my open thread comment fits here too (and I can't resist)
"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses."
Malcolm X
Speaking of being fair to voters--how fair is it to repeatedly inform voters before the election that their primary is a beauty contest only and that their votes will not yield any delegates and then, a few months later, decide that yes, after all, that election was perfectly valid?
Haven't voters been disenfranchised under that system? Is there anyway to measure the number of voters who just stayed home because they KNEW that their votes weren't counted? No? Given those circumstances, how on earth can any votes tabulated in that race be considered an accurate depiction of what the true will of the voters are?
Posted by Bailey at May 27, 2008 07:31 AMClinton stated her opposition to Florida and Michigan revotes:
I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.
Moreover, as late as March 13, the Clinton campaign opposed a Bill Nelson type vote-by-mail primary in Michigan. But at some point in mid-March, the Clinton campaign changed its position. This would appear to have been motivated by the fact that the Clinton campaign had not significantly cut into Barack Obama's delegate margin in Ohio and Texas, and needed some way to add time to the clock.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/27/0491/33233/381/523392
Posted by Phil at May 27, 2008 07:34 AMWe're up to four times now that H. Clinton tied together Bobby Kennedy's assassination and Bill Clinton's 1992 victory.
Friday.
March 6, to Time.
The NYTimes reported that she'd said it back in May, to a fundraiser.
In Shepherdstown WV, in May, to an audience of hard-working white people.
So Clinton's reference to Bobby Kennedy and Bill Clinton as datemarks on her political calender on Friday wasn't a slip. It's been a talking point for her for months.
What's also clear is how Clinton supporters, always sniffing the air for anything that can be construed as misogynist or unfair and aimed in H. Clinton's general direction, can be so totally tone-deaf as to what is offensive to the rest of us. Saying that she's sticking in 'cause the black guy might get shot IS OFFENSIVE. eriposte goes great lengths (as he always does) to prove how willfully blind he can be.
The Clinton campaign has been repeating the inflammatory message about how black folk and progressives just can't get to the promised land--Oh, Martin Luther King brought up that civil rights thingie, but he went and got himself killed. It was the white politician from the South that got the law passed.-- This message, that relegates the minority, and the activist, to a role of subservience to the true ruling elite is what many outside the Hillary sphere have found offensive. But these kinds of messages always pass over eriposte's head. He can't hear what the rest of us here.
The whole meme that H. Clinton has put out (the primary calendar of victories and assassinations) is false and patently offensive. Bill Clinton had already, for all intents and purposes, won the 1992 nomination when he won New York State months earlier. The whole primary calendar has shifted earlier since the sixties and the nineties. Any examination of Clinton's statement, and her apology and after-apology statement, shows that she's lying about her intentions.
She's lost. She counts noses and so she's known since those eleven primaries after Super Tuesday that she lost. She is continuing to try to divide the party. That is her intent. She is doing what Limbaugh said he was doing with Operation Chaos: bloodying Obama for the general election.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 27, 2008 07:39 AMI would hereby like to formally apologize to Jeff Dinelli for thinking months ago that he was totally in the tank for Hillary. I'm thinking now I was clueless at the time.
Posted by Tim H. at May 27, 2008 07:43 AMBill Clinton had already, for all intents and purposes, won the 1992 nomination when he won New York State months earlier.
Wasn't it April that Bill had it clinched by?
Posted by Seven of Six at May 27, 2008 07:43 AM"the stains of Bill Clinton will be washed away..."
Yup, most fair minded people definitely thought that sounded like "one of the so-called liberal bloggers discussing the Clintons" in 2008. Defintely the "most poignant" moment of the movie! By far!
There's a lot of lost bearings going on these days....better bone up on "the stages of grief" again.
Posted by euzoius at May 27, 2008 08:04 AMWasn't it April that Bill had it clinched by?
Tsongas was out by then. Jerry Brown persisted, but he did not pose a serious challenge for the nomination.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at May 27, 2008 08:05 AMWanna really get sick and projectile vomit at the Obama campaign's tactics?
It turns out that AT THE VERY SAME TIME that Obama gave his tepid "I take Hillary at her word" reply, his campaign was stoking the flames of this slanderous non-story by forwarding through email to all of their Press connections, video of Keith Obamamann's spittle flecked "Speshil Komment".
They operate just like the Bushies.
Obama acts like the big magnanimous man in front of the cameras, while he knows at the same time his campaign is swiftboating his opponent and deviously trying to destroy Hillary's character and her career.
see for yourself:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/26/deny-distract-draw-away/
also, check out BTD's latest on the ridiculousness of the validity of these primary caucuses. What a sham the caucuses are! They and they alone are responsible for the Dem party selecting the weakest candidate:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/27/92144/7994
"trying to destroy Hillary's character and her career." Yeah, couldn't be anything Ms.Clinton is doing. Oh, I forgot, she can do no wrong.
Posted by T2 at May 27, 2008 08:28 AMTraffic! Especially nowadays from so-called "liberal" blogs and websites, surely!
Yes, Eriposte, the same thing that was generated at high speeds with Obama's "elitist" comment as well as with Rev. Wright's tirades. I have to wonder how loud and boisterous you were in your diaries when those occasions occurred to Obama. But now that we're talking about your dear Hillary, well my goodness it's time to throw out the red flag and call "FOUL!" on the media and tell them that they are big fat meanies for picking on our little girl!
Let's just put aside the fact that Hillary's latest gaffe had the word "assassination" in it, and that she could have easily referenced the event without the context of murder.
Let's just put aside the fact that this isn't the first time she's referenced RFK's assassination in parallel to her trailing behind Obama right now.
Let's just put aside the fact that she's having a bit of a historical revisionist problem, and that not only did she need some help with her understanding of the events of RFK's campaign just starting up and getting off the ground in June, but that her reference to her husband's campaign was historically inaccurate as well:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/26/when_was_the_1992_presidential_race_over.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/us/politics/27checkpoint.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
And let's just put aside the fact that our dear Hillary has drawn the ridiculously offensive comparison between her following the DNC rules her campaign approved of to Zimbabwe, Florida 2000, women's suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement.
Oh wait, we don't have to merely shove all that aside, because by golly Eriposte, YOU'VE DONE THAT FOR US! Why goodness, we don't even have to mention it at all!
Thanks a gob.
but his (Greenwald) post at Salon.com doesn't really discuss how the so-called "liberal" blogosphere behaved in response to this story
Because Greenwald had a much bigger issue to tackle - going after Harris and the media itself with their intellectual laziness, lack of journalistic integrity, and utter contradictions, and he did it pretty damn impressively.
Something that you were once pretty damn good at yourself until you became a shill for Hillary.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 27, 2008 08:37 AMGreat post, eriposte.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Who, exactly, has been mirroring Bush? Check it out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/26/hillaryclinton.barackobama
Posted by Patrick at May 27, 2008 09:13 AMYes, Eriposte, the same thing that was generated at high speeds with Obama's "elitist" comment as well as with Rev. Wright's tirades. - MisterOpus1
--------------------------------
1). Obama said he "would not apologize for saying something that everyone knows is true", thereby reinforcing his comments which millions of people took offense to. In otherwords, this was no media created gaffe. Obama meant what he said and he stood by his comments.
2). Again, Rev. Wright meant what he said as he reinforced his disgusting comments several times after Obama's "bestest speech on race eva".
So what is your problem? Is someone taking Obama's words out of context? No.
Is someone taking Obama's 20 year relationship with a man he himself said was his "spiritual mentor", who "brought him to Christ", married, baptized, you know the rest, out of context? No.
You can't say the same about what Obama's campaign and his supporters have done to Hillary.
Posted by OxyCon at May 27, 2008 09:20 AMI'm curious: do people not perceive the difference between "disenfranchisement" conducted by a political party (membership in which is optional), and actual disenfranchisement?
Posted by dj moonbat at May 27, 2008 09:49 AMObama said he "would not apologize for saying something that everyone knows is true", thereby reinforcing his comments which millions of people took offense to. In otherwords, this was no media created gaffe. Obama meant what he said and he stood by his comments.
Actually Obama said he regrets the phrasing of his remarks but did not apologize for his overall message, nor should he have at all. But that of course didn't stop Hillary and the media from taking advantage of that situation and jumping up and down on that one as if Obama was up on an "elitist"-freaking pedestal in Pennsylvania, did it? And what Obama had stated was both more factually accurate (read Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas") than what Hillary had attempted to parallel with RFK's campaign as well as her husband's campaign, although both admitted regret on how they stated things accordingly.
2). Again, Rev. Wright meant what he said as he reinforced his disgusting comments several times after Obama's "bestest speech on race eva".
To which Obama quickly and rightfully cut off ties as expected. Your point?
So what is your problem? Is someone taking Obama's words out of context? No.
Actually, you are, just like a good little Hillary supporter would.
Is someone taking Obama's 20 year relationship with a man he himself said was his "spiritual mentor", who "brought him to Christ", married, baptized, you know the rest, out of context? No.
Is someone taking Obama's 20 year relationship with a man he himself said was his "spiritual mentor", who "brought him to Christ", married, baptized, you know the rest, out of context? No.
Of course not! Hey, let's just throw in Ayers and Rezko while you're at it! And then I'll throw in Vince Foster, WalMart, and Monica just to complete the slime effect all around! Gosh this sure is fun to play the associations game.
But of course throwing around associations and Obama gaffes are much more fair than doing the same to Hillary! Because, well, he really said it, and, umm, he believes it, and, uhh, he's got a racist minister who married him, and, uhh, it's just not the same for Hillary at all! Her campaign has played fair and clean this whole time! It's just not FAIR!
You can't say the same about what Obama's campaign and his supporters have done to Hillary.
Says the Hillary supporter with his fingers stuffed tightly in his ears.......
Posted by at May 27, 2008 09:49 AMThat above post was from me. For some reason I didn't get signed in.
Furthermore, Oxy, do you agree with Hillary's comparison between her following the DNC rules her campaign approved of to Zimbabwe, Florida 2000, women's suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement? Yes or no?
And how would you expect such an argument to woo over supers at this point?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 27, 2008 09:54 AMapparently not, dj. Devising schemes to prevent a certain group of people from exercising their right to vote, OR telling members of a certain party, in a certain election, that their votes will not count (they can still vote) due to party rule violations as agreed by the governing body of that party and the participating candidates of that party is the SAME THING. If you are Mr/Ms. Clinton.
Posted by T2 at May 27, 2008 09:59 AMeripostal rides again!!!
Contrary to your devisive swill, there will be a compromise on MI and FL per the Rules Committee next week. For you and (you say) Kevin Spacey to suggest that 2 million will be "disenfranchised" is absolute nonsense.
Clinton will win Puerto Rico, GOBAMA will win the other two states decisively. I'm sorry, I know you would be complaining if Obama was ahead in PR - can those folks even vote in the GE??? No they can't.
Now matter how you count it and however many ways you deal from the bottom of the deck, Mrs. Clinton has lost. Obama only needs 49 delegates as of noon. Even in the most ideal circumstances, Clinton would still be lacking 100 delegates as she arrives in Denver.
My guess is that the supers will wait until June 4 after the last vote, and come out decisively for the next president - Obama.
- another Kennedy Democrat for Obama.
Posted by pragmaticprogressive at May 27, 2008 10:01 AMI wasn't allowed to vote for prom queen my senior year! Or student body president! Viciously and intentionally disenfranchised!
I didn't even know I had a franchise in high school!
Joking aside, the FL Dems got royally screwed, largely by the Repubs and the DNC, but to say they were "disenfranchised" means that one doesn't really know the meaing of the word.
Posted by euzoius at May 27, 2008 10:08 AMpragmatic, if as you, Obama and Dean, say, Florida and Michigan will be counted, then the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination will also go up. So where do you get the Obama only needs 49 more delegates to clinch?
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Nice Kabuki dance, May!
Lol!
I think I'll just leave it at that, as those people who are still grounded in reality will understand.
Furthermore, Mr. Opus, do you agree with Obama's plan to rip the legs of Daddy Long Leggers, eat the brains of small children and sacrifice virgins at the stake? Yes or no?
There, I just made a bunch of shit up like you did.
Let's see you waste your time trying to knock it all down.
Posted by OxyCon at May 27, 2008 10:34 AMGreat post eriposte thanks for the links & sanity. Although the new & old media will do what they do, whats really disappointing is that the Obama campaign itself continues to take the low road while pretending to take the high road. The hypocricy is just nauseating and I expect the backlash has only just begun. That's bad news for all Democrats.
Posted by madam, i'm adam at May 27, 2008 11:04 AMThere, I just made a bunch of shit up like you did.
Actually, I didn't make anything up at all, Oxy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/hillary-clinton-compares_n_102963.html
Then again, a venture over at Hillaryis44.com pretty much demonstrates those straw man atrocities you depict of Obama anyway.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at May 27, 2008 12:00 PMTight, lucid and right on the money, as usual, eriposte. And like Bob Somersby's post today, it nails the institutional weakness of today's political press and commentariat.
However, I think it begs the deeper question. Plenty of things get chewed up in the maw of this hyper-speed echo chamber -- but the level of deranged invective visible here, and directed at Clinton in general, goes far beyond and below a news cycle or two. In fact, I'd say it goes deeper even than your famous Clinton Rules. As Anglachel noted yesterday, the dark dreams being dreamt here are not by Hillary, but about her. The orgy of misogyny that has been percolating in the lower depths of the blogosphere and whose fumes waft through the halls of MSNBC are now rising closer to the surface. This mad accusation of Hillary's alleged soulless, murderous intent is primarily, in my view, a pretext to wish harm on her. In that sense, it's kind of an emergent collective Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- for the womenfolk.
For more of my bleak ruminations -- in case you want to get even more bummed out -- you can go to http://falstaff-falstaff.blogspot.com/.
Posted by falstaff at May 27, 2008 01:11 PMRadix,
Once again, read the cooment and digest before you hit the 'post' button. OK?
Posted by pragmaticprogressive at May 27, 2008 04:32 PMWasn't it April that Bill had it clinched by?
It was done in March. The Tuzla Terror was dodging more sniper fire when she said June.
Posted by phidipides at May 27, 2008 06:02 PMThis eriposte fellow is one whiny and reality-detached mofo.
Wow.
WOW!
Posted by BMF at May 27, 2008 07:50 PM