Contrary to what some hateful, Clinton-loathing, clueless diarists claim, Bill Clinton was not "equally fulsome" in his recent praise of Barack Obama and John McCain with regard to their energy plans. Clinton's words:
"Obviously, I favor Senator Obama’s energy positions, and Democrats have been by and large the more forward-leaning actors," Mr. Clinton said. "But John McCain has the best record of any Republican running for president on the energy issue and on climate change." He added, "I’m very encouraged about where the presidential rhetoric is in this campaign."
Dear genius diarist: when one favors a over b, one is not being neutral.
Barack Obama knows that the media is spreading a bunch of stories quoting anonymous sources, as is usual when it comes to manufactuting fights between him and Hillary.
Don't explect Obama supporters, who love a fight, to be as wise as Obama. They will believe anything they read as long as the reporter claims John Doe confirmed it.
From CNN today:
"There hasn't been controversy other than what you guys are projecting right now," he told reporters. Obama described conversations between the two campaigns over convention planning as "seamless." "It has not been a problem," he said.
It is no wonder that while his blogosphere supporters cried "racism!" over the "celeb" video by McCain, Obama pointed to the ad's true weaknesses, at one point observing that McCain's campaign is "cynical, not racist."
Hillary Clinton stands 100% behind Obama unless a non-anonymous source proves otherwise.
On Monday during "Countdown" (see transcript), TV host Keith Olbermann marveled at the presence of the Leaning Tower of Pisa in the now famous "celeb" ad released by John McCain's campaign.
According to Olbermann's (and Bob Herbert's) theory, the tower, being stiff and long and all, represented a "phallic" figure-- in other words, a penis, which was intended to tell us how badly Obama wants to screw Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
The problem: The object to which Olbermann refers was NOT the Leaning Tower of Pisa, but a structure located at the site of Obama's Berlin speech, called the "Victory Column", which is seen 8, 11 and 16 seconds into the video:
The New York Times and TPM's Josh Marshall make an extremely weak argument trying to paint McCain's new "celeb" ad as racist, even comparing it to the infamous anti-Ford 2006 ad in Tennessee.
The difference is, of course, that a blonde woman in an explicitly flirtatious tone, asked Harold Ford, "call me, Harold." Anyone with an IQ of 1 or higher could have figured out the intentions of said ad.
On the other hand, no flirting of any kind, or even any interaction whatsoever between Britnay, Paris and Obama is seen in this new ad.
There is not one discussion on media bias in which someone on our side won't quip, "Oh yeah? If the media is anti-McCain, why does he call it "my base"?
Two things must be investigated:
Did McCain really call the media "my base"?, and if so,
When?
We are in campaign 2008. If McCain called the media his base in 2000, I don't think that argument has any bearing on discussion of current media bias.
A baseball player is not necessarily great now because he was great in 2000.
Jack doesn't necessarily like Jill now because he liked her in 2000.
John McCain is not fit to be president. He is too much like George W. Bush; However, lying about him amounts to resorting to the tactics used by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
In The Democratic Underground, perhaps the most popular blog in the left besides the Daily Kos and Huffington Post, there is a very popular thread linking to a Commondreams.org article which claims:
I see a diary "reporting" that the Huffington Post said that "some say" that Bill Clinton said...
But that's not the only source! Reverend Sun Myung Moon's UPI says that someone said that they were told... (insert "Clinton's face turned red" or "Clinton is a bad loser" quote here).
Remember the Vanity Fair piece quoting 39 anonymous sources, insinuating that Bill Clinton is still cheating on Hillary Clinton?
Clinton-hatred is alive and kicking in this joint. How about waiting for REAL stories? With REAL sources?
The hatred is such that the diarist believes the anonymously-sourced story about the husband of the ex first lady who now supports Obama overshadows John McCain's tax debt.
Don Imus is in the middle of a controversy over remarks that are being interpreted by some as racist. When his co-worker spoke about an African American Dallas Cowboys player being arrested, Imus asked, "what color is he?" "African American", he was told. Imus said, "oh, ok there you go".
Taken without context this remark may seem racist, but once you read Imus (in my view plausible) clarification, you may have second thoughts.
Obama is either lying to the American people or to the Iraqi foreign minister.
If we all agree that withdrawing our troops within a year--which is Obama's plan--is a dramatic departure from Bush's "stay-forever" approach towards Iraq, then Obama, as I said, is playing us, or Hoshyar Zebari for fools.
The London-based Al Hayat newspaper last week reported that
Barack Obama's campaign managers had reassured Baghdad that if Obama is elected he will not dramatically change Washington's policy towards Iraq and will take into account the opinions of the commanders in the field.
I see yet another diary pretending that the main theme being discussed in the sexism debate is "Did Hillary lose because of sexism or not"?
Thiis what many call "playing dumb".
They seem to believe that if sexism, racism, or any other "ism" cannot be blamed as the main reason for the loss of a candidate, then it is to be condoned, and opposition to them is nothing but "whining".
Instead of analyzing and taking steps towards the elimination of sexist attacks by major pundits, some anti-Hillary analysts and diarists use the common red herring.
I was amazed by the flawed thinking of several here who claimed that in my previous diary, I had presented only one instance of pundits who DID NOT believe Clinton was inevitable at the beginning of 2007.
I showed four examples: Clarence Page, Elisabeth Bumiller, David Gregory and Kathleen Parker.
The fact that they were in the same show does not turn their analysis into one single instance.
Kos posted a diary in which he used comedian Jon Stewart and semi-Comedian Joe Scarborough as examples of the punditocracy prematurely declaring Clinton the winner.
Conventional wisdom has it that our mainstream media initially thought Clinton was "inevitable". Obama just shocked the world, they say.
But here are four top representatives of the mainstream media being interviewed by Chris Matthews shortly after Obama announced his candidacy in early 2007. Here's what they replied when asked about Clinton's chances versus Obama:
MATTHEWS (3/4/07): OK, let me go around the room. Will he, meaning Obama, catch Hillary by Memorial Day in the polls?
Experts have pointed to the pathetic low turnout in caucuses as part of the reason why this system is no way to choose a nominee for the president.
5% of eligible voters have cast a vote in caucuses this year. 5%. Not a typo.
Obama supporters quicky get defensive, downplaying low turnout, arguing that said system is the best because the party gets to talk about the issues, blah blah blah.
Kos made the case for the caucuses as a very appropriate system yesterday or a couple of days ago, if I'm not mistaken.
But when approx. 13% of Puerto Rican registered voters, who can't even vote in the general in a contest that does not even elect their president, still go to the booth, all of a sudden turnout becomes a huge deal.
Congratulations, Hillary Clinton, on your impressive, lopsided victory.
Unless this video has been stripped of its most important moment, Reuters seemed to have spread a story in which it falsely claimed Rupert Murdoch had predicted an Obama "landslide" and "sweeping victory" this November.
The Wall Street Journal, which conducted the interview, said nothing about a "landslide" or "sweeping victory" predicted or even hinted by Murdoch.
The Clinton camp accused the Obama campaign of inflaming and taking out of context Hillary's recent RFK "assassination" remarks.
But both the NY Daily News print edition and the Washington Post's "The Talk" blog have published terrible stories whose headlines claim that Barack Obama is the one being blamed.
Maureen Dowd has predictably authored yet another anti-Hillary piece today, although she's also been recently practicing her anti-Obama talking points to be used against the likely Democratic nominee in the summer/fall.
In an attempt to save face after the imminent huge loss tonight in PA, the pro-Obama blogosphere, led by self-described Obama supporter Ariannna Huffington, who was recently spotted chillng in David Geffen's yacht in the exotic Tahiti island (Geffen is a billioaire Obama donor), is trying to create the impression that, not only there are significant problems with voting machines in Pennsylvania, but that these problems are targetting exclusively African American areas.
Take note, Clinton supporters and Clinton's campaign. Julia Bosman from The Caucus seem to have liedin her blog post when she said that Clinton "described herself as pro-gun" in Valparaiso, Indiana. Bosman chose to paraphrase Clinton rather than quote her directly, which makes me believe she is lying.
