changed his name when he graduated from college, before starting law school. Now that's a thing that young people NEVER do, right. Must have sinister meaning. Got more connected to his roots as he became a young adult, and got into a church as a started raising a family... horrors, how bizarre. He should have gone to a white, suburban church so he could be properly vetted.
Now about that vetting. Hillary has not been vetted, she has been documented. And the GOP is praying, fervently, that she wins, so they can pull out the volumes of ammunition they have on her. They're not using it now. They want her to win because she'll be easier to beat.
Now about Obama's abilities. He's been beating, out managing, out-fundraising, outstrategizing the most powerful, most successful Demcrat in the last 40 years-- Bill Clinton. That's a pretty good track record.
As far as the media, it's funny how different sides see things. THe right wing considers the MSM the liberal media. The left believes it's a propaganda arm for the right wing. I guess the same divergence of opinion on the media's actions now exists for clinton and obama supporters. We'll see which they play with higher rotation frequencies-- the Bosnia misspeak or the Reverend Wright video. So far, it seems to me that Reverend Wright is getting more coverage.
by
Rob Kall (869 articles, 4008 quicklinks, 345 diaries, 1844 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 2:01:54 PM
That is how the rules of the Democratic Party are written and agreed to. What Hillary think the rules should be, by way of accomodating her perceived birthright counts for exactly nothing. Therefore, if she awants to win on the strength of winning electoral votes in the states where she has a majority of the vote, she will have to first win the majority of delegates to get the nomination. Once she secures the nomination, as unlikely as that is, she can contest the electoral votes.
Until then, she should try playing by the rules for a change, before she screws up and disqualifies herself from contention by earning the universal opprobrium of the electorate.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 1297 comments)
on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 at 3:24:59 PM
While I respect both candidates, there is something unseemly in the level of imbalance in the reporting on both of them. It appeared to me, as well, that reporters were handling the Democratic campaign in the same manner that they handled "W" as a president: giving us one side of things and dealing with a person's inconsistencies (Obama's) with kid gloves. It is disturbing to me to see an unfortunate pattern repeat itself. It saddens me to see those on the left playing the role of cheerleader for Obama in the same manner as those on the right did for "W." Where "W" could never be criticized in the slightest without a vitriolic response, the same occurs for Obama. Where "W" evidenced inconsistencies between word and deed (or word and word even), those inconsistencies were glossed over or ignored; the same occurs with Obama.
To address the above points. First, to Mr. Call, things like using different names are trivial in and of themselves, but when they are part of a consistent pattern, then they must be called into question. The pattern I refer to is a pattern of dissembling about the self and the past in Obama's case. First he hadn't heard anything inflammatory from Rev. Wright, then he had. First he wasn't close to Rezko, then he was a friend. He was for marijuana legalization, then he wasn't. He wouldn't allow lobbyists in his administration, now he will, but with "restrictions." I could go on and on.
This is not to say Clinton isn't inconsistent; she is. However, those inconsistencies are given as an example of how "she will do anything for power," or how "she is ruthless," etc. Obama is painted as "above it all" and a "candidate for change," yet his behavior belies that-- and that is both fair and important to note.
As for North Carolina, time will tell. I no longer listen to polls as much this campaign cycle because they are so unreliable.
To Mr. Sanchez, the "rule" of the Democratic Party is that a candidate needs 2025 delegates to receive the nomination. That is it. All delegates count in the rule-- pledged and superdelegates both. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. Clinton are likely to reach that total on pledged delegates alone. There is no "rule" that says whomever has the most pledged delegates at the end of the primaries must be selected by the superdelegates. What one can argue is that it is more "ethical" for the superdelegates to select the pledged delegate leader. I may very well agree with that, but it is not a "rule."
Moreover, the reason it may be considered more "ethical" to select the candidate with the most pledged delegates is because it will reflect more accurately "the will of the people." However, it must be pointed out that if that is the motivation of the Obama campaign, then one must ask why they do not want the will of ALL the people to be heard-- including Florida and Michigan.
Well, you could say that those state committees broke the "rules" by holding early primaries. Very well. Yet if the concern is the ethics of listening to the will of the people over the rules (as is the case being made about the superdelegates), then it would behoove one to let the will of the people of Florida and Michigan be heard. Obama is avoiding this because he is a brilliant politician. Again, though, it shows he is simply a "politician" (just like Clinton) and not "above it all."
by
Humanus Publius (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 2:22:14 AM
Obama has gotten his share of scrutiny by now: only witness the Rev.Wright debacle, that the bootlicking media did the Dean Scream on! Take one passionate moment out of context and trumpet it ad nauseum, so that stupid people too lazy to research the entire sermon would come to the preferred conclusion...What Jingoism that unleashed, even from our girl Hillery!
It was Obama's responding speech on race and religion that put me over, and convinced me above all of his sincerity and superior grasp of these complex issues.
Maybe that did it for Richardson too. Obviously he's not as worried about "Experience" as he is about character! The man is not only very intelligent and articulate, he inspires hope and trust. And, most importantly, as Richardson noted, he's "a good man". Richardson recounted how, during the heat of the debates, when candidates like him, and Kucinich, could hardly get a word in edgewise, he was suddenly and unexpectedly asked to answer a question he hadn't heard. He turned to Obama, who discreetly whispered the question to him, instead of allowing him to look clueless and "throwing me under the bus" (lots of THAT going around, I guess!)
I can't see Hillery doing that! She has stood up for alot of good causes, but I'm afraid she wants to win so badly, she can no longer be trusted.
(And, unlike Hillery, Obama has provided his records.)
I must say, I sure wouldn't want her to be my vice-president! With all that blonde ambition, she'd probably have me whacked in no time!
Maybe a nice cabinet position away from the guns, where she can work on the new Health Plan for our country?
by
Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments)
on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 6:41:01 AM
You are so right about this. Your analysis is great.
MSNBC/NBC has lead the charge against Hillary in their sexist, smarmy way (aided by many on the Left including those here at OpEd News). They began pushing the Big BO and have never let up. Even Frat Boy Olbermann hopped on the bandwagon deigning to dedicate one of his puffer-fish Special Comments to the likes of Ferraro who only told the truth.
Then they got all (all but one) commentators to drink the Kool Aid and start going after Clinton. The used-to-be-honest Rachel Maddow sold out for the big bucks of MSNBC (except that her audience is probably smaller as MSNBC sinks slowly into the mud). And fall in line they all did, all except Pat Buchannan. How ironic that I see what he says as having more integrity than any other talking head on MSNBC. And they don't seem able to give him a Kool Aid injection.
The Big BO still has lots of murky secrets -- and Rev Wright/Wrong is just the tip. (How could you allow your little daughters to sit at that man's feet and listen to his garbage for all that time? How could you yourself listen and not say, "Enough! Enough bigotry, enough hatred."?)
Today I find out that I have been lumped in with all my fellow Italians as Garlic Noses -- I'm sure BO and his family and his fellow church goers got a good yuk out of making fun of others. But it was in church, so I guess that made it OK.
BO's bigoted minister is just the tip of the iceberg -- Rezko is beginning to surface a little more. And there are others.
But somehow the MSM is in his corner. Liberal guilt? Payback? Afraid of something? Who knows?
by
fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments)
on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 1:48:26 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
