the Farrakhan endorsement of her rival to attack Obama and she wouldn't let up until Obama made light humor of her opportunism. Barak made some pretty good digs at her parsing of words.. and perhaps the whole Clinton machine's triangulating BS. She was so exploitive of a potential Israel-bashing moment to prove Obama has some sort of Ron Paul-ish anti-Ethnic bias or something. She was using Tim's questioning as a cheap shot in other words.
Sorry, you must have been watching another channel.
The press is supposed to ask hard and potentially embarrassing questions. I think Tim is too far to the Right but still he does creative questioning and either Democrat or Republican needs to be on his toes in front of him. Obama handled him with almost easy disdain and dribbled right around him.
Posted by datadave at February 27, 2008 05:50 AMsorry, but not everyone so hates hillary, so adores obama, or is so willing to give the media a pass.
marc ambinder also had an interesting take:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/vantage_point.php
Posted by Turkana at February 27, 2008 05:55 AMDatadave--read what Turkana wrote--(s)he was saying exactly that--that HRC had a chance to look heroic and instead chose to look small.
I agree completely (with Turkana). Here was a moment to seize which would have dramatically changed the dynamic: HRC comes to OB's defense. When Obama didn't slam TR, it presented a perfect opportunity for her to do so, in the context, as Turkana said, of the media's (and MSNBC's in particular) continually taking the low road to smear. It would also have redeemed the canard hurled at her for having run a "race-baiting" campaign, by having her defend a black man against the "you're black, so you must hate Jews" attack. As an HRC supporter, I was actually talking to the tv , praying for it, and was crushed when she said what she did. That was the moment, and she blew it.
Posted by Desert Dawg at February 27, 2008 06:02 AMWhen Hillary started talking about the independence party in NY and how they were anti-semitic, etc, I thought she was coming to Obama's defense--saying that she's dealt with it too, knows how it is, etc. But she didn't. I thought her parsing of words was bad and Obama's response to it was good. But I didn't like Obama referring to "Minister Farfakahn"--I thought that showed respect he doesn't deserve and it rubbed me the wrong way. And I think it's one of those examples of Obama trying to always be respectful and "bring people together" that can just go too far.
Posted by CG at February 27, 2008 06:17 AMYou owe Senator Obama and the American people an apology.
That would have worked Turkana. If she would have kept repeating that.
Shame on you...
That would have brought out the 'scolding Mom' questions again.
The candidates NEVER denounce the worthless, waste-of-time non-substance of these appallingly stupid "debates", which are simply revolting "gotcha" masturbation events for these preening cretinous infotainment TV pundit-lebrities.
Our country is broken beyond repair. No one learned one thing of value from this shit presentation.
Posted by euzoius at February 27, 2008 06:45 AMTurKana,
I watched start to finish. It was so obvious that they were asking stupid questions and giving them both a hard time, though Hillary more so. Tim rudely cut her off too many times before she finished her answer and he asked her a few more slander type questions.
I don’t think you should be her debate advisor though, If she spoke your words, she would have come across as complaining, been hammered as weak, and reported as not being tough enough for the job. BigTent is centered about most things but on this Jeralyn is closer to the truth.
Personally I think getting the short end of the stick is just the way it is, and that isn’t going to change, but I also think everyone knows and can see that. These are opportunities for Hillary to show she is tough (Obama doesn’t get those from the press) but she has to be careful how she responds, and not over-react.
What I think she could have done a little more of, since I think she actually did it to some degree, was to adjust her tone when answering, adjusting her tone to show her disgust at some of the questions. This allowed her to get her message out, while at the same time showing she isn’t going to be pushed around or bullied.
I mean c’mon, this shit is only going to get worse, and if she can’t handle it in the nominee race she won’t get off any lighter in the GE.
I think she did well, she showed contempt at times for the stupid questions, while at the same time showing that she was knowledgeable about issues. She didn’t get distracted by the pettiness of the hosts.
And without a doubt, she hit exactly the right tone with her closing statement, practiced or not, her tone conveyed that she cared, and she was they only person at the table who did that.
...then afterwards when tweety talked with andrea mitchell, I threw up my dinner, what a disgusting pair they are.
for the networks, "debates" are TV shows, showcases for their "stars" like Russert, Matthews, Olberman, etc. That's it. For politicians "debates" are free PR opportunities. That's it. If a politician accepts free TV time for the right to be manipulated by idiots....that's their choice; and a poor choice in my opinion. It's my choice not to participate by watching. (note: yeah, I watched last week). If anyone finds Russert repulsive, don't watch his TV shows, and if a politician doesn't want to answer his stupid questions, don't take the free advertising.
Posted by T2 at February 27, 2008 06:54 AMI thought the same thing. Here's her chance to show some leadership and forcefully focus on how the media has turned a serious campaign into stupid got ya moments. But no, it was; "I'm more 'denouncy' than you".
Seriously, she could have appeared above it all by supporting Obama and then used to her advantage to address her issues of media abusiveness.
Jeez Turkana, that was well written. I was reading it imagining it being said in Hillary's voice and it would've been replayed and discussed for years.
Plus it's right on the money.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at February 27, 2008 07:18 AMThe PUBLIC's airwaves deserve better than the korporate media whores that the korporations are using to slime Democrats and liberals. We need to start hitting back because they are not neutral, skeptical questioners.
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 27, 2008 07:22 AMFunny, my nailing-Tim-Russert fantasy was about taking up one of the many criminal things General Electric has done -- dumping PCBs in the Hudson River, say -- and asking Russert if he was ready right now to denounce and condemn the criminal company that owns NBC.
Posted by kaleidescope at February 27, 2008 07:34 AMi have bundled my home phone, computer with qwest which includes direct tv. after march i am dumping all of it and going with cheap dial up and local tv stations. i am sick of the bias in the media, i am sick of paying for 15 fucking religious stations, 20 shopping networks, 22 sports channels and 10 spanish speaking channels. this WOMAN is going to start controlling how MY FEMALE money is going to be spent. we are controlled by the fucking cable and satellite stations. the press leads us right to the edge of the cliff again and we are lulled into believing what they want us to see, now the roll of dice will take us over the cliff or not. we are a manipulated populace, it is sickening.
Posted by mamameow at February 27, 2008 07:40 AMI don't get it - Turkana, you're saying "this is what she should have said" and everyone's all "yeah!" and busting her for not saying it. And why is it Clinton's lost opportunity to defend Obama as he stumbled over an answer? (and he did stumble over a couple of them, too) It's not her responsibility to dig him out of his holes; in fact, as the opposition, she's supposed to get him to dig deeper. Which is what she did.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 27, 2008 07:52 AMWe've known that MSNBC was bad for a while. They all seem to be deficient. Even those Youtube questions were reframed and perverted beyond the questioners intent. Seems we need real, unfiltered questions. Come up with a way to get there and we might get some good results out of these things, otherwise it's just posturing.
Posted by peter at February 27, 2008 07:57 AMObama should have said, "Russert, if you call your wife 'reprehensible' do you get to sleep on the couch or are you thrown out of the house altogether? If you call someone at the bar reprehensible how many teeth are you missing? What don't you get about reprehensible?"
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 27, 2008 08:02 AMcoyote,
you're right in that he should have responded forcefully to denounce russert, but had she defended obama and ripped russert, it would have been transcendent. it's all everyone would be talking about, today.
Posted by Turkana at February 27, 2008 08:04 AMpeter,
whoa- you said something i agree with! msnbc is a uniter, not a divider!
Posted by Turkana at February 27, 2008 08:05 AMbut had she defended obama and ripped russert,
I suppose we could write reams about how cool it would be if Obama defended Hillary from sexist attacks; I've seen someone try to do just that on another blog. It was interesting to watch how fast the comments went from "why should he?" to "Hillary's whining about sexism again." Maybe you're just trying to say Obama can't fight his own battles? *smirk*
it would have been transcendent.
Heh, so would Obama suddenly healing people in the audience, but I'm not sure we should hold our breaths waiting for that, either!
(Seriously, since when are our candidates - or just about anything, lately, considering the ubiquitousness of this stupid word - supposed to be "transcendent?" Is that the new "cool" word the kids are saying now? Like "paradigm" was a couple years ago?)
Posted by iamcoyote at February 27, 2008 08:43 AMturkana -
though joe's view (6:47) comes closer to my own,
i just want to say that you have been doing a superb job analyzing and commenting on the primary races.
i look forward to reading your posts. they are some of the best available in all the media - period.
Posted by orionATL at February 27, 2008 08:47 AMonce again, it's useful to point out that no matter if its Clinton or Obama, the Dems MUST win in November for it to matter. Early signs are the Democratic Party is ready to do some voting in the fall. Take a look at Burnt Orange Report. The short version: Early Dem voting in Tx is running 347,000 ahead of where it was in 04. That's a Texas size increase, folks.
Posted by T2 at February 27, 2008 08:54 AMorion,
thanks! i appreciate that!
coyote,
hillary needs a game-changer, obama doesn't. this might have done it.
t2,
agreed. and that lat/bloomberg poll should give everyone pause!
Posted by Turkana at February 27, 2008 09:04 AMiamcoyote's right that every time voters want the dems to circle the wagon and defend each other (as in wanting obama to handle the sexism and clinton to handle the racism) the obama supporters closed ranks and insisted that either it wasn't sexist or that hillary was a whiny bitchy woman for minding the sexism. But I also agree with Turkana's post, and its something I think we've all been saying in different ways--we want our candidates to act like being a Democrat is a good thing and a unifying thing, not to allow the press and the republicans to take pot shots at one candidate and hope that it redounds to the benefit of the other.
This is actually why I finally left the defending HRC camp a few weeks ago. She was using attacks against Obama that the republicans were also going to use and, essentially, doing their work for them in the general election. The Dems never get this--they are building up or tearing down their own brand every time they allow the press to make fun of one of them. The press simply swivels over and does the same thing to the last dem left standing once they've knocked one down. Both Obama and Clinton should have made a pact to take the hits for the other and to intervene if the other was getting too beat up, to redirect the discussion to how they are different from the republicans instead of how they are different from each other. I know that doesn't make sense for any individual candidate. But it makes sense for the winner and for the party. And if the candidate isn't willing to put winning the general election above winning the primary they aren't the right candidate for us.
Its nothing but solomon's choice all over again. The candidates need to prove their love of party and principle above winning, as the mothers in the story need to prove their love of the baby above spite. I don't say that out of some romantic notions but out of pragmatism. We either move the country to trusting *all the dems* we put forward as candidates or we lose out in the general by allowing them to believe that each of our candidates is so flawed that their own party doesn't like and trust them.
aimai
Posted by aimai at February 27, 2008 09:13 AMI was wondering if anyone here would comment on that LATimes poll. Looks good for my side right now. Me thinks this may be a rerun of 1976 with the extra week rolled in, a different result.
Posted by peter at February 27, 2008 09:14 AMMaybe you should be running for president, Turkana!
It's a tricky act in a debate to think on one's feet but at the same time be careful to not say anything stupid or which could be misinterpreted. Turkana's suggestion would have been a great thing for Clinton to say, and Obama missed an opportunity himself to slam McCain on violating campaign finance laws.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 27, 2008 09:17 AMhttp://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/27/about-the-nation-of-islam-and-obama/
read this
Posted by at February 27, 2008 09:39 AMIsn't it a shame the Dems couldn't approve the person(s) nominated to FEC so that they could issue guidance here. With the FEC short of person or two, no repercussions, no guidance. And CA, seems to me thay both came out to the mics last year and made an agreement. Why aren't you holding both of them to the agreement they made.
Posted by peter at February 27, 2008 09:40 AMhillary needs a game-changer, obama doesn't. this might have done it.
I think we all can agree that last night's debate was way too late to be a game changer, so I just think the woulda-coulda stuff is just unnecessary pile on. Helping Obama with that question wouldn't have made Obama's supporters any less hateful toward her; she'd be accused of grandstanding, or acting mommy-like, or whatever. Really, I'm not trying to trash you, Turkana, I just think she gets enough grief for what she does do, that it's overkill to bust her for things she doesn't do as well. And after he called her a "whiner" at the beginning of the debate, he really couldn't have had any expectation of help from her anyhow.
Both Obama and Clinton should have made a pact to take the hits for the other and to intervene if the other was getting too beat up, to redirect the discussion to how they are different from the republicans instead of how they are different from each other.
In a perfect world, aimai, in a perfect world...
Posted by iamcoyote at February 27, 2008 09:42 AMit all depends on what the definition of is is...
Posted by at February 27, 2008 09:50 AMAnd CA, seems to me thay both came out to the mics last year and made an agreement. Why aren't you holding both of them to the agreement they made. - peter
Obama has reiterated his commitment to come to an arrangement with McCain once the nomination has been decided. Of course, you're hardly in a position to throw stones anyway since your candidate is indicating he will violate campaign finance laws.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 27, 2008 09:54 AMhttp://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/27/about-the-nation-of-islam-and-obama/
read this
Interesting. I've read other things about this. Gives a different view on the debate last night and some troubling information about who Obama is surrounding himself with.
Posted by CG at February 27, 2008 10:06 AM"I didn't like Obama referring to "Minister Farfakahn""
I don't understand this use of "Minister" anyway. Doesn't Farakahn claim to be some sort of Muslim? There is no such title in Islam as "Minister", and nothing that could be considered equivalent either.
Posted by Shirin at February 27, 2008 10:18 AMNice CG: Link to another smear job filled with innuendo. Most of the assertions there are not backed up with any facts. Very similar to the recent National Review smear that suggested Obama's birth was the result of a communist plot to create biracial kids!
Since when has it become "progressive' to support an Israeli regime that has no respect for human rights and which uses tanks and state of the art military weapons to attack and kill innocent Palestinians, often armed only with rocks? Or, that employs a policy that keeps impoverished and suffering thousands of innocent civilians (thousands of whom die because of these policies)? Or, that received nuclear materials from the racist South African regime throughout the 60s and 70s? Obama supports the right of Israel to exist, affirms the U.S.'s historic relationship with the state, but also makes clear that that support does not mean that the U.S. won't push Israel to better respect the human rights of Palestinians. That seems to me to be the right policy. Heck, it has been our uncritical stance toward Israel that has undermined the US role as a "honest broker" in the region.
It is not anti-semitic to call out the government of Israel for these and other anti-democratic policies. In fact, many progressive/left Jews do exactly that! The recent Israeli regimes are far away from the original socialist/left vision of the state of Israel.
"If anyone finds Russert repulsive, don't watch his TV shows"
This is another bit of American liberal behaviour that I just don't get. People bitch constantly about MSNBC, Russert, Matthews (who is the lowest of the lowest scum in my view - I'll tell you why one of these days), etc., and yet they constantly go back for more. It reminds me of the prude who keeps looking at porn and screaming about how awful it is, and then goes back for more.
Posted by Shirin at February 27, 2008 10:29 AMShirin,
C'mon. Why not go educate yourself before posting silliness. He is not an orthodox Muslim, but a member of the Nation of Islam, aka Black Muslims, a peculiar sect which grew out of indigenous struggles for racial justice in the United States. The Nation of Islam does use the title "Minister." There are many resources out there for you to read and find out these basics. I encourage you to do so. It is a fascinating and complicated history.
Posted by at February 27, 2008 10:29 AMDear No-Name poster:
Regarding the No Quarter blog, I was a very regular commenter there and a strong supporter of Larry and Susan both on the web and personally for some time (not that I always agreed with them, mind you, especially Larrt!), but have not gone there in weeks since it became a site devoted almost exclusively to bashing Obama, and sometimes in very ugly and exaggerated ways (they jokingly call themselves "Daily Obama" now).
I am not - repeat NOT - an Obama supporter, and if anything I am even less a Hillary supporter, but they are providing a one-stop shop for anything and everything from the substantial, to the thin-as-air to virtually non-existent, that the opposition might ever want to bring up against Obama in the general election. Their excuse for this is that they are "exposing" everything now before the Repubs can do it, but that excuse rings a bit hollow for me, particularly since both Larry and Susan are ardent Hillary supporters.
In any case, I felt they were taking it much, much too far, sometimes into the land of rather desperate-sounding speculation, some of which got pretty outlandish, particularly in the comment section.
Not dissing the site, which is normally a very valuable one, and certainly not dissing either Larry or Susan, for both of whom I have considerable respect, but I have been disappointed, and at times embarrassed, by their "all Obama sucks all the time" antics during this silly season.
I, for one, cannot wait until the primaries are done with, and things at least return to Democrats and Republicans beating up on each other. I don't think this business of Democrats beating one another to a bloody pulp is at all healthy or helpful.
Posted by Shirin at February 27, 2008 11:20 AMDear No-Name poster,
Sorry, I did not make my point clear at all regarding the "minister" thing.
I know all I care to know about the Nation of Islam, thanks. They have about as much to do with actual Islam as Jews for Jesus has to do with actual Judaism. More importantly, they hold some very ugly, unIslamic views that people unfortunately manage to associate with real Islam and real Muslims as a result of the wild blatherings of the likes of Louis Farakahn.
In short, they are not only not Muslims, they are unIslamic, and damaging to actual Islam and actual Muslims.
Posted by Shirin at February 27, 2008 11:36 AMShirin, the point is that maybe in the world of Farrakhan, they do have Ministers and so that's why he was addressed as such. Just a title.
Posted by T2 at February 27, 2008 11:43 AM"Isn't it a shame the Dems couldn't approve the person(s) nominated to FEC so that they could issue guidance here."
snort, well pants pissing peter it's a shame that Dear Leader saw fit to nominate Hans von Spakovsky who would do whatever it takes to reduce the number of African-Americans from voting
Posted by at February 27, 2008 11:46 AMYes, T2, I get it, and my point, which would not have been lost on a Muslim audience, but was lost here, is that in the real world the Nation of Islam has nothing to do with Islam. It isn't even a decent make-believe of Islam.
It's my fault my point was lost here because I did not take into account that this audience would not have the same frame of reference as a Muslim audience does.
Posted by Shirin at February 27, 2008 11:47 AM"Since when has it become "progressive' to support an Israeli regime that has no respect for human rights..."
....about the same time it has become "progressive" to be apologists for sexist smear campaigns by democrats against democrats I guess.
The so-called progressive party has become a joke this season. I'm leaving it.
Posted by at February 27, 2008 12:01 PM"very ugly, unIslamic views that people unfortunately manage to associate with real Islam and real Muslims" - yeah, real Muslims like Bin Laden.
Thanks, T2, for the lovely islamophobic response.
I think I may have misjudged you. Lesson learned.
How disappointing.
Posted by Shirin at February 27, 2008 12:27 PMHi CG and Coyote,
Looks like you guys are still fighting the same battle from different angles. Back when Obama was nowhere close to winning the nomination you guys were attacking anyone who defended him. Now that he is about to wrap up the nomination I wanna know whacha gonna do? You gonna keep fighting for Hillary or join with the rest of us to win in the fall?
That's a Texas size increase, folks.
Almost the size of displaced NOLA residents?
....about the same time it has become "progressive" to be apologists for sexist smear campaigns by democrats against democrats I guess.
Exactly. I'm just about where you are, too. There are still places on the web to go - I've found sanctuary at Shakesville and other feminist blogs; if you haven't checked it out, give it a try.
How disappointing.
Shirin, it certainly is, isn't it?
Posted by iamcoyote at February 27, 2008 12:45 PMI'm sorry if you are offended Shirin. Correct me if I'm wrong about Osama Bin Laden. Is he Muslim or not. I don't see any Islamophobia there on my part. That would indicate I am afraid of Islam. I'm not. I am afraid, however, of any person of any faith that hides behind that faith and betrays that faith to further his/her own agenda. I'd say both Farrakhan and Bin Laden fall into that category. George W. Bush also comes to mind.
Posted by T2 at February 27, 2008 01:14 PM7o6, you may have a point there, in Houston and Austin,TX. But it's statewide. The important thing in TX is that, regardless if they are new arrivals or not, it may start the tide turning from a hopelessly red state toward at least purple.
Posted by T2 at February 27, 2008 01:18 PMI am afraid, however, of any person of any faith that hides behind that faith and betrays that faith to further his/her own agenda.
Dobson, Robertson, the Falwell boys, the Huckster, etc.
T2, A little ironic that McOld was born on the same day Katrina came ashore.
Posted by Seven of Six at February 27, 2008 01:35 PMyeah 7o6, but a century apart.
Posted by T2 at February 27, 2008 01:46 PMTurkana, this diary is a little silly, yes? When has Hillary's campaign ever shown the kind of strategy that would enable it to have a "transcendent" moment like defending Obama and ripping on Russert? No, all Hillary has shown is an instinct for the low road, for the innuendo and the sly character assassination. I'm sure she was happier than a clam when Russert brought up the NOI. It wouldn't surprise me if Clinton's campaign were feeding that crap to Timmy. This is the last ditch attempt by Hillary to win by hook or by crook, and a little slander won't get in her way. Defend Obama over it? Shucks. her campaign was probably knee-deep in making sure it was asked.
Yes, the NOI has ugly, extremist views, but in the African-American community, it is a force to be reckoned with. I don't know how much more clear Obama can make that he doesn't agree with their views than he has. He canned his treasurer over it, and it's not clear if the other woman really is a member or not, and if at one time they had a veto over his race for state election, it appears they're not so important to him now. Otherwise ripping on them would cost him, but as he has ripped on them, it seems they aren't that important to his future anymore.
The truth is, Timmy asked what Timmy did, and Hillary looked like some trifling candidate over the whole thing, because that's what she is -- trifling.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 27, 2008 01:59 PMTurkana,
It's a mistake to believe that Hillary could have turned her campaign around with a better answer to Russert's question. The horses are out of the barn; Obama's advantages in both fundraising and campaign infrastructure are so massive at this point that no clever response from Clinton would have changed the fundamental dynamics of this race. And besides, the voting public is not so unsophisticated that they are going to reconsider their stance based on a single moment that occurred during one of the many debates.
Please recall that the media thought that Hillary might have done herself a lot of good when she gave a strong answer at the close of the previous debate. Look what has happened since then-- Obama has pulled ahead in Texas, and he is close in Ohio. There is no evidence that a good line or two in a debate has the power to significantly alter the atmosphere.
Posted by cousin vinnie at February 27, 2008 02:29 PMWhat I found most interesting about last evening's debate was the first 15 minutes where Senators Clinton and Obama debated the method by which citizens would be compelled, under penalty of the law, to participate in nationalized healthcare.
What is the you Lefties keep harping about? Oh yeah, a police state.
Things could be worse. Unlike Rudy, so far no pictures of McCain have surfaced dressed as a "transcendent".
Posted by TIKI AL at February 27, 2008 02:37 PMNo, all Hillary has shown is an instinct for the low road, for the innuendo and the sly character assassination.
That's rich coming from you, Brian, especially in a post full of innuendo and spite.
Unlike Rudy, so far no pictures of McCain have surfaced dressed as a "transcendent".
Way to turn a phrase (or stomach!), TIKI! I'd prefer not to see McCain's "transcendence" thankyouverymuch!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 27, 2008 02:40 PMa thread wouldn't be complete without input from our head fascist and criminal party worshiper bedwettin bag less..quite the little expert on police states aren't you baggy?
Posted by headxray at February 27, 2008 02:43 PMWell, headxray, if you are posting here you are not out in public.
But don't you think that it is interesting that the two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination -- both seeking the highest office in this land -- spent, fully, 15 minutes arguing about which one had the best plan for enforcing their respective health care plans.
Posted by Bagley at February 27, 2008 02:49 PMThere's no innuendo or spite in my post, Coyote. My candidate's winning. I am not spiteful about that.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 27, 2008 02:58 PMIf anything, Hillary Clinton getting Barack Obama to say that he rejected Farrakhan outright helps him in the long run bc his initial response was that he renounced his antisemetic remarks but when Russert asked if he rejected him, Obama gave that I cant help who likes me response. Anyone who thinks Republicans weren't watching that debate is living in a fanatasy. They would have talked about Obama not rejecting the man outright but giving a nuanced answer that would have appeared on TV over and over again, especially if right wing talk radio or others like fox news talked about it. It's enough they're talking about Obama's pastor and his ties to Farrakhan, if Obama hadn't fixed his answer, he would have been accused of pandering to Jews while avoiding offending Farrakhan supporters.
Posted by Kacey at February 27, 2008 03:03 PMkacey,
i partially agree with you, and he clarified himself seamlessly, but the repugs will hit him hard on it, as they will on everything, anyway. they will have a ton of money, and they will try every conceivable smear, trying to find ones that work.
Posted by Turkana at February 27, 2008 03:20 PMiamcoyote:
Thanks very much for the heads up on the shakesville site - it is indeed very refreshing. There are others as well.
I don't know how you stay here and argue with these vile Hillary-bashing thugs (yes, she is actually a human being and so are her supporters). But thanks for your courage and truthfulness.
Posted by at February 27, 2008 05:23 PMvile hillary bashing thugs? and most people accuse me of being in the tank for hillary. oh, the humanity...
Posted by Turkana at February 27, 2008 05:47 PMTurkana, you're not vile...a thug, maybe... which is why I keep coming back!
It's not all bad, anon, but it's pretty rough and tumble since we're not too strenuously moderated. Still, TLC's home base to a lot of us, so we'll stick it out and come together in the end. I always recommend Shakes or Avedon for the folks who want to be informed and chat, but don't want to tussle.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 27, 2008 06:07 PMPeople need to realize that this is a campaign for the nomination, and a lot of the things the candidates say and do and approve don't always look good or positive, but they generally don't take them personally, something a lot of people on the blogs should think about. Now, a couple of thoughts.
One, call me crazy or dreamy or unrealistic or whatever, but yesterday, when I was scanning the blogosphere from work, I conceived of this notion that what Hillary Clinton is doing is test prepping Barack Obama for the general election. How's that for a thought? She must recognize the daunting situation she faces, perhaps she presses on in the campaign, throwing all those "awful" and mean slurs and slams at Obama, not so much to see what sticks, as to see what he can take?
I hope you saw the NewsHour interview she did, among the things she said was that she and Obama don't hate each other for what happens during the campaign. The problem about divisiveness is not between her and him, but between euzious and emal and Brian Bell and iamcoyote and Shirin and Turkana et al. Something to consider, folks.
Secondly, Turkana, you can't be in agreement with a non-entity, and by non-entity I mean somebody who wishes you ill because he wants murderers like bush and cheney and mccain to further their criminal actions on you and I and our once great nation.
Oh, Bill Buckley died, the father of the modern conservative. I wish he'd used a rubber.
Posted by Duckman GR at February 27, 2008 10:07 PMWhat if Hillary had responded to Tim's tax return question with an agreement to reveal her return if Tim will reveal his? After all, she might have said, it would be important for the American people to determine the degree of hidden bias in the media and media representatives, and whether there a financial incentive involved in skewing the reporting and creating the narrative. And what better way to assess bias than to examine Mr. Russert's and Mr. William's returns? If they get to play gotcha with our elections, shouldn't we get to play gotcha with them?
Posted by lily15 at February 27, 2008 11:20 PMlily,
great idea!
Posted by Turkana at February 27, 2008 11:30 PM"What is the you Lefties keep harping about? Oh yeah, a police state."
poor bagless bagley, hope you don't have a pre-existing medical condition if you want to change jobs
yeah, keep on bending over for the HMOs
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 28, 2008 10:44 AM