Are any of you Clinton haters just the teeniest, tiniest bit suspicious

because the SCLMSM seems all of a sudden to be looking favorably on a DEMOCRATIC candidate for president? All the while ignoring John Edwards (just as they ignored Wes Clark in 2004) and vilifying Hillary Clinton?

No alarm bells going off? You're all more than happy to repeat their slams and slurs against the Clintons as if they were gospel? You think the corporate media has suddenly gone--you know-- all progressive and stuff?

Have any of you read The Daily Howler today? (or ever??)





Read the entire article at www.dailyhowler.com

puh - leeeeeeeeeeeeze !

It is either a major error in judgement – which no one can afford now what with * making so many – or complicity of some sort.
What is a slur is against the American people to believe that Change will happen under Clinton. Sure, lots more change for the corporates pockets.

ready on Day 1.
hahahahah!

still counting Pelosi's 100 days and how many times she and reid and those useless ones supported Bush over the american people.

Quoting you: "What is a slur is against the American people to believe that Change will happen under Clinton."

How so?

How are the American people slurred by believing something?

And why capitalize the word "Change" as if it is a sacrament. It's not. In fact, it isn't anything at all but a buzzword.

Maybe the Obama campaign can revitalize itself by stressing that.

"Vote for Barack. He has the best buzzwords."

He might even have something else -- we don't know. We're so dazzled by hid height and his posture and his tailoring and his buzzwords than we haven't had time to consider whether he's qualified for the job or not.

I don't give a shit about what others here or in the MSM say. My "hate" of her won't be moved by others.

(1) you believe the MSM has taken a turn to the left, and

(2) you didn't bother to read the article?

I am just extrapolating the real answer I think you'll get.

to say I'm supporting Obama because Hillary mischaracterized Obama's abortion stance.

But that's what Obama supporters love, isn't it? Long-winded rhetoric that says very little.

and is changing to Obama so the long winded part was the Clinton part lol

I mean, she couldn't have an ulterior motive, could she?

:sarcasm:

Here's what the Illinois NOW has posted on their front page:



Sounds to me like Hillary has it exactly right.

Pretty powerful stuff, that.

I'm not certain how I feel about this. I would like to know for sure what the direct mail piece stated before I switch.

BTW, it's hard to take someone seriously when they look like Julia Roberts and live in a very posh apartment. I'm just sayin'...

Just because she isn't my first choice doesn't mean that I hate her. Just because I question how she explains her vote in 2002 does not mean that she is to blame for the Iraq War.

I am not voting for her in the primaries. I will vote for her in the general election if she wins the nomination.

I can make up my own mind.

Let's start by going back before the primaries "heat" got under way.

There are a lot of people upset with Hillary for going to the center right instead of center left which is how she campaigned to get elected into the Senate. Remember her saying she'd work on changing the electoral college system then dropping it and going along with Bush so much during her time in the Senate? A lot of liberal leaning DUers are upset with her for that.

Then fast forward to these Obama supporters.

Of course, we know why many of the Obama supporters hate Hillary. I honestly think they can be divided into two camps.

One camp genuinely believes in the guy and wants him to beat Hillary. They are pawns for the other type that is here in full force too. The other type of Obama loving Hillary haters are outright right wing shills/trolls because they do nothing but bash Democrats and repeat right wing talking points ad nauseum. The talking points they use, if you'll take note next time you see them, are exactly the same ones used by right wing shills like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and others from the right wing Faux News and right wing MSM.

The "genuine" camp is being used as pawns by the "covert right wing shills" (CRWS for short) because they are being lulled into using outright right wing talking points because they saw someone else use them against Hillary.

I wrote my opinion about this the other day. Granted I'm not too sold on Hillary because I'm in the camp that supports neither Hillary or Obama. Instead you see my signature picture. I think MSM is playing both the Hillary camp and the Obama camp, personally and I mean no offense by that. It's just how I see it. Here is a link to my thread and my thoughts on MSM controlling the Democratic Party or at least the minds of many in the Democratic Party right now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4159142

That's just my honest take on the whole thing. And yes, I'm very suspicious of who our front runners are. Granted, I know that doesn't set well with either Hillary or Obama supporters, but it's just my opinion. I do see the validity in what you are saying and have said the same thing only in a slightly different way.

because you are convinced there will be race violence? :scared:

If this is a case of mistaken identity, I apologize.

If not, why the hell would anyone listen to you?

"pawns and "covert right wing shills" " :crazy:

I just said violence based on that uproar seen in the videos section just because Big Dawg was outside. :scared: I think you added "race" to that as I never said what my race was or anything about race at all...You cannot tarnish me with any kind of "racist" tag, for the record. Smartass.
:eyes:

Some people do listen to me, including quite a few voters I know who are just turning 18 or 19 years old. They are gay just like me and will be very interested to know that Obama agrees with the "ex gay" movement that has tortured gay people so much despite the fact that the two gay men who started it left to become a couple.

Your attitude stinks, btw. Don't you know you attract more flies with honey than hate?

They put out whatever is marketable and likely to attract an audience.

The Hillary/Obama mudslinging sells.

for unspinning the BS. Thanks for posting this.

was in full coordinated swing. The anti-clinton talking points smoothly change each day into the latest updated versions down to sychronized use of buzz words, and flow in virtually identical language from numerous sources from which others pick them up and spread them further.

Going back a few months one of my earliest clues was the sudden flood of pieces being written that mentioned Hillary Clinton's "cackle" and "shrill" voice. After that I was dizzied by all the reports that suddenly injected the adjective "desperate" into any coverage about her campaign. Then there was the "unlikeable" meme applied to Hillary. More recently there's been the one sided spate of pinning any discussion of race in this race on the Clinton campaign "playing a race card", even though all the media has wanted to talk about for the last couple of months has been the race factor in this race, and even though Barack Obama has consciously rallied Black support to his side with his Gospel Tour, with Oprah, with all of his surragates inside South Carolina like Joseph Lowery going so far as to call out Blacks who won't vote for Obama for having a "slave mentality" etc.. Now the newest buzz phrase is the "Two Clinton Tag Team", while the media itself engages in tag teaming against both Clintons.

I've seen this type thing happen before. To call it creepy is a huge understatement.

First, the Daily Howler analysis of how the mass media turned Gore into a "serial liar" in 2000 should be mandatory reading for every liberal and everyone who considers themselves a Democratic activist. The Daily Howler gets so much right that other people just ignore or are unable to see. And gets it right so vividly! Calling Chris Matthews "a drooling figure from dystopian fiction" is one of the most apt descriptions of him I've ever heard. And when he writes:

"We’re close to a type of proto-fascism when our big 'news orgs' function this way. A big defense contractor buys a news network—and put tools like Matthews in place, paying them millions of dollars per annum. These tools then lie, and lie, to your face. The dead of Iraq are in the ground because, in 1999 and 2000, the liberal world let this game play."


In the specific case he makes defending Clinton, though, he's only half right.

The part he's right about is in differentiating the two statements Obama made -- the first about Reagan changing the trajectory of America, and the second about it being "fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense they were challenging conventional wisdom."

You can talk about one without talking about the other, and Hillary indeed didn't mention Reagan's name. I think Somerby's takedown of Dowd and Matthews is quite astute in that regard.

But he isn't being honest in his column either.

He quotes Hillary as saying: "The facts are that he has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years." Hillary even says that "We can give you the exact quote."

This is, quite obviously, a blatant, outright, calculated... lie on Hillary's part.

Nowhere -- NOWHERE -- does Obama ever say he "really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years."

Twisting Obama's words that way is no accident. It's a smear. It's exactly the word that Somerby decries. It's dirty politics.

How does Somerby deal with that? Here's his response:

"Was that a faithful paraphrase of Obama’s statement? Different people will think different things."

Different people will think different things? You've gotta be kidding me! That's just a grotesque denial of the truth there, and it's really disappointing for me to see Bob do that. You can't have one standard for Dowd and Matthews, and another standard for Hillary. You can't just look the other way when your candidate lies in such a blatant way, and keep your integrity.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

I still wish the Daily Howler would get with the times and publish an RSS feed. :)

Based on his point blank, no ifs, ands, or buts about it, they were the party of ideas, eliminating all other parties for the long time frame. Adding to that his "challenging conventional wisdom" bunk, as if the rest of this nation was not attempting to do just that and challenge the conventional wisdom of the corrupt republicans.

Obama made a blanket statement that ruled out every other party's ideas by the very nature of his chosen phraseology.

Parsing his statement today is merely the same as attempting to parse his "Present" vote as er um political cover, no I mean procedural, no I mean unconstitutional.

\

http://mydd.com/story/2008/1/22/11049/2664



JUST LIKE LOCK STEP REPUGS...WHAT EVER BUSH WANTS! FU*KING SHAMEFUL!! DISGRACEFUL!


Gateway Pundit has the video.

In the best part of Obama's The Audacity of Hope, Obama, with some reservations, pours even more praise on our 40th president.


That Reagan's message found such a receptive audience spoke not only to his skills as a communicator; it also spoke to the failures of liberal government, during a

period of economic stagnation, to give middle-class voters any sense that it was fighting for them. For the fact was that government at every level had become too

cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often, bureacracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and

values over duties and responsibilities.

(Obama then veers off this brilliant thought pattern and digs a bit into Reagan's legacy.)

Audacity of Hope peaks early. The above passage appears on page 31.

opposite--points. Thanks.

I'm sure we can both agree that in a political race like this, it's better to criticize someone on their actual words than to offer an "interpretation" of those words to the public, and criticize that. That's what Hillary did by saying that Obama said he "really liked" Republican ideas of the past 15 years.

For what it's worth, part of why that quote resonates for me is that the Democratic party that I love has been slow to come up with new, vibrant ideas that capture the minds of its supporters the way the FairTax or Social Security "private accounts" have captured the minds of conservatives and curious people who aren't political and don't know any better. Why are we always stuck defending the status quo, instead of moving forward, progressing like actual progressives are supposed to do?

I remember hearing Wes Clark asked why don't the Democrats have any ideas on what to do in Iraq (the implication being that all we do is criticize Bush, but we don't offer alternatives). He shot that down pretty fast, saying it was a right-wing talking point, that we have LOTS of ideas, possibly too many ideas, enumerating just a few.

Point is, yes we have ideas. It's the Repubs who keep saying we have no ideas, and the media repeating it.

Do Democratic ideas "capture the minds" of Democratic voters? Hard to do if the voters never hear them.

I mean, when the Republicans put out the Contract On... I mean, Contract with America in the 90s, they knew how to get their ideas out there, and that's part of what made them successful. They had a party-wide commitment to their ideology and the ideas that sprung out of it, and were able to capitalize on that.

We don't. Every so often, there is a stab at it, but our party never seems to embrace it. Rahm Emanuel had a plan with a number of ideas just a couple of years ago. What happened to it? Can you name any?

I should be clear that ideas, to me, are different than goals. Universal heath care is a goal, but the FairTax is an idea. An idea is a plan for achieving a goal, ready to be implemented. To be successful, it also needs some element of novelty, a hook that people can get excited about. I just don't see enough of that from my party. I think a lot of other Americans have been hungry for that, too.

I think part of it is that liberalism has been so enormously successful, that many Democrats do feel a real reluctance to "rock the boat". After all, it's easier to wreck a recipe by adding new ingredients than it is to improve it. But that aversion to innovation is what the Repubs have been able to exploit. They have dumb new ideas, we have smart old ideas. We need smart new ideas, too. And then we need to get behind them, as a party, in a unified way, bumrush the media, and get those ideas out to the American people.

On Edit:

ONE MORE THING: A good example of a Democratic idea is Al Gore's plan for eliminating the payroll tax and replacing it with a carbon tax. The hook is that individuals get more money and a cleaner environment at the same time. It certainly sounds intriguing to me, but the rest of the party seem to have ignored it or walked away from it. I'm not entirely sure the numbers are there, but I'd like to see a party interested in finding out. I'd like to see more ideas where this came from, and a party excited about implementing them together.

One, they have a dedicated media. A full-time news channel with ratings that beat the other cable news networds combined, and pretty much all of talk radio. Oh yeah, we now have Air America and a handful of independent programs. But even now, 90% of talk radio is right wing. Back in the '90s, it was 100%. Even if you don't buy Repub control of the so-called "mainstream" media, all the they have to do is have Rush and all the Rush-wannabes run the same stories over and over and eventually they will make their way into the mainstream.

Second, Republicans are more regimented than Dems. They are more authoritarian. If they put out talking points, those points will get out. And woe to the elected Repub who dares to take a different position. There are exceptions, but even they usually fall in line most of the time. Dems do not automatically get behind the ideas of any other Dem. Sometimes they don't even hear about them. Part of this is a leadership problem. But part of it is just the nature of Democrats. And part of it, for the time being, is not having a veto- and filibuster-proof majority.

But I don't think you can give the media a pass on this either. The Republican frame for the last few election cycles has been, the Democrats have no ideas. And the corporate media has definitely accepted that frame and incorporated it into how they report stories and set up interviews.

Of course, you're not implying they'd attack him in GE! :spank: