View Story | 485 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
That had nothing to do with the media. It was the choice of the candidate and her campaign.
by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:39:27 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
that she concentrated on her limited big state strategy, but having the weight of the MSM stomping on her practically every day, with the exception of Lou Dobbs, it makes her appear unworthy of any Democratic support. Personally, I don't have a problem with her for the most part.
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:42:36 AM PDT
Media coverage has absolutely nothing to do with the tactical decisions not to compete in so many states. That is strictly a tactical/strategic decision by her campaign.
by Bob Johnson on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 12:47:05 AM PDT
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:50:10 AM PDT
Jeremiah Wright.
Tell me, please, what "stomping" Hillary has suffered in the press that even came CLOSE to the Wright travesty?
Onward to the Mountaintop!
by NWTerriD on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:26:54 AM PDT
sympathetic to his comments nor his association to Louis Farrahkan. Does he have a right to say them? Yes. Should he expect most people to agree with him? No. There will never be any movement on race issues if people talk in this manner.
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:30:51 AM PDT
I'm not talking about Wright getting stomped. I'm talking about Obama getting stomped based on distorted depictions of his pastor's spirituality.
And you didn't answer my question.
by NWTerriD on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:10:45 AM PDT
or Right Wing Operative, whichever he or she is, is offended that Obama has associations with Farrakhan, meaning that Wright, Obama's pastor, has mentioned Farrakhan.
I tried to point out this is like the "how many steps to Kevin Bacon" game, but if you cover your ears and go HILLARYHILLARYHILLARY, you don't have to bother with reality.
"2009" The end of an error
by sheddhead on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:31:50 AM PDT
to as a mentor, a "teacher", then it's not a big stretch to say that you probably agree with most of what you are being taught, especially when you consider that this mentor relationship as been for many years.
I would think that if you don't agree with someone, and you have continued contact with the same type of mentoring that you would not normally agree with, then you would move on and find someone else.
It's just like this website. If I find that I don't agree with a majority of the posts, and I keep seeing things that I don't agree with as opposed to posts that I do agree with, then I will move on.
You are all here on this site because you AGREE with eachother for the most part. You don't feel the need to disassociate yourself from this site because of your common beliefs.
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:43:31 PM PDT
And not only do you set out to prove it, you refuse to correct it.
by sheddhead on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:30:01 AM PDT
I'm not (1+ / 0-) sympathetic to his comments nor his association to Louis Farrahkan. Does he have a right to say them? Yes. Should he expect most people to agree with him? No.
You're correct that you have every right to make judgments about Obama based on his association with Wright. I hope you did more than listen to the CNN/Fox News soundbites, but... it's your right to judge a candidate based on his close associates and (especially) his decisions over the years.
However.
When the same standards are applied to Hillary Clinton, we're told repeatedly that she has been treated horribly. As you did above:
having the weight of the MSM stomping on her practically every day, with the exception of Lou Dobbs, it makes her appear unworthy of any Democratic support.
This has become an article of faith for the Hillary campaign. But there's no merit to it, on the facts. Sometimes a politician gets more scrutiny because they're more famous, as Hillary was -- and she benefitted GREATLY from her name recognition. And sometimes it's because they have done things that merit scrutiny, like the Tuzla debacle. No objective person can look at that and tell me that Hillary was somehow treated unfairly. It was a self-inflicted wound.
It gets back to the premise of this diary: there has always been an air of entitlement to the Hillary campaign. Her mantra of "I've been vetted" was an unsubtle was of letting us know that not only was there nothing worth scrutinizing about her (except to praise her, of course), but that it would unseemly and unfair to do so.
Well, that's not the way it works in American politics. As the voters showed Hillary and her campaign.
JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's 3rd term.
by chumley on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:48:47 AM PDT
... the whole premise that the two candidates should be granted equal positive/negative coverage absent the actual events in the campaign is completely asinine.
Throughout the month of Feb. Obama pulled an 11-0 shut-out. Naturally, that led to a lot more positive coverage for his campaign. Hardly a conspiracy.
The goal is not to bring your adversaries to their knees but to their senses. -- Mahatma Gandhi
by kingubu on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:47:22 AM PDT
The idea that every candidate deserves an equal amount of good and bad press led us to having Republicans in power.
It's become a matter of faith for the media that for every outrageous, nasty, or criminal thing that Republicans do, a parallel MUST be found for the Democrats, or its somehow "unfair."
What bullshit.
by chumley on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 08:01:25 AM PDT
I agree that blunders need to be called out. It's the cut throat methods that are employed to do this.
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:57:19 PM PDT
that you are speculating about what Hillary Clinton may or may not have thought. Do you read minds? It's crazy if you think that Clinton believed all progressives would be supporting her. The Clintons have been attacked for moving the party more towards the center. That is the real beef that progressives have with them.
Hillary indeed have been vetted since Clinton's time as governor of Arkansas. Does it mean that the vetting stopped just because she decide to run for president? I don't think so. Has Hillary done things to hurt her campaign? Yes, she has.
But the same goes for Obama. To have blind allegiance to someone explains why some look at it as a "cult of personality". I don't agree with that, but it's true.
I just don't see why this site seems to be so pro-Obama, and so negative the other way.
Neither one of the 2 candidates is overly progressive. I some respects, Hillary is actually more progressive that Barack.
One question, if neither Clinton nor Obama were in this nominating race, who would your want to see nominated? It would give me a better idea of the range of beliefs on this site.
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:55:09 PM PDT
how exactly is he "linked" to Farrakan? Getting an endorsement from someone isn't "linked" in my opinion. We could certainly find Hillary endorsers who are just as bad...
Inconceivable! You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
by hopeful on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:10:31 AM PDT
that you are who some of your supporters are. If David Duke ran as a Democrat, being a Democrat, I would not support him, and additionally, I would not associate with him.
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:59:14 PM PDT
would have worked IF this was the REPUBLICAN party. It would have worked IF our primaries were winner take all.
But they're NOT. She KNEW that going into this. EVERYBODY knew it.
Except perhaps, her political consultants.
You don't run your general election strategy in the PRIMARY. You don't concentrate on a few big states with lots of delegates unless you win ALL of them if you win.
And in our system, you DON'T.
In our system, if you want to win the nomination, you win lots of small victories, in lots of states, to rack up delegates.
Obama realized that. Clinton didn't. I don't know WHY she didn't, but she didn't.
That points to either a lack of comprehension of the rules, or a sense that the rules don't apply to her. Either one is NOT what we want in our next President.
We've got THAT now. It hasn't worked out so well.
by mmacdDE on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:15:22 AM PDT
Previous primaries were decided early. Her campaign was working from that paradigm, regardless of the new calendar.
Dean DNC ka-ching! button
by x on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:55:43 AM PDT
with pratically everything you wrote. It wasn't lack of comprehension of the rules. It was a poor planning on her team's part. Her strategy was to concentrate on certain states. But by doing so, she gave up on states that she should have contested. But then again, there is a big money disparity in this primary, so Obama could actually get more done in support of his campaign, especially running the airwaves.
by Demogrunt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:02:55 PM PDT
states.
Don't forget all the states she lost on Super Tuesday (you'd never have know it from the media coverage, but she lost Super Tuesday). Add most of those to the rest of February, and it's more than half the country that she ignored.
May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.
by Fonsia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:03:34 AM PDT
in fact, she has not had the delegate lead for a single day in this campaign.
not one day.
Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:59:10 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 485 comments