Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

In making race central to this, the media has done a great disservice to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I've surfed around on a lot of message boards, and Craig Crawford appears to be the real winner for being what most are calling "the voice of reason" in an insane media cycle.

Good morning all...the horses are off in Georgia's primary, and I have sweep of stuff going on in just a bit.

Good morning Patsi.

-Hip

Hipster, I think I missed the info about your horses....did you say you are in the business?

Interesting thoughts on Clinton's use of Jesse Jackson, Craig

-AH

No, Patsi, I was saying "horse race" as in the candidates are about to come out of the gate in Georgia

:-)

AH

Ha! I keep forgetting that this thing morphs from horse race to beauty contest and back again!

I did meet a woman at the mini mart yesterday who saw my Hillary jacket and explained to me why a woman should NEVER be POTUS. Had to do with hormones and emotions.

Sounds like some serious self loathing on her part. I think sometimes we need a bit of emotion in that office----

well---hopefully you know what i mean---a bit of caring

AH

Yes, the woman was interesting. She was somehow under the impression that Hillary Clinton collapsed after news of Bill's cheating....I told her I didn't exactly remember it that way. But somehow it all tied back to the woman's divorce and raising two daughters, neither of which would she trust to be president. Which got me thinking about Huckabee's dog-hanging son....:)

Race baiting is the easy way out, instead of a reasoned analyis, sensationalism grabs peoples attention. I usually miss the Sunday morning political shows. I am now thinking that I sould make it a strict policy not to watch them.

Wow, Crawfords two lane highway has morphed into the Interstate. Get the bulldozers and pavers out to widen the road. Over 500 comments on a thread, I'll never be able to keep up and hold a job at the same time.

Joe Scarborough (and the other panelists) gave Pat Buchanan a rough time last night. Very similar to treatment Craig received that morning. Would not let Pat speak, and when he did, there was constant interruption. Looks like Joe is reaching for the "Biggest Bully" label on MSNBC. Still has a way to go--Matthews may be unbeatable. Pat still has his money on Hillary for the nomination. Joe does not want to hear such talk.

Patsi,

That's a bit weird of her to say....I know a guy at work who still goes on and on about Clinton getting a haircut and stopping air traffic at LAX. From what i understand it didnt even happen....but he's still harping on that after 14, 15 years, and thats why he is a big Clinton hater.

Bowmac,

I think this is prime time for Craig

AH

I have a post up about the race in Georgia. Come see it if you are interested. We are (as you all know) 10 days out.

http://theaginghipster.blogspot.com/2008/01/georgia-primary-10-days-away.html

AH

and with that i am out for right now but will try to cruise back in today.

I promise to be nice.

AH

I posted this a few days ago....but I was watching MoJo when the Bill Clinton "fairy tale" thing first came up. They talked about how it was being represented as racist....then played the whole clip. Every person on the show shook their heads and said they couldn't see anything remotely racist....but then something happened....and the spin started a day or so later.

I am not sure who came up with this term "crap artists", i find it appropriate for Tweety and Moaning Joe.

I am sure when one of our prolific posters wakes up and joins the fray, he will find a way to show everything Bill and Hillary did in South Carolina was racebaiting. Not naming any names of course...

Patsi---I posted this last night: More on Russert---The MTP that Hillary appeared on provided a great example of media manipulation. He showed the "fairy tale" clip. But the clip began with "give me a break". Russert did not show the Iraq comments which preceded "give me a break". Russert wanted viewers to read "race" into Bill Clinton's remarks. Is that dishonest? There is no other possible interpretation dailyhowler.com discusses media bias (a lot on NBC & MSNBC). Check out the archives.

Do you folks think that Bill Clinton went over the line in South Carolina? Or to rephrase, are there moments or things that he said which could have handled or said better?

I did not spend too much time in front of the TV last night but I thought I noticed that Tweedy was missing. If he was, where was he?

morning all,

yo soy Horsedooty!

could someone explain the nicknames? Who is tweety?

"At least for tonight, the Clinton campaign hardly looks like a juggernaut. But to be fair, an outspoken northern woman was never going to do well in this state. Of all 50, this is her weakest and thus it is Obama's strongest." http://thephoenix.com/toteboard/default.aspx

Did Clinton go over the line – NO
Could he be the master manipulator?
Do you want to play political chess with “The Clintons”

He is better then ever – that if he wanted to bring race into the situation, it has been done in a factual manner that is very appropriate. The elephant is in the room

Facts are Facts

Thomas, I am of two minds on Bill's involvement. First, I see no race baiting....including the Jesse Jackson comment. But I also have come to understand that race was probably always going to be a huge issue even in the primary. It's a very sexy story for the press. I think Bill should have seen that coming and concentrated on Hillary's strong points, not gone on the attack. Having said that, I keep thinking how silly all this "racist handwringing" over a normal, tough campaign is. If this was a campaign where two anglo men were engaged in the same dialogue, it would politics as usual. (And I'm taking into consideration that one of those men is an ex-president.)

Chuck Todd said something telling on Russert's show yesterday. He said that race was always going to become an issue once Obama got to SC because he HAD to campaign directly to blacks. Before that, he didn't have to. Chuck has now no doubt got the memo that his analysis must be silenced.

Thomas-

I do look forward to you being here and I do want to apologize for my part in last night's blow up. Some of what i said was over the top.

Tweety is Chris Matthews.

-Steve
Hipster

Tweety is MSNBC's Chris Matthews.

Ping Pong-

Hope to see you face to face some time this Summer. Let me know when you are coming up.

Hipster

South Carolina is NOT close to being a representative state so is a poor measure of transferability of the campaigns.
Florida is a much better measure with elements that can be studied and implied to future voting demographics.

OH, and Morning to all

After watching Craig on Morning Joe yesterday morning, I made my first post on a political website here and hope to be a regular. I specifically recall President Clinton being criticized on cabel news yesterday for previously making the comment that this primary was not about race or gender. We were then told that this is actually secret code meaning exactly the opposite, yet in his victory speach Senator Obama made the same assertion to critical acclaim. I agree that the media coverage on the issue of race has become a sad thing to watch.

HIpster, Absolutely !! look forward to it
I am calling for a Florida gathering this week... But maybe a unit of 1 !!

Tweety is Chris Matthews named by his own staff during a 2000 election campaign contest. Shrub was handing out nicknames and "mediawhoresonline" decided to have their own contest. They thought his hair dye matched tweetybird
I think it stuck because of his fat head

Morning load - Joe Scarborough

Pumpkinhead is Tim Russert

Ok, back out for a bit. I will be back in later. Ping Pong, see you in a few months

-Hip

the media sucks anyway....they certainly did not do their job in the run up to the war in eyerack. Of course when you have you head up Bush's butt it is hard to see the light.

And based on Russerts behavior and the FLorida version of MTP - vs being a debate - I am now adding this to my bycott list - Russert must have been drinking to many umbrella drinks and time on the beach before the Florida debate (or what was to be a debate)
The Panel STUNK IT UP.......

FLORIDA by PING
HRC wins - No Brainer on the dem side.

Watch for McCain to have a solid win. He is getting all of the big endorsements and for those that may have been on the fence - He has answered the questions to pull them in.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/orl-flaprimary2708jan27,0,6100848.story

Interesting that like NH, the polls were way, way off.

Speaking of race and gender, Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama can't be making the Clinton camp too happy. If she goes out on the campaign trail with him, it's over.

Morning DND,

I was very taken with Caroline Kennedy's endorsment and OPED. For all us Other Thans, it was a very heartening night. Now down out of the clouds to reality.

Clintons are a force not to be taken for granted.

If Hipster is still here.. Steve, it's ok. I was wound tight after a crappy evening.

Folks,

I am not going to post these number to rub anything in. However, you have to pay attention to reality in SC. It should open your eyes to the fight ahead in all three camps.

Obama got 295,091 votes to Clinton's 141,128 (more than twice as many).

He got more votes than John McCain and Mike Huckabee combined (279,723).

He won 78% of the black vote,
25% of the white vote, and 52% of the non-black vote under 30.

And he was more than a little responsible for the fact that Democratic turnout was twice that of 2004 (532,000 to 280,000).

These numbers are pretty hard to run away from.

Morning Shelia,
Congrats on your guy's big win.

Thanks dnd,

I am humbled by the numbers. It say a heck of a lot about the American People and not just what we want, but what is clearly a desparate plea by all of us.

So, each candidate should see this as a mandate of what they will be doing in Washington come Jan 09.

Republicans should feel a chill of fear. The People are rising up and the Democratic Party, for better or worse is at center stage!

Shelia,
And so he should have hit these numbers as he also spent more time and money and effort in SC. So I am not saying this to rub you the wrong way.
Had Clinton done the same ????
ALso remarkable is NO MENTION OF EDWARDS in his home state.
So begs the next question:
How is Barack organization set in future states for the variable vote?

Also,
As to Craigs point in this post, If this is a statement for Barack, then it must be confirmed in Florida - where he has out advertised HRC 100 to 1

Here is a reference to the facts on the Organization in SC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22859254/?GT1=10755

It is MSNBC/ ge so you do have to question the accuracy

Ping Pong,

JE is still in and as a matter of fact is in Georgia today.

Thomas-

Cool let's move on and we will argue again I am sure.

Hipster

Not my point Ping...not my point.

Besides, if the people of south carolina hadn't liked the message, they wouldn't have voted for the messenger.

But my point is the rest of the country is feeling the same way about real change in this country. So if Republicans don't get a clue, they will be left in the dust and not even Karl Rove will be able to stop it. Which ever candidate wins.

It's pretty hard to tell what the message in SC was

False statements about Senator Clinton were widely distributed and I am not sure this is an accurate picture of what people in other states will be hearing

Sorry Ping.

What I was pointing out that I forgot to spell out is;

South Carolina is a traditionally RED State. The Dems are typically voting a small amount each year. THIS WAS BIG.

Wonomini!!! SO proud of you and Dog!!!!

Sheila quite a win last night for our guy. Cheers! Make sure you check in at my blog during the week. I will be blogging updates about Georgia.

Hipster

Shelia,
Then the test will come in Florida next Tuesday, For the most part a neutral impact from campaign activity - so a very interesting lab set up by the DNC for the Poly Sci Folks.
If what you state is correct Barcak should have a big win, along with Mitt.
If not and HRC and McCain have big wins then it may speak to the campaign machines.
You may have to much faith in the general American People that they actually spend the time to understand.
But a Campaign based on the slogan "Change" as the catch word - maybe people do not have to dig deep

So Regardless Shelia you set up a very interesting question

And there is viirtually no chance SC will be in the Democratic column in November no one thinks that

And by the way I also LIke the Vision of Barack, Liked his book - However I do not like his methods to make it happen, I am not for BIG GOVERNMENT running everything.
But maybe that is the only way to make it happen?
I hope not

Ping.....really....I'm not talking about Barack Obama right now.

I'm talking about what the numbers mean to us. Not that Obama has a chance.

That people are really serious about change. All people no matter who they prefer. So open your mind ping. For a moment see that a clear majority, so far in all the Primaries and caucuses are voting in HUGE numbers for change.

Obama may have opened enough eyes to demand change from ANYONE who becomes President.

Ping Pong,

Which one of the books did you read? I;ve read "Audacity of Hope."

I've got some concerns about the size of government myself.

Hip

Ok Off the Stump. ;0)

I'm having a great cup of coffee this morning. Zingermans is the local Deli that should have gone national. They have beans that drip oils. Makes a darn fine cuppa!

I so wish I had your optimism, Sheila. I just don't see the right wing playing nice on any level. The financial interests are too deep. But if Obama is nominated and elected, I sure hope the congress is so overwhelmingly Democratic that he can do something.

Everyone hates Bush

people are angry and what a competent government
no one needed anyone to tell them that

it's pretty obvious. the question --who has the skills to fix the Shrubco mess

Sheila and Ping Pong,

Here's a link i posted last night comparing SC turnout for GOP and Democrats. Hope this helps

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#SC

Hipster

Most Accurate Student Mock Convention
Predicts Clinton as Democratic Nominee

LEXINGTON, Va. – After two days of political events at Washington and Lee University, the 2008 Mock Convention selected Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee. The prediction marks the 100th anniversary of the most accurate student-run mock convention in the nation.

Students at W&L, a historic liberal arts college, have picked the correct presidential nominee for the party out of power every time but once since 1948, and have a perfect record since 1972. Since its inception in 1908, the overall record stands at 18 correct predictions out of 23.

More than 90 percent of the student body is involved in running the convention. They spend over two years planning, researching and organizing the quadrennial event, which has consistently featured prominent political figures and received national media attention.

This year, the convention featured the following distinguished speakers:

Rev. Jesse L. Jackson
Democratic Leadership Council Chairman Harold Ford Jr.
Sen. Carol Moseley Braun
Sen. Geraldine Ferraro
Virginia Governor Tim M. Kaine
Sen. Jim Webb
Rep. Charlie Wilson
Former Georgia U.S. Sen. Max Cleland
Richmond (Va.) Mayor L. Douglas Wilder
West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin
Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden
Texas State Rep. Patrick M. Rose

I agree with you fears Patsi girl.

I just can't help feeling that even if Clinton gets it, people all over the country are going to pull their chins forward and circle the wagons against the evil that has been created by the Republican Machine.

People want to know that this is THEIR country. They want a say again. It is definitely showing in the numbers.

Shelia, Got your point, So lets see what happens, I am not sure this is an effect of the People wanting change (and also on the Republican side no one is jumping for GWB to help) or the fact that SC got so much attention.

Hip - Yes Audacity of Hope - I think all of the Candidates on both sides would see the "dream" - the difference is can you and how to get there.

Speaking of getting there - got to get the Pong ettes up and moving and on to worship

Will keep eye on the post

Shelia - The evil republicans that let the party and people down got their @$$ kicked last mid term.
Take some time and open up to the possibility that good solutions can come from less governement

to go forward, I think the first thing we have to do is make a choice:

1.) Do we want to spend here at home and improve internally, learning to accept a lower standard of living- buit have things like Social Security and medical care?

2.) Do we want to keep intervening in the world and have an empire that allows us to have cheap consumer good?

Both have advantages or disadvantages, but I think we are going tohave to choose one or the other. Thats just me.

-Hip

Ping, I'm for less government. I've always described myself as a

Fiscal Conservative With Bleeding Heart Liberal Tendancies. Meaning that we can pay attention to the bank account and proactively help our people. Give them the chance to succeed.

I won't remind anyone how large this Goverment has become in the last 8 years. But even with a War, we should have been doing better.

When SC goes for a Democrat in the General Election.....that will be big news......Happy for Barack's win in SC demo just as I was happy for Hillary in New Hampshire, and we'll see where it goes, but SC wont go anything but GOP in the general, just like always......wait.....did SC go for George Wallace way back when? damn, cant remember......

Oh Ye Of Little Faith! ;0)

Sheila, Ping, dnd....everyone should read the book I keep shilling for: Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston, investigative reporter for the NY Times. He pulls no punches about the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have put in place a system where the "folks"who are responding to this message of hope have NO chance. The populace will continue to support business interests with their tax dollars to the people's detriment until a major upending happens. I frankly believe John Edwards was the one candidate who might have been willing to take that system on. (Still supporting my "girl" but, I'm just sayin'....)

We just went through Dr. King's holiday. The essence of which is to judge people "by the content of their character".

In a dem race with almost no issue differences.

Can anyone honestly make the case that any group could split 80-20 for a candidate based on the content of their character? If A.A. aren't being fair in their assessments of Clinton, how is that in Dr. King's spirit?

Or is it the view, that no matter what, Obama should win because he's black and that's it.

SC always went democrat in the general until Strom Thurmond angrily changed to GOP after the passage of the Civil Rights Bill ......then the people of SC followed suit and thus it has been.......

Nixon carried SC in 1968

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968

-Hip
"Pointy Headed Liberal" (anyone know that reference?)

Are Sheila Jackson Lee and James Clyburn just to be reduced to Clinton shills bought and paid for? I think not.

craigfarmer welcome!

Nope! The majority here, no matter what, will vote for the Dem that get nominated.

Because the content of the character of all three is pretty "Damn" (quarter in the jar) fine.

The best set of candidates seen in our lifetime. How exciting!!!

Craig:

You ROCK!

"pointy-headed liberal" was that George "standing in the school house door to bodily keep out the blacks" Wallace?

This is my first post ever. After yesterday's Morning Joe and last night's MSNBC election coverage, my frustration with the media, especially MSNBC, is at an all time level.

I know controversy sells but what about their credibility (especially Tim Russert.) How can they so distort the facts, be called on it and continue to do it?

Is it because they think we aren't smart enough to see through it?

Craig', your opinions and rational thoughts are so refreshing, it's like an oasis in the desert. Thank you.

I wonder...If Bill Clinton starts criticizing John Edwards on his record, will the media accuse Clinton of playing the "rich white guy" card or say that he is "phony populist" baiting?

After all, as pointed out on the Tyra Banks show last week, Edwards is the true minority in this Dem Primary...Right? Cheers!!

Patsi, Communism as a social and economic system is a proven failure.
Supporting Business is not a bad thing, Free Enterprise is what makes the world go round...

Welcome Shannon

Yes, Sturg, Wallace went around saying that in his bomb Vietbnam stump speech. Troops this is too much fun and bad for my job. I've got to get back to some lesson plans.

Check back in later

-Hips

Hip Its Sunday.....Have some fun!

Welcome Shannon and Matt-man!!!

Free Enterprise........you mean like all the no-bid contracts for gop based Iraq war profiteers?

OK patsi I can agee to some degree that danager from big corp worlds like with ge/NBC creates a confilct of interest - but the good thing is alternative and the big's do not have a monopoly.
I wonder why TIm Russert asked the green question in such a manner in the Fl Debt, Oh Maybe that Jeff I says marketing Green is Green?

Here's an anomoly......On washington Journal this morning, I have heard many many elderly Republican women say that if McCain gets the nom and Obama is the Nom, they will vote Obama.....

Ping.....this book is NOT advocating comunism! It is about making corporations accountable.And it shows in many instances how those very business interests are damaging the country's true idea of capitolism. Every time someone talks about corporate welfare, certain people yell "The Commies are coming!"

TN: Clinton 34, Obama 20
AZ: Clinton 37, Obama 27
IL: Obama 51, Clinton 22
MO: Clinton 44, Obama 31
CA: Clinton 43, Obama 28

Sturg - I agree that many republicans left the right house / I agree that change must be made in the Republican house and it will continue to happen.

Thank you for the welcomes. It looks like I've found a home that might get me through this election.

Heres another anomoly....

a man on Wshington Journal just stated that Obama is not black enough. ;0)

shannon,

We are just as reactive as the rest of the country. We get excited and we snip a bit. But we like each other very much.

I'm sure you will have an interesting time here. ;0)

Patsi. I will get the book and should reserve until I have the facts, I sit corrected !!! Free Lunch... I am on the net now placing order

ping......get DIXIANA MOON by Wm Price Fox also......you'll never regret it.......

Shannon
Sit right down, it's quite comfy cozy.. Sometimes the elbows are sharp but it is all in the interest of not living in an evidence free zone.
Hi Mattman

Kate,

That was the cutest welcome I've seen. I'm charmed!

Hi Sheila
I get the zingerman's catalogue....it's always a good read.

Well Katie,

every time I buy a bag of "Roadhouse Joe" beans, I have nirvana.

I'm not kidding when I say that the oils are still gleaming. The flavor is nutty not bitter.

Sheila: " man on Wshington Journal just stated that Obama is not black enough. ;0)"

I heard that, it's been out there but it's pretty damn sad that it has to be one way or the other.

Sturge....William Price Fox! Yes!

good morning one and all, rookies and vets

well, our craig-man seems, with today's post, perhaps talked himself out of a semi-regular day job?

Sheila, Obama not black enough? Gawd, some of these talking (as opposed to thinking) heads are so offensive. Maybe Obama and his family can do an old Al Jolson repartee at his next speech, would that make for increased comfort?

Ping, communism may not work, but socialism does. We have a responsibility to stop the cycle of rampant materialism, and we have the opportunity to do so with this election.

Yay, Caroline Kennedy! Obama's speech made me cry.

Hey, but I still want Edwards, since Dennis was forced by MSM to drop out.

Is Edwards white enough to be president?

and uh......is Hillary woman enough?

Me Too Colleen,

I just don't know how anyone could not have gotten choked up.

First guy to post a link to Al Jolson in blackface has to sit in the corner........

Even truthful statements about Obama and his campaign are considered off-limits by Big Media. But any lie about Hillary is fine. I am sure Big Media just wants what is best for the American people.

Craig mentioned last night that his mother was concerned about Elizabeth Edwards -- apparently she wasn't anywhere to be seen. Did anyone find out how she is?

Elizabeth was spotted..seemed to be fine..

Shannon and all.

I think we can safely assume that since this is their home and the children are school age. Mrs Edwards and the Children went home to have a some time in their own beds and away from the crowds.

That is where I'd take my small children if I got close to the ole homestead.

If their was a problem, John Edwards would not have been out there.

Sheila,

I think Elizabeth is a private person. If she didn't feel well, she would want John to be out there and not cause any alarm, don't you think?

Good morning All,

Hipster - My vote is for number 1. In many ways the U.S. has been living in a fools paradise. Following WWII, we were practically the only country on the planet still standing with all our assets intact.

It gave the U.S. one of the richest economies ever accorded to any nation. Unfortunately, with the recovery of other nations, mushrooming population, war in Viet Nam, and funding of the cold war, we now have gone from the largest creditor to the largest debtor nation. The rich kid ran through the family fortune, didn't save for the future, and pissed away the assets. It's time to go to work for a living.

In order to keep the wages down we sent the women to work. Now the older children are going to work, but still staying at home. What used to take one wage earner to support a family of four at a good middle class level now takes two or three. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, and that will only happen if we change our wasteful ways.

As forms of government, they all (communism, capitalism, heck even anarchism) have redeeming values. The problem is in the details. The problem with communism is the "Animal Farm" effect... that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And GWB has done his best to make capitalism, at least in the US, as absolute as possible. The whole point of western democracies is that the power is supposed to be in the hands of the people.

Yes, but. Edwards is the type that would be by her side if it was serious. All I'm sayin

This from HuffPo...Jake Tapper of ABC news...

Bubba: Obama Is Just Like Jesse Jackson
January 26, 2008 8:18 PM

Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned.

Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."

Sheila,

If it was serious, I have no doubt he would be with her.

Elizabeth Edwards was there last night..

oh boy Maureen Dowdy and Byron York on MTP roundtable.....oy......on the edge of my seat.......cant wait......breathless in anticipation......

Good Morning Matt Man

For those who haven't met him before, Matt Man is running for President, so you may want to check out his web page or You Tube for is campaign materials as you may want to vote for him.

I've posted his blog page a few times as it is one of my daily reads for a laugh and think http://bagwine.blogspot.com/

Those of tender or virginal sensibilities may want to cover their eyes and have someone read it to them. :.)

{CLICK}

Glad to hear about Elizabeth Edwards....she's a gem. And you can see the toll this campaign has taken on the faces of all these candidates. Why anyone would put themselves through this is beyond me.

Oh, good....Maureen Dowd, the arbitor of angst, is going to be on MTP. Guess I'll be watching Kurtz's dog show.

Craig,

Please omment on this as you can. What's it like with the others at MSNBC after an eruption like yesterday? Is it personal?

A.A. were punishing HRC, fairly or unfairly, for what they perceived as using a cannon to kill an ant. They saw the week as Bill especially going over the top. Their premise is that Obama is special, therefore he deserves special treatment.

Here in Florida, surrogates and grassroots activists of both candidates are furiously campaigning prior to Tuesday. Obama has been advertising on cable here for about two weeks.

The AA vote last night shouldn't surprise any one. It was almost the same in Nevada. Check the CNN entrance polls. My gut is that HRC takes the nomination, and then goes on to take the White House. My question is, does she make Obama her running mate?

just added bagwine to my faves :)

gee nash I guess you would have preferred revisionist history

and a second question: would Obama accept?

Shannon....I doubt Craig should be commenting about other pundits....he's probably already in trouble.

race baiting.......you want to see REAL race baiting wait until the GOPians get ahold of the issue if Barack were to win.....Remember McCain's black baby in SC 2000?

You aint seen nuthin' yet.
---Al Jolson

Politics sometimes makes strange bedfellows a la Reagan/Bush, Kennedy/Johnson, Clinton/Gore, Kerry/Edwards.

Morning to you Jamie...

Thanks for the shout out and thanks for bringing me to Crawford's site. Cheers, and Hi to all.

*smacks everyone around on the MTP set*

Jonathan Chait, LA Times:

I crossed the Clinton Rubicon a couple of weeks ago when, in the course of introducing Hillary, Clinton supporter and Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson invoked Obama's youthful drug use. This was disgusting on its own terms, but worse still if you know anything about Johnson. I do -- I once wrote a long profile of him. He has a sleazy habit of appropriating the logic of civil rights for his own financial gain. He also has a habit of aiding conservative crusades to eliminate the estate tax and privatize Social Security by falsely claiming they redistribute wealth from African Americans to whites. The episode reminded me of the Clintons' habit of surrounding themselves with the most egregious characters: Dick Morris, Marc Rich and so on.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait26jan26,0,7890763.column

Hi Matt-Man..great blog!

Thank you for your calm and reasonable analysis of current events and politics, Mr. Crawford.

I wish you could report on Mr. Joe Trippi's role in this campaign season. Every time I see him he's praising Obama, attacking the Clintons and their 'surrogates' and all the time rarely if ever saying a word about his candidate, Mr. Edwards. For most of this campaign he has been of dubious help to Edwards and now he's talking about making a convention role for the Edwards' delegates when Edwards has shown no interest in any such role -- the media keeps asking itself what Edwards wants with such a role as 'kingmaker' etc.

I deeply distrust Joe Trippi. Perhaps it's just my paranoia. To me, keeping a reportorial eye on Mr. Trippi would not be wasted time and could illuminate an unsuspected shadow game in this campaign season.

And obama's has his share of liars and losers

and he lies about his connections to lobbyists and then bends rules so he take pretend to be on the high road while still raking in the cash

how is life in your evidence free zone...

seacoast Welcome,

But I have to say, Trippi is soley taking action for his Boss John Edwards.

Edwards is very smart and kingmaker is a great chess move to get what he wants in issues and future policies.

The Edwards campaign is playing smart.

Exhibit A in the drive by both Obama and Edwards to "clean up" Washington is their refusal to accept "a dime" from "Washington lobbyists." It distinguishes them clearly from their chief Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, who has raked in more than $500,000 from the lobbying industry this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (website is opensecrets.org) But it turns out that both Edwards and Obama have adopted a narrow definition of the word lobbyist, which raises questions about the effectiveness of their campaign.

They still take money from state lobbyists.

They make no attempt to distinguish between lobbyists for big corporations and lobbyists for small non-profits. They treat a lobbyist for Haliburton in the same way as a lobbyist for child poverty or cancer research.

They accept money from former lobbyists and future lobbyists.

As Clinton has pointed out, her rivals have no problem taking money from the people who pay the lobbyists, and give them their "marching orders." (ABC News debate, August 19, 2007.)

They have no problem about taking money from people representing other "special interests," e.g. trial lawyers and the hedge fund industry.

So far this year, according to Opensecrets.org, Edwards has taken more than $8 million from lawyers and law firms, some of whom employ the federally-registered lobbyists whose lucre he refuses to touch. Obama is not far behind: $7.5 million. (Clinton has taken $9.2 million.)
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/obama_edwards_and_the_lobbying.html

Are WE discussing the issues? No.
We are discussing RACE.
This is what the Clintons wanted.

Now they want us to "Attack the Messenger." (Blame the media.)

What a tangled web we weave . . .

Patsi -- you're right, of course, but I'm really curious. My hope is that it isn't personal -- that adults can have a disagreement but not let it affect their personal or professional relationships.

I know Craig is not going to take it personally but with MSNBC, Joe, and Mike Barnicle, I'm not so sure.

Shannon,

don't worry. Ratings speak more for Craig than whether he is liked because of yesterday.

Glad you liked it Tylenol. In the interest of full disclosure, you should know that I am (under the table due to drinking) paid staff as Matt Man has promised me the Ambassadorship posting to St. James (don't tell the Feds as this is most assuredly illegal).

that adults can have a disagreement but not let it affect their personal or professional relationships.

---Shannon

all right for adults, but what about the folks at msnbc?

This morning, noticed Clinton surrogates getting slapped down when mentioning Jackson"s SC wins in 84 & 88. Another example of "Truth Cover-up". Big Media wants to create a Big Bounce.

actually Nash I thought we were discussing the sleazy opinion piece you posted and your failure to acknowledge the Obama and Edwards are hypocrites...I think that is an issue

What the Clintons feared, after Iowa, was that Obama would be perceived as the young, idealistic, change-oriented candiate with fresh ideas (which he is).

What the Clintons feared, after Iowa, was that they would be perceived as aging and cynical defenders of the status quo, funded by, and under obligation to, multinational corporate business interests (which they are).

So they shifted the focus of the media's attention to personal attacks, the most subtle of which was the appeal to racial bias, using black surrogates to attack Obama's "character."

It worked.

Half of the Democratic party is outraged, while the other half admires the Clinton's ruthlessness, thinking that only be these disgusting tactics can we hope to beat the Republicans.

We have met the enemy, and it is us.

I think it is Obama that wanted race discussed
it was his campaign that distributed the inflammatory memo accusing the Clintons of racism

Sheila,

Well, I'm emailed "Morning Joe" twice yesterday morning letting them know that Craig is just about the only reason that I'm still a viewer.

Rachel Maddow is another sane, objective observer. My hope is that her star rises at MSNBC.

Obama and Edwards are hypocrites... not just you Katie, but all the same.....

Common. Lets don't slam the name of any candidate today including Clinton.

Like Nash Said, Issues and of course lets get out our troubles and worries without slamming OK?

the enemy has always been "us"........since ancient athens, and since the romans and before and after......nothing new under the sun on that front......

Actually Nash the facts are that Obama was not doing well among black voters at that time and they needed a away to get his numbers up because the media narrative was if he couldn't get his numbers up in the black community he couldn't be a credible candidate

so they made it about race

Good morning all. If I would have known so many would be here so early I would been on about 7 this morning. But, oh what a beautiful morning! Ahhhhh! I am SOOOooooo happy this morning. Go Obama. And, with 25% of the white votes!!!! But, I know it’s a long way to go and a lot of the Clinton’s doing ANYTHING to get "them" elected.

I’m sure most have seen or heard that Caroline Kennedy has endorsed Obama saying: "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president -- not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans,"

Kennedy was who inspired my interest in politics as a young girl. Even remember giving a report in school on “Profiles in Courage”. I remember spending the night with my “Grammie” and “Pop” in their big 3-story house along the Ohio River. Pop was listening to the television and it was late. I was in bed along with others in the house. It was July 13, 1960. I just remember the entire house exploding with celebration. Anyone remember what happened that night? Probably most of you weren’t even born!!!

I too think this board is civil. I once had an entire web page created just to denigrate me from another board!!!

Oh, and if Tweety is Chris Matthews? I love Tweety!!

Great post Nash! Very timely!

MSNBC news cookie just referred to the person describing the falling satellite as being on "Armagedon Duty". She probably thought that was "oh so cute". Blech Gag

Laughing @ Jamie!

Dammed if you do dammed if you don't.

Any criticism of Obama is now racist. He is the untouchable of American politics. If this persists there will be a terrible backlash (I hope that word is not banned) and once again the Republicans will have the White House.

Karolenna,

Looks like your dancing on the ceiling. Congrats!

what bowmanc said...

if the gop wins the next one, I quit.....outa here....one more time the steal it and the country is sunk to depths I dont wish to see.

they steal

Karolenna

If you "love" Tweety, you probably need to make a trip to SJIHCM if you haven't been there as yet.

http://sweetjesusihatechrismatthews.blogspot.com/

Common Bowmanc

"""Any criticism of Obama is now racist.""" YOu really believe that? You can speak your mind anywhere....unless your in a republican huddle.....

This is not over and I for one believe in our process. Despiste my Obama leanings. I don't believe anyone would be called a racist except by the Press and you would let the press get to you like that?

Noun 1. hypocrite - a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

what else would you call someone who takes lobbyist money but pretends he doesn't

What nash said.

see, just like nash said, here we go with the race stuff again. a big, fat smoke-screen.

2nd that dnd. ;0)

what about criticism of Condi Rice, Justice Thomas, and Colin Powell?

Racist?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#SCDEM

yep, sturge.. that's how it would be perceived..

Recon run...

KGC, How old were those state polls? Will they hold up to air wars? How much of a bounce do you think Obama will get in those same polls?

Out and back to grading papers...

Hipster

Hip
fairly current
they are from real clear politics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html

Genie is out of the bottle. Anything Bill Clinton now says will be looked at as tainted. Instead of being our first "black president" he is now our first "blackface president".

i wonder if there'll be dustups in florida today? McCain's gotta feel like he's on a roll..

Morning Fry.

Simple amazing stats. I don't think any of us could have imagined those.

More evidence of a "vast left wing conspiracy."

FRANK RICH OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Billary Road to Republican Victory
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html?_r=2&hp&oref=login&oref=slogin

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

while I was getting another coffee.. i started to wonder if this jackson remark might be this year's Dean Scream? I know that Clinton was just saying that historically, Jackson won SC, and didnt get the nomination, but that's not the way this is going to play out..

youdontthinki'vehadtoomuchcoffeedoya?

So Folks,

What is happening on the political talk show curcuit today?

Who should I be watching?

I usually watch ABC Sunday Morning. By virtue of the fact that I used to work for it.

But is anyone better this morning and why?

Fry,
Thanks for the link. Really interesting numbers.

"what else would you call someone who takes lobbyist money but
pretends he doesn't

An Edwards. Not only does he take lobbyist money, he actually worked for a hedge fund. But when asked, John PB Edwards didn't know what the hedge fund did. I would have thought this wallop he took in in home state SC would convenience this egotistical, hypocritical, class warfare monger, that no one is interested in his BS campaign. Johnny Boy you have been pronounced dead by the majority of Democratic voters, you just can't accept their findings.

Hey Ty,

It depends on how the individual voter feel about it. Obviously they are thinking for themselves this year.

As a political junkie, I heard it and then read it and then went, "OH oh, That was a loss of control".

Shelia,
Obama is on ThisWeek.

It's snowed in Sonoma County
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/Gallery/template.cfm?galleryID=523&StartRow=18&sitecode=photogallery&s_code=

Oh Hey!

Looks like I'll be watching George S again.

this is a pretty go analysis
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/winning-large-by-digby-congratulations.html

Sheila.. i wasnt talking about the individual voter.. i was talking about perception and the role the media plays.. like the Dean Scream.. I've known Dean for a long time, a wonderful person and a political junkie himself, but as soon as that scream got played over and over..the campaign was over.

Folks...whether we support Obama or Clinton, we should all just probably batten down the hatches and deal with this madness for the next 10 days. The media-imposed story line is a disservice to us all, but it will be with us until the media find another story line they like better.

I just finished watching the Roundtable portion of Meet The Press and was stunned by the absolute uniformity of views among the panelists over "what it all means." There was no give and take or truly critical thinking -- it was all "me too." These people are not reporting on reality as it exists, but on their own sensibilities and their sense of what should be.

For example, after excoriating the Clintons for making Obama the "black candidate", Maureen Dowd then talked about how moving it was to see Obama supporters with placards in front of the S.C. Capitol with the confederate flag flying. Of course she is correct -- it is truly historic. But if we are truly to be as color-blind as some might have it, and deny the existence of race as a political factor altogether, why should that scene be so moving? I guess the only answer is that it's okay for THE MEDIA to make Obama the black candidate as long as it serves the narrative purpose of the moment.

It's like the media is saying: "He can be black when we want him to, because it makes for a really neat story. But most of the time he's not really black...and if you even ask if he's black (or not), or give any consideration to that question, or suppose that voters in the great unwashed electorate might somehow notice that he's black (or not), or (God forbid) make political calculations based upon that supposition, then you're racist or a race-baiter."

Race is so complicated. And trying to boil it all down to sound bites is so typically American. Unfortunately, our media are not sophisticated enough to treat the topic with the complexity and sophistication it deserves. And they're not going to acquire that capability between now and Feb. 5.

wow..KGC..hell IS freezing over.. lol

amen, lardass..and welcome back :)

tylenol

I was just thinking..what happened to global warming

Ty,

I think we are on the same subject but different plain.

I think that half the country had heard yesterday night about the Jackson statement.

There are a lot of people who would have winced no matter who they are for. But as pointed out last night, this year is different.

There are not a lot of people who are letting the Press lead them by the nose. Those days are gone. So, I say, we will see.

I don't think you can predict how many people are lead by the press anymore.

aw cmon sheila.. those days are NOT gone..

Craig, when I saw you making the claim that Obama's camp injected race by having Oprah stump for him - I felt that it was a stretch, a pilates stretch, but I didn't feel like it was an egregious error on your part. But to spin Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" statement as simply stating historical record - respectfully sir, you insult peoples intelligence and slightly nudge yourself in the direction of being a Clinton shill. The man asked Clinton: "What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?" No one mentioned Jesse Jackson, wasn't there some other candidate in political history who won some early primaries but failed to become the nominee that Clinton could have referenced? No, he references Jesse Jackson to try and paint Barack as the "black president". This is the smoking gun, so stop with the apologizing already - it does you, or your readers any good.

nappydiatribe.blogspot.com

KGC..another misnomer.. Climate change.. melting icecaps.. stronger hurricanes, drought for years followed by floods.. nice eh? (she said in her canadian way)

is too
is not
are too
are not
am so
am not
what rot
we've wrought
sans thought
for naught.

Hi Ty. Nice seeing you again too.

CNN

KO is on Reliable Sources NOW!!

Winfrey, who also campaigned for Obama on Saturday in Iowa, offered a touch of talk show-like advice during a 17-minute speech. "There are those who say it's not his time, that he should wait his turn. Think about where you'd be in your life if you'd waited when people told you to," she said.

"I'm sick of politics as usual," Winfrey said. "We need Barack Obama."

A recent AP-Pew Research poll has New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton leading in South Carolina with 45 percent of likely Democratic primary voters, followed by Obama's 31 percent. The two candidates break even on the black vote here, and that's where Winfrey's appeal could become a factor

Went to the knife and gun show yesterday. Lord there had to be 10,000 people there buying anything from paint ball guns, to 50 cal.sniper rifles, to sound suppressors; aka silencers. I didn't buy anything, but I did learn that the majority of people there, and those attending other gun shows, are buying what they can now, as they know if the Ds take the WH and retain congress these gun shows will become another passing memory. Big seller at the show, ammo clips, $33, that hold 30 or more rounds of 9mm. The guy I went with bought 10 as he sees it, if the Ds do take the WH, in-between election day and the day the take office, he can sell these clips for $200 a piece.

Ty,

And so I agree to disagree ;0)

Fry.......if the GOP wins.....he'd better hang onto those clips.....he just might need them......

Fry...Funny story and telling observations. Say, was Maureen Dowd at the knife and gun show, too? Just curious.

KG,

Every now and then the planets do align themselves resulting in KG and myself actually agreeing on sometime. Fact is it was Ms Winfrey who injected race issue into the D's race.

Let's get real. What happens is that Nash or someone posts a smear job like the one below, pretending (sorry, Nash) to know what the Clintons are thinking and doing. THEN, Obama supporters start saying "let's play nice!"

That dog won't hunt.
______________________
What the Clintons feared, after Iowa, was that Obama would be perceived as the young, idealistic, change-oriented candiate with fresh ideas (which he is).
What the Clintons feared, after Iowa, was that they would be perceived as aging and cynical defenders of the status quo, funded by, and under obligation to, multinational corporate business interests (which they are).
So they shifted the focus of the media's attention to personal attacks, the most subtle of which was the appeal to racial bias, using black surrogates to attack Obama's "character."
It worked.
Half of the Democratic party is outraged, while the other half admires the Clinton's ruthlessness, thinking that only be these disgusting tactics can we hope to beat the Republicans.
We have met the enemy, and it is us.

Fry,

Now thats a telling indication of the future for sure....lol

OOps posted this on the wrong thread!

From Thomas- "There is an issue that isn't being addressed... CRIME... I know it is usually a Republican issue, but I think it's an issue for all of us. I am so tired of people making excuses for violent crimes, assaults, murders, robberies, carjackings, what have you. I don't believe in prison vacations for prisoners, nor do I believe in early releases. Since living in Europe I take a harder view of these nasty acts. In Belgium, no matter what the sentence, if you stay low key you only have to serve 1/3 of your sentence.

My Motto: "you do the crime, you do the time". 20 years MEANS 20 years. etc..."

I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with Thomas!!!!

That was bunch of reading this morning!

Got busy yesterday with my fellow Repub friends celebrating a birthday for our little Repub kids, LOL!

Kinda bumbed I missed all the coverage last night.

Guess I've got more catching up to do!!!

isnt Howard Kurtz's wife some kinda rep operative??

Humanity Critic

My only objection to people who keep saying, "What about the Jackson comment?" is that as with other commentary on the Clintons, they don't play the whole statement.

Bill quietly leads off saying that Obama has run an excellent campaign. That his people on the ground in the state did a good job, and then makes the Jackson won twice in the state remark.

I genuinely do not believe that it was intended as racial in the sense of being a negative, but rather that Clinton is a total political wonk. For him it was looking at the black turnout equating that with a previous election where a black candidate did well, and then likened the Obama win to the Jackson wins as a good thing: Obamas staff had succeeded in their actions and turned out the voters they needed most to win.

As commented above about "The Dean Scream", the press wanted a storyline and rather than letting people hear all the background noise requiring a raised voice and the excitement in the room that brought on a cheer with the people, they portrayed Dean as a madman ... a story that was then picked up by the right wing and run into the ground.

Yesterday, the media wanted a race war. They practically stood on their heads to twist the storyline in that direction.

Geez patsi,

and I say you are too senitive.....

All I saw in Nash's post was a warning that we need to be united.

AND Nash was playing nice. You guys have got to stop eating the children.

Now Paleeze go take a chill pill.

AND with that I am out of here for a while. What a nasty playground full of kids!

Howard Kurtz is indeed a gooper trophy husband
Mr. Sherry Annis Kurtz

LardassLiberal

Maureen Dowd at the knife and gun show, too? Just curious.

I don't think she ventures much outside her upper east side apartment. Or is it west side? I always get those 2 confused.

Funny story I got into a debate with one of the gun dealers who was selling these sound suppressors. I asked him what was the difference between a sound suppressor and a silencer, as silencers are illegal. He said, , 'it is similar to Bill Clinton's and is definition of the word is, is. Instead of making a puff sound, these make a pssss sound. You know, just a tad louder'

KG,

Every now and then the planets do align themselves resulting in KG and myself actually agreeing on sometime. Fact is it was Ms Winfrey who injected race issue into the D's race.

Posted by: FryDaddy

now I am going to have to rethink my position :)

and I might add on Howie Kurtz he managed to comment on a what a great job a campaign was doing without mentioning he was talking about his wife

In case anyone has missed the Iraq coverage that has gone missing on the cable channels, Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Petraeus.

If it's OK for Bill to insert irrelevant comments about Jesse Jackson into an "answer" to a question that had nothing to do with Jackson, then it's OK for Obama to insert a reference to Monica.

Russert: Senator Obama. How can we deal with Iran?

Obama: Well, probably the same way that Hillary dealt with Bill regarding Monica. She didn't go to war with him. They talked and worked out their differences.

*****

What? We can't bring SEX into the campaign? In any case, it will be the media's fault for making too much of this innocent comparison.

And I'd much rather argue about sex than about race.

And for the record Patsi

I'd rather play nice....

Fry...that's funny.

I think your knife and gun show is such a great metaphor for what's going on right now. While Democrats are dancing around like angels on the head of a pin and sissy-punching each other about race, Republicans are out buying ammo clips and sound suppressors.

Gee, if this keeps up, I wonder who's gonna win in November?

Hey KG, went you are right, which is rare, your are right, and in this case you are 100% correct. And to follow up, it was the MSM who took Oprah's speech and ran with it, and then made it almost impossible for the Clinton's or anyone else to ask of Obama that wasn't or couldn't be seen as a race based question.

It's not the first time th obama campaign has made a monica reference

more and moe Obama is turning off voters with this kind of irrelevant sniping. After all who started the negative attacks
the Obama campaign sent out David Geffen

with this remark Obama proves himself to be a liar
he said only last week, the remarks about Monica made by his campaign were inappriopirate

well if he is candidate...this will be a real nose holde

Nash,

My point isn't that he injected "race", but rather than he injected "performance". I don't believe he was even thinking about race other than as a segment of the population that was required to win an election. They were the large orange slice on the "turnout required" pie chart. He was complementing the Obama team on getting more of the pie slice than the Clinton team did and saying that that was what the Jackson team had done.

In a state where racial suppression has ofter been a historical fact, both Clinton and Obama staff wanted to do the opposite: Get people to the polls. You will notice there were no voter suppression stories at any of the precincts. No attempt to minimize a group of voters. Clinton was just saying that the Obama folks did a better job.

Nash said: "What the Clintons feared, after Iowa, was that they would be perceived as aging and cynical defenders of the status quo, funded by, and under obligation to, multinational corporate business interests (which they are)."

If that's an example of playing nice.....

And if someone questions it, we are told to "Chill."

Two standards, my friend.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-spiritual-mentor-brings-up-monica

what a bunch of hypocrites.

I must have missed the sign that this kind of right wing talking point was a part of high road campaigning

and I think he is saying FU to Clinton voters

The obama campaign is othing but a bunch of liars and losers and they are stupid beyond belief if they think the media is their friend and they will be able to play then in the general\

1972 will look like a Democratic landslide by comparison

Sheila,

As I know you support Obama, I have a question to ask you, not of Obama but of his supporters.

I have observed numerous times when the MSM will ask someone who they support or who they voted for and if the answerer is Obama, the follow-up question is why, and the answerer is always the same, "Change". Then the interview is terminated and onto the next person. Here is my question, why doesn't the MSM during these interview ask, "and what change are you expecting to see?" I might be a little to critical here, but I am beginning to think that they hear the word change, but don't know what that change is, or if it is something Obama is even suggesting. Your thoughts.

Thank you CC!!!

It's ridiculous that the media is having such a frenzy on the race issue, it will hurt Obama in the end.

Patsi: Geffen was along time ago, in a galaxy far away. Obama needs to get some new material.

Clintons: uses black surrogates to talk about Obama & cocaine.

Obama: should use female surrogates to talk about Bill and his many, many trailer-trash girlfriends, and Hillary's decades of "enabling" of this behavior.

Or just ask Bill, "Who's your CURRENT girlfriend?"

Sheila,

Just so you know I don't oppose Obama or Hillary. I think either one would be a worthy opponent. But I must tell you of the 2, I favor Hillary, , and it isn't for those 35 years of experience she gets reminding people about. It has nothing to do with their policies, it is this image she portrays. I think she would have her enemy's head severed and placed on a pike for the world to see. Obama comes across as to conciliatory, he would want to debate the enemy to death.

Kind of blows the crack pipe that he is a different kind of campaigner

maybe the Edwards campaign and their paid sex worker Joe Trippi should get pictures of all the people Barry OBama sold drugs to

OK Nash, I get it. You can talk trash to your heart's content and I can't respond because it is childish. Consider the nun's rular applied.

Is this the "hope" for lofty dialogue that is being promised? What a uniting concept.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm4U8wsIGMU

To better stuff

Amisted Maupin is featured on Sunday Morning. He has a new Barbary Lane novel out so I have to go shopping. Michael Tolliver is alive and we are all older. Should be great.

Obama campaign song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD5sahXoj0U

I am posting my here 1st i would like to say that obama is no JFK because JFK put his own life on the line for his men under his command walking out in shark infessted waters for a long time to get his crew rescued i would like to see obama attack with a wooden boat on iron cruisers and other ships where you are sure to get it dought he would everyone bashes her and when she responds it's a attack if oobama attackes her it is ok with msm.

By the way, about the Frank Rich article. Frank destroyed much "hope" with his sarcastically negative Broadway reviews -- reviews that literally close shows and put people out of work overnight. Then he laughed about it on Imus and other places saying he was wrong about a lot of them but "just in a mood." Yuk, yuk. That's your boy Frank Rich.

To become more informed on black issues I would suggest the following radio show. Michael Baisden's Show. He is pretty much down the line, has guest on, Hillary and Obama were on last week, and doesn't shy away fro asking hard questions. My wife got me listening to it, and this guy is the real deal when it comes to things affecting the black community.

http://www.michaelbaisden.com/

The Clintons feared they could not win a policy debate with Obama. They had been holding their powerful attack machine in check for use in the general election, but once Obama emerged as a real threat, they unleashed it on him.

I find it hard to understand why Billary supporters can't see this. Just compare what the Clintons and their surrogates were saying BEFORE Iowa, with what they were saying AFTER Iowa.

It's all there, in black and white.

well it would appear that this blog is just a microcosm of what is happening with the electorate at large. The discussion of race has certainly blown some very important issues off the radar screen, things like religion, and haircuts, and sex. hey, y'all, remember immigration, NAFTA, healthcare, the economy, the war, oil prices, infant mortality, Welfare Reform as a big fat failure? You've fallen into the trap, and you can't get up.

Nash that is crap
I asked you last week about the comparisons Krugman had made on the economic plans. But you continue to post
basically hate screed.
The only campaign that cannot stand up to an inspection of the issues is Obama
You are doing a heck of job representing you candidate

where's the beef

"It's all there, in black and white."

I always knew you were a racist Nash!!! :)

by the way, the Dickster's daughter, Liz Cheney, just signed on to the Romney-mobile

I know hate screed. Hate screed is a friend of mine, and nash is no hate screed.

The Obama campaign's initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I'm sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama's top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from "morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending." Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure - doesn't that sound familiar?

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011408M.shtml

I doubt you have read all his posts today

KatyCracker, I did, in fact, read aaaalllll the posts today, and nash's tongue is always planted deeply and firmly in his cheek. you can get mad if you want, but he amuses me, and amusement is my primary goal in life.

I think his tongue is firmly planted some place else

wow.... it took me forever to catch up with all the posts again....

Colleen.... CLAP! CLAP!
you're right..... there's a BIG gooper mess to clean up after....

Nash doesn't hate anyone except Republicans...... that's why his constant ripping of Democrats puzzles me.....

Congrats again to all the Obama supporters......
now on to Florida and Super Duper Tuesday....

For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama's supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

In short, the stimulus debate offers a pretty good portrait of the men and woman who would be president. And I haven't said a word about their hairstyles.

Paul Krugman

KGC: I agree with Krugman.

Change-----Obama is running on CHANGE and verbalizes CHANGE as a main point and this is an honorable thing.

Talking and inspiring are strong credible assets. We all want to be inspired and have our "needs" met.

Common sense should tell us that ALL DEMOCRATS all want CHANGE and that includes Hilliary, Edwards, most of you and myself.

It comes down to which of these GREAT CANDIDATES has the ABILITY to get the changes MADE. The ABILITY to stumble LESS through the process---and we all know that it is going to be tough to maneuver and clean up the current mess and mistakes are going to be made and results won't be instant.

Talking and inspiring can rally us----an expansive knowledge and experience can get the CHANGES MADE.

change.. is misused.. after 8 years of dubya... anyone in the whitehouse is change..

When George Stephanopoulos interviewed Obama this morning he said he has heard that Ted Kennedy is planning to endorse him. Obama said he would leave any message coming from Senator Kennedy for him to make. Tucker Carlson made a comment last week that he was sure happy to see the real public witness the angry Bill Clinton that the news media had seen in DC when he was president, which I thought about when someone on one of the shows this morning mentioned that a reason senators are coming out to endorse Obama is that many senators do not like BJClinton. I bet the Billary’s would be good campaigners in Pakistan, Kenya, or maybe Venezuela.

As for the Jess Jackson comment by Clinton (as Obama says), that was 20 years ago. Doesn’t anyone believe things have changed somewhat since then?

The Obama supporters, both white and black, in front of a Confederate flag (in case someone needs to be reminded for what it stands)…seems to be showing an “in your face” to the Confederate flag from both whites and blacks, IMO.

Paul Krugman, don’t you get enough media time with your Op-Ed pieces supporting Hilliary Clinton?

Go and find the video with Bill's Jesse Jackson comment. I think you have to be incredibly, terribly naive to not see this as obvious race baiting. The question he was asked had nothing to do with Jackson, but he throws it out there right after Obama was projected to win. What else COULD he be saying besides - hey, Obama's win is no big deal - Jesse (another black man) won here too? Wake up folks.

chickadee, that's inspirational.

draft Hugo Chavez, that's my mantra

Karolenna.. you're quoting Tucker for accuracy???

Sheila,

Loved having you comment on my blog (home base). You are always welcome. Anybody who wanst to come in there is certainly welcome to put in their two cents regardless of who you are supporting.

All these heated exchanges, I think, will be settled soon enough.

We are all political animals here and i think some of it is healthy. Even the angrier things I think are just "type before you think" moments- some of whish i have been guilty of.

Hips

Nate, you're right, let us not be naive

Karolenna, why'd you put Venezuela in there? The Clintons are capitalists and Hugo would not want them there to mess up his plans.

Nash
I apologize if I misplaced by satire detector
and sense of humor.

Um, who won the South Carolina primary in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004. Why didn't Bill Clinton mentioned them?

and what in the world does your post have to do with Kenya, Pakistan or Venezuela?

1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004
ummmmm what was the racial diversity in those years among the candiates in SC

Chickadees comment to Nate:----At that very moment Bill Clinton decided to intentionally inflame the black voters because he thought it was good for Hilliary to relinquish their votes-------oh please!!

At 12:07 Nate said: Go and find the video with Bill's Jesse Jackson comment. I think you have to be incredibly, terribly naive to not see this as obvious race baiting. The question he was asked had nothing to do with Jackson, but he throws it out there right after Obama was projected to win. What else COULD he be saying besides - hey, Obama's win is no big deal - Jesse (another black man) won here too? Wake up folks.

a lot of pasty faces in 92,96,2000 and 2004

Corrupt Politics in Kenya, Pakistan or Venezuela is why I believe the Clinton's would fit in there. It is only going to get more ugly. They are "attacking the messenger" as some would say and bringing into play Rove tactics. That is what Obama had tried to stay clear of.

I don't agree with Tucker Carlson much, but with him being an independent and not a Republican or a Democrat he does come up with the observations at times that are worth some thought.

an independent? what planet are you on??

and Kenya, Pakistan and Venezuela.. *shakes head* good lord.. strange bedfellows indeed..

Let me give the readers some thoughts to think about.

Is there any doubt about the media attacks from Left media on the Clintons from Russert, McCafferty, Mathews and others that aren't transparent enough for even retards?

Is there any doubt that Obama started attacking the Clintons with personal attacks months ago including implying Hillary was a liar, a flip-flopper, a Republican Lite, untrustworthy while surrogates said adultery got her to the top of the hill along with vile and nasty ethics?

Is there any doubt that Obama (including his wife) took non racist remarks and made them racist or that Clyburn's behavior along with many other Obama surrogates who told Clinton not to play rough with Obama's RECORD hope to give Barak the advantage? Please note that Clyburn said nothing is wrong with blacks voting for "our" candidate and that this is not racial? Wow.

Is their any doubt that McCain will ask the following:

1. Is Iraq Lost Senator Obama and would your withdrawal a. reject the UN claim that increased security has led to political progress and b. if Iraq then falls apart that our troops gave their lives in vain?

2. How can you possibly make sense of your votes and rhetoric on the campaign trail with speeches you gave in 2004 and recently to AIPAC. in regard to Iran?

3. Senator Obama please explain to voters why you tried to destroy the Amnesty compromis I worked out with Senator Kennedy by introducing an amendment to prevent employers from checking the status of workers. Please tell us how the need to check workers which your advisor Clarke strongly advocates squares with your behavior. Also, please tell us why you told one crowd during an early debate that enforcement meant giving undocumented workers better wages and insurance and then later in another debate told the listeners -enforcement meant checking worker status while you blamed Bush for the lack of verification you tried to prevent with Amnesty was before Congress.

4. In a follow up, how can this two-faced and dishonest behavior actually support your claim that you would be the bipartisan candidate, the one who can compromise and unite the political divide? Isn't it true that Democratic polls show you far more Liberal than Clinton and that you have enjoyed the support of Far Left groups that actually attacked the Clintons during the primary for her attempts with working with Republicans like myself and others? I know what bipartisan means Senator Obama and your ethics Bill work and a technical agreement on proliferation hardly consititues the record of what most Americans would call "bipartisan".

5. How can you or your surrogates call the Clinton's remarks about LBJ and your dubious record on Iraq "racially charged" and are you planning to make the same claims against me as I question your record with far greater intensity because the nation, not just Democrats needs to understand what an Obama President will mean? By what logic did you stand up and silence those that would turn the Clinton remarks into the race card? How can your "different kind of campaign" really be a truthful characterization when the record shows your personal attacks and low-brow snipes started long before race even became an issue? How can working briefly for Wal-Mart be a rebutal to your work with an indicted slumlord? Who then circulated a photo of the Clintons posing with said slumlord when we all know what photo ops are Senator. I have several pictures taken with the Clintons. Shall we expect you to circulate them as well? Here we go (McCain hands Obama a photo). And here is one of me with Reagan Senator. I knew Reagan very well Senator Obama, and yor're no Ronal Reagan.

6. I'm a Vet ,Senator Obama. I have known the Clintons for some time and Hillary's work on the matter. Your record on Vets is not what you claim and I take issue with your characterization of Hillary Clinton's vet record when compared to yours. I aslo point out that voting present 25% of the time does not represent making hard votes on controversial issues. I have done that time and again. That my fly with Democrats but the nation won't be suckered. WIll you explain the tough votes you made including the one on sanctions on Iran. Oh you weren't there? Please don't offer the lie that you didn't know the vote was happening. I am a Senator too and that excuse was a pure lie. We were all personally notified before the vote with phone calls.

6. I am curious Senator Obama, how can a campaign draped in Lincoln, MLK, comments of "busting open the doors of segregation" not be descibed as using racial colorizations? And how can evoking Reagan and JFK, Lincoln and others be in any way linked to your campaign? Do you believe you can lift their rhetoric without the connection to their real policies or do your think Americans should be voting for style and oratory ability and not substance? Are you prepared to call my experiance meaningless and my standing up to my Republican base on important issues anything like your pandering to race, media and the Huffington crowd?

7. What is your position on Iran? More importantly as the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Sub Committee on Eastern Europe and NATO which you never held a meeting for, what is your position on NATO's new push for a nuclear first strike option, missile defense in Poland, the low support by NATO in Afghanistan and the activities of Russia in Eastern Europe and in terms of energy extortion in general? Do you even have a position Senator Obama?

8. Will you state to the American people if you think any political progress in Iraq has been made, in large part due to the surge I pushed for without your help and after you determined Iraq was lost. Yes, I know I asked a similar question before, but your answer as usual was vague.

9. If I am President, will your refuse to authorize the use of force if Iran prepares to produce nuclear weapons, if Hizb'Allah starts conflict with Israel, if Syria attempts again to weaponize nuclear materials or if any government helps terrorists in their continued effort to attack us? Will you authorize the use of force to defend any Latin American country from threats by Chavez?

I can only guess what Obanma's answers will be, but I know that Hillary could defend herself with her record and experiance. I have talked with many Democrats and Independents in NYC. Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, and others are dumbfounded by the convergence of Morris, Hannity, Russert, Mathews and others while the DNC, Left Wing and even Black leaders pile on the Clintons. I wish the Clintons could redact their fund raising and prior campaigning for candidates. It is a disgusting frenzy and the rumor is: many Independents and moderate Democrats will vote for McCain as punishment for this apathetic behavior.

OMG some will say, but did anyone protest Obama saying days before the SC primary that his supporters might not support Hillary is she wins the nominiation? Spoken like a true uniter. Why should he cry if the nation responds to him the way he responded to adversity on the primary campaign trail? By election time, should he win the primary (and that is a long way off), the luster of his empty rhetoric will have long worn off. The circus of wild fantasy will replace realism and policy. With what the media and Obama have dealt the Clintons (should they lose with these ethereal tactics) I would laugh if the Clintons stand next to Lieberman and support McCain. Now that would be thinking outside the box Senator Obama.

I suggest women and Independents, objective-minded Democrats, minorities, young and old see through this media generated fairy tale and return the Democratic Party to reality. Obama will have no answers to McCain in his campaign of vagueness and style. When Obama loses I will have no sympathy for I too may have voted for McCain rather than see some one with less principle, less record, less guts and less class lead America during the most serious years we have encountered in generations. This is not an office for pretenders playing the dispicable tactics while sheltered fron the light of truth by a twisted media dominated by the Left and Right . Yes, a media with little understanding of what the middle or objectivity means anymore. News isn't about facts anymore, it is about the opionion of quasi-journalists. And for this lame behavior these idiots want new and exclusive protection of Freedom of Speech and Press granted to ALL THE PEOPLE in the Constitution of the United States. Yes, let us twist principle more and more each day at our own risk. We deserve what e sow and the crap we're planting now ain't pretty. I can smell the first buds blooming giving new Democratic meaning to the term "turd blossom". Ring any bells?

BREAKING - Ted Kennedy expected to endorse Obama

CNn just announced that Kennedy is going to endorce Obama today.

Thank you Craig Crawford for simply being fair in your reporting and opinions. I can't understand why you continue going on MSNBC other than you must get a check.(pretty good reason) They are so off base, does anyone remember back when Obama first started gaining momentum. Joe S. plainly stated that if Obama were the nominee, the republicans would have to do nothing simply because he is a black man. He said it on his new show, Morning Joe. If anyone can find that on youtube, I would love that link. I found that offensive then, and i find it offensive now how he talks of Obama as being such a great unifier of this nation. He plainly thinks the republican party can beat Obama, so he is trying his best to tear down Hillary Clinton.

Karoleena, if any one of the candidates had half the compassion for our citizens as Chavez does in Venezuela, (s)he would have my unfaltering support. How can you possibly compare those 3 countries to one another?

Max, will you please summarize the above? I can't read the whole thing.

colleen..read the whole thing.. it's good

KGC: You don't have to apologize. I have a thick skin. It comes in handy when one has an abrasive personality and a dark sense of humor.

I don't really like or trust ANY politiician. The Clintons are just in the spotlight right now. If Obama was in the lead, I'd probably be ranting about his crooked land deal with Rezko.

Other politicans I don't like...

George Washington: whenever he took a break from fighting the British, went home to have sex with his slaves.

Abraham Lincoln: corporate lawyer who got rich helping Illinois railroads fix prices and displace small landowners.

FDR: Married a wife who was smarter than he was, and didn't listen to her, most of the time.

JFK: Lightweight with rich dad. Had CIA assassinate leader of South Vietnam, setting a bad precedent.

Ronald Reagan: had some good ideas......Not!

No one seems to have replied to my idea that the Clinton response was for the most part a political wonk's compliment to the Obama supporters.

1984 Jesse Jackson
1988 Jesse Jackson
1992 Bill Clinton
1996 Bill Clinton
2000 Al Gore
2004 John Edwards (Al Sharpton lost - failed to deliver black candidates)

Obama was the winner mainly because he was able to overwhelmingly turn out the black vote as well as the young white vote. No one is saying he is racist for concentrating on the segment of that pie chart most likely to support him.

Is everyone so personally invested in this "Clinton conspiracy to stop the black guy" media coverage to consider that the Clintons just lost because they didn't do as well as Obama with the residents.

Max, excellent post. I'm going to copy it and forward to friends who are wavering.

hey Max, go vote for McCain. And if you think that Dems will do that in drives, then you're living in a real fairytale.

look..support who you want to support...just know that 80% of what MSM is saying is made up.. out of whole cloth

I have been looking for a blogger that has SUBSTANCE where I can feel that the time taken to read blog after blog has not been wasted on the mundane and offtrack expresssions.

Much of what you said I agree with-----though I can not vote for McCain.

Besides being a hypocrit, starting the personal attacks and playing race, Obama will be undressed by McCain. This crap won't fly dissing him. The tactics Obama has used, the racial division he and a slanted medai has wrought will cause many to defect to McCain and lose it for the Democrats or create the four worse years America will have experianced in a long time.

Read my post (excuse the typos) for it shows just some of what will happen should Obama actually win. and face McCain For all who are fooled (and not actually in love with) by media and the Far Left which Ted Kennedy, Huffington, Kos and others represent, shame on you. The new "turd blossoms" are growing on our side now.

"Turd Blossom" is an endearing term Bush used to call Cheney if you don't know what that meant.

If my post is too long for an average reader to read and understand, then we are really in trouble. Maybe we need a new program called "no voter left behind" where we teach voters how to understand policy issues, lies from facts, record from fantasy and oratory from real strategies to improve our country.

Colleen,

I don't want to lose you again. chefstonesheila at gee mail dot com

Lets email. ;0)

Max,
""Turd Blossom" is an endearing term Bush used to call Cheney if you don't know what that meant."

Um, that would be Rove...

Colleen,
"draft Hugo Chavez, that's my mantra"

Hee, hee. Isn't it weird that a libertarian like me agrees with a socialist like you so much? (except for Chavez. Socialist or not, he's a dictator)

McCain----I don't want my son and my unborn family to be in Iraq for the next 100 yrs.---which McCain stated would be OK with him.

I thought his last debate he didn't have thorough informative answers. He flunked big time on economic expertise. Time after time he repeated that he worked with Graham and all the others as though that was of major importance.

Greetings from the desert:

I haven't been able to read the more than 500 posts here yesterday and today so if this is redondent, I apologize in advance. If you're looking ahead to Super Tuesday to speculate on each of the 22 states participating, here is a list all in one place with a delegate count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Duper_Tuesday

As KO and others have pointed out, the country may wind up on the morning of Feb. 6th and still not know who is the favorite to take the convention nominations.

Have a great day!

NEW THREAD

hi, dnd...well, nobody's perfect. Dictator? Hmmmm. I would think a dictator would have a better wardrobe, beyond that red shirt.

Katrina VandenHueval on McCain

"He points a polite face on war mongering"

Make that redundant. Typing too fast.

NEW THREAD

Maxtrue...
I took the time to read it...... excellent and very well thought out....
and I see someone has already corrected your mistake..... "turd blossom" referred to KKKarl Rove....

Colleen..... you made a great post lamenting the fact that we're not talking about the issues..... Maxtrue may not be supporting your candidate of choice, but his post is very much worth reading....

Nash.... you're a rascal!..... :0)

DnD, sorry that is what I meant ...my bad. I was implying that in our own Democratic way we have created our own turd blossom tactics...I hope that was clear.

For another comment. Reagan Democrats know what Reagan actually said, not how Obama spins it. Moderate Democrats ought to be very concerned about the issues I brought up and telling many that they can go vote for McCain is just the silly arrogance that may lose it for Democrats. The Republicans will be energized by the race card. They have withheld fire on Obama for tactical reasons. Do you know why? Independents that are concerned with the matters I brought up will care about the items I listed above along WITH MANY MORE if you dig deeper into the Obama myth.

Obama said recently before the primary in SC that his supporters might not support a Hillary nomination. What a friggin uniter. I guess when Clinton supporters say the same thing they get the Lieberman shoulder...LOL

Kucunich will probably support Obama along with Ted Kennedy, Kos, Huffintong.....McCain loves this. It will bring the Republicans out in droves and guess what? Bush isn't running this time. It will be a close election and that is why is unfolding on the Left Side is a dangerous set up and even more dangerous administration should Obama make it all the way. Yep, put Edwards over at the Justice Department and even make Kucinich SECSTATE.....LOL

JennBe, I am a left liberal and it's outrageous how criminals get out early here. It does none of us any good to let these criminals out on the streets. I don't want to hear "his mother took the bottle away too soon," or "dad was a deadbeat and abusive"...

YOU DO THE CRIME, YOU DO THE TIME....

More than interesting that so few here, and none in the media, see the sexist context of the question asked of Bill Clinton. When Obama says "two Clintons," smart women -- and I've talked with a lot of them who see this -- know it's a way to say that a woman can't compete on her own, a way to take the focus from her and send media to the spouse.

Well, there are "two Obamas" running, too, and Miichelle Obama's attacks on Hillary Clinton go under the media radar, as did Michelle Obama raising race 'way back in Iowa. Watch the "two Obamas," look at "The Woman Behind Obama" article in the Chicago Sun-Times a year ago, about him going along on her job interview before he "let her" take a job with the Daley machine.

Watch the "two Obamas," as wise women and wised-up men are doing. Because the media sure don't -- except for the few wise ones. I count Mr. Crawford among those few.

Also, with all the claims that Obama is the reason for high turnout -- I see no sourcing for such claims -- note that the media gloss over the astonishing turnout of women in SC. Stories state that 61% of voters there in the Dem primary were women, much higher than even their 54% turnout in recent general elections.

So the question could be -- but won't be, with this media -- why isn't Obama bringing out the men?

If he had brought out men in similar numbers, the Dem primary would have meant a record turnout in SC. But the GOP still hold that record there, from 2000. So it's still a GOP state, and Obama couldn't "change" that. And he still can't win the state in the general election.

And speaking about crime does anyone here think Ted or any other Kennedy every escaped criminal charges or punisment because of their political and economic status?

Just a question and I hope that explains how a Democrat could easily have voted for RFK, but not Ted. It is always about record, policy and charater, not name, oratory and questionable tactics......

The idea that we vote because of Party affilations is dumb for Republicans and Democrats. A true citizen requires Independent thinking and needs to make it clear to their Party, that their vote is not a given, despite the fear-monger their Party makes of the other side. I do not fear a McCain, I perfer a Hillary. I would "fear" another four years of Bush, but I would not "fear" another four years of Reagan, though there are Democrats I would still prefer. The ideology is silly as America ought not to be a Nanny State anymore than it should be the Republican version of the Wild West. That is what is really at stake in this primary. If one says that Obama is really the true centrist and move to center, I would call them either stupid or lying. It is really quite simple. Obama attacks the NYT's notion of the Clinton Referendum and pretends he is the uiter and compromiser...LOL

And Let's be clear about where the Far Left who supports Obama would be going.

Is it any wonder that Kos, Huffington, Common Dreams and a host of Blogs including Sullivan turned Liberal support Obama. Some actually support Obama like Sullivan because he is black. Where are those who would love to see a woman? The sexism dripping from media is astonishing and males should be quite ashamed. I say for every male who will vote for a male, their girlfriend or wife should threaten no sex for six months. Now that would sweep Hillary into office...LOL.

Now Obama might laugh at this, but if this is what moves him forward (media and race adn the young who are not quite as savy to see through his rhetoric and record), why should voters applaud? Reality check people....

Max

NYC

I really want one of the 'bloggers" and commentators to walk up to an African American and insinuate that bringing up Jessie Jackson "the black from the period of the excesses" , the man who was next to MLK, was a bad thing, cause now people will think Obama is black. There is in a way a twisted racist and anti democratic point of view that is nauseating me.

Craig,

With all due respect, you are going completely overboard on the other side.

It is one thing to state a historically (if even misleading) fact, but it is another thing to do so when responding to a question about something else altogether.

You might do well to consider a perspective other than your own on this one.

At 1:48 Stellaa commented:---I really want one of the 'bloggers" and commentators to walk up to an African American and insinuate that bringing up Jessie Jackson "the black from the period of the excesses" , the man who was next to MLK, was a bad thing, cause now people will think Obama is black. There is in a way a twisted racist and anti democratic point of view that is nauseating me.

Stellaa---my reply to Nate down below--At 12:23 Chickadees reply--- At that very moment Bill Clinton decided to intentionally inflame the black voters because he thought it was good for Hilliary to relinquish their votes-------oh please!!

Nates comment saying----Go and find the video with Bill's Jesse Jackson comment. I think you have to be incredibly, terribly naive to not see this as obvious race baiting. The question he was asked had nothing to do with Jackson, but he throws it out there right after Obama was projected to win. What else COULD he be saying besides - hey, Obama's win is no big deal - Jesse (another black man) won here too? Wake up folks.

Thank you Mr. Crawford, for your remarks on Morning Joe the other day, pointing out the obvious media obsession with Clinton hatred. I read about it on Media Matters.org.

Sadly, I think the media's decades long obsession of Clinton hatred is working to divide the Democratic Party.

Many on the left, who have been united in fighting the media lo these many years, are now all too happy to quote the likes of Joe Scarborough, Bill Bennet, Byron York, Margaret Carlson, even Tweety fergodssake,

In the end, if Obama wins the nomination, do these same people think the media's kid-glove handling of Obama and smears of anything Clinton will continue when he's up against a Republican?

Do we not remember how fast they changed from Clinton bashing to Gore bashing? Or to Kerry bashing?

Yes, there is a divide in the Democratic Party, but it is not being caused by any of our candidates.

Craig, I remember weeks before Iowa, you declared that "Obama fever" had "broke". You added that you had "Never understood Obama fever". I have also heard you say, numerous times, that you "Like negative campaigning". My guess is that you still don't understand Obama's appeal.

I will concede this. The whole issue of "race-baiting" has been way overblown. I don't think that the Clinton campaign's comments are necessarily race-related. Certainly the "fairy-tale" comment was not, nor the LBJ comment. Although I have to make an exception for the Jesse Jackson comment. I don't see how else you can interpret that one.

As usual, the media gets it wrong. The real story is not "race-baiting". It is the outright lies the Clinton's have spread regarding Obama's record. Stringing together a bunch of partial quotes to make the case that Obama has not been against the Iraq War consistently. Using his "present" votes in Illinois as supposed evidence that he has not stood up for abortion rights. Intentionally misreading his statements about Reagan. By the way, Obama is exactly right about the Reagan thing. This is EXACTLY what the Democratic party needs right now. A Democratic Reagan. Someone who can expand the voter base and present not just a laundry list of programs, but a real VISION for direction of the country.

Hillary had a near death experience in Iowa, and from that point forward has been willing to say anything to win the nomination. It's not about race, it about the truth. Her campaign is HOPING that you don't pay adequate attention. They WANT you to be uninformed. The only way her message about Obama works is if you remain IGNORANT enough to buy their spin. What does that say about how they view the American people? There are a lot of people who are SICK of this, and I am one of them. We've had enough of this with Bush. Just throw up a smokescreen and hope people don't think about it until it's too late. We need someone with integrity!!!
Do you get it now Craig?

Craig it is also the medias goal to keep the racial issue alive and well. The big problem is GE is meddling in our election process and therefore our democracy it self. I'm glad to see another voice bringing this to the peoples attention. Thanks !!!

Craig,
Thank you for interjecting a little common sense into to all of this crap. The media is making all of this worse than it has to be. They focus on whatever little sound bite will get the most ratings and just dig a deeper hole for everyone.

I am a Hillary supporter but I was torn until fall when Obama started going on the attack along with John and Elizabeth. Remember Elizabeth? She was John's attack dog not all that long ago. I remember her saying some pretty outrageous things about Hillary. There is nothing going on in Hillary's campaign that isn't going on in the others. If you don't believe me than you haven't been paying attention or you have a short memory. I have followed every single word of this crap since December 2006. Sad I know, but that's another story.

Now for some insights regarding South Carolina, where I live. I reside in the piedmont area, close to Charlotte. I was very fortunate to see Hillary in person this past Friday in Rock Hill. It was just like everyone says. When you meet her in person, you forget every misconception you ever had about her. She is warm, friendly, very funny, extremely smart-smarter than Bill, and she really knows her stuff. There was such a huge, diverse crowd there too, way more than expected.

Let me tell you a little bit about the mind set here in SC, according to people I talk to, the local papers, local media, etc. Although this is a predominately red area, we have elected Democrat John Spratt, a wonderful man, to Congress for the past 20 something years. That said, there are a lot of white people who will not vote for Obama because he said something about wanting to take the stupid confederate flag down from the statehouse lawn. There are a lot of men who will not vote for Hillary because according to them, the bible says that women should not be in charge of anything. Whatever! There are a lot of people here who plain just do not like John Edwards, despite the fact that he's from here, because he has too much money and has a huge house.

This is a very peculiar part of the country. The Charlotte Observer's forum over the past two months has focused on North vs. South-who's better, tacky Northern christmas decor vs. tacky Southern christmas decor, the bible's so-called view that women should serve their men and of course, my favorite, evolution vs. creationism. There are people here who are still pissed that the South lost the civil war and they want vindication. For all of you who are trying to figure out what happened in Saturday's primary, stop. it will just make your head hurt.

I have come to the conclusion recently that, sadly, we are a nation that has a very short attention span and is still fascinated by fart jokes and Britney Spears underwear, or lack thereof. I'm glad that this country is finally starting to wake up from the Bush/Cheney nightmare. We are so quick to judge however, we rely on too many sound bites taken out of context. We don't take the time to find out what the truth really is. I'm afraid that once again, we will end up getting what we deserve instead of what we need.

Hillary/Obama 08

WHY OBAMA'S BID FOR THE NOMINATION ENDS HERE

The roll of tactical error and expediency in his defeat.

1. After New Hampshire, Obama knew he HAD to win south Carolina, and as pure strategy, started to display (affect a) racial hypersensitivity, directly and via surrogates, to rally the African-American vote down there. You know, bleating about his "war story" being labeled a fairy tale; perceiving that phrase as an epithet. Or that it took LBJ to legislatively channel MLK, being spun as a slight on MLK. Total BS, of course, but worked when further distorted by a friendly MSM and chorused by internet outlets like HuffPo, who were more than willing to be his press agents.

2. He knew he risked marginalizing himself as the "black candidate" by doing so, but winning S.C. was life or death. He'd deal with the other problem after the S.C. primary.

3. He’ll win S.C., but now sees he's pretty much painted himself into a corner. What to do. . . . He's used the press again to blame it all on Clinton, and work the new meme that she can't win because of this racial dichotomy (which of course, he, himself created).

4. Currently, (despite the S.C. win), he privately concedes he's pretty much blown it for Super Tuesday. Nevertheless, he'll try astroturfing a groundswell cry for unity within the party, by way of an ever-compliant press, through friendly talking heads (Tucker, Tweety, Olbermann, et al), and even through reader comment blogs like this, where twenty-something Obama staffers pose as voters, and one after another, after another, declare they have been voting a Democratic ticket since FDR, but that the will vote Republican if Clinton gets the nomination.

5. Even though neither he nor his advisors think it will work completely, they think it may help him force his way onto the November ticket in the VP spot – after all, win or lose in November, in four or eight years he’ll be just 50 or 54 years old, and almost certainly the next democratic nominee. As I write, his friends, the Beltway palace-dwellers, the very serious people comprising the glitterati press core, are rallying to this fallback, if-all-else-fails, cause. Fellow Chablis-sippers like, Joe Klein, Karen Tumulty, Jay Carney, Frank Rich, Gene Robinson, and our own Arianna (darling) at HuffPo, are moving heaven and earth to assist him. Yes, He’s already decided to force a VP offer from Clinton, and to accept it.

In the meantime, who knows? Anything can happen in politics, and there’s still an outside chance he’ll get the nomination. It’s a roll of the dice.

I'm with Craig on this. The fact-less charges border on mental illness. This media 'story' began in New Hampshire as a calculated smear job by the Clinton haters in the press. The glee of their coming demise was palpable. Did anyone catch Matthews and Rich (ny times) just prior to the exit polls in New Hampshire. They were all spun up ready to nail the coffin shut. When the exit polls showed Hillary ahead, Matthews look of disappointment was priceless. And boy was the press pissed off. Since then the 'story' became Bill's 'real' racism. Then the story was the Clintons against the black man. Billary against MLK, Obama, Michele, Jesee, every black person on the planet!. The Sunday media hit jobs on the Clintons so-called racism were the most disgraceful display of media bias that I have ever witnessed. Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for president of our country without a doubt. The race issue is manufactured by the press and the Obama campaign. The Democrats have taken the bait again, crucifying the only 2 term pres since FDR. No wonder they don't win elections.

Craig,

Couldn't believe my eyes or ears as you laid it out for Mike Barnicle - Dr. Phil reference and all. You seem, usually, so reserved.

Bravo. Bravo. Bravo.

BTW, originally an Obama supporter, or anyway a leaner toward Obama, his republican talking points re: social security, and his campaign's gender-baiting and frank thugishness on the telephone in response to my sign-up to work for his campaign, moved me away.

Because I do not prefer DLC politics, and am utterly frustrated with e.g. Jay Rockefeller and Harry Reid, and the whole pack of bush enablers, Obama's repetition of rethug talking-points turns me off.

You are absolutely right, though, as Rachel Maddow was, about New Hampshire. We sat here, wishing we could vote in NH, and vote for Clinton, just to smack Tweety, the Delay suck-up, and Andrea Greenspan to the mat. How dare they?

I'm sick of the corporate media hounding of the Clintons. And sick and ashamed by the behavior of the stupid Democrats who threw Clinton under the bus during Gore's campaign. I'm convinced that if they'd supported Clinton,Gore would just be ending his second term.

What a different world it would be.

Craig Crawford,

You could not have been more correct. Regardless of joe scarboros' daily display of ignorance - he know's it too. Kudos for speaking up on a show where it is impossible to get an intelligent work in edgewise. Let me give you an analogy. Jim, on their financial show, mentioned that he had to quit stating reviews of stock because it gives an unfavorable effect on the value of the stock. Any simpleton should be able to see the effect caused by the daily statement, of essentially White Americans, making negative baseless extrapolations of statements. nothing could be more obvious to me what is happening and it is not Hillary and Bill playing the race card. Self proclaimed "son of the south" joe scarboro at MSNBC has made more race-baiting statements, with questionable intention than the Clinton's ever had - thinking African Americans know it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I posted this on MSNBC's board:

It is a shame that MSNBC has allowed it's thoughtful reporting from various perspectives be high jacked my joe scarboro. His is perhaps the worst of his ilk - loudmouth, racist, sexist, pseudo-pretend "journalists".

This is what passes for journalism on "morning joe" :

1. Placing the "panicked Hillary" newspaper in front of his face, screaming that Hillary "has lost" each day prior to New Hampshire, then blaming everyone but himself for having been wrong.
2. Every hour on the hour exclaiming how Bill Clinton is injecting "race in to the election" while at the same time using this racist angle more than any other person on TV - and at the same time proclaiming himself a "son-of-the-south". A "code-word" term most African Americans I know think of as the very embodiment of southern racist overt and covert.
3. Literally shouting down and opposing viewpoints and relegating any meaningful discussion unobtainable. Reducing co-hosts to eye-rolling, exasperation at the level the show is at. Essentially the typical bully from the "loudest is right" school - too cowardly, arrogant and ignorant to table opposing discussion.

It is clear to me that "morning joe scarboro" is a sad, pitiful racists and sexist who is totally incapable of exhibiting any professionalism or basic knowledge of the content of his own show in anything other than "code words" of the worst type. What Bill Clinton said and I believe meant pales in comparison to joe's daily rants. He has lead this show down, if not the genre at MSNBC, down a path where it can be likened to "the Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report". The difference is that John Stuart and Steven Colbert are smart enough to know it's a spoof. Morning Joe still wants you to think his show is serious instead of the tongue-in-cheek joke that it is.

"Morning Joke" just serves to remind me that TV - in this case MSNBC is full of idiots, charlatans and people who, for the most cynical of aims say and do anything under the cover of news. How any producer, network or advertiser can think this is an improvement over Imus is a mystery to me!

joe scarboro is simply too ignorant and arrogant to even get a clue that this act is nothing but a sad, little joke on him. Only an ever-decreasing number of Viewers buy this trash. This is the reason viewer ship is dwindling. In the pantheon of TV, should it fade away - this type of programming will be the cause of it's demise - it is not the internet.

joe, you have been measured and weighed and you have been found wanting.

Two times within five minutes Mika Brezinski equated Bill Clinton's comment "we are in difficult times" was a statement meant to refer to the difficulty Hillary is having in the campaign.

Yesterday joe scarboro claimed that if Bill Clintons' had inserted John Edwards instead of "Jesse Jackson" the remark would have not been an issue.

Many "reporters" frequently and comfortably say that Obama is "being identified as the black candidate" with a clear indication that this is negative although even a blind person, at this point, knows he's an African American.

Mika, while giving a quick disclaimer just before injecting what in my mind can easily be construed as racist sentiment, says "there can be other perspectives to these [and other] situations" still offices these childish, baseless premises for argument. I guess Mika, as much as joe, is capable of speaking in "code".

The American people are too smart have seen this "stuff" too long and these people are not slick enough to even mildly disguise their fanatical attempts to cast a shadow on the election and the candidates. They are only succeeding in bringing light on their organizations and their own penchant for partiality.

The concept of professionalism, accuracy and impartiality has given way to racebaiting, name calling, poll quoting and idiotic guessing. It is a sad thing to see.

The only person who would take Bill Clinton's statement of fact concerning Jesse Jackson's placement in a prior South Carolina primary are racists or those with political / ulterior motive.

It is a fact that Obama is African American - does anyone not agree with that? The first element of "Bill Clinton's statement besmirching Obama" having any of the "validity" it has risen to in the eyes of a vocal few media hacks is that Bill Clinton's statement be untrue - is not. The second element is race specifically that identifying Obama thusly in and of itself is negative and that Bill is improperly, and intentionally ascribing this negative to Obama. When I heard Bill's remark I thought it responsive to the question in respect to the fact that he and Jackson both won in SC but Jackson did not win the presidency because this win. Only a complete imbecile would think Jackson and Obama comparable. Clearly this is an attempt, (by the media, I say this because they run this nonsense continuously with minimal legitimate counterpoint, to transfer to Obama historical negatives which many attribute to Jackson. A transference only an idiot or a racists could make. They further, especially in the case of the "morning joe" show constantly say that "African American's" feel this way while the lead provocateur is a self-proclaimed "son of the south" joe scarboro - the most overtly racist, sexist sow anchor on MSNBC. There is no other individual or news organization with an African American's advocating the premise that the Clinton's are racist and Bill statement was of racist intention. The fact is that the Clinton's history does not support this contention.

What possible excuse can MSNBC have for not even considering that this is a valid conclusion to be reached? What excuse can they have for carrying this "issue" in the vein that they have - quashing opposing views? joe scarboro even angrily "shouted down" Craig Crawford's sensible, opposing view.

It is all the "argument" of a racist, simpleminded 3rd grader and gives true insight as to what credibility we should be give MS/NBC as an serious, solid entity that provides the American people with an accurate, honest, intelligent discussion of events that seriously effect our lives. Any candidate of either party, worthy of the presidency must be smart enough to not rise to this nonsense.

In my view MS/NBC is allowing this non-issue and joe scarboro to seriously damage it's brand.

cc:

Why does Obama's rhetorical talents leave me so cold when so many, especially the media and now the former first family of the Democratic Party, the Kennedys, adore him for it?

Take Obama's explanation for how his acquisition of his current home had nothing to do with any alleged relationship with Mark Rezko. Obama tells us he placed the highest bid on the property and thus fairly and honestly got the property.

But the bidding process is a private one between the seller and individual buyers who submit bids. There is no law, not even the mythical 'common sense', that the seller would necessarily and always accept the highest bid. The seller may accept a lower bid because they believe any higher bid(s) are too risky or even false because the bidders do not have the credit history and finances to justify their high bid.

There is an old example of illegal or unethical, immoral, collusion in a bidding process where instead of the most attractive, and therefore the most logically acceptable, bid would be the lowest bidder (rather than Obama's claim hat his house bid was the highest).

Minority companies involved in the bidding process for contracts in public works, construction, etc. know all too well that, even though in their cases they are the lowest bidders, discriminatory practices often see the contract go to either a friendly company or a racially more 'acceptable' company to the person or group putting out the contract. Here again, when the minority company points out that their bid was lower than that accepted, they are still denied the contract and the work because of supposed fears on the part of the contracting party that the minority-owned company cannot 'meet the requirements' of equipment, workers, expertise, etc. to make their otherwise lower and more attractive bid acceptable.

Obama, as a community organizer, would know this scenario well. It would be one of the discriminatory practices he would be fighting.

Obama's explanation of how he was not helped by the indited Mark Rezko in acquiring his home certainly sounds as reasonable as the discriminatory contracting party's reason for accepting higher bids from white-owned companies.

Nothing binds the agent or agency from accepting a bid from anyone they want to, and it all sounds fair and reasonable. But discrimination as well as secret collaborations (favoritism or payouts) are the stuff of which affirmative actions laws and programs, which Obama should know well as a community organizer) have been made.

Too bad crooks like Rezko and creatures like race-bating conservatives (Rush Limbaugh, anyone) have rolled back not just affirmative action but also the corrupt schemes that perpetuate favoritism, discrimination, racism in our society.

Obama's explanation for a $600,000 lowball bid on his home deserves further scrutiny. All we have is Obama's rhetoric on the matter of how he and Mark Rezko were 'coincidentally' involved in adjoining real estate deals.

By the way, news is saying Edwards will drop out of the race today. Watch where Joe Trippi scuttles now, if he's not already clasped warmly to Obama's bosom.

The "news media" and the game show hosts-Russerts are a joke and the viewers aren't laughing...‏
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is plain to see that most "news" people are much more interested in creating the smart-aleck remark (Tim Russert - "Clintonista") or asking questions for the purpose in creating a controversy of semantics or quip only.

MSNBC, being the news I have most recently watched - not watching much now, has eclipsed FOXNEWS while at the same time claiming to "maintain the legacy" (Steve Capas) of it's history.

Well you can't do it with childish pranks, laughing, snickering and offering a "pseudo-serious" version of the John Stewart show.

It is strikingly contemptible to hear people like Tim Russert reduce the Presidential campaign to polling predictions and smart-assed remarks. This is not the news, it is a "vanity press" expression of what should be news.

Case in point. Tim and others on many media outlets have promoted the premise that Democrats, when faced with the prospect of no Hillary or no Obama would then turn to Mc Cain. On what is this based? This is the most purely simpleminded, stupidity and the overarching need to create a contest.

While the "media/pundits" main concern is creating a TV gameshow / spectacle in the expectation of driving ratings - it's working, it has driven me to CSPAN. I will never again watch NBC/MSNBC as much as I once did. Consider this, the electorate's clamor for change has less to do with the Democrat candidate that more to do with making sure that the current crop of liars, thieves, crooks, incompetents and those who have ruined and sold America for a profit don't get another chance. It is simply amazing how various "Republican Strategists", pundits and ex-employees like Andy Card and Barbara Comstock can appear and laughingly, cynically cite Hillary being a mean, evil woman and "Soybean and wheat prices" as a recommendations to elect another Republican. This kind of simpleminded "idiot-logic" nonsense will not work this time. Contrary to "TVidiotspeak" we are not looking for a date or a beer drinking buddy - just a competent president who cares more about America than his friend's job resume and the profits of corporations and foreigners.

A significant number of Americans, of all parties, will see to it that the administration will be changed from top to bottom this election. The populace clearly has matured past the "stick to the party while America goes down the tubes stage". I guess you people place no significance in Dennis Hastert's loss? For the unclouded mind, it is a harbinger of things to come!

I'd bet, barring some election "anomalies" that BullWinkle Moose could beat the Republican ticket, no matter who the candidates are, this time.

No smart-aleck tv-idiot or poll will change that...

ps. Tom Brokaw, Keith Olbermann and Jack Cafferty and Katie Couric are among the few who, while I don't concur with their every position they, take the process seriously and therefore deserve my respect and viewership. Question: How can a real news organization base a news network on a group of people who can't be differentiated between jokesters, pundits, shills and game show hosts. How can these people who are clearly less intelligent have less integrity who treat the news as a game deserve the respect necessary for a foundation of a credible news organization? How?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
Friedrich Nietzsche