Typical modern political journalism

Unfortunately, its not a defect but a feature.

A revealing article, over on Politico, by John Harris describing the media hype process with the latest example. Harris encouraged Jonathan Martin to get the take, "Wow. Maybe she has come unhinged?" up on the net asap:

Here is what I said: Martin, quick get that item up!
And then to push it further by calling up the cooperating Obama campaign for a quote, then they hype it some more, and then they actually see the quote in context, and realize its nothing but an item that Clinton has previously stated to reference the primary schedule:
Martin was quick getting the item about Clinton's Argus Leader comment up on his Politico blog.

But not as quick as The New York Post, which was the first outside South Dakota to notice Clinton's inflammatory remarks (Martin himself knew about Clinton's remarks from the New York tabloid's story). The Associated Press, in what looked at first blush like a classic example of what reporters call "burying the lead," had no mention of Clinton's RFK remarks in its original dispatch on the interview.

I urged Martin to keep his foot on the gas: Be the first to post reaction from the Obama campaign. Obama spokesman Bill Burton quickly obliged, denouncing Clinton's comments and saying such sentiments have "no place in this campaign." Burton's comments quickly went into Martin's blog post. Soon enough, several websites and cable news outlets were giving the story trumpet-blaring treatment.

Perhaps half an hour after the story broke Martin called me back over to his desk. It turned out the Argus Leader had video of its big interview. I huddled over Martin's computer as we watched.

It was a deflating experience.

The RFK remarks were deep in a 20-minute clip of an otherwise routine conversation. Then, once we actually got to the relevant portion of the video, it was hardly an electric moment.

Clinton does indeed mention the Kennedy assassination, speaking in a calm and analytical tone: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

Martin and I both thought we saw a slight twinge in Clinton's facial expression, as though she recognized she had just said something dumb.

Whether she recognized it or not, she had.

But it was also clear that Clinton's error was not in saying something beyond the pale but in saying something that pulled from context would sound as if it were beyond the pale.

It would be a big story if Clinton said something like this: "Hey, I know it looks bad for me now. But, think about it. Obama could get shot and I'd get to be the nominee after all."

It is a small story if Clinton said something like this: "Everyone talks like May is incredibly late, but by historical standards it is not. Think of all the famous milestones in presidential races that have taken place during June."

It seems pretty obvious that the latter is what Clinton meant, and not too far from what she actually said. It was not surprising that the Argus Leader's executive editor, Randall Beck, put out a statement saying, "Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the time line of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself."

Make no mistake. Clinton stepped on a rake with her comment and got bopped in the face. This was entertaining political slapstick, for those of us who like that kind of thing. Little wonder she apologized.

But Clinton's clumsiness does not excuse news media clumsiness in making a minor story seem like a major one. A note on the randomness of the news: If this really was a big story, then the media has blown it for months. Clinton made similar remarks to Time magazine back in March. (The Wall Street Journal reporter with Clinton has an entertaining look at how the pack traveling with the candidate initially missed the story.)

There's no going back; this 24/7 uncontextual 'gotcha' type of politics is here to stay. What does happen though, is that any the response by the candidate, or others in the media, quickly establishes, within a day or two, the validity of the story. Here, there is none at all, and aside from viewing it as a specimen of the day's catch, it fades away.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

238 Comments

BO and Friends are singing a different

tune today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo rld/us_and_americas/us_elections/article 3998946.ece

My favorite part:  

"Senior officials on Obama's campaign believe Bill Clinton has the unique status and political gifts to reunite the party after such gaffes. They expressed confidence that the former president would rise above the perceived slights and grudges of a hard-fought campaign and work flat out for an Obama victory in November's presidential election.

"If anybody can put their arms around the party and say we need to be together, it is Bill Clinton," a senior Obama aide said.

"He's brilliant, he has got heart and he cares deeply about the country. It's tricky because of his position as Hillary's spouse, but his involvement is very important to us.

"Bill Clinton will give permission to Hillary supporters to come into our camp and become one party. He is critical to this effort."

HA.  Not going to happen!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-25 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: BO and Friends are singing a different

I bet you Bill Clinton is as p&ssed as can be.  

I said the other day with this fake outrage story that Bill Clinton should get on the phone with every superdelegate and tell to them, no campaigning, no fundraising, you are on your own.  

The shit has to stop.  

Note that Hillary has promised to work her heart out for the nominee. Bill hasn't.  

by ghost 2 2008-05-25 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: BO and Friends are singing a different

Seriously, I'm not sure Clinton is needed on the campaign trail.  If Hillary herself had to keep him under wraps, what good would he do Obama?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-25 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: BO and Friends are singing a different
But I think he didn't because he is a little like the attack dog in the Clinton campaign. He is the guy who fires up the local crowds, visiting a dozen events a day...
it just wouldn't make sense for him to go "soft" before the primaries are officially over.
But when he endorses it will be a so much bigger deal. If that day comes, I'm sure it will be an extraordinary event/speech that no one want's to miss.
by standd 2008-05-25 12:07PM | 0 recs
That's because Bill is a petulant little man

I've gone back and forth on my views of Hillary, but in my heart I view her as a person with more integrity and ideas than Bill, whose selfishness is practically a defining characteristic.

by kellogg 2008-05-25 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: BO and Friends are singing a different

It would be delicious if Bill campained for Hillary supporters in their districts, but didn't for Obama.  Bill could claim that he'd overshadow the nominee and undermine his message of CHANGE! and INSPIRATION!(TM).  

After all, Bill Clinton had no ideas, and according to Obama, Bill's presidency was just more of the status quo, not of the HOPE!(TM) and CHANGE!(TM) variety.  

by ghost 2 2008-05-25 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: BO and Friends are singing a different

Good to know that you are supporting the GOP now.

Have fun with your war and your tax breaks for the rich and oh yeah say goodbye to Roe V. Wade for me.

by JDF 2008-05-25 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: BO and Friends are singing a different

By the way, I notice that timesonline is a bit like MSNBC.  I see a lot of shilling from them, and repeating Camp O's talking points.

by ghost 2 2008-05-25 11:41AM | 0 recs
Ball bearings on sale at TruValue

Nice big ones you can clutch and knead furiously  while typing with one hand.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-26 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: BO and Friends are singing a different

Allow me to play along.  This is a fun game.

Suppose Obama wanted to make a point that political dynasties are not a good thing, and to support his case he mentioned that Indira Ghandi was ... well, you know.

I'm sure Jerome would be cool with that.

I'm sure Hillary would be fine with that.

They've been very level-headed, reasonable for months now.

by ClementeR 2008-05-25 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: BO and Friends are singing a different

Good analogy.

by kellogg 2008-05-25 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: BO and Friends are singing a different

Excellent!

by hawkseye 2008-05-26 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: BO and Friends are singing a different

I'm glad you love the Obama's campaign spin Coyote.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 11:53AM | 0 recs
HA! Not me. I thnk this is hysterical

and incredibly stupid.  Which is what I've seen all along from Bo and his supporters.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-25 12:17PM | 0 recs
LOL!!!

AGAIN!

AT YOU!!!!

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL!!!

Kinda not Wiley, eh?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-26 07:40AM | 0 recs
Don't be silly they don't want Bill.

They don't want Bill on the campaign trail  as a uniter or any other way.  This is them sending a message to him, to tell his wife its over before she further destroys your legacy, and makes you remembered as the villians of the Democratic Party.

by Tumult 2008-05-25 12:14PM | 0 recs
Just another attempt to make her quit?

Not going to happen - we go to the convention...with Bill et al right by her side.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-25 12:18PM | 0 recs
Petulant bitchery...

from the folks that gave us Fingergate.

Your feigned outrage is noted.

Why it is so difficult for the Clinton camp to be apologetic is beyond me.

It's just the "Mr. Fuji" defense over and over again.  They hit you, mock Obama followers as cultists, deride his oratory skills(because she doesn't have any and his dwarf Bubba's), propogate one b.s. attack after another(thank you SusanHu and Alegre!) and then turn around with righteous indignity because people stand up to them or hit back.

The sun is setting on the Clinton legacy of mediocrity and duplicity and thank God for that.

by jaywillie 2008-05-25 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: BO and Friends are singing a different

Think it was a slip? Same slip 4 times?
Four days after ABC polled that 59% of Americans feared for Obama's safety, Hillary started talking assassination.

Hillary is brilliant. She practices plausible deniability better than anyone. To understand her you must play close attention. Remember, you are not nearly as smart as she is. Way past the top of her class at Wellesley.

This site has the facts and sources: http://zfacts.com

by zFacts 2008-05-25 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: BO and Friends are singing a different

This comment should not be TR'd.  How sensitive ARE people anyway?  Uprated.

by Montague 2008-05-26 11:28AM | 0 recs
She assassinated her VP chances, Jerome.

Hope this means you're a step closer to accepting Obama as the nominee of the party you purport to belong to.

by Firewall 2008-05-25 11:25AM | 0 recs
Resistance is futile, Jerome...

I like that.. "she destroyed her chances"...

And the spin goes on.. the spin goes on...

by architek 2008-05-25 11:26AM | 0 recs
Got a good laugh from you sigline.

Good thing the primary started on March 4th and not on January 3rd. Oh, wait a minute.....

by edg1 2008-05-25 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Got a good laugh from you sigline.

Oh, wait a minute.. its not over??

Hillary will win the popular vote, and neither candidate will have enough delegates??

WHy is everyone saying it's over??

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Got a good laugh from you sigline.

hahah popular vote, I love the latest meme!!!

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Got a good laugh from you sigline.

Jerome, thanks for this post.  And thanks for the earlier one on the media's treatment of the bitter comments.  And thanks to all the Clinton supporters who spoke up on Obama's behalf by letting America know he didn't mean anything untoward.  I mean, it's not like his opponent took a gaffe (bitter) and tried to exploit it over and over and over again (elitist) (I'll have a beer chaser) (hardworking people, white people) (elitist, looking down their nose) (them us, them us.

And a warning: complaining about the media can get you called a whiner.

by niksder 2008-05-25 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Got a good laugh from you sigline.

I said nothing about it's end date, only it's start date. FAIL!

by edg1 2008-05-25 02:36PM | 0 recs
"Obama Drama Campaign"

No wonder they hate that phrase so much... its true..

by architek 2008-05-25 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: "Obama Drama Campaign"

Hate?  No just find it laughable that you're projecting Hillary's disarray onto probably the most composed and disciplined campaign in US political history.  

by interestedbystander 2008-05-25 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: "Obama Drama Campaign"

Good for Clinton that the DNC has agreed to start counting on March 4th! Is your view of the scoreboard obscured?

by niksder 2008-05-25 12:42PM | 0 recs
Laughable

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-26 05:51AM | 0 recs
Yep, and it's also Karmic (in an awful way)

What works for us Obama lovers today will work against us tomorrow.  Gotcha politics sinks all ships (and we on the left have sunk our fair share of politicians with macaca-gotcha moments played ad infinitum on the web).  

I will say this for the Obama campaign: they largely resist playing the gotcha game, unlike other candidates.  Their response to this last gaffe of Hillary's was muted (far more so than Hillary's response to Obama's bitter gaffe).

But here's the thing: campaign season shouldn't be a gaffe-off.  We all should be voting for the person who is best on policy, not the person who never makes a mistake in front of a microphone.

If we wanted that, we'd elect Mitt Romney president.

by maconblue 2008-05-25 11:26AM | 0 recs
Pot calling the kettel black..

>"I will say this for the Obama campaign: they largely resist playing the gotcha game, unlike other candidates. "

Did you read the diary?

by architek 2008-05-25 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Pot calling the kettel black..

Well, if you've been following the actual story, you would know that the quoted article replaces the word "Unfortunate" with the word denounced, and then fails to mention that Axelrod strongly defended Clinton's statement a few hours later, that Obama didn't comment on it the first day, instead simply praising Clinton in a campaign speech, and then the next day he clearly stated that it was the sort of unfortunate phrasing that anyone under the microscope of a political campaign makes from time to time, and phrased the comment in such a way that if you had somehow missed the tempest in the teapot on Friday, you wouldn't know what Clinton had said, ensuring that his comment couldn't reignite the tempest for anyone.

So merely reading an excerpt from an article in which the culprits attempt to expiate themselves and try to spread the blame onto the Obama campaign (and which misspells "lede") may not be the best basis for understanding what actually happened.

by letterc 2008-05-25 12:16PM | 0 recs
"Unfortunate" ain't gotcha politics.

It's just common sense.  Even Hillary says it's unfortunate.

by maconblue 2008-05-25 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, and it's also Karmic (in an awful way)

Pish posh.

Obama exploits gaffes the way Bush did in his campaign: he allows his surrogates to do the bashing while he plays the good cop, the magnanimous one.

At least Hillary has the guts and temerity to do her own criticizing.

by Juno 2008-05-25 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, and it's also Karmic (in an awful way)

Obama is Bush. The new meme from the deadenders.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, and it's also Karmic (in an awful way)

Hardly new.  I've seen similarities all along.  At least he's much smarter, has not personality disorders (except for narcissism), and has the correct political and social philosophy.

by Juno 2008-05-25 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, and it's also Karmic (in an awful way)

So actually he's nothing like bush at all

Thanks

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-25 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, and it's also Karmic (in an awful way)

what else does the backwash have?  Their candidate said something stupid and now its Obama's fault.

That is some fine logic there Lou!

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, and it's also Karmic (in an awful way)

"Backwash"?

This is how inspired folks who want change and hope and an end of divisive politics refer to other human beings?

Interesting.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, and it's also Karmic (in an awful way)

Juno-
I've been reading your comments and it seems like you try to incite people and then act offended when by their incited responses.  

Comparing Obama to Bush and then getting righteous at another poster seems a bit hypocritical.

I think it's important to know, for the record, that this is the second time Clinton has brought up the RFK analogy (and it is an analogy) not the first.  Even if one accepts the legitimacy of the analogy, and I don't, it's ahistorical.  RFK joined the race in March! His death occurred after 13 primaries!  So, not only is Hillary's comparison illogical and offensive, but it is totally invalid from a historical perspective.

That said, I agree it shouldn't be the end all be all of this election and am happy that Obama and Axlrod have dismissed it. In the wake of Hillary's absurd treatment of the Wright issue, I think it is false to claim she would have done anything except take advantage of a comparable gaffe.  
 

by chrispy 2008-05-25 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, and it's also Karmic (in an awful way)

Change, hope, end of divisive politics.

This is the "new politics'?

This is the "unity"?

I love these new talking points.

Way to stay on message Juno!

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep, and it's also Karmic (in an awful way)

You must be joking

Clinton's use of surrogates to get the dirtiest dirt on Obama out there this season has been nothing short of breathtakingly ugly

You people still on the Clinton train are in la la land already; fine, let her finish the race, I really don't care

She is simply and methodically destroying her own career and reputation, and it isn't really hurting the democratic nominee for president

by fightbull 2008-05-25 12:26PM | 0 recs
"Unfortunate" does not = bashing

See Hillary on "bitter" for bashing.  And as for Obama as Bush, the comparison is just too fatuous to warrant reply.

by maconblue 2008-05-25 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

What's so ironic is that, Michelle Obama is correct: Americans are mean. They're mean to others, they're mean to each other, and the press is no exception.

This was about nothing more than continuing to beat up on one woman for the pure sport of it.

And Michelle Obama has gotten beaten up about her comment too.

It's the Mean Season in America.

by Juno 2008-05-25 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Very good point. I'm sorry that you are just now realizing what many of us knew all along.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-25 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

What in my post indicates to you that I'm just now realizing it?

Btw, I wrote a letter to Jeff Jacoby today in defense of Michelle Obama and in response to his current column, which can be read at realpolitics.com, despite the fact that I don't support Obama.  But I'm sick of people willfully distorting and applying their own negative meaning to things other people say.

When was the last time you think an Obama supporter wrote a letter in defense of Sen. Clinton?

Obamans are full o' eet.

by Juno 2008-05-25 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Actually, I'm an Obama supporter who has more than once defended Clinton and criticized Obama supporters, including the grandparent. Do I count?

by pneuma 2008-05-25 02:39PM | 0 recs
Karma's a bitch

I wonder if Senator Clinton regrets pouncing all over bitter-gate and going on and on about it for days and days.

She even made political ads based on it....

You reap what you sow.

and FYI.. IMO both these incidents are silly nonsense

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-25 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Karma's a bitch

then what you're saying is that Obama is NOT about change.

So he's lying???

by Juno 2008-05-25 11:39AM | 0 recs
He didn't say that...

...but I'll give this attempt at word-mouth stuffing a 2/10. You'd have scored higher if you'd worked in an imaginary scandal or two.

by Firewall 2008-05-25 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: He didn't say that...

Au contraire.

Clinton isn't running on ending politics-as-usual.

I may disagree with her and I may not like such tacitcs, but I expect them from her, and I have a certain amount of realism about the fact that nice doesn't work in American politics.

But Obama and his supporters love to trumpet all the time about how anti-all-that he is. So to try to create a good-for-the-gander-what's-good-for-the- goose argument ain't gonna fly.

It negates Obama's raisin d'etre.  It does not Hillary's.

by Juno 2008-05-25 11:49AM | 0 recs
I'm not trumpeting anything.

And my candidate isn't the one trying to change the rules midstream.

Better luck in 2016.

by Firewall 2008-05-25 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not trumpeting anything.

True.

He's just trying to win a la Bush in '00: by NOT counting votes.

by Juno 2008-05-25 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not trumpeting anything.

Oh dear God, not this crap again.  Please can we have just one diary without it?

by interestedbystander 2008-05-25 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not trumpeting anything.

What a pile of bs that is.

by herenow 2008-05-25 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not trumpeting anything.

Bush was trying to not count votes in Florida that could change the outcome of the race.  

The votes you accuse Obama of not counting can not change the outcome.  

Not to mention the caucus votes HRC supporters try not to count.  You know, the ones which already have changed the outcome?

by semiquaver 2008-05-25 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Karma's a bitch

Please compare how Hillary and her campaign handled bittergate to how Obama and his campaign handle the JFK issue?  Is it even close?

by hootie4170 2008-05-25 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Karma's a bitch

This is a complete non sequitur.

by letterc 2008-05-25 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Karma's a bitch

For real.

Cry me a river, Jerome.

I don't recall any Clinton supporters wringing their hands over how the media jumped all over the bitter comment.

Oh wait, that's because Hillary and her surrogates incorporated it into their speeches the very same day and didn't let up until after Pennsylvania.

Remember, kids: any Obama gaffe is proof that he is an elitist who is dangerously unready for the bright lights of a national campaign. Any Clinton gaffe is the work of the insidious media twisting her words unfairly.

Really, if the race weren't all but over I'd be outraged. Now I just roll my eyes and think, "Whatever gets you through June 3."

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-25 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Karma's a bitch

They put out ads too.

Here's the link for those who have short memories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZO4ktKHf RQ

Hillary's Pennsylvania ads were something special.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 12:28PM | 0 recs
Fortunately Obama's remarks have never ...

been leapt upon by a willing competitor's campaign or the news media.  Think where we'd be if someone had highlighted "bitter" or "57 states" or "face scratching".  Whew, Obama has been lucky no one noticed any of those.

by edg1 2008-05-25 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Fortunately Obama's remarks have never ...

C'mon, no Clinton supporter would do that. Jeez, that would be like examining his kindergarten records or researching his wife's school thesis. There's just not that much tinfoil around.

by catilinus 2008-05-25 03:29PM | 0 recs
Bill will try to reunite the party

Because there is nothing President Clinton loves more than to be adored. Reuniting the party will allow him to be front and center once again. People will be walking  up to him imploring him to save the Democratic Party - and he will believe that only he can do it. And that's what he will do.  

by highgrade 2008-05-25 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill will try to reunite the party

Exactly. What I got from Obama's remarks about Clinton was that he was stroking Bill's ego. That will make Bill happy and he'll feel appreciated and be willing to help in the election. I think they'll know how to talk to him.

by Becky G 2008-05-25 12:13PM | 0 recs
Hey Jerome

I agree.  And I've said all along Hillary's comment was clearly not what it was being made out to be.

That said, you should've done the same thing with the "Bitter" comment and Michelle's "proud" comment, rather than doing exactly what you just accused others in the media of doing.  It was shameful then as well.

by SpanishFly 2008-05-25 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey Jerome

Yep. Clinton demonstrated the definition of "gotcha" politics, and based her entire PA campaign on the "bitter" kerfuffle. Clinton's RFK remark was simply thoughtless, as was Obama's bitter remark. But Jerome, my friend, look at the two camps' responses...Clinton swayed in the back of a pickup truck, pounded shots of whiskey and dropped the g's on the ends of her words while making incredible, mock-indignant hay of Obama's gaffe. Obama simply quickly said he believed her, and even defended her by sympathizing with how tiring this campaigning is.

I usually avoid your posts, because they lose all credibility in their extreme pro-Clinton, anti-Obama  view. But, as a self-proclaimed Democrat, are you ever going to look at Obama with even slightly objective eyes? Because he is going to be our next President, and your blog just serves to undermine him in this election.

by magnoliagirl 2008-05-25 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism
What does happen though, is that any the response by the candidate, or others in the media, quickly establishes, within a day or two, the validity of the story.

Exactly.  Which is why the initial response by the Obama campaign was so impressive.  Even with the media trying to stoke a controversy, they issued a totally tepid statement and then, within hours, were on the air defending Hillary.  I'm very proud of how they handled this.
by map 2008-05-25 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

so why were they circulating the dumb KO special comment ?

by lori 2008-05-25 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

because that is what they do in campaigns.  We are not baking cookies here this is a fight for the nomination.  Hillary put a gift right in Obama's lap and he took the appropriate measure.  

Personally I would have milked it for what it is worth, but I understand why Obama held back.

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

I'd rather they didn't.  All this will be over in less than two weeks, so if the campaign was circulating that I'd condemn that action.

What is true without a doubt in my mind is that the initial response that the remarks were "unfortunate" was incredibly mild and his campaign did defend her publically after context was provided.  Trying to lay the blame for this on Obama is pathetic.

by map 2008-05-25 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

"Trying to lay the blame for this on Obama is pathetic."

Yep.

And, by the way, were's the proof the Obama Campaign is circulating the Olbermann video?  Just because someone here says it doesn't mean it's true.  I hadn't heard this.

Also, the Olbermann Special Comment condemned her for not having the smarts to avoid using the words she used given the obvious danger Obama is in.  Frankly, I agree.  I don't think Hillary meant she "hopes someone does it" like many but I do think her sloppy use of language was dangerous and Keith was right to call her out.

by SpanishFly 2008-05-25 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Yeah, I agree with the KO Special Comment, but I don't think the Obama campaign should be circulating it. I've seen it mentioned in a news article but it didn't say at what level it was being circulated.  For all I know, no-name-staffer-01 sent out an email.

by map 2008-05-25 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Jerome, what are you going to do after Obama is officially the nominee?  Your articles and "graphs" now only pander to the HI44 crowd...  

Which gets you a traffic spike for now, but do you really think such a specific demographic will continue to be viable to support this site?  

You should have a conversation with "Admin", maybe together you could get started on HI45.com, or even CI47.com...

by dkm201 2008-05-25 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Gee, another Obama concern troll...

Jerome and we will be just fine, thanks.  

Even better without you.

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 11:56AM | 0 recs
Let's have a pity party.

Poor Hillary. A victim of the media.

Poor poor thing.

I am sure it never happened to anyone else, nor that anyone would expect such things over controversial statemenst like, 'clinging to gun and god' or the 'assasination of RFK'.

Her comment was tasteless at best.

by missliberties 2008-05-25 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

Did you read the article?  THE WHOLE THING WAS MANIPULATED.

Wait 'til they throw stuff like this at Obama.  Maybe then you won't be so nonchalant.

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

We don't have to wait.  We've had Wright and Bitter, situations that Hillary exploited for weeks after.

by map 2008-05-25 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

apples and oranges.

A more apt analogy is what the GOP is trying to do with Michelle Obama's "proud" comment.

Wright is a legitimate issue and a real problem, and Obama was making a broad judgment about a huge bloc of voters, not recalling a timeline and truthful historic event.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

Unlike you guys we are not afraid of the Republicans.  I can understand why you are, because how you whittled under them in past elections, but we are going to take McCain and his ilk to task.  

We are not afraid, why are you?

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

I know why you're not afraid.

It's because Obama has had the media watching his back the whole time the GOP was throwing little stuff like Wright and Ayers at you.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

thanks for your concern, now watch from the sidelines like your candidate and see how real politicians deal with republicans.

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

Like Kerry and Gore did?

Obama has gotten flustered everytime he's faced the slightest challenge, and it isn't anything compared to what's coming his way.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:31PM | 0 recs
As I recall,

Al Gore won his election.

by Shem 2008-05-25 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

We're afraid of Republicans?????

What a curious thing to say!

Obamans have BECOME like republicans. Icky ick.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

thank you!

now run along sweetie and let the adults have a discussion here.

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

Does that mean you're leaving, "sweetie"?  Now go and play outside.

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

no sweatpea that means we are going all the way to the White House with the NEW first family.

Thanks for playing and come again!

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

You Obamans really don't get this whole change/hope/inspiration thing, do you?

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

sorry I don't have any for people like you or your ilk!  You want that type of compassion look to Jesus.

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

Think he got the "sweetie" from Obama?

I think it's so amusing that they've taken on the vitriolic hate toward the Clintons that Republicans had during the '90s, many even coming right out and saying the Repubs were right, yet they get all offended when you point it out.

And they're going to unite people! ROFL!

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

sorry but voice your concern at

http://www.johnmccain.com

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

Hide rated. Congratulations on taking the bait and making actual Obama supporters look like sexist assholes.

Don't feed the trolls.

by letterc 2008-05-25 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

And the flag pin and Ayers.  However, another good equivalent was the "Dean scream".  I saw that as it happened and thought nothing of it. Then when I saw how the media had cut out everything except the scream part it made him look crazy and effectively ended his campaign. That was sad but it does happen in many campaigns. It has happened to Obama but he is too skilled to let them bring him down. That's one reason I don't worry about him. One reason it resonated when Clinton made the RFK comments is that she is seen as a person who will do or say anything to get elected. Otherwise it no one would have interpreted it the way they did.

by Becky G 2008-05-25 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

MMmmm..Becky. Smart.  

It was supposed to be exactly like the Dean Scream, but seems like John Harris has had second thoughts about the lynching.

Do you wonder just how people got the idea "She will do anything to get elected?"

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

The RFK example was in no way analogous to HRC's behavior in this campaign.

1.  The first primary in 1968 was March 12.  When Gene McCarthy came in a close second, the sitting president, LBJ, dropped out.

2.  Then RFK and Hubert Humphrey announced their candidacies.

3.  There were only 13 primaries that year.  

4.  The California primary was held in June, as it has been up until this year, and of course represented lots of votes.  RFK won it and then was assasinated.

5.  The Democratic convention was masterminded and gavelled by Mayor Richard Daily of Chicago.  Humphrey was basically chosen by maneuvering, despite the fact that he supported the war and neither of the other two candidacies which together held the majority of the delegate votes represented pro-war stands.

6.  The discord of this campaign was reflected in violent riots in the streets outside the convention, violent largely because of the behavior of the Chicago cops.

7.  The outcome of this was that many Democrats voted for Nixon, who promised to end the war.

8.  Nixon won.

Do you and Jerome still consider this analogy apt?

6.  

by texasobserver 2008-05-25 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

Photobucket

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's have a pity party.

Someone recently said....

"If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" and other sort of stuff.

Well...

by telfishbackagain 2008-05-25 12:03PM | 0 recs
Mentioning an assasination as

a time reference for how long to stay in a campaign, where you opponent is a black man is beyond tasteless.

People were outraged with good reason. They should be.

The only reason Clinton isn't being excoriated is her husband is an ex-president and people are willing to somewhat give her the benefit of the doubt.

by missliberties 2008-05-25 12:05PM | 0 recs
Kennedy are outraged


http://www.nypost.com/seven/05252008/new s/nationalnews/kennedys_feel_bobby_socke d_112469.htm

Looks like the NY Post wants to milk their scoop as much as they can. It was a mistake. She comitted a blunder.

The MSM and the gotcha politics they peddle will not go away.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Jerome said:
"There's no going back; this 24/7 uncontextual 'gotcha' type of politics is here to stay. What does happen though, is that any the response by the candidate, or others in the media, quickly establishes, within a day or two, the validity of the story. Here, there is none at all, and aside from viewing it as a specimen of the day's catch, it fades away."

Blame Clinton then.  She effectively hit Obama on several "gotcha" moments.  Luckily Obama is one of the strongest candidates we've ever fielded, so he was able to reverse the issue and make it a positive, but Clinton hitting him on stupid nonsense issues certainly didn't help things.

Oh well, it made him stronger, so in a way, I guess we can thank Clinton for the weak BS gotcha politics she thought she had to use to defeat her opponent.

by RussTC3 2008-05-25 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Yeah, Russ, that mean, mean Hillary started it. But that gallant Obama resisted it until he was FORCED to respond.

That about summarize it for you?

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Clinton wasn't being "mean" as you say.  She was just being a typical old-style politician using weak tactics because she realized she can't win any other way.

Obama's not a wimp, he fought back aggressively and turned the negatives into positives.

by RussTC3 2008-05-25 12:22PM | 0 recs
Exactly

Look at the whole white voter issue.  Obama has no trouble winning white voters outside of Appalachia.  Yet, Senator Clinton and her media supporters (CNN can you hear me), spin endlessly on and on and on over Obama's bitter comment and how he can not win white voters anywhere.

And if you notice, Sen. Obama himself has not jumped all over her, as she did on his bitter comment.  He has shown the restraint that he said he would.  Sen. Clinton just wants to return to the politics of the 1990s, and I, and many Obama supporters, never want to go back there.

by monkeyga 2008-05-25 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

Obama went into the politics of the '90's from the very beginning.  He was out there from the beginning with personal attacks which played off and reinforced all the character assassination of Hillary by the Right for fifteen years.

He and/or his campaign blanketed big states with false negative mailers and radio ads which described Hillary and her campaign as "disingenuous," "divisive," "untruthful," "dishonest," "polarizing," "calculating," "saying whatever it takes to win," "attempting to deceive the American people," "one of the most secretive in America," "deliberately misleading," "literally willing to do anything to win," "cold" "playing politics with war"  y0ou name it.

Obama supporters just never seem to realize or admit it happened, and they liked it.

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

None of that is "gotcha" politics.

by letterc 2008-05-25 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

Uh, no, this RFK bullshit is.

The "Hillary is dissing MLK" is.

The "Bill played the race card in SC with Jesse Jackson" is.

The "Hillary in Tuszla never faced sniperfire" is.

The "Hillary said Blacks are not hardworking" is.

All of these contributed to by the OBama campaign and pushed by their media moles at Politico, NBC and MSNBC, among many others.

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

Errr, Florida and Ohio and Pennsylvania are in Appalachia?

Obama was trounced by Clinton among White voters in all these huge states..

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

Florida isn't, but Ohio and Pennsylvania have significant chunks of Appalachia in them. Surely you know this?

by letterc 2008-05-25 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

Ohio is in Appalachia?  Maybe some small part of it, certainly not a large part.  Pennsylvania is a stretch, too, being at the very northern tip of it.

And Florida for sure is not.  And how about Texas, Arkansas, Indiana?  Hillary beat Obama big among Whites here, too.

My point, that Hillary's strength among Whites extends far beyond the main Appalachia states of West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama, stands.

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

Actually, Clinton's strength with white voters extends all across the South (except Virginia). It is just more notable in Appalachia because there aren't very many black people in Appalachia (and Appalachia extends Southern anti-black hostility up into northern states). So you are right that the comment you replied to neglected to mention that Obama also does badly among white people in a region where white people have overwhelmingly voted against Democratic presidential candidates since Nixon made the Republicans the party of racists (the Southern Strategy).

However, on the question of whether Pennsylvania and Ohio are part of Appalachia, perhaps you'd like to take up the question with the Appalachian Regional Commission, whose authority covers the region shown here:
map of Appalachia, showing that the majority of Pennsylvania is Appalachian, and that a broad swath of Ohio is Appalachia as well

by letterc 2008-05-25 01:18PM | 0 recs
Here's the deal-

Memorial Day analogy for you guys:

If you light the grill, and keep adding lighter fluid to the fire, the fire will get big.  If you spill the fuel on yourself and stick your hand over the grill, you're liable to get burned yourself.

-Reverend Wright "He wouldn't have been MY pastor"
-Bittergate (see the COUNTLESS ads she ran, and the number of times she brought it up)
-Mark Penn-isms "That's change you can Xerox!"
-Rezko (despite complete exoneration
-"Fairy tale"
-Waaahh he flicked me off (with two fingers???)

Obama sat there and deflected, sometimes at peril to his polling that day, without firing back at Clinton.  When she called him an elitist in PA, he didn't point out her $109 million fortune and Yale degree.  When she made fun of Reverend Wright, he didn't bring up Lewinsky.

And now the tables are turned.  Obama, a class act as usual, didn't push this.  He forgave her and blew it off in the media. Axlerod defended her.  And all the Clintonites here whine about the media is on Barack's side (sniffle) and how this is gotcha politics (sniffle).

Forgive me, but you've made you bed.  Enjoy lying in it.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-25 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the deal-

Unity!

Change!

End of division!

Woo hoo!

by Juno 2008-05-25 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the deal-

I'm for all of the above.

But I am not going to sit around and watch people try to destroy my candidate (and, if you're a real Democrat, probably your candidate as well).  People throw everything in the world at someone that they happen to believe is "unelectable" without stopping to think about WHY.  It's no different than watching the Fox anchors recite talking points sometime.

I take comfort in the fact that MyDD is probably the place where we see the worst of this.  Alegre doesn't represent Democrats, or women, any more than some of the die-hard Obamaites represent Democrats, or women.  Most of them do NOT think the way she, and her posse here, does.  If I had to equate, I would say Alegre represents the view of a Clinton campaign worker.  Of COURSE she's not for Obama.  

But that doesn't mean I have to sit on my hands and be quiet just because Obama is.  I don't have to listen to this without responding.  I don't rep any campaign, I can say what I want.

I'm for Unity.
I'm for Change.
I'm not for the "end of division" because I don't think there really is one.  I think there will be a lot of hand-wringing and apologies from both sides in a month, and then again when we win BIG in November with Obama.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-25 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the deal-

No, you're not.

Obamans are all for change and hope and unity...until they decide they aren't.

I don't know one person who doesn't rationalize attacking others, and I'd be okay with obamans doing the same if they'd just be honest about it and stop the change/hope/unity crap.

It reminds me of Bush insisting we do not torture while signing orders to torture.

Good grief.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:15PM | 0 recs
"Obamans"

Let me know when you can hold a discussion without diminutive nicknames.

by Shem 2008-05-25 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the deal-

I agree with you, I'm for unity as well but we're not going to ever convince someone not bound by logic in their hatred.  The only thing acceptable to certain people here would be for all of us Obama supporters to just pack up and leave.

This person finds every thread and injects something negative about Obama or his supporters into it. There are several here the same way.  And then they come back later in the thread and say "Obamakins are mean and hateful".  Sheesh, it's an endless circle of hate.

Don't bother.  Let them have their forum, leave them be, and in November they can figure out for themselves whether they want to vote for a pro-life, 100 year war guy like McCain or for Obama.  Those are the two real choices and if they vote McCain, they never stood for anything Hillary believes in.

by SpanishFly 2008-05-25 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the deal-

Hmmmmmmmmm....

but it's different when Obama supporters are negative toward Clinton.

got it.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the deal-

Is there a way to flag someone a troll here?

by SpanishFly 2008-05-25 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the deal-

The talking points again Juno?

Unity!

Change!

WOOT! WOOT!

You really don't have anything else do you?

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the deal-

I don't need anything else.

It's what Obama has run on.

Makes it a pretty substantive point, therefore, seems to me.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the deal-

How many McCain points have you racked up?

Please read the comments made by this troll.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the deal-

Ooo, that nice nice Obama!  The class act!  He deflected, he genuflected, he never did get his hands dirty, did he?

Obama supporters make me laugh, too.

Juno, you got them pegged to a "t"!!

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the deal-

heh heh I just burns inside knowing the Clintons got out hustled by the Negro!!!!

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 12:08PM | 0 recs
Wonderful

I couldn't have said it better myself.

by monkeyga 2008-05-25 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the deal-

Man,you guys have really bought a load of BS.

I remember being amazed at how so many bought Bush's BS about being so compassionate and such a nice guy too.

Americans, as a culture, are so naive.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's the deal-

Oh please... considering all you do is post ignorant, crybaby troll nonsense.. you don't have a leg to stand on.

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-25 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Where was this post during "bittergate"?

by Bobby Obama 2008-05-25 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Here's Hillary playing 'gotcha' journalism when Kerry botched his joke in 2006.

From the NY Times:

Mr. Kerry's prepared remarks to California students on Monday called for him to say, "Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush." In his delivery, he dropped the word "us."

Democrats came out strongly against him. Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., who is running for an open Senate seat in Tennessee, said Mr. Kerry was "wrong to say what he did," and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York called Mr. Kerry's remarks inappropriate.

How dare she call the words "inappropriate".  Such incendiary language.

by map 2008-05-25 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

That should be required reading. I'd mojo you a thousand times of I could.

Here's someone who pandered to the cameras by throwing Kerry under the bus, yet now she's a victim.

Clinton has never showed mercy for anyone else's slip-ups. She has never been gracious about it, or stuck up for them in their time of need. To the contrary, she's followed the tired Souljah pattern of selling out other Democrats to build up her own bona fides. If it wasn't Kerry, it was Obama and "bittergate."

And now Clinton supporters here are just so angry at the system and Obama himself for how mean people are being to poor Hillary.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-25 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

I think it's time somebody compiled a list of all the times Hillary has used Gotcha politics to advance her agenda.

It would be a nice long read.

mojo'd.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 12:18PM | 0 recs
Hillary and Jerome don't get it

I don't get your post. Are you saying because the media did not call her on it in March that it is OK to invoke Bobby Kennedy's Assassination as a rational for staying in the race?

Are you saying the 24/7 media got her, when she has been saying this since March?

Are you saying since there was no uproar when she said it in March, she should be allowed to continue saying it?

What the hell are you even talking about?

By the way, Hillary's non-apology apology, similar to how she handled the Geraldine Ferraro uproar, shows she does not get it.  She's sorry if I'm offended?

Well Chelsea's mom's a bitch. I'm sorry if she's offended by that statement.

by erlin 2008-05-25 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

Wow.  

Talk about selective understanding.

Go read the story posted above.

IT WAS ALL MADE UP.

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

Oh, whew! Thanks for explaining it to me.

I guess my jaw didn't drop when I read her comments. Thanks for pointing out how all us "dumb folk" Obama supporters were so easily brainwashed by the media. We'd never know what to think if it weren't for people like you and Jerome shining your light in the thickets.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-25 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

Yes, because she was obviously just noting a timeline and it shouldn't have offended anyone, but the faux outrage folks (used to be FOX and Repubs!) saw an opening.

Sigh.

It's been open season on her for a long time, but this country is too full of mean and misogyny to be ashamed of it.

The one with the cult following wins now, which is really scary.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

You're actually suggesting that it's misogynist to criticize Clinton's own words? I believe there has been media sexism in this campaign, but it's not a one-size-fits-all defense and at a certain point it just sounds like crying wolf.

And I especially like how you criticize our "mean" country right before calling Obama supporters cultists. I can always count on MyDD for my daily dose of irony.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-25 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

If it walks like a duck...

I don't think it's mean to note that the Obama phenom has in fact taken on a lot of cult-like traits, which it has.  In fact, I think of it more as a warning because that kind of thinking is dangerous.

Anyhoo, I'm certainly not the first or only to notice it. It's pretty prevalent.  And as is always the case, the cult members just don't see it.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

You are truly pathetic to make a comment like that.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-05-25 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

This person is trolling.

Check out the comments he's made.

McCain points!

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 12:32PM | 0 recs
HAHAHA

The only cult is the dead-enders still pushing "our girl"... and using every excuse in the book to explain why it's not fair that she lost.

And considering how many of them claim they will vote for McCain.... that just screams "cult of personality"

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-25 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

Look. This passive agressive B.S. you've been playing on this thread is getting annoying.

Obama does not have a cult.

Nothing is "scary".

Trolling if I ever saw it.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

Like I said, people with a cult mentality are never aware of it and deny it.

I'm hardly passive aggressive, btw. I'm quite direct.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

Obama members are always called "cultists," but Hillary supporters are somehow not, which is baffling to me. If anything, it's the Hillary die-hards who have become bitter, and cling to the notion that She is the Chosen One, sent from above to rescue us heathens from the Sure Destruction that comes from nominating anyone else.

My feeling about the Clintons and their die-hards at this point is the same as what Hillary said about working class white voters in the South when they weren't voting the way she wanted: "Screw 'em."

by Geiiga 2008-05-25 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

Thanks.  Screw you, too.  Typical Obama cult ending.

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

btw, Obama is very passive-aggressive.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:49PM | 0 recs
She was noting an invalid timeline.

Which is just another lie.

Jumping on the assassination was just a nice headline to pull people in, nothing more to it than a pursuit of ratings. Letting her consistently get away with misleading examples and outright lies is another media failure.

Misogyny and cult following in the same comment nice.

by Tumult 2008-05-25 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

Notice it's still perfectly okay to call women bitches?

Imagine the reaction if someone were to refer to Obama as the "N" word.

'Nuff said.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

It's ok to call women bitches?

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?

What the hell is wrong with you!?!?

I'm thinking you're a troll.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

She's been routinely called one, and clearly the person who made the original post here didn't pause or refrain from doing so.
But you're shrieking at me???

Hmm...

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

Don't feed the trolls.

by letterc 2008-05-25 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

You do understand that calling women bitches would be comparable to calling men bastards not the "N" word, don't you?  And of the two words you would have less outrage about bastard.  But thanks for playing.

by Tumult 2008-05-25 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

Well...wrong.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

Don't feed the trolls.

That said, you are wrong on many levels. Bitch and Bastard are not equivalents. Bastard is not gender specific and is not dehumanizing. Additionally, power relations matter a lot in interpreting the meaning and significance of insults. A man calling a woman a bitch is enforcing misogynist gender rules. Someone calling someone else a bastard is not.

by letterc 2008-05-25 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

I guess it is based on personal opinion.  I have heard it used as the male gender specific version of bitch.

One definition of bastard:

3 a: an offensive or disagreeable person --used as a generalized term of abuse b: man, fellow

And the most similar of bitch:

2 a: a lewd or immoral woman b: a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman --sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse

While the description used for bitch is harsher than that for bastard, my usage, and understanding of others usage within my hearing, has always that they were gender specific insults for a disagreeable person.  But can it really ever be considered comparable to the historic use of the "N" word?

And I am not aware of, any use of the word bitch, that is enforcing misogynist gender rules.

by Tumult 2008-05-25 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

No, I agree that it really isn't equivalent to the N word. I think the C word would probably be a closer equivalent.

Assertiveness in women frequently gets labeled as bitchiness. The idea that it is unacceptable for women to be assertive is a misogynist gender rule.

by letterc 2008-05-25 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Jerome don't get it

Jerome's conclusion was incoherent.

But your gratuitous "bitch" insult is just plain wrong.

by demondeac 2008-05-25 12:44PM | 0 recs
Sorry!

You are right about that being gratuitous and I will apologize for it.  It was meant to make a point that an apology is meaningless as phrased by Senator Clinton, but ended up showing how stupid I am.

I also was making a play on a South Park song, but that seems lost on a few people (OK, everyone ). So it was something stupid that I thought some people would think was funny and others would just ignore. However, I think I have really offended some people, and that I am truly sorry about.

by erlin 2008-05-25 07:32PM | 0 recs
What comes around goes around

Let's see Hillary unleashes on the "bittergate" comments in PA, says that Obama's only qualification (unlike McSame and hers) is a 2002 antiwar speech, claims that her supporters are the white working class which is why Pat Buchanan is orgasmic over her, and has surrogates like Ferraro trying to claim that Obama is only an affirmative action beneficiary, and now she and her supporters want a free pass on her ghoulish reference to the RFK assassination. I don't think so.

Hillary Clinton had a 25 point national lead on January 1st 2008, had a 30 million dollar cash on hand advantage, had national name recognition, had a beloved former president as her spouse and chief campaign advocate, had 100 superdelegates already come out for her, and she had no problems with disenfranchising FL and MI because she WAS CONVINCED SHE WOULD HAVE WON BY FEBRUARY 5TH.

She knew that there was only metric that resulted in the Dem. nomination -- delegates. It's always and only about the delegates. Not popular vote, not swing state results, not electoral vote calculation six months before the election. Just delegates.

She has lost fair & square. She would have made a very good president I do not doubt that. But her campaign made a few tactical mistakes which she could not recover from i.e. conceding the caucus states, running on experience instead of change, not apologizing for the AUMF 2002 vote, etc.  She is free to get out whenever she wants. However, if she continues to invoke the nightmare of assassinations as the justification for staying, she risks being more than caricatured. She risks becoming a pitiful figure.

by chatters71 2008-05-25 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: What comes around goes around

Metrics, for Obama supporters, come and go.

Now "it's always been about the delegates".

Which delegates, pledged or super?

Do you even know that there are over 200 Superdelgates who have not yet reached a decision?  And that any Superdelegate can change their mind at any time? And that Obama NEVER GOT the number of elected pledged delegates he needed to close Hillary out?

Tell me about those metrics again, Mommy.  I love bedtime stories.

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: What comes around goes around

Photobucket

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 12:13PM | 0 recs
Did you know pledged delegates can swap

at any time?

I'm holding out for the inevitable GRAVELANCHE!

Seriously, the only reason supers and pledgies are going to swap now is if a major scandal occurs. The campaigning is essentially superfluous other than party building - which Hillary is counteracting by sowing division between the two camps.

Hillary can keep up her oppo research and release any October surprises early for the supers to look over, but this effort at trying to solidify her supporters enmity towards Obama is getting tedious.

by grass 2008-05-25 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: What comes around goes around

He only needs 52.  There are 111 remaining pledged delegates.

by semiquaver 2008-05-25 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: What comes around goes around

No he never got the pledged delegates to close Hillary out for pledged + superdelegates.  Without superdelegates this race would be over already.  He has the majority of pledged delegates and has already won the race by that metric.  She has no argument that does not require Superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate winner  this includes if you fully seat Florida, and any realistic scenario of seating Michigan.

Which is the big irony, for all her calls of Democracy and counting the votes, it is the Superdelegates she needs to overturn the election.
The Pledged Delegate race has been essentially over since Texas/Ohio.  See how you have been lied to and ripped off now?  She could have stopped campaigning in March and still been in the same situation she is today;  asking the Party Elite to overturn the elections and install her as the nominee.   (snark) It is Democracy she has been asking for!(snark)

by Tumult 2008-05-25 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: What comes around goes around

"Without superdelgates this race would be over already"

Yeah, and without undemocratic caucuses and with winner-take-all rules this race would have been over for months and Hillary would have been the overwhelming nominee.  Oh, and if Obama or Hillary had never declared there would not be a race, or of a meteor had hit the Earth either.

"She has no argument that does not require Superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate winner this includes if you fully seat Florida, and any realistic scenario of seating Michigan."

No, sorry.  That's pure Obama bullshit.  There's no "overturning" involved.  Pledged delegates have all but finished their job, and did not elect a candidate.  Period.

Superdelegates have no obligation to even look at what the pledged delegate count was if it's not decisive.  It then just gets to be another "metric", like the popular vote won, the big states won, the swing states won, whatever the Superdelegate chooses to use as a metric or criterion.

The pledged delegate race is nowhere near over.  Over 4000 pledged delegates have been awarded, under wildly different scenarios, and there will exist maybe a 100 pledged delegate difference after PR, Montana, and SD.  

It's a virtual tie, well within any margin of error, to any impartial observer, and the Superdelegates' job will be to break that tie to the strongest candidate, and we know who she is.

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: What comes around goes around

So...if we were Republicans, Hillary would be the nominee.

I think that's the point the Obama folk have been trying to make for a while.

by Geiiga 2008-05-25 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: What comes around goes around

When your talking about real numbers, there is no margin of error.

And the Superdelegates job cannot be to break a tie that does not exist.  Based on pledged delegates Obama has a majority, which is a win.  The addition of superdelegates  allows for a diffrent outcome, but any outcome other than Obama, is having the party elite overturn the pledged delegate winner.

We have not had 4000 pledged Delegates awarded, total pledged Delegates is 3253. It does not even come close to 4000 with Michigan and Florida added in.  So that number is wrong under any scenario that exists.

Obama has 1658 Pledged Delegates, which is in excess of 50% of the 3253 Pledged Delegate total.

It is only with the 797  Super Delegates added in that the number to win is brought up to 2026.  If they evenly split the superdelegates he has won.  She needs the superdelegates to hand her a victory over the person with the majority of pledged delegates.

Without any Super Delegates the number to win would be 1627, Obama has 1658.

These numbers are based on RealClearPolitics.  You can find slightly different numbers in different locations, but the outcome is the same.

by Tumult 2008-05-25 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: What comes around goes around

There has not beena single superdelegate who has switched from Obama to Hillary. We now that there have been a handful of Hillary SDs who have switched to Obama.

Obama has won the pledged delegate majority. After June 3rd the remaining SDs will be sure to put him over the top.

Hillary is becoming the Democratic Huckabee -- the Huckster making a bad Obama being shot joke at the NRA and now Hillary's RFK mark.

Where was Hillary during "Bittergate" -- oh yeah. Front and center calling Obama an elitist. Obama at least has class.

We need to turn our attention to defeating McCain and getting out of Iraq.FOr the last four months Obama supporters have seen Hillary as the enemy and Clinton supporters see Obama as the enemy. The real opponent is McCain & Bush.

by chatters71 2008-05-25 02:32PM | 0 recs
I'm sorry, but referencing Kennedy

as an example of a primary carrying on into June is just about as stupid as it gets, especially when there are other examples (although.. well, no examples with a successful Democratic win as the outcome...).

Oh, and the whole Bill Clinton campaigning into June is a masterful twisting of the truth.

Her entire answer was awful, and I'm actually impressed her campaign they're spinning this to get sympathy for the big bad gotcha politics of the Obama campaign.

by grass 2008-05-25 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism
For a candidate who supposedly has the nomination all sewn up, Obama and his hitman Axelrod are manufacturing enough outrage to rebalance the trade deficit.  For them to persist in fanning the flames after RFK's own son has defended Senator Clinton is beyond despicable.  I know it's impossible for you to conceive, Barack, but you are not the center of the universe.  It's actually possible for someone to make a statement that has nothing to do with you.
***A
by adrienne4dean 2008-05-25 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Obamans win like Repubs do: ugly and without class.

(another thing they have in common).

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:16PM | 0 recs
Hugs.

xoxoxox

by grass 2008-05-25 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Yes, Axelrod defending Clinton on TV is a perfect example of "fanning the flames". Yes, absolutely. No, you're not crazy at all.

by Cochrane 2008-05-25 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Defending publicly, attacking privately like to conniving, Rovian bunch they are.  What do you call Obama's campaign sending copies of Olbermann's crazed look-at-me-I'm-so-special comment out to reporters -- peacemaking?

**A

by adrienne4dean 2008-05-25 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Jesus this is politics.  What do you think they are doing baking cookies?  Clinton put a gift in Obama's lap and he took the appropriate measures.  I personally would have milked this for what it is worth, but I also understand why Obama held back a bit.

Clinton is lucky she is not going against a republican.

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

So now Obama IS about politics as usual.

Hard to keep up with Obamathink.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

hahah if you think Obama is going to lay down and let Hillary get away with BS then maybe you should go outside and take a breather.  This primary season is getting to you

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

i was addressing your "This is politics"

Obamans go back and forth on when "politics" is acceptable (when Obama is playing them) and when they are not (when Clinton is).

by Juno 2008-05-25 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Can you substantiate that accusation?

by letterc 2008-05-25 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Please provide evidence of this. Thanks so much!

by Cochrane 2008-05-25 01:04PM | 0 recs
Delighted (from observer5's diary)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ 05/25/clinton-defends-rfk-remarks/

George Stephanopoulos, the host of ABC's "This Week," asked David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's top strategist, about the e-mail:

Mr. Stephanopoulos: You say you're not trying to stir the issue up.  But a member of your press staff yesterday was sending around to an
entire press list -- I have the e-mail here -- Keith Olbermann's searing commentary against Hillary Clinton. So that is stirring this
up, isn't it?"

Mr. Axelrod: "Well, Mr. Olbermann did his commentary and he had his opinion. But as far as we're concerned."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But your campaign was sending it around."

Mr. Axelrod: "As far as we're concerned, George, as far as we're concerned, this issue is done. It was an unfortunate statement, as we said, as she's acknowledged. She has apologized. The apology, you know, is accepted. Let's move forward."

Mr. Axelrod: "There's so many important things going on in this country right now, George, that people are interested in that we're
not going to spend days dwelling on this."

Remember that scene in Gladiator when Juaquin Phoenix's character embraces Russel Crow's and stabs him in the back?  
It's like that.

Yeah, those who can't stand the heat should stay out of the kitchen.  But stop pretending Obama is above dirty, divisive tactics.  He's as lowdown, dirty a street fighter as ever was.

***A

by adrienne4dean 2008-05-25 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Actually this is media driven nonsense... You are blaming the wrong person... From what I've read this was pushed by the NY Post and Drudge

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-25 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

You are completely wrong. Axelrod and Obama have actively defended Clinton.

by letterc 2008-05-25 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

You do remember that Clinton was viciously attacked by the Obamasphere for defending him against the closet muslim whisper campaign?

Clinton supporters are now similarly suspicious of the Obama campaign's true motivation, when they issued a statement on Clinton's comment before being asked, and pushed the KO video on the media.

by therealdeal 2008-05-25 08:10PM | 0 recs
I love that Hillary's campaign has accused Obama's

of "fanning the flames" on this controversy when they have bent over backwards to defend her and not play "Gotcha" with it.

So typical... I guess the first rule of politics really is "When you don't know what else to do you should attack."

So sad.

What is even sadder though is the many people here who seem content to actually blame Obama for this somehow.

by JDF 2008-05-25 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I love that Hillary's campaign

If there is one thing that Hillary taught us in this campaign, it's that nice guys finish last.

by Cochrane 2008-05-25 01:06PM | 0 recs
This time-line reading is nonsense

If it was truly about the length of the primary process, then she should have said, "And Bobby Kennedy campaigned into June."  She didn't have to mention the assassination at all.  

In fact, she actually doesn't use the word campaign with her statement of Kennedy's assassination.  

So, the question is, why even bother mentioning the assassination?  It's totally irrelevant to her timeline point.  

Why would Hillary Clinton, a seasoned politician with 35 years of experience, refer gratuitously to RFK's assassination in responding to the question why she is staying in the race even though she has little chance of winning?  

Can anyone tell me this?

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-25 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: This time-line reading is nonsense

She did.

RFK, Jr., did.

Her campaign did.

You waitin' on God to tell you? (and by God I mean the big guy upstairs, not Obama).

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

I'm a little perplexed as to why the Obama people insist on dissing ~50% of their fellow Dems or would-be Dems.

I was an early fundraiser for BHO during his long-shot Senate run. I thought I saw a president back then. I had also supported HRC against all of her detractors up until her hideous 2002 war vote.

That being said, I am EQUALLY disappointed and disgusted by the Senate preformance of both leading Dems. Neither HRC or BHO showed an ounce of leadership in the Senate against the criminal Bush admin. Instead of doing their jobs, both decided to run for president. Instead of courage, they exhibited rank cowardice. Not even an attempt to fillibuster or rally their colleagues to fillibuster anything from the Alito nomination to continued funding of war crimes in Iraq. BHO in particular, with >72% of the vote in a state that swings either Repub or Dem in cycles, I had expected to spend some of that political capital where it could have mattered.

For many things, it is already too late. Now it's a salvage job. Neither one really has what it takes to pull an FDR-type turnaround, but either could be persuaded if we stepped up (rather than eased off) of political activism once one of them is sworn in.

But the Obama folks insist on being poor winners, even before they've won. If HRC had more people pulling votes for her (do they really want to give the finger to >2M Fla and MI voters?), then the "pledged delegates" does not reflect the democratic action here. Like the super-delegates, it is a process of the Dem party. I would hope that all of the delegates look at the electoral map against McCain in the GE, and decide who is more likely to win THAT contest.

Its boiled down to warring groupie-dom. But the fact is, the tough primary has made both better candidates. In particular if there are any other stories about BHO (or new revelations in the Rezko case or the contributions from Exelon, etc.) I want them out by the summer - not revealed in October. A longer than expected primary might have been the reason his pastor became an issue - one that was dealt with skillfully and made BHO stronger.

BHO is campaigning now in Fla and elsewhere, as vigorously as HRC, and for reasons no more virtuous nor less calculating than HRC.

Why fear a battle all the way to the convention? If your candidate is of presidential quality, exposure should strengthen, not weaken, their candidacy. Despite the over-heated rhetoric, for which "assisination-gate" is the latest hyper-ventilating example, this campaign isn't anywhere near "viscious" - not by a long shot. And treating the "black vote" the way every other damn group is considered in political calculations from "women" to "Catholics" to "Hispanics" etc., IS NOT BEING RACIST.

The insistence on "wrapping this up" so as to protect the precious, golden-boy candiate, is really an indirect slight against BHO... "real" candidates don't get this kind of treatment in a race so close.

BHO is being treated appropriately by the Clinton campaign: as a formidable opponent who should be given no quarter.. he can't expect an "affirmative action" pass in the primary... he wouldn't be given one in the fall.

by shebear 2008-05-25 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Wow, an Obama supporter with a realistic view of him!

How refreshing!

Thank you!

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:39PM | 0 recs
The race was over in March.

Which was the point where  she would have to get an absurd  percentage of the remaining vote to stop him from being the pledged delegate winner.  Since March she has really had no hope except for the Superdelegates to overturn the election.  And she had no good arguments to convince them to do that, so instead of privately trying to win them over, she tried to publicly destroy him.  That is not a way to win the race that showed any concern for the health of the party.  If every single superdelegate commited to abstain, and the needed delegate total was altered by the absence of their votes, he has already won this race by having the majority of the pledged delegates.

How can anyone justify a campaign where the only course of victory would be to make a successful argument that your fellow Democrat is unelectable?  Where your campaign needs to soil him enough for that to be seen as true?

by Tumult 2008-05-25 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The race was over in March.
You don't seem to understand that supersdelegates don't "overturn" anything. If neither candidate has won 2025 delegates, then Obama is leading in delelgates, which does not automatically make him a winner. 2025 delegates is the magic number, not 1658 or whatever it is.
As for the primary destroying the party, I guess you haven't been paying attention to all the newly registered Democratic voters we are welcoming to the fold, or perhaps you haven't noticed the state parties getting organized(well ahead of the GE) and setting up offices and getting names of donors and volunteers.
I guess you missed the fact that Obama and Hillary have both outraised McCain in camapign donations by a 3:1 margin.
Trust me, this is the healthiest this party has been in a long, long time.
by skohayes 2008-05-25 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Anything can happen was her point and she has made this point several times.

The Obama pundits and supporters and have lost Obama the Clinton supporters.

Lets see if he can unite the party.

by gotalife 2008-05-25 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

I know being called "backwash" endears me to his cause!

Lol.

by Juno 2008-05-25 12:37PM | 0 recs
Somebody translate, please

I am not a native speaker of Jeromese,

There's no going back; this 24/7 uncontextual 'gotcha' type of politics is here to stay. What does happen though, is that any the response by the candidate, or others in the media, quickly establishes, within a day or two, the validity of the story. Here, there is none at all, and aside from viewing it as a specimen of the day's catch, it fades away.

Best I can make of it he is saying: there was either no response, therefore no validity, and therefore it will fade quickly; or that the response that did come (from Obama?) established that the story was invalid. So, he is predicting this will fade quickly.

But, as per the intro, this is an unfortunate feature of status quo journalism. I thought it would be fortunate if this faded quickly and if invalid stuff disappeared fast.

Like I said, I'm not a native speaker.

But, the

by demondeac 2008-05-25 12:34PM | 0 recs
I actually that the Obama campaign

showed RESTRAINT with Hillary's gaffe.  What she implied in what she said was that "anything" could happen in June including an assasination.  

It is Obama's LIFE that is on the line here folks.  Candidates should NEVER say "assasination" or "Hitler" in their conversations.  One just should NOT do that.

Obama has now said let's move pass this.  Well I think it is time to move past this.

by puma 2008-05-25 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism (For NOW)

The politics of personal destruction still exist.  Hopefully, Obama is helping to change that paradigm and we'll see more issues related political commentary in future elections.  

That said,  Hillary is a pro.  She knows how to play the game better than any.  However, she's made some bad calculations of late. I think some of the mistakes are coming from her state of disbelief.  This election was hers to lose.  Which she is doing.  I was an early Clinton supporter (early voted in CA).  She has since lost me.  She's losing supporters (and more importantly, delegates) daily.  The unfortunate thing is that if she doesn't stop the gaffes/bleeding/toxic strategies she is going to lose her legacy.  It's not becoming a very attractive one.  I think she is in a real state of sadness/disbelief/shock.  After all, she was the heir apparent.  Well, it's not gonna happen.  June 3, or sooner if the superdelegates understand the importance of their role, will be the deciding date.  

It is over.  It is time for Jerome and the dedicated Hillary supporters to accept facts and come together to unify the dem party and TAKE THE WH!  Rambling about the press on this issue when he didn't do the same during "bittergate" is inconsequential right now.  Jerome gets more cred if he isn't selective in his finger pointing at the media.

by citizensane 2008-05-25 12:40PM | 0 recs
We gotta stop this shit

Jerome, with due respect: chill.  You are talented and right thinking and clever.  You and I probably have many of the same vomit triggers:  Alberto Gonzalez, Douglas Feith, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, the  Kagan brothers . . . oh and the one who is most likely to  induce bolemia  in this 54-year old white male: Lindsay Graham.  Stop directing your fire in defense of HRC or at BO.  As you have acknowledged their competition is far all intents and purposes over.  Please direct all future fire at people like my congressman: Brian Bilbray or the aforesaid Norm Coleman and Susan Collins.  You do not have to support BO or mention him again.  But posts like this are, at this point a distraction, and as you can see only make blue folks antagonistic toward each other.  As a focus of our antagonism God gave us Karl Rove, not BO or HRC.

by jorgeelgato 2008-05-25 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: We gotta stop this shit

Amen, bro/sis!  We all need to chill.  Obama is going to be the nominee.  If you want change from the last 8 years, then you are gonna vote FOR him.  Want to keep having a tantrum cause your first choice didn't run the best campaign? Then don't vote, or vote for McSame.  But don't complain if McSame wins and your job gets shifted off to SriLanka, your healthcare premiums increase by 300%, and your home loan gets readjusted to 12%.  

As much as I wanted Clinton, I want a Dem in the WH.  Obama is now my candidate.  

Jerome, the time to bitch and moan about the electoral process is after Jan 20th.  I bet Pres. Obama would even be willing to form a committee to look into a better way to decide the primaries. As for the media-- you could do something positive toward these inane ramblings--but you have to come at this from a bias-free lecture point.  I'd love to see a "hall of shame" website listing out horrific lies, biased "objective" reportings, and  total spin.  Let the readers vote.  Then through links, get the names of the culprits published on every blog possible.  Eventually,  the embarrassment might sway them to be more truthful/unbiased/factual in their reporting.

by citizensane 2008-05-25 01:01PM | 0 recs
It's still dumb

The thing is, this comment is dumb either way.  I agree the "non-inflammatory" interpretation is closer to the truth, but she's using it to buttress a misleading case: "June" is not a relevant mark for comparing.

In this cycle, by the middle of March, about 83% of delegates had been voted on.  By the second week of June, 100% of delegates will have been voted on.

In contrast, in early June when RFK was assasinated, only 13 states had voted!  To pretend that that is somehow at the same point in the campaign as June in this cycle is ludicrous, if you know what you're talking about.  Clinton does, but she realizes that most people (even reporters) don't, so she's deliberately making this nonsensical case.  It is dumb and they should call her on it.

by cos 2008-05-25 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: It's still dumb

Oh, I should also note the irony in her bringing up the Clinton 1992 example: That year, through April and May, it was down to a two person contest between Clinton and Jerry Brown, with Clinton having a commanding lead and everyone expecting him to get the nomination (except Brown)... and the Clintons did in fact do the very things she's trying to argue people shouldn't do now: They said the race was basically over, that Clinton had already won, made it seem like Jerry Brown should drop out, etc.

by cos 2008-05-27 12:35PM | 0 recs
Sort of like the "bitter" controversy

which of course Jerome roundly decried Clinton's exploitation of at the time.

Of course Obama didn't subconsciously or calculatedly reveal his wish to profit from his opponent's death.

by AdrianLesher 2008-05-25 12:52PM | 0 recs
Hillary Clinton just keeps digging herself in deep

Senator Clinton published an exclusive piece in the NY Daily News on Sunday about the reaction to her "assassination" remarks. I suggest taking a look. Not only is there no apology, but there is no indication that Senator Clinton actually comprehends why so many people are upset. Instead she wrote how RFK Jr. had somehow exonerated her (as though RFK Jr. gets to speak for the nation), and then launched into a condensed campaign pitch, including her screwball claim of a popular-vote lead.

An inability to apologize; responding to every criticism by circling the wagons and issuing denails: these are Hillary Clinton's hallmarks. They have been for years, even before she held public office. I guess we should not be surprised she's offering the same reaction now.

by joeldanwalls 2008-05-25 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton just keeps digging herself in

An inability to take a person at her word is also pretty gross.

Y'all just want an excuse to continue your bashing of her.

Have at it.  Rather negates the Obama claims of wanting hope and change and unity and ending divisive and negative attack politics, not to mention the totally graceless winning, a la Repubs in '00, but whatever.

by Juno 2008-05-25 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Jerome and Hillary share an inability to admit they are wrong.  And in the end it will be that more than anything else which will be their undoing.  Her refusal to bring the Obama family into the scope of her apology and Jerome's refusal to deal with that issue is what fuels the outrage.

by Piuma 2008-05-25 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Why should she apologize to Obama and his family? Her reference to RFK had nothing whatsoever to do with Obama or his family. Why should she even dignify such an ugly and baseless interpretation of her comment?

by Inky 2008-05-25 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Nonsense.

by Piuma 2008-05-25 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Did you even watch the interview, or do you just read the blogz?

by Inky 2008-05-25 04:46PM | 0 recs
Hillary Clinton just keeps digging herself a hole

Senator Clinton published an exclusive piece in the NY Daily News on Sunday about the reaction to her "assassination" remarks. I suggest taking a look. Not only is there no apology, but there is no indication that Senator Clinton actually comprehends why so many people are upset. Instead she wrote how RFK Jr. had somehow exonerated her (as though RFK Jr. gets to speak for the nation), and then launched into a condensed campaign pitch, including her screwball claim of a popular-vote lead.

An inability to apologize; responding to every criticism by circling the wagons and issuing denails: these are Hillary Clinton's hallmarks. They have been for years, even before she held public office. I guess we should not be surprised she's offering the same reaction now.

by joeldanwalls 2008-05-25 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton just keeps digging herself a h

That is why I no longer support her. She exhausts me.  I have "DCF" (defending Clinton fatigue)!  It comes from years in the 90s defending Bill on: Gennifer, travelgate, "blue dress mess";  Then Hillary on Rose Law firm billings (which magically appeared one day), the secretive health care reform package she pitched (but wouldn't let members of Congress in on). And then Bill did me in with the Mark Rich pardon.  Now Hillary has: talking "gaffes", Bill insults Obama with his Jesse Jackson remark, etc.  THey are exhausting.  Who has the energy to keep defending them?!

I did back Clinton early on, but I later told friends she'd only get my vote, no other support.  Well, now Obama gets my support.  He has run a better campaign.  AND HE KNOWS HOW TO APOLOGIZE.  When the word "if" is part of an apology, it is NOT really an apology.  I am not the only one that has moved from the Clinton camp over to the Obama side.  It is refreshing, energizing, and it is NOT more of the same ol', same ol'.  

To those of you loyal Hillary supporters, let Obama be the one you listen to for encouragement about his campaign. Don't listen to his overzealous supporters on this blog and others.  After all, you'd want Hillary (NOT her overzealous supporters) to be the main reason you back her.

by citizensane 2008-05-25 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton just keeps digging herself a h


AND HE KNOWS HOW TO APOLOGIZE.

Can you give me any examples of this? I must have missed something.

by Inky 2008-05-25 01:41PM | 0 recs
I agree! "gotcha" politics sucks.

So by your own post, you should still be appalled at the "bitter" non-issue right?

by neutron 2008-05-25 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree! "gotcha" politics sucks.

No way. Obama's gotten away with everything. Clinton can't breathe without a tsunami of the media bashing.

Big difference.

by Juno 2008-05-25 01:26PM | 0 recs
I'd ask you to explain what Obama has...

"gotten away with", but I don't really care to hear the answer, since it's clear you are seeing it through partisan eyes.

The media focuses on sensationalism and this hurts Clinton, Obama AND America.

by neutron 2008-05-27 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

my biggest problem with this story, that i've already blogged, is how this shows what sort of leaders our two remaining candidates may be.  This was a gaffe for Hillary simply because anything she says that can be taken in some ugly way will be taken in the ugliest way.  She used to be criticized for being scripted. I'm glad she's speaking freely but it's a minefield.  I'm sure she's learned to check her metaphors for some ugly interpretation.  

But Barack had a real opportunity to mend fences and be a uniter and he blew he. He can't expect many of these opportunities.  Hillary is unlikely to give him another chance to shine at her expense.  

What if he had made a statement to the effect that the media likes to spin things out of context to make them sensational and that this kind of thing has consequences in the real world that are both unnecessary and unfortunate. Taking words to mean something that is beyond the pale only inflates hate and gives cover to those who must hate.  This was his JKF moment, but he didn't notice it. Instead he left it to Hillary to manage and she did a decent job but she did not take on the media and for very good reasons, they hate her.  

Without her 'baggage' in the media he might have shown that it's a benefit to not have baggage (yet) because you can speak to a higher purpose without being accused of hypocrisy or worse, in this case an obvious one. For him it would have been a win win, he could have been the big guy and stuck up for his opponent, better than helping her into her chair, and he might have made a difference in the way these stories are covered.  He might have demonstrated his uniting qualities rather than just saying he has them.  

What does that tell me about him? that he missed this opportunity and has taken the low road when the high road would have won him new support and the low one just the same old KO Hillary haters?  You decide, I find it very confusing.

by anna shane 2008-05-25 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Dunno about this.

He had no more knowledge of intention than the rest of us.

It was pretty damn shocking.

His response was restrained, and after enough time to get a read on intention, he issued a  forgiving statement.

Much different than what we saw with Wright, bitter etc.

And Hil still hasn't apologized to the Obama's or tried to take responsibility, show leadership and try to put out any fires set.

by wrb 2008-05-25 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

he could have taken a lower road, for sure, if that's your point. I don't hate Barack, I just find myself wishing I could write some of his speeches, and advise him on how to manage these things so he'd look bigger, rather than smaller.  And, I'm for her, but a better game is a nicer win.  

by anna shane 2008-05-25 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

AGreed.

Obama and Axelrod blew a big chance to look real and grown-up here, and a big chance to take command of the media for the Fall.

I think they're running scared:  He has lost 5 of the last 8, 2 by HUGE blowouts, the "popular vote" idea is taking hold this week, and they are rapidly losing traction on the "It's Over!!"  message.

It seems to me his "pivot to the general election" move, turning his back on Hillary and hoping to demoralize and make everyone see her as irrelevant, the move so many pro-Obama pundits were high-fiving over, seems to have turned into a pratfall.

Kinda reminds me of New Hampshire, when women got pissed off and told the Obama campaign

"Not so fast, there, Obama.  You're forgetting we still got some votes left to count."

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 07:31PM | 0 recs
Hillary HERSELF is keeping

this story alive by writing an OpEd in the NY Daily news.

If she wanted this story to go away than she should NOT have done that especially when yesterday Obama said to let this thing go.

by puma 2008-05-25 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary HERSELF is keeping

That's just more Obama good cop/bad cop stuff.

I promise you, if it were earlier in the primary season with more debates to come, Obama would bring it up in a future debate.

He's very cunning.

by Juno 2008-05-25 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

I've noticed that anyone who dares criticize Obama or challenge the conventional wisdom about him is called a troll, and not only on this site. I've seen it everywhere.

I've never seen Clinton critics called trolls.

This is more of the Obama hubris and cult think.  It is just intolerable to them that anyone could possibly criticize him, and to do so means you are nothing but a gadfly.

by Juno 2008-05-25 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Not anyone. If you can come up with a rationale that doesn't reek of either being a paid member of the McCain staff or the sort of person that thinks simply not supporting Hillary Clinton is misogyny, then you're not a troll.

You, however, are a troll. See the difference?

by Geiiga 2008-05-25 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

You only prove my point.

by Juno 2008-05-25 02:04PM | 0 recs
Sorry

This site is extremely anti-Obama, although not as bad as talkleft.  There, anyone who dare not prostrate themselves at the alter of Clinton is a troll.

They are actively campaigning for Obama's defeat in November so that they can run Hillary in 2012.   For anyone who thinks that Obama can lose in 2008 and Hillary win in 2012, you are nuts.

No Democrat should lose this year.  If Clinton takes her voters and goes home, she will never be forgiven.

I am sick and tired of her excuse to take this to the convention.  SHE is the person who told ALL of the national press last year, that the entire process would be over by Super Tuesday.  It was her claim that the the contests after that point would not matter.

This was her campaign to lose and she lost it.   She was up 30-40% in ALL the polls through 2007 and yet SHE still could not close the deal.   She is only up 4-5% over John McCain, hardly a comforting margin.  To use this as an excuse to chose her for the nominee is laughable.

by monkeyga 2008-05-25 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry

This is not an 'extremely anti-Obama' site.  It may lean Clinton, which makes it all the more strange that it's the Obama supporters calling Clinton supporters trolls.

The lead article right now is about Bob Barr getting in the race, and the comments and blog, by these supposedly extremely anti-Obamans, are all about how Barr's getting in the race is good for Democrats in the fall.  Same with over at talkleft.

The problem is the hubris of Obama and his supporters.  You all think you can treat Clinton and her supporters the way you have, and not a word can be said about it. Wrong. For one thing, it totally negates Obama's own message.  For another, it's beyond arrogant.

You'd think it'd be the presumed winners behaving magnanimously, but it isn't.

Go to a pro-Obama site, and tell me you don't see the 24/7 bashing of Clinton continuing, even as they insist that Obama has won, she has lost, which means they bash her for sport, or, at best, a hostile insistence that Hillary supporters get over it and back Obama, even going so far as to put the burden on Bill Clinton, whom Obamans actually called racist, of uniting the party (seemingly admitting that Obama can't!).

Good grief.

by Juno 2008-05-25 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Stop measuring Obama by others

Geez, this is what is wrong with the anti-Obama, loyal Hillary crowd.  You think of bama the man based upon supporters on this blog and others.  This is NOT Obama here.  This is only a group of people who want him to win.  If you want to know about Obama the man/candidate then go to his website.  I would no more back up my thoughts about Hillary Clinton on what you all say (and many of you are rude, testy, spurious in your comments). Instead, I let her words and policies speak for her.  And, of late, that is why I moved over to the Obama camp.  She doesn't excite me. Her campaign is flat, and she has made gaffes.  Sorry, but those gaffes have NOT helped her cause.  They show she is tired and perhaps not the best candidate.  

Don't be so loyal to the losing candidate that you discount the good that the other candidate has to offer.  Otherwisse, you'll find yourself voting for McSame or staying home and maybe having to suffer through another 4 years of Bush-like policies.

by citizensane 2008-05-26 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry

I disagree.... I think this site is fairly even handed... there are front-pagers for both sides

Talkleft on the other hand has devolved into a disgusting, racist, pit of garbage that is almost as bad as noquarter or hillaryis44

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-25 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism
No one spewing Obama hatred is called a troll...
at Tinfoilis44.com
by catilinus 2008-05-25 03:26PM | 0 recs
To be a credible messenger, one must be consistent

There's no going back; this 24/7 uncontextual 'gotcha' type of politics is here to stay.

Where was this newfound awareness of media manipulation during the Wright Distraction? "Bittergate?"

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-25 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

helpful insight, thanks

When I first read the story I was numb & didn't now what to think

"Has she come unhinged?"

"Is she really as bad as some have thought?"

Regardless the danger to Obama had been increased.

But it looks as if a considerable portion of the blame goes to the media.

by wrb 2008-05-25 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Baloney.  In the words of the former Prez, Give Me a Break.

This was not media manufactured outrage.  What she said was genuinely outrageous and there is evidence that she's been trying for a while to float this idea out there.  It's not the first time she's referenced it but the other times were just a tad more subtle.  A bit too much of that plausible deniability to really get the attention she was going for.  

The fact is, she had nothing to lose here.  She played a hand that only Obama can lose.  Anyone following this race honestly and with open eyes knows that there has been an undercurrent of fear for Obama since it started, including many cases of people saying they were reluctant to support him because it will just put him in so much danger.  

Hillary and her sleazy strategists know the psychology of the race and she knew that word for the live grenade that it is.  

How many times are people going to buy into her fake 'blunders?'  Anyone ever notice that they almost always bring up a subject that while it looks like she made a mistake is actually the last thing the Obama camp wants to have on the front burner?  It's not the newest trick in the book for crying out loud.  It shouldn't take a professional to understand it and a professional overlooking it is shameful.  

by Sun Dog 2008-05-25 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

Sure.  And she called up Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews so they could all coordinate their responses, right?

Amazing.

by dembluestates 2008-05-25 07:21PM | 0 recs
Sort of like the "bitter" comment, huh?

Or was that a totally different thing?

by Bush Bites 2008-05-25 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

The interesting phenomenon regarding this story isn't so much the instant elevation of the 'gaffe' to newsworthy status but the amazing number of comments which are being made by citizens we would otherwise assume are off having BBQ's instead of watching the TV or prowling the Internet.  The original Huffington Post story had 14k comments by Saturday night, for example, and many blog posts of both major and minor news outlets seem to be attracting a tenfold response to previous stories of a similar nature.

Is it possible that this story is retaining currency as a consequence of this, to me, unprecedented response on the part of readers?  Surely these comment volumes are being noted by the respective editors of these media sources.  I've never seen anything like it and certainly expected this story to fade over the long weekend, the outcome seems a contradiction of the conventional wisdom on the Friday evening media 'dump.'  Something is going on and I'm not sure it is just the venality of the media which is responsible.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-05-25 02:55PM | 0 recs
Obaxelrod shops assassination-gate to the press

Since my comment got crunched in another thread, here it is again (from observer5's diary):

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ 05/25/clinton-defends-rfk-remarks

George Stephanopoulos, the host of ABC's "This Week," asked David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's top strategist, about the e-mail:

Mr. Stephanopoulos: You say you're not trying to stir the issue up.  But a member of your press staff yesterday was sending around to an entire press list -- I have the e-mail here -- Keith Olbermann's searing commentary against Hillary Clinton. So that is stirring this up, isn't it?"

Mr. Axelrod: "Well, Mr. Olbermann did his commentary and he had his opinion. But as far as we're concerned."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But your campaign was sending it around."

Mr. Axelrod: "As far as we're concerned, George, as far as we're concerned, this issue is done. It was an unfortunate statement, as we said, as she's acknowledged. She has apologized. The apology, you know, is accepted. Let's move forward."

Mr. Axelrod: "There's so many important things going on in this country right now, George, that people are interested in that we're not going to spend days dwelling on this."

Remember that scene in Gladiator when Joaquin Phoenix's character embraces Russel Crow's and stabs him in the back?  
It's like that.

Yeah, those who can't stand the heat should stay out of the kitchen.  But stop pretending Obama is above dirty, divisive tactics.  He's as lowdown, dirty a street fighter as ever was.

***A

by adrienne4dean 2008-05-25 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical modern political journalism

"then to push it further by calling up the cooperating Obama campaign for a quote."

I'm glad the reverse didn't happen. Obama people didn't call them up to push it.

It breaks my heart hearing supporters of a candidate bragging about sending "news" off to Hannity & Rush.

by catilinus 2008-05-25 03:18PM | 0 recs
A lot of clipped text

That's a lot of text to clip directly from an article. I understand it's got a purpose in the diary, but still.

by mikeplugh 2008-05-25 11:53PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads