I just remembered that John Edwards went to Bilderberg in '03 or '04 - apparently he was a big success there and was subsequently put on John Kerry's ticket. Bill Clinton went in 1992. Hmmmm...not really sure this actually has anything to do with anything, but it seems to be a really big deal with the world's scary, big kahuna power brokers - and most presidential candidates, it turns out, have attended (totally top secret, hush hush, of course).
Then there's another thing I read recently (can't remember where) about Hillary saying that John Edwards would have to have a prominent place in a Clinton administration. Maybe she was kissing up, just trying to get his endorsement, but, then again, maybe something's been agreed upon. Hmmmm again...
So, I'm wondering - might John Edwards be closer to endorsing Hillary than Obama? Like some have mentioned, he's much closer to her on Universal Health Care than he is to Obama - and it's an issue that's very close to his heart.
As a Hillary supporter I've gotta say I'd love for her to get John Edwards' endorsement - mainly because I was an Edwards supporter before I was a Hillary supporter and I know he'd be a great person to have near the President - Secretary of Labor maybe? AG?
I don't know whether an Edwards endorsement would help Hillary with voters or not - anyway, it's not the main reason I would want it. But, if it would help her, heck yeah I'd want it.
So, here I am, stuck with all these questions - and no answers. Guess we'll have to wait and see...
Well, McCain will continue doing what he does - he can't escape his nature. And the media will, of course, continue protecting him.
That leaves it up to us, I guess. I know there's video somewhere of a McCain townhall a few months back where someone in the audience asked him "How do we beat the bitch?" The video includes McCain's laughing approval of the comment. That video on YouTube, promoted in the blogs, will help.
He needs to be followed around with a video camera - because the Chelsea "joke" and the "bitch" video are not isolated incidents. He's an *sshole and he and his supporters - they're republicans, after all - will continue to be *ssholes. But, we can catch him, put him up on YouTube - he should have lots and lots of Macaca moments, doncha think?
I think, though, that our best defense against McCain is just the "Bush 3rd term" meme, with lots and lots of hugging and kissing between Bush and McCain - along with his "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" video, his "100 years in Iraq" and all his other war mongering stuff. I know this part is not addressing the points you made in your diary, though.
We always have to remember that the media is not our friend - we have to keep at them day and night. And lots of "hot" videos of the creep saying creepy things on YouTube should force their hand in covering him, I think - I hope.
I don't wanna just humiliate him - I want him to humiliate himself.
fact-free, childish, mean-spirited idiocy back to where they welcome that crap with open arms.
Are all of you 'BamaBots "like" in high school or something? Seriously - your lack of knowledge and maturity, along with your "mean-girl" rhetoric, your bad behavior and your blatant disregard for decency, just scream out JUVENILE DELINQUENT!
You do know that you are a really bad advocate for your candidate, right? How many people do you think you convince with the crap you spew?
On the other hand, how many people would you imagine have come over to the Clinton camp at least partly due to the childish hate, hostility and lies that you and those like you vomit 24/7?
You kids are, like, doin' a great job - for Hillary!
See, this is where you just don't get it. "Special treatment" as you call it has nothing to do with it. Same for your "free speech" argument.
So-called journalists in the national media - reporting on a national election for president of the United States - have a lot of nerve to be squealing about "free speech" and "freedom of the press" in order to justify hate speech and the slandering/diminishing of women - (maybe or maybe not) especially a U.S. Senator and the possible next President of the United States.
It's not a free speech issue - I mean, are you really trying to argue that, in the name of free speech, TV pundits should be able to call Obama the "N" word? That's what it's gotta be if you're saying that free speech allows TV pundits to call Hillary Clinton a pimp and her daughter a whore.
Seriously - your argument is specious. And just another way ObamaBots keep twisting logic and their morals into pretzels to somehow justify their untenable anti-Clinton rhetoric.
Barack Obama SHOULD HAVE BEEN OUT THERE telling MSNBC and all the rest of the media that THIS CRAP they're pulling diminishes all of us - and that this kind of reprehensible crap posing as "political commentary" MUST BE REJECTED by all human beings.
I had my chance, like everyone else, to support Obama. I tried to like him. But I didn't. My choice.
I've seen people in that Obama trance you say doesn't exist - it does exist - and it has a real creepy, cultish feel to it, IMO.
But I like Barack Obama a million times more than than I like his mean-spirited, cultish supporters. Do you really think he'd approve of the crap you people pull and how you twist yourselves into pretzels trying to proclaim everything that happens "Good for Barack" and how you're constantly slandering Clinton and attaching "nefarious motives" to everything she does? If you say yes to that, then that'll be another reason I don't like Barack.
Like I said, I just find you people creepy and mean. Can't help it. And I find Obama's "message" seriously lacking. So, I voted for Hillary in California last Tuesday.
Before MSNBC's David Shuster was suspended by the network Friday for on-air comments he made about Chelsea Clinton, the television reporter engaged in a heated correspondence with a spokesman for Hillary Rodham Clinton in which he defended his appearance and refused demands to apologize.
Shuster was unrepentant. He told Reines his commentary was justified because of the contrast between Chelsea Clinton's overt political role and the aggressive way campaign aides "jump down the throat" of reporters who seek to question her about it.
(politico has the actual e-mail exchanges between Shuster and Hillary's spokesperson)
Imagine that - the arrogant SOB (and you don't get that arrogant without the network's tacit approval, IMO) said his commentary was "justified" - so much for those who say David Shuster is a good journalist! Yeah, I used to like him too - but his "reporting" has been openly hostile to Hillary Clinton ever since Tweety had to apologize.
And all of MSNBC's "commentary" was only going to get worse and worse if this incident hadn't happened. Of course, this is a pattern, approved by the top network brass, so it's not even close to being over.
Funny, but I've never heard Shuster or anybody else at MSNBC aim even the slightest criticism at Obama - and it doesn't look like Shuster has ever "fact checked" him either. Just a regular little lovefest...